Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend and distinguished colleague from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of my colleagues to the passing during the August recess of Ambassador Per Anger of Sweden. He died Sunday August 25 in Stockholm at the age of 88. I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to him. Mr. Speaker, Per Anger was a distinguished career diplomat of his native Sweden. He was ambassador to Australia, Canada and the Bahamas, Consul General in San Francisco, an advocate and activist within the Swedish Foreign Ministry for humanitarian assistance, and an effective voice of conscience in Swedish diplomacy. But most of all, he will be long remembered for his active and effective collaboration with Raoul Wallenberg in the saving of Hungarian Jewish lives during the Holocaust, and then for his advocacy on behalf of Wallenberg after the Soviet Army took him prisoner at the end of World War II. Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Anger was born in Goteborg on December 7, 1913, and studied law at Stockholm and Uppsala universities. He began his diplomatic career in Berlin, but he was posted to Budapest in late 1942. During his early days in Budapest, he passed on a historic piece of intelligence--the plans, location and operations of Nazi concentration camps that he had gleaned from refugees to Hungary. He was still in Budapest in March 1944 when Nazi Germany occupied Hungary. Shortly after the German Wehrmacht arrived, Adolf Eichmann and his henchmen appeared in Budapest with the assignment to exterminate the Jewish population of Hungary. Per Anger began issuing temporary Swedish passports and identity cards to Hungarian Jews in an effort to protect them against deportation to Nazi extermination camps. In July of 1944, Raoul Wallenberg arrived at the Swedish Legation Budapest. He came at the request of the United States and with the support of the Swedish government in an effort to do what he could to save the lives of Hungarian Jews. Wallenberg expanded the use of these protective passports, issuing tens of thousands of them to Jews facing shipment to extermination camps, and with American financial assistance he leased apartment buildings where Jews driven from their homes stayed nominally under Swedish diplomatic protection. Together Wallenberg and Anger saved tens of thousands of children, women, and men from the forced marches and from the trains bound for death camps at Auschwitz and elsewhere in Nazi-occupied Europe. Mr. Speaker, while Per Anger's diplomatic career is distinguished, it is his efforts with Raoul Wallenberg that set him apart, that raise him above the many eminent Swedes who have served their country with honor and integrity. Ambassador Anger's association with Raoul Wallenberg gave him a cause that he continued to pursue with commitment and intelligence throughout his life. Because of that association, he will be honored around the world for generations. A great deal of what we know about Raoul Wallenberg's efforts in Budapest in 1944 is the result of the work of Per Anger. His memoir, With Raoul Wallenberg in Budapest, provides essential documentation of many of the events during that tempestuous time. Without this published recollection, our knowledge of Wallenberg's incredible struggle against the Nazi terror would be considerably diminished. Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Anger was also a champion within the Swedish Foreign Ministry, urging bolder and more aggressive action by the Swedish government to secure the release of Raoul Wallenberg after he was seized and imprisoned in the Soviet Union in January of 1945. Because Sweden was reluctant to take any action that might antagonize its huge neighbor to the east, it officially pursued a cautious and pusillanimous policy in seeking the release of Wallenberg. Within the Swedish Foreign Ministry, Ambassador Anger was a strong voice for bolder action. After his retirement from the diplomatic service, Per has continued his efforts. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, he was in Moscow on a number of occasions, at times with members of Raoul Wallenberg's family, in the continuing effort to determine the truth of what really happened after Wallenberg was seized by Red Army troops in Eastern Hungary. Ambassador Anger has been one of the leaders in keeping alive the memory of Raoul Wallenberg during the fifty years since Raoul Wallenberg disappeared. I remember well many occasions when Anger paid eloquent tribute to the heroism of Raoul Wallenberg. One of his most memorable and moving tributes was given at the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Wallenberg's disappearance which was held at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., on January 17, 1995. Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Anger was honored appropriately for his humanitarian contribution to saving the lives of Hungarian Jews. In 1982 he was named one of the ``Righteous Among Nations'' by Israel's Yad Vashem memorial and museum. The government of Hungary awarded him the Order of Merit in 1995, and in 2000 he was granted honorary Israeli citizenship. Mr. Speaker, as we reflect on the unspeakable horrors that were unleashed upon the world by the Nazi regime a half-century ago, it is important that we not only remember the atrocities and violence and murder and terror of that time, but that we also consider the sparks of humanity that glowed in the midst of that darkest of midnights. Per Anger was one of those radiant sparks of light. Per Anger had the decency, dedication, courage and the motivation to do great good against incredible odds.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, during the past few months our nation has watched in shock and dismay as a growing number of corporations have fallen into disrepute and many have been thrown into bankruptcy because of corporate financial fraud or unethical practices. The scandal has rightfully provoked public outrage, and Congress has taken up new legislation to stem the further erosion of public trust in our capital markets. As Members of Congress prepare to enter into negotiations over a conference report on corporate governance and accounting reform legislation, I call to the attention of my colleagues a particularly insightful article by Andrew Grove, Chairman of Intel Corporation. Mr. Grove--;a former Time Magazine ``Man of the Year''--;grew up in communist Hungary, where he experienced stigmatization and prejudice as the son of a businessman. After completing his Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley, Mr. Grove joined the Research and Development Laboratory of Fairchild Semiconductor. In 1968 he became one of the founders of Intel Corporation. Since then he has continued to play a key role in the growth and success of the company, serving as President and CEO and today as Chairman of the Board. In an article published in the Washington Post (July 17, 2002) entitled ``Stigmatizing Businesses,'' Mr. Grove points out that the current rush to judge and condemn all corporate executives without discrimination in our country has made him feel like he was back in communist Hungary, where businessmen were distrusted and stigmatized. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues--;and all Americans--;to give heed to Mr. Grove's thoughtful insight. We must understand that while there has been corruption among far too many companies, this does not justify the vilification of the entire private sector or of every business executive. As Mr. Grove indicates in his article, the best way to tackle this issue is through corporate reform and ensuring a separation of powers between the chairmen, the board of directors, the CEO, the CFO, and accountants, and all street analysts. Once these positions are free to operate without constraint--;and are not occupied by the same person--;corporations will be able to monitor themselves much more effectively and can hopefully prevent future scenarios similar to the one our country is currently facing. Mr. Speaker, it is important that in our rush to repair the serious flaws in our system of corporate governance, that we not create other problems that could be equally damaging to our national economy. I ask that Mr. Grove's article be placed in the RECORD and I urge all of my colleagues to give attention to his thoughtful views. Stigmatizing Business--- (By Andrew Grove) I grew up in Communist Hungary. Even though I graduated from high school with excellent grades, I had no chance of being admitted to college because I was labeled a ``class alien.'' What earned me this classification was the mere fact that my father had been a businessman. It's hard to describe the feelings of an 18-year-old as he grasps the nature of a social stigma directed at him. But never did I think that, nearly 50 years later and in a different country, I would feel some of the same emotions and face a similar stigma. Over the past few weeks, in reaction to a series of corporate scandals, the pendulum of public feeling has swung from celebrating business executives as the architects of economic growth to condemning them as a group of untrustworthy, venal individuals. I have been with Intel since its inception 34 years ago. During that time we have become the world's largest chip manufacturer and have grown to employ 50,000 workers in the United States, whose average pay is around $70,000 a year. Thousands of our employees have bought houses and put their children through college using money from stock options. A thousand dollars invested in the company when it went public in 1971 would be worth about $1 million today, so we have made many investors rich as well. I am proud of what our company has achieved. I should also feel energized to deal with the challenges of today, since we are in one of the deepest technology recessions ever. Instead, I'm having a hard time keeping my mind on our business. I feel hunted, suspect--; a ``class alien'' again. I know I'm not alone in feeling this way. Other honest, hard-working and capable business leaders feel similarly demoralized by a political climate that has declared open season on corporate executives and has let the faults, however egregious, of a few taint the public perception of all. This just at a time when their combined energy and concentration are what's needed to reinvigorate our economy. Moreover, I wonder if the reflexive reaction of focusing all energies on punishing executives will address the problems that have emerged over the past year. Today's situation reminds me of an equally serious attack on American business, one that required an equally serious response. In the 1980s American manufacturers in industries ranging from automobiles to semiconductors to photocopiers were threatened by a flood of high-quality Japanese goods produced at lower cost. Competing with these products exposed the inherent weakness in the quality of our own products. It was a serious threat. At first, American manufacturers responded by inspecting their products more rigorously, putting ever-increasing pressure on their quality assurance organizations. I know this firsthand because this is what we did at Intel. Eventually, however, we and other manufacturers realized that if the products were of inherently poor quality, no amount of inspection would turn them into high-quality goods. After much struggle--;hand-wringing, finger-pointing, rationalizing and attempts at damage control--;we finally concluded that the entire system of designing and manufacturing goods, as well as monitoring the production process, had to be changed. Quality could only be fixed by addressing the entire cycle, from design to shipment to the customer. This rebuilding from top to bottom led to the resurgence of U.S. manufacturing. Corporate misdeeds, like poor quality, are a result of a systemic problem, and a systemic problem requires a systemic solution. I believe the solutions that are needed all fit under the banner of ``separation of powers.'' Let's start with the position of chairman of the board of directors. I think it is universally agreed that the principal function of the board is to supervise and, if need be, replace the CEO. Yet, in most American corporations, the board chairman is the CEO. This poses a built-in conflict. Reform should start with separating these two functions. (At various times in Intel's history we have combined the functions, but no longer.) Furthermore, stock exchanges should require that boards of directors be predominantly made up of independent members having no financial relationship with the company. Separation of the offices of chairman and CEO, and a board with something like a two-thirds majority of independent directors, should be a condition for listing on stock exchanges. In addition, auditors should provide only one service: auditing. Many auditing firms rely on auxiliary services to make money, but if the major stock exchanges made auditing by ``pure'' firms a condition for listing, auditing would go from being a loss leader for these companies to a profitable undertaking. Would this drive the cost of auditing up? Beyond a doubt. That's a cost of reform. Taking the principle a step further, financial analysts should be independent of the investment banks that do business with corporations, a condition that could and should be required and monitored by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The point is this: The chairman, board of directors, CEO, CFO, accountants and analysts could each stop a debacle from developing. A systemic approach to ensuring the separation of powers would put them in a position where they would be free and motivated to take action. I am not against prosecuting individuals responsible for financial chicanery and other bad behavior. In fact, this must be done. But tarring and feathering CEOs and CFOs as a class will not solve the underlying problem. Restructuring and strengthening the entire system of checks and balances of the institutions that make up and monitor the U.S. capital markets would serve us far better. Reworking design, engineering and manufacturing processes to meet the quality challenge from the Japanese in the 1980s took five to 10 years. It was motivated by tremendous losses in market share and employment. Similarly, the tremendous loss of market value from the recent scandals provides a strong motivation for reform. But let us not kid ourselves. Effective reform will take years of painstaking reconstruction. Our society faces huge problems. Many of our citizens have no access to health care; some of our essential infrastructure is deteriorating; the war on terror and our domestic security require additional resources. Attacking these problems requires a vital economy. Shouldn't we take time to think through how we can address the very real problems in our corporations without demonizing and demoralizing the managers whose entrepreneurial energy is needed to drive our economy?

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the unusual position of representing the position of the President of the United States, George W. Bush; the Secretary of State, Colin Powell; the President's adviser on homeland security, Governor Ridge; and, of course, the unanimous voice of the House Committee on International Relations which voted without a single dissenting vote for the Hyde-Lantos-Berman proposal. Our distinguished chairman, Chairman Hyde, outlined the main reasons for our position. Four House committees approved our position. It is a position which is a rational, sensible compromise. It leaves the issuance of over 11 million visas to competent foreign service officers all over the country, but it gives the Homeland Security Department the authority to place as many of their people into every single one of these offices that issues visas and they will have the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of final decision. It is inconceivable to me why the gentleman from Florida does not find this arrangement a perfectly safe, rational, and foolproof arrangement. Not a single visa will be issued under our plan if Homeland Security objects. Every single approval must come from Homeland Security. I think it is important to realize that the thousands of foreign service officers who perform the ministerial function do not choose to join the foreign service because they want to spend a lifetime issuing visas. That is their initial step. Their hope is to be an ambassador to a country 25 or 30 years into their career. The notion that we will set up a duplicate foreign service which has no other function but to issue visas simply boggles the mind. What quality individuals will we be able to find who will be dedicating their entire lives to issuing visas? Not the kinds of people we now find for our foreign service. I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that our compromise, which has the support of four of our committees with jurisdiction in this matter, the President of the United States, the Secretary of State and Governor Ridge is the only rational formula. I urge all of my colleagues to reject the Weldon amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the Weldon amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Weldon amendment and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Hyde and I worked together on a bipartisan basis on H.R. 5005 with other members of the International Relations Committee to craft a sensible proposal relating to visas. This provision is now in section 403 as reported by the Select Committee. Under our proposal, the Secretary of Homeland Security would have exclusive authority to set visa policy, while State Department consular officers will continue to process the visas. The Secretary of Homeland Security can overturn decisions of consular officers to grant a visa, alter visa procedures now in place, and can develop programs of training for consular officers. In addition, our proposal would allow Homeland Security employees to be assigned abroad to review cases that present homeland security issues and deal with homeland security issues that arise abroad. I am very pleased that the White House has announced its support for this proposal, and that in addition to the Select Committee, all three other House committees that considered it adopted virtually the same amendment. Moreover, I understand that Governor Ridge confirmed the Administration's support for the amendment in testimony before the Select Committee last week. I am simply asking that the House endorse what all four Committees considering this matter have done and what the Administration has supported. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a brief moment to tell you why I feel so strongly about maintaining the provision as it exists in the Select Committee. The talented young people who join the Foreign Service, at the average age of 32 for the last entering class, have the ambition to become an ambassador to an important country or some other high level position in the Department of State. It is on this basis that they are willing to dedicate years of their lives to focus their talents on questions related to visas. It is inconceivable that we can attract quality people to jobs that have no such promise of advancement, with employees facing an entire career of visa interviews. Even more important, any proposal transferring the entire visa function to Homeland Security would risk overwhelming Homeland Security personnel with non-homeland security functions and thereby make it difficult or impossible for them to perform their central mission. The last thing this Department should be focused on is creating a whole new system for adjudicating over 11 million visas per year, at a huge and unknown cost. Mr. Chairman, I know people are concerned about the visas that were issued to the terrorists who attacked New York, and the amount of training that consular officers have on conducting interviews of visa applicants. Under our amendment, the Secretary of Homeland Security will be able to order exactly what kind of training consular officers should receive, specifically direct that certain persons will not be issued visas (irrespective of the Department of State's views), and will ensure that security concerns are properly considered both in Washington and abroad. If he believes that ``Visa Express'' or other similar programs should be closed, he can close it. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, the Weldon Amendment undercuts the very structure of this legislation. The Select Committee mark keeps the visa processing element of INS in the Department of Justice. The Gentleman's amendment would have the bizarre effect of keeping domestic visa issues out of Homeland Security, but overseas visa processing in Homeland Security. This is an absurd outcome. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the version in the Select Committee also includes a provision that Mr. Weldon already added in the Government Reform Committee, requiring assignment of Homeland Security personnel to Saudi Arabia and review of all Saudi visa applications by such personnel. But this does not seem to be enough for Gentleman--he wants another bite at the apple. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think that the Hyde-Lantos-Ros- Lehtinen-Berman Amendment adopted by four committees on a bipartisan basis, addresses all the Gentleman's concerns. I urge my colleagues to support section 403, which has been endorsed by the President, Governor Ridge, the President's adviser on Homeland Security, and Secretary of State. By retaining a role for consular officers in adjudicating the millions of applications presenting no security-related issues, the President's plan will allow Homeland Security officers to perform their homeland security mission. By authorizing the presence of Homeland Security officers in our overseas posts to identify and deal with homeland security issues, Section 403 as written offers the best protection for our homeland security. Do not upset this balance. Oppose the Weldon Amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have made all the arguments but one: Buying into the Weldon amendment would incur a vast and indeterminable cost in building a gigantic overseas bureaucracy to perform administerial functions. Homeland Security has full authority to reject any visa application they choose. The State Department officers must continue to issue visas. I ask all of my colleagues to reject this ill- advised amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. LANTOS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today the House is voting on H.R. 4775, the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response To Terrorist Attacks on the United States. This legislation provides key support to our military to conduct the ongoing struggle against the barbaric forces of international terrorism, additional support for some key friends and allies in the war against terrorism, and supports other critical programs. I fully support the conference report and urge all my colleagues to support this critical legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a very important provision that is contained in this legislation, section 603 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, relating to the dangerous security situation on Afghanistan, which is jeopardizing U.S. efforts to stabilize and democratize that war-torn nation. On May 21, 2002, I offered an amendment to H.R. 3969, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, which is substantially similar to section 603 and was adopted by vote of 407-4. My amendment and section 603 require the Administration to submit a strategy for addressing this critical problem. Under section 603, the Administration is required to submit a report on the strategy for meeting the immediate security needs, and a further report within 90 days on the long term strategy for meeting long term security needs in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, the United States and its coalition partners have freed Afghanistan from the choke-hold of the al-Qaeda terrorists and the repressive regime of the Taliban. With the support of the international community, a new, interim authority is in place and the country is, uncertainly, on a path to peace and stability. But that very peace and stability is being threatened, and the new government of Afghanistan, led by Chairman Hamid Karzai, is being undermined by lawlessness and insecurity. Afghanistan is in grave danger of relapsing to the very conditions of violence and warlordism that created the Taliban and attracted al-Qaeda to operate in Afghanistan. This is not the vision we had for Afghanistan as we sought to help liberate it from the grasp of the terrorists and the Taliban. President Bush has pledged to help restore security and rebuild Afghanistan, and Secretary Rumsfeld has himself noted on many occasions that security is fundamental to all other issues and objectives in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, if this was not clear on May 21, when I first raised this issue, it certainly is now. A key member of the Karzai Government, Vice President Haji Abdul Qadir, was assassinated on July 6, 2002. The assassination of this key Pashtun leader highlighted the instability in Afghanistan that threatens the U.S. mission there. And just this week, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld announced that U.S. soldiers, including U.S. special forces, will protect President Karzai, perhaps for several months, in order to protect the nascent political process that is taking place. I could not agree with him more when he said that it is important that the political process in that country ``not be negated by violence.'' Mr. Speaker, the Bush Administration decision to protect President Karzai speaks volume about the threats facing Afghanistan today. Just as President Karzai is threatened by continuing insecurity, so is the entire Afghani population. The bill before us today, and the Afghanistan Freedom and Reconstruction Act passed earlier this year, provides funding to help transform Afghanistan from a land of repression and chaos into a safe and secure environment where freedom, human rights and democracy can grow, and terrorism and opium production will wither. However, none of this can be accomplished without security. The United States is providing critical assistance to create a new professional, multi-ethnic Afghan Army that can address Afghanistan's long-term security needs. But something must be done now, whether it is the expansion of a multinational force or through some other mechanism, to stabilize the countryside. Neither we nor our Afghan friend have the luxury to wait until a future Afghan security force is fully trained and deployed. Section 603 requires the Administration to address this issue in a constructive way. It requires the Administration to formulate a strategy to increase security in the country during the transaction to a fully functioning national army and police force. I fear that a failure to do address the security situation may lead to a failed Afghanistan, reduced instead of increased international assistance, delays in the accomplishment of U.S. military objectives and a far longer engagement for our military in the region.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to do two things today. First, I want to pay tribute to Jan Nowak, who like me is an American by choice. Second, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues in this House an outstanding article by Mr. Nowak that appeared in The Washington Post earlier this month. Jan Nowak is a Polish patriot and an American patriot. He was born in Poland, was a Ph.D. student in economics at Poznan University, and was drafted into the Polish army in 1939 as his native land was threatened by Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany. Jan was captured by German troops, but he successfully escaped from a German prison camp. During World War II, he became a critical link between the underground fighting against the Germans in Poland and the Polish government-in-exile which was forced to flee to London. He recounted his experiences during this time in his autobiography Courier from Warsaw. Jan was in Poland at the time of the Warsaw Uprising of 1944. In that heroic but tragic battle, the Soviet army stood just east of Warsaw poised to march into the Polish capital, but Stalin did not order his troops to assist the heroic Polish partisans as they fought a losing battle against the Nazi German forces. The city of Warsaw was largely destroyed and much of the partisan movement was killed by the Nazis. This eliminated Polish leadership in Poland and made it much easier for the Soviet Union to impose a communist regime at the end of the war. During the Warsaw Uprising, Nowak ran the radio station ``Lightening'' to keep Poles informed of partisan activities, and he managed to escape from the German forces as they destroyed Warsaw. Mr. Speaker, in 1951 with Central and Eastern Europe under Soviet dominance, the United Sates established Radio Free Europe (RFE) to provide information and democratic ideas to the peoples of these communist countries. Jan Nowak was asked to direct the Polish Service of RFE. He continued in that key position of responsibility for 25 years--until his retirement in 1976. Following his retirement from RFE, Jan Nowak came to Washington, where he served as a consultant on Central and Eastern Europe to the National Security Council staff of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He has continued to promote freedom and democracy in Poland, and he has been one of the most visible and vocal leaders of the Polish community in the United States. Certainly one of the highlights of his recent activity in behalf of Polish democracy--and one that Jan most enthusiastically welcomed--was Poland's admission to NATO in 1999. A reflection of his continued vigor and involvement in Polish-American issues was his attendance at the state dinner last week in connection with the visit to the United States of Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski. Jan recently celebrated his 89th birthday, and he has decided to return to Poland--though he will retain his American citizenship. We will certainly miss his wisdom and energy on issues involving Central and Eastern Europe, but we wish him well as he changes his residence. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of his departure from the United States and on the occasion of the celebration of American Independence on July 4th, The Washington Post published an article by Jan Nowak--``Thank You, America.'' The Post not only published Jan's article, it editorially commented on his ``Fourth of July thank-you note to the United States for its support of freedom in his native Poland during his nine decades.'' As the Post editorial observed, the consistent and steadfast American commitment to freedom and democracy in Central and Eastern Europe--for which Jan Nowak expresses eloquent thanks to the American people--must continue to be an integral part of our nation's foreign policy. We must pursue democracy and respect for human rights with the same tenacity in Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan and Indonesia and China in the current century as we did in Poland and Hungary and Czechoslovakia throughout the Cold War of the last century. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Jan Nowak's excellent article be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. Nowak for his great contribution to democracy and respect for human rights in the United States, in Poland, and throughout the world. [From the Washington Post, July 3, 2002] Thank You, America (By Jan Nowak) This July 4, many Americans may feel baffled and disappointed by the waves of anti-Americanism sweeping through countries that, not too long ago, were either saved or helped by the United States. Allies such as France and Great Britain and former enemies such as Germany and Japan benefitted greatly from America's generosity and support in their time of need, as did Belgium, Holland, Italy, Russia, Poland, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan and others. Without the United States, some of these countries might no longer exist. Those of us who remember and remain grateful should no longer remain silent. For people like me--and there are millions of us--this Fourth of July is a good opportunity to say, ``Thank you, America.'' My old country, Poland, is a good example. I was born 89 years ago on the eve of World War I in Warsaw, when Poles were forced to live under the despotic rule of the Russian czars. In 1917 Woodrow Wilson made the restoration of Polish independence one of his 14 conditions for peace. If it had not been for Wilson, Poland might have disappeared forever from the map of Europe. The United States did not have any strategic or economic interests in this remote eastern part of the European continent. But thanks to America, the ambitions of the Hohenzollern empire to dominate all of Europe were thwarted. The war in Poland did not end in 1918, however. For six more years, the wheels of war rolled over the Polish countryside as Poles fought to repel the invasions of the Red Army. The country was left in ruins. Food was scarce. The undernourished population was hit by epidemics of typhoid and Spanish flu. I belong to the generation of children of this era, the early 1920s, who were saved by the benevolent intervention of the United States, in the person of the future president Herbert Hoover. As a private citizen, Hoover organized the emergency supplies of food, medicine and clothing that saved a starving and sick nation. I still remember the tin boxes inscribed ``American Relief Committee for Poland.'' The Polish state survived, but with no economic resources, no reserves of gold or foreign currencies. Roaring inflation had brought the country to the verge of collapse. The United States came forward once again, providing the Dillon loans, which helped stabilize the Polish economy. Following the surrender of France in 1940, Hitler was only one step from victory. The United States, by joining Great Britain as it faced alone the greater might of Nazi Germany, and at enormous sacrifice of young American lives, saved European civilization and its values. It is known that Hitler's postwar plans called for elimination of Poland's educated classes, while the rest of the population was to become slave workers. Once again, the United States saved the lives of millions. I am grateful to have been one of them. Tragically, the defeat of Nazi Germany did not bring freedom to the nations of east and central Europe. Hitler's tyranny was replaced by Stalin's terror. It was the United States that contained the Soviet Union's drive for domination of Europe. It understood before others that the Cold War would be a struggle for human minds. One of its major weapons in this war was the skillful use of radio. As a former radio operator with the Polish underground and later a broadcaster with the BBC foreign service, I was recruited in the early 1950s to start the Polish service of Radio Free Europe (RFE). No country but the United States would launch or could have launched such an ambitious undertaking, broadcasting from dawn to midnight. RFE destroyed the monopoly of the Communist public media and frustrated the efforts of the Soviet Union to isolate the satellite countries from the outside world. Citizens of these countries had only to tune in to the RFE frequency to learn what their governments were attempting to hide from them. People were able to get the information they needed to form their own views, even if they could not speak them. Their minds remained free. Workers' strikes were banned under communism. So when Polish shipyard workers in Gdansk, led by Lech Walesa, defiantly called a strike in August 1980, the government immediately ordered a news blackout. But within hours, the whole country knew of the workers' resistance and related developments from RFE broadcasts. Because the Communists feared a general strike might follow, they quickly agreed to a compromise settlement with the shipyard workers. Solidarity was born. The following year, however, the Communist leader, Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski, sought to destroy the movement by imposing martial law. The United States responded by applying a sophisticated carrot-and-stick policy in which Jaruzelski was never forced into a position where he had nothing to lose and nothing to gain. Economic sanctions were imposed, but economic assistance was promised. The patient and consistent application of this policy over the next eight years resulted in the survival of Solidarity, which emerged triumphant in 1989. News of this victory spread rapidly to East Berlin, Prague, Budapest, Bucharest and Sofia, as well as Moscow, through the broadcasts of RFE, Radio Liberty, RIAS (Radio in the American Sector, Berlin) and the Voice of America. The overthrow of Poland's Communist dictatorship inspired millions throughout the Soviet orbit, unleashing an avalanche that brought down the Berlin Wall and led to the reunification of Germany, the self-liberation of the nations of east-central Europe and eventually the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Poland formed the first non-communist government in the former Soviet empire. But the nation's economy remained a disaster area. Again the United States came to the rescue. Poland's first democratic government and the nation's economy were saved by U.S. leadership in proposing and aggressively promoting an emergency international financial assistance package. In the spring of 1998, I watched from the public gallery of the U.S. Senate as it ratified the admission into NATO of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. For the first time in its history, my old country was not only free but also secure. Thank you, America.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, eight years ago today--on July 18, 1994, a car bomb exploded at the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, leaving eighty-five people dead and leveling the building. Now, eight years later, the trial of a handful of suspected accessories to the crime has only barely begun, and the masterminds behind the horrific attack are still unidentified and at-large. While we recognize that Argentina is currently struggling with serious political and economic crises, the government of President Duhlade must remain focused on the investigation of the AMIA bombing and the trial of the accused. The resolution of this case is critical to demonstrate that Argentine society fully embraces the rule of law and is moving toward the fulfillment of justice. The AMIA case presents Argentina with the opportunity to send a message to the world that terrorism does not pay and that known terrorists will be prosecuted. Mr. Speaker, the trial has been long in coming and has faced many obstacles, some of which Fernando de la Rua and current President Eduardo Duhlade have addressed. There is speculation about why the case was not tried and closed years ago. First, fifteen of the twenty suspects are former Buenos Aires police officers who have been linked to a ring of automobile thieves. Although these are not the individuals who ordered and carried out the attacks, they may have supplied the vehicle used for the bombing, knowing that it was to be used in an attack on the Jewish Community Center. The most prominent of these suspects are former senior police commander Juan Jose Rebelli and local stolen-car dealer Alberto Telleldin. Both were formally charged with multiple homicides in July 1999 in connection to the bombing and are currently standing trial. Second, the physical evidence from the bombing was handled extremely poorly. Most of the evidence from the crime scene, including personal identification and the remains of the victims, was stuffed haphazardly into bags and abandoned at an open dump for three years before being tossed into the Rio de la Plata. One investigator estimates that less than five percent of the material evidence remains today. Also, a renovation project to make the courtroom large enough to accommodate the anticipated press consumed many months. After the public trial began on September 24, 2001, the prosecution's case has plodded through a seemingly interminable procession of witnesses. Over 1500 witnesses were called to testify in the trial. Yet, there still has been no clear identification of those responsible for the AMIA bombing. The main question of the trial remains whether the police who were involved with selling the vehicle knew that it would be used for the bombing. So far, the police have denied all charges of wrongdoing. A number of other anti-Semitic incidents since the 1994 bombing indicate the importance of a prompt and decisive resolution in the AMIA bombing case. After the AMIA Jewish community center was rebuilt, several telephoned bomb threats against the new building, as well as against a Jewish country club and a Jewish theater, have been received. Once again, no one has claimed responsibility, no evidence has been found, and the Argentine authorities have not produced results from their formal investigations into these bomb threats. In August 1999, two Jewish families were threatened with unidentified bomb threats. One month later, unidentified individuals fired gun shots at a Jewish school. There have been no developments in the investigations of either of these cases as well. Mr. Speaker, Argentina faces numerous challenges today, including pursuing both the domestic and international dimensions of the AMIA bombing case. Some of these investigative leads may take Argentine prosecutors to the highest reaches of their society and to state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East. We in the United States Congress must continue to demonstrate our support for the efforts of non-governmental organizations, such as B'nai B'rith, which are actively working to bring complete closure to the AMIA bombing and other cases of anti-Semitism. Mr. Speaker, resolution of the AMIA bombing is an integral part of our fight against terrorism. It is essential that the government of Argentina know and understand that the United States government continues to expect appropriate action against all of those who were responsible for perpetrating this outrageous crime.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention once again to the alarming conditions surrounding the Ukrainian parliamentary bi- elections, held on Sunday, July 14. On the evening of July 12, less than forty-eight (48) hours before the balloting was to begin, a local court found Olexander Zhyr, the candidate I referred to in my remarks last week, guilty of campaign finance improprieties. Mr. Zhyr was disqualified from the race with no time to appeal the decision. As the domestic nonpartisan election watchdog group the Committee of Voters of Ukraine has commented, the last minute timing of the decision made it impossible for the elections to be considered democratic. Mr. Speaker, I have already gone on the record as noting the important role Mr. Zhyr played in the Ukrainian Rada, heading the parliamentary committee that investigated the murders of Ukrainian journalists. Additionally, Mr. Zhyr was leading investigations into accusations that the Ukrainian government illegally exported arms to Iraq. I would like to express my deep concern that Mr. Zhyr's disqualification was politically motivated. Electoral manipulation of this sort severely undermines the democratic process. Again, I would stress that as a country that aspires to full membership in Western institutions, the Government of Ukraine must improve its democratic record. A good start would be to reverse the decision to disqualify Mr. Zhyr, and allow him to participate in an election that meets international standards of transparency and democratic procedures.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to an extraordinary man and a dear friend of mine, Mr. Walter L. Johnson, a member of the San Francisco Labor Council, who is to be honored by the San Mateo Labor Council at its annual banquet on July 18th, 2002. Mr. Speaker, Walter Johnson was raised in North Dakota, and like many men of his generation he gallantly served our country during World War II. After his discharge in 1946, like many wise men of that day, he moved to San Francisco, where he obtained a job as an appliance salesperson with Sears Roebuck, and immediately joined the Department Store Employees' Union Local 1100. From his earliest working days, Walter showed a deep commitment to racial equality, which is best highlighted by the key role he played in 1958, when he was instrumental in helping the first African American woman work behind the counter at Woolworth's. That same year, he was elected President of Local 1100. By 1964, he was elected to a senior leadership position: Secretary Treasurer of the Department Store Employees Union. He was re-elected a remarkable eleven times. In 1965 he became Executive Officer of the Union. In the spring of 1985, Walter Johnson was elected Secretary Treasurer of the San Francisco Labor Council, a position he has held since that time. Under his guidance, the Council continues to work for the laudable goal of providing employment, advantageous wages and benefits for its members. Serving over 100 Unions and over 75,000 workers in San Francisco, Walter Johnson is the voice of labor in the Bay area. Mr. Speaker, Walter Johnson and his lovely wife Jane are residents of South San Francisco, which is in my congressional district. They are the proud parents of three children and five grandchildren. Aside from working closely with many union leaders, he also interacts with community groups, elected officials, and religious leaders to promote issues that enhance the quality of life for working people. Strengthening his position as an advocate for working men and women, he serves on various boards and committees, including the United Way of the Bay Area, the Bay Area Sports Organizing Committee and Our Redeemers Lutheran Church. Walter is the recipient of numerous awards, which are far too many to enumerate, but I will mention a few key ones. He has provided valuable direction as President of the James F. Housewright--United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), Scholarship Fund, and he is a member of the UFCW Advisory Board, the International's Foreign Affairs Committee, and its National Department Store Committee. Moreover, Walter has been a member of the board of directors of the San Francisco Private Industry Council, Arriba Juntos, the Bay Pacific Health Plan, the Council for Civic Unity, KQED-TV, the Organized Training Center, the Board of the San Francisco Bay Area Girl Scout Council, the Center for Ethics and Social Policy, the Shelter Network, the Death Penalty Focus Board, the Advisory Board of Nature Conservancy, the Western Opera Theatre, and the San Francisco Organizing Project. Walter has distinguished himself as founder and President of San Francisco Renaissance. In addition, he has been an active member of the Advisory Board of the Labor Archives and Research Center and the President's Advisory Board of San Francisco State University. In 1988, Mr. Johnson was chosen to receive the Bay Area Union Labor Party's ``1988 Leadership Award'' as an appreciation of his exemplary record of achievements. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Walter L. Johnson for his dedication to our nation's working men and women, his exemplarily record of civic achievement, and his determination to better the condition of working people. Walter's service has shown us the meaning of courage, courtesy, compassion and commitment.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues six of my constituents who have been selected winners in a very important essay contest. The six were authors of first, second, and third place winners in an Americanism essay competition for school children in grades 5 and 6 and in grades 7 and 8. This contest was designed to promote and encourage patriotism. The theme for this year's competition was ``What the Flag of the United States Stands For.'' The competition was sponsored by lodge No. 1112 of the Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks in San Mateo, California. I want to commend the Elks for their public-spirited effort in sponsoring this competition in order to foster a spirit of patriotism among the young people of our country. The two first place winners were Julian Zhukivsky from Park Elementary School and Salone Kapur from Borel Middle School. The second place winners were Michael Kruger of Abbott Middle School and Martin Rofael of Bayside Middle School. The third place winners were Robert Gill of St. Timothy School and Brian Dunn of St. Gregory School. Mr. Speaker, I commend these outstanding students for their excellent essays and for their thoughtful expressions of patriotism. After the events of September 11th, the flag has become a heightened symbol of our national unity and pride. Mr. Speaker, I ask that these six excellent essays be placed in the Congressional Record, and I urge my colleagues to read them. First Place Winner (Grades 7 & 8): Salone Kapur What the American Flag Stands For One June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress passed an act to establish an official flag for America. Today, the American Flag is eminent in all public places. The flag means a significant amount in people's lives. The American flag is a symbol of our nation's unity, and is a source of pride and inspiration for all its citizens. We all come from different backgrounds, but here, we all unite and belong in one big family. Second Place Winner (Grades 7 & 8): Martin Rofael Our Flag What does the flag of the United States stand for? We always stand and salute, but some of us don't know what it represents. Our flag has a tremendous story. On July 4, 1776 the Continental Congress declared the 13 colonies free from the British to be the United States of America. The fifty stars on our flag represent the fifty states. The white color on the flag represents purity and innocence. The blue background color on the flag represents vigilance, perseverance, and justice. The 13 stripes on our flag represent the first 13 colonies. There are seven red stripes and six white stripes. The red color represents hardiness and valor. Some flags have fringe, which resembles honorable enrichment. Also some flags have a gold trim which has no meaning. That is what the flag of the United States of America means. It has awesome and tremendous meaning. Third Place Winner (Grades 7 & 8): Brian Dunn The Meaning of the Flag The flag represents many different things. The stripes represent the 13 original colonies and the stars represent the fifty states. It also represents our freedom, our religion, and the freedom to express however we feel. To the people in the United States the flag represents peace, love, courage, bravery and freedom. The flag is an inspiration to all of those who see it to be all that they can be. It also represents opportunity, the opportunity to succeed and become successful at whatever you want to be. But, most of all, the American flag represents the greatest country ever to inhabit this earth. First Place Winner (Grades 5 & 6): Julian Zhukovsky The American Flag I think the flag of the United States stands for liberty and justice for all. We are all equal and have the same rights. We are made of many cultures and religions. We are united and we are one nation under God. I think the white stripes on the flag stand for the purity of ideals. The red stripes on the flag stand for the blood of the people who fought in the war for independence in 1776. The stripes together stand for the original othirteen colonies that gave birth to the fifty states with their name of glory. The fifty stars on the flag stand for the fifty states of our country. They are like bright stars glistening high above in the sky. Our country's flag will shine forever with those stars. Today, after the terrorist attack on September 11th, thousands of Americans have put up their American flags. They did it to show the world that we still stand for liberty and justice for all. Second Place Winner (Grades 5 & 6): Michael Kruger What the Flag of the United States Stands For The United States flag stands for freedom, justice, equality, hope and faith. The freedom to live wherever you want to live and be free. Freedom also allows us the freedom of speech to say whatever we want. Justice is to be held accountable for the laws of our country and to be treated fairly. Equality is for all people to be treated equal. The faith in people to keep our country free. The flag also gives me hope and faith for my family, country and myself. When I see the United States Flag I feel very proud and lucky to be living in America. Everything on the American flag means something. There are thirteen stripes, seven are red and six are white. There is a blue box in the upper corner with fifty stars in it. The stripes represent the thirteen colonies and the stars represent the fifty states. Third Place Winner (Grades 5 & 6): Robert Gill What the Flag of the United States Stands For To me and for a lot of other Americans the flag is a symbol of peace. There have been some difficult times but our flag will always stand for peace. I think it stands for the peace because it also stands for a peaceful country. That flag stands for the people who love it. Everybody should know it as a sign of peace and justice. The flag also stands for being united and having liberty. When people say ``united we stand'' they don't mean just Americans, they mean everybody. Everybody does or should know that. The flag is more than just something that waves in the air, it's something we should cherish. The American Flag stands for you and me, and everyone else in this country and everyone who loves it too. As you can see the flag stands for peace, justice, liberty, and our rights. That's why I'm proud of it!

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), my distinguished colleague.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), my good friend, an indefatigable fighter for human rights in all of its manifestations.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the only survivor of the Holocaust ever elected to the Congress of the United States, I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a valued member of our committee, for his outstanding resolution and for his untiring efforts in calling attention to the scourge of anti-Semitism in Europe. I also want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for expediting the consideration of this resolution and the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), who has been most cooperative in bringing this resolution before us today. But I particularly want to express my personal gratitude to the distinguished chairman emeritus of the Committee on International Relations who during his entire distinguished career in this body has been a powerful champion for human rights and against all forms of discrimination, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. Speaker, anti-Semitism in Europe has resulted in vicious attacks against Jews on an almost daily basis. Our resolution highlights some of these incredibly brutal, medieval incidents. In France, Jewish organizations recorded more than 300 anti-Semitic attacks in the month of April alone: Desecration of Jewish cemeteries, physical and verbal assaults against Jewish children in playgrounds and on soccer fields, fire bombing and vandalizing of Jewish institutions. In Belgium, the headquarters of the European Union, rabbis and other Jewish community leaders have been repeatedly assaulted, and worshipers have been attacked on their way to and from synagogues. In England, dozens of threats and physical assaults against Jews have been reported in recent months. Just a short while ago, a suburban London synagogue was vandalized, religious artifacts were defaced, and crude swastikas were painted throughout the building. In Germany, some 127 anti-Semitic incidents were reported during the first quarter of this year. In Berlin, a Jewish hospital was ransacked and Jews have been beaten. Mr. Speaker, we cannot instantaneously change the attitudes of many Europeans who for a long period of time have been holding anti-Semitic views. A survey conducted by the Anti-Defamation League last month in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and the United Kingdom found that almost one-third of the residents of those countries harbor traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes. The problem is clear, and the response must be equally clear. Our strong resolution today calls upon the governments of Europe to take all necessary steps to protect the safety and well-being of their Jewish communities and to cultivate an atmosphere of cooperation and reconciliation among their Jewish and non-Jewish residents. There are positive and concrete steps that the European governments must take. Government officials cannot stop what people think; but they can set an example of tolerance, and they can act quickly and decisively to punish those who perpetrate racially- and religiously- based violence. Government leaders can and must publicly and quickly condemn anti- Semitic incidents, and they should condemn them for what they are, unadulterated anti-Semitism, not merely spillover from the Middle East, as some would have it labeled. This merely obfuscates the issue. Government leaders must insist that these incidents of racism and bigotry are quickly and carefully investigated and that their perpetrators are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is not sufficient or acceptable for government officials to tell Jews to refrain from wearing distinctive religious clothing, as happened in at least one European country. That puts the onus on the victim and not on the perpetrator. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished head of the Anti-Defamation League made reference to a recent disturbing survey of anti-Semitism in Europe that was conducted by the Anti-Defamation League. My good friend, Abe Foxman, National Director of the ADL, wrote an excellent article discussing the survey results and the very disturbing phenomenon of anti-Semitism in Europe entitled ``Europe's Anti-Israel Excuse.'' Abe Foxman provides excellent insight into how the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict has led to the resurrection of widespread open anti-Semitism in Europe. As a Holocaust survivor, Mr. Foxman brings a unique perspective about the dangers of bigotry and prejudice, since he personally experienced the effects of widespread, unchallenged anti-Semitism in the 1940s. With European governments turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism and dismissing attacks on Jews as merely a reaction to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, Mr. Foxman correctly observes that the future of Jewish life in Europe is in question. Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record Mr. Foxman's article in its entirety, and I urge all of my colleagues to give it the serious and thoughtful attention it deserves. Mr. Speaker, I again commend my good friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), for bringing this resolution to our attention. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I include the Abe Foxman article entitled ``Europe's Anti-Israel Excuse'' for the Record. Europe's Anti-Israel Excuse (By Abraham H. Foxman) Throughout history a constant barometer for judging the level of hate and exclusion vs. the level of freedom and democracy in any society has been anti-Semitism--how a country treats its Jewish citizens. Jews have been persecuted and delegitimized throughout history because of their perceived differences. Any society that can understand and accept Jews is typically more democratic, more open and accepting of ``the other.'' This predictor has held true throughout the ages. During the Holocaust, Jews and other minorities of Europe were dispatched to the camps and, ultimately, their deaths in an environment rife with anti-Semitism. Nearly 60 years later in a modern, democratic Europe, that presumably had shed itself of the legacy of that era, Jews have again come under attack. During the past year and a half a troubling epidemic of anti-Jewish hatred, not isolated to any one country or community, has produced a climate of intimidation and fear in the Jewish communities of Europe. Never, as a Holocaust survivor, did I believe we would witness another eruption of anti-Semitism of such magnitude, in Europe of all places. But the resiliency of anti-Semitism is unparalleled. It rears its ugly head in far-flung places, like Malaysia and Japan, where there are no Jews. The Anti-Defamation League has been taking the pulse of anti-Semitism in America for more than 40 years. Never did I expect that we would have to do the same in Europe, given the history and our expectation that European anti-Semitism, while not eradicated, would be so marginal and so rejected that it would not be a major concern. What we found in the countries we surveyed--Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and Denmark--was shocking and disturbing. Classical anti-Semitism, coupled with a new form fueled by anti-Israel sentiment, has become a potent and dangerous mix in countries with enormous Muslim and Arab populations. More than 1 million Jews live in these five nations, and their communities are under siege. Who would have believed that we would see the burning of synagogues and attacks of Jewish students, rabbis, Jewish institutions and Jewish owned-property? While European leaders have attempted to explain away these attacks as a fleeting response to events in the Middle East and not the barginger of a more insidious and deeply ingrained hatred, the attitudes of average Europeans paint a far different picture. Among the 2,500 people polled in late May and early June as part of our survey, 45 percent admitted to their perception that Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country, while 30 percent agreed with the statement that Jews have too much power in the business world. Perhaps most telling, 62 percent said they believe the outbreak of anti-Semitic violence in Europe is the result of anti-Israel sentiment, not anti-Jewish feeling. The contrariness of their own attitudes suggests that Europeans are loath to admit that hatred of Jews is making a comeback. This view may make Europeans more comfortable in the face of what is happening in their countries, by suggesting that this time around, Jews are not the innocent victims but are themselves the victimizers in the Middle East. But the incredibly biased reaction against Israel seen in the poll-- despite the fact that Israel under former prime minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an independent state, and despite the fact that Palestinians have carried out a sustained campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians-- speaks to a repressed hostility to Jews that may not be socially acceptable in post-Holocaust Europe. Still, even with such constraints, some 30 percent of Europeans are not averse to expressing their anti-Semitic beliefs openly and directly. Meanwhile, the Europeans have been tepid in their support for the U.S. war on terrorism and especially the Bush administration's efforts to broker an end to Israeli- Palestinian bloodshed. The Europeans seek to appease Saddam Hussein and other threats to the Western world while blaming Israel, not the Palestinian Authority, for the crisis. All while they minimize the extent of anti-Semitism in Europe and fail to immediately condemn horrific acts of harassment and vandalism. The message to Europe's burgeoning immigrant population is that there is a certain level of acceptance for intolerance. It is time for Europe to assume responsibility for a situation of its own making. The combination of significant, openly expressed anti-Jewish bias together with irrational anti-Israel opinions creates a climate of great concern for the Jews of Europe. It is not surprising that in such an atmosphere Muslim residents feel free to attack Jewish students and religious institutions not because they are Israelis but because they are Jews. And it is not surprising that some European officials have begun telling Jewish leaders to advise their numbers to avoid public displays of Jewishness, instead of promising to protect their Jewish communities. European leaders and officials must see what is going on for what it is--outright anti-Semitism--and condemn the revival of this ancient hatred that had its greatest manifestations on the same continent. They must acknowledge that the anti-Israel vilification across Western Europe is unacceptable. The recent comparisons of Israelis to Nazis, to Jews as the executors of ``massacres'' and even as the killers of Christ--these do not fall into the category of legitimate criticism of a sovereign state. They create the very climate that questions the future of Jewish life in Europe. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), my good friend, our distinguished colleague, and the author of this important resolution.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), my good friend and distinguished colleague.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to bi-elections in three parliamentary districts of Ukraine that will take place on July 14. Ukraine's parliamentary elections were held on March 31 of this year. The House of Representatives closely observed developments related to those elections; on March 20 we passed a resolution urging the government of Ukraine to meet its commitments on democratic elections as delineated in the 1990 Copenhagen Document of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Conditions surrounding the March 31 elections were far from free and fair. There were hundreds of documented instances of fraud, intimidation of voters, and blocked access to the media. A few races were declared invalid, which is why bi-elections will be held on July 14. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it appears that these bi-elections are being run no better than the parliamentary elections; in fact they may be worse. There are reports that local officials are under pressure of losing their jobs to guarantee that candidates loyal to the President win. This seems to be the case particularly for incumbent Alexander Zhyr. As the former head of the parliamentary committee that investigated the murders of Ukrainian journalists, including Georgiy Gongadze, Zhyr is not favorable to the party of power. Mr. Speaker, Ukraine has expressed its desire to become a full partner in Western institutions. To do so, it must uphold its commitment, as a member of the OSCE, to democratic values and human rights, including free and fair elections. I urge the Government of Ukraine to conduct these bi-elections in accordance with international standards, and to grant unfettered access to all election observers, foreign and domestic.