Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that each side be granted an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is literally unthinkable that just 50 years after the Holocaust this body should be compelled to take up this issue. It speaks very poorly of the educational process that has unfolded in Europe in the last two generations, that this most ancient hatred, based on prejudice and ignorance, should again be sweeping the continent. Several strains provide a confluence as to why they are up against this problem today. The first and perhaps most important one is the old church-based anti-Semitism. Churches have been guilty for centuries of fomenting anti-Semitism; and while some voices have spoken for acceptance and tolerance, important segments of the churches have contributed to the continuation of this sickening spectacle of religious hate. We also see the upsurge of skinhead and neo-Nazi movements of direct followers of what was the dominant theme in Germany in the 1930's and early 40's. The skinhead and neo-Nazi component of this new wave of anti-Semitism must be fought by all European governments. We have a new element. The extremist Islamic and Arab populations of Europe are contributing powerfully to anti-Semitism, and it is incumbent upon the governments of Europe to fight these forces. Finally, the perpetually misguided European left must recognize that its values and priorities are all upside down. They view the small State of Israel, a victim of a wave of suicide bombers and terrorist activities, as the aggressive Goliath. The time is long overdue for the misguided European left to wake up and recognize the realities of the Middle East situation. These are the four strains: church-based anti-Semitism; neo-Nazi skinhead anti-Semitism; the anti-Semitism emanating from the Muslim and Arab population in Europe; and, finally, the misguided European left which mistakes the victim for the aggressor. This is a gigantic task that all men and women in Europe of goodwill and decency must unite to defeat. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution as an expression of the conscience of this body and the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the President's speech on the Middle East, and I strongly support his vision. In calling for new Palestinian leadership and democratic reforms, the President has announced the end of the Arafat era. Never has an end been so richly deserved. Having been handed an opportunity after an opportunity, Yasser Arafat has led the Palestinians to death, murder and destruction. Now, as President Bush made clear, it is time for the Palestinians to choose a new leader, a new type of leader, nonviolent, democratic and noncorrupt, if there is to be hope for peace. Every American agrees that the nations committed to peace must oppose regimes that support terror, nations such as Iraq and Iran, and that the dictatorship in Syria, whose foreign minister last week defended suicide bombers by saying ``they have a right to their opinion,'' must once and for all close all terrorist camps and expel all terrorist organizations not only from Syria but from Lebanon it illegally occupies. As for the Palestinians, Mr. Speaker, if they reject the culture of death and embrace the President's prerequisites for peace by electing new leaders, building democracy, ending anti-Israel incitement, committing to nonviolence, and destroying their terrorist infrastructure, I shall fight as hard as I can for the President's program, including humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the Human Investment Project for Housing (HIP Housing) of San Mateo, California, on the occasion of its 30th Anniversary. For the past 30 years, this outstanding organization has been addressing the need for affordable housing. Founded in 1972, HIP Housing was established to create programs to assist the disadvantaged and disabled living within San Mateo County. In 1979, recognizing a lack of affordable housing in the community, HIP Housing developed its ``Homesharing Help and Information Program'' and began to focus on expanding the pool of affordable housing in the community. Since then, HIP Housing has made over 12,000 homesharing placements and today serves over 2,500 people each year, 500 of which are children. Mr. Speaker, the high cost of living in my congressional district is well documented. High housing prices have forced some out of their homes, leaving many with only expensive temporary housing options. HIP Housing has come to the rescue of thousands of people, finding permanent housing for seniors, single-parents and their children, persons with disabilities, the homeless and working persons. Fortunately, HIP Housing has long been recognized for its great work. In 1985, the organization received the ``Best Practices Award'' from the American Society on Aging; in 1990 HIP Housing was appointed the Northern California liaison to National Home Equity Conversion Counseling Task Force; the California American Institute of Architects awarded the organization the ``Community Assistance'' award in 1991; and in 1998, HIP Housing received HUD's Blue Ribbon Best Practices Award. Mr. Speaker, I would again like to emphasize just how vital HIP Housing has been to San Mateo County. Through its wide variety of housing programs and incredible generosity, HIP Housing has made a world of a difference for tens of thousands of people and it continues to do so every day.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I recently came across an article by the American social philosopher Eric Hoffer, about the double standard to which the world holds Israel. The sad irony is that this extraordinary piece was written 34 years ago, and it is just as relevant today as it was then. Mr. Hoffer's insightful analysis was published in the Los Angeles Times on May 26, 1968. Eric Hoffer was an American social philosopher, author of nine books and a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic. This article, which as I mentioned appeared in 1968, describes the trend of international scorn focusing solely on Israel; whether it is the status of refugees, fighting in self-defense, or ending armed conflict, Israel is consistently held to a standard that is different from that which is applied to the rest of the world. Put simply, what other nations freely do, Israel cannot. Although he was not Jewish, Mr. Hoffer championed a strong U.S.- Israel relationship and understood the geopolitical importance of Israel. Furthermore, Mr. Hoffer recognized the moral responsibility of the international community to support the world's only Jewish state in light of worldwide inaction and indifference to the Holocaust, which had occurred just 23 years before this article was written. [From the Los Angeles Times, May 26, 1968] Israel's Peculiar Position (By Eric Hoffer) The Jews are a peculiar people; things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it; Poland and Czechoslovakia did it; Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heavens knows how many Chinese--and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover, but should Israel be defeated, it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on. There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two people are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews, no one remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break diplomatic ties with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway. The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts and Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general. I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so it will go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to my friend, Sten Carlson of Burlingame, California, on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday. I want to acknowledge his public service and lifetime of accomplishments. Mr. Carlson was born on June 27, 1912 in Fort William, Ontario, Canada, of Swedish immigrant parents. Sten's early life was spent farming in Saskatchewan. He immigrated to the United States in 1951 where he met and later married Elizabeth. They have been happily married for the past forty-five years and are the proud parents of Eric, an automobile executive, and Frank, who was killed in a horrible violent crime in San Francisco shortly after his marriage. Mr. Speaker, Sten Carlson was a model employee of MacDonald Aircraft where he built the Mosquito aircraft, a low flying plane used for observing troop movement and low level bombing. Known as the ``Flying Coffin,'' the aircraft was made of balsa wood and glue, and powered by Rolls Royce Engines. He then worked for 25 years as a ground mechanic for United Airlines in San Francisco. Although he retired in 1977, Sten has continued to be active in the local labor community, becoming a lifetime member of the International Association of Machinists Local 1781. To this day, Sten still serves as a member of the Board of Directors of Retirees. He has been a strong voice for retirees and for protecting pensioners. I am grateful to have the privilege of paying tribute to a man so dedicated to the enrichment of his community. Mr. Carlson is a tireless volunteer at San Francisco's public television station, KQED, and has given over 15 years of volunteer service to Peninsula Medical Center. He is currently involved in implementing the medical center's Lifeline Program, which provides local seniors with a transmitter placed in a necklace. If the senior is in need of medical assistance and unable to reach the phone they can then push a button on the medallion, sending a signal to local emergency medical services that they need assistance. These efforts are typical of Sten Carlson, as he has always made time in his life for community service. His own personal tragedy, the loss of a son in a senseless violent crime, has been the motivation for his long-standing focus on victim support groups, a commitment spanning over three decades. Sten Carlson lives a life that serves as a testimony to integrity, fidelity, honor, ethical courage, and devotion to family, friends, and country. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in saluting and congratulating this extraordinary individual, Sten Carlson, as he and his family gather to celebrate his 90th birthday.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I rise today top express my strong support for H.R. 4103, the Martin's Cove Land Transfer Act. This legislation was introduced in this House by our distinguished colleague from Utah, Mr. Hansen, the Chair of the Committee on Resources. I also want to acknowledge the important role of our colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall, the Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee. I also thank my colleague, Mr. Kildee of Michigan, who is managing time for the minority today. As my colleagues have noted, Madam Speaker, the legislation provides for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to acquire Federal lands in the state of Wyoming known as Martin's Cove. Generally, Madam Speaker, I have strongly supported the acquisition of lands by the Federal Government in order to provide protection for important natural areas. During the time I have served in this body, I have introduced and supported a number of bills which have provided for the addition of new lands to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in California and the acquisition of other lands for preservation and protection by the Federal Government. In fact, I currently have before the Committee on Resources H.R. 1953, legislation to revise the boundaries of Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the San Francisco Bay Area. It may appear to be unusual that I am supporting H.R. 4103, which provides for the sale of Federal lands. The land at Martin's Cove, however, is unique. Clearly the transfer of this parcel of land from the Federal Government to the Mormon Church makes good sense for all concerned. Madam Speaker, this site is a particularly important historical site for Latter-day Saints. At or near Martin's Cove in 1856, some 150 emigrants of the Willies and Martin handcart companies lost their lives in an early fall snowstorm. Those who perished were buried where they died, and many were placed in common graves because of the tremendously difficult and trying conditions. Many members of these two handcart companies began their trek to Salt Lake City in Europe, and others joined them in the eastern United States. They sought a new life in the American West and the freedom to practice their religion. This loss of life was one of the most tragic events in the entire westward migration on the California, Oregon and Mormon trails and mid-nineteenth century America. It is obvious that this site holds a special significance for the many descendants of those who survived this ordeal, many of whom are Latter-day Saints. But it is also a holy place as well for other members of the church who give special honors to their pioneer heritage. Madam Speaker, the church's interest in acquiring this site is consistent with the Federal Government's interest in public access and preservation of this important site. The church has an interest in preserving this place as an authentic historic site. It has an interest in maintaining relics and evidences of the Mormon, Oregon, California, and Pony Express trails that pass through the area. The church also has an interest in making the area accessible to visitors in a way that will preserve the historic significance of the place. Furthermore, I believe that the church's commitment to this site is likely to be much greater than that of the Federal Government, and as a result the area will be better preserved and better cared for under Latter-day Saint stewardship than under Federal control. Finally, Madam Speaker, I do not see this legislation for the transfer of this particular piece of land to be establishing any precedent for the sale or transfer of other Federal lands. Clearly this is a unique situation. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has an interest that is very similar to the Federal interest to preserve, protect and provide public access to the site. This land transfer makes eminent sense, but it clearly does not change any Federal policies or practices regarding the protection and preservation of public lands. Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Utah, Mr. Hansen, for introducing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, although freedom and democracy are integral elements in the political systems of many countries, basic freedoms are still denied in many others and are not fully institutionalized in still others. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty targets these areas, including Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, Russia, and other former communist states, in order to promote free speech and political dialogue. For more than fifty years, the organization has tirelessly supported free-thinking, freedom of expression, and democracy. Recently, the broadcasts have even been expanded to include and specifically target areas with large Muslim populations. In recognition of this history of work, the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute awarded the ``Freedom of Speech Medal'' to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty on June 8. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty on receiving this award and recognize its outstanding work in promoting freedom. I earnestly commend the following acceptance speech given by my dear friend Thomas A. Dine, the President of RFE/RL, Inc., and request that the speech be placed in the Record. Accepting the Freedom of Speech Medal, Roosevelt Study Center Middelburg, the Netherlands Thank you for this wonderful, deeply meaningful award. It is a great, great honor to receive the Roosevelt Foundation's 2002 Freedom of Speech medal. No name better animates and exemplifies the work of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and its daily commitment to freedom and democracy than Roosevelt. As President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, I accept this award not only on behalf of the organization as it exists today, but also on behalf of its achievements during the Cold War and its importance as a fighting force in promoting freedom and democracy in the future, applying the highest journalistic standards of accuracy, balance, and objectivity. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has been battling for the cause of free speech and expression for over 50 years. My colleagues and I will continue to fight as long as this most fundamental of freedoms is being controlled or suppressed in the countries to which we actively communicate via radio, Internet, and television. Heading an entity called ``Radio Free Europe,'' I am often asked, ``But isn't Europe free?'' It is true that the collapse of communism and of the Soviet Union has brought freedom to many parts of Europe that had been deprived of it for too long. However, suppression of speech, press, and assembly, sadly remains very much the rule on the European continent. In Russia, for example, the Kremlin seems increasingly determined to control as much of the media as possible. Most recently, the government has coercively placed under its control several prominent independent media outlets, from television to radio to print, cloaking these power grabs as business transactions. More ominously, over the course of the last two years in Russia, 36 journalists have been killed or have disappeared. And last week Russia's Minister of the Press Lesin, in response to our daily news broadcasts in the Chechen language, warned us to stop interfering in Russia's domestic affairs. The President of Ukraine is no friend of the first freedom. He is a likely suspect in the death of at least two reporters who dared criticize his administration for corruption and criminality. He is certainly responsible for a culture of fear that pervades the Ukrainian media environment. The nation of Belarus is now under the thumb of the dictator Alexander Lukashenka, a man who openly expresses admiration for Stalin. Lukashenka ceaselessly harasses the press; deaths and disappearances of journalists have taken place in Belarus as well. And a final contemporary example of the dismal condition of freedom of expression inside today's Europe exists in the Balkans, where Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia are still not out from under the intimidation and controlling state grip of the Milosevic era. In response to the specific challenges we face in this young century, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has expanded the scope of its broadcasting across Europe and Asia. These broadcasts address the most difficult, but perhaps the most thrilling, battle yet for free speech: in areas populated by Muslims in Southeast Europe, Russia, the northern and southern Caucasus, Central Asia and Southwest Asia. The terrorist attacks of September 11th highlighted for all of us the importance of the Muslim world in today's geopolitical landscape. Accordingly, a majority of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's current 33 languages are targeted to peoples that practice the Islamic religion. Our broadcasts now include Albanian and Bosnian to the former Yugoslavia; Tatar and Bashkir to Russia's Volga River region; Crimean Tatar to Ukraine; Avar, Chechen, and Circassian to Russia's North Caucasus; Azeri to Azerbaijan and Northern Iran; the languages of Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, Tajik, and Uzbek to Central Asia; Farsi throughout Iran; Arabic to Iraq; and now Dari and Pashtu to Afghanistan. I am particularly proud of the latter two, Dari and Pashtu, in which we are now broadcasting 10 1/2 hours a day to Afghanistan in response to that crisis. Next week, we will broadcast the Loya Jirga's deliberations live! Just as importantly, we have also established a program to train Afghan journalists in Kabul and Prague to help ensure that the new Afghanistan will be graced with a robust free press practicing the highest of professional standards. In closing, it is a particular honor, both for me personally and for the organization I represent, to receive this award from an organization bearing the Roosevelt name. As President, Franklin Roosevelt instilled human rights in our collective consciousness and injected human rights into the center of our foreign policies. So did Eleanor Roosevelt through her tireless work helping to create the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is no coincidence that a 1950's photograph of the former First Lady of the United States sitting in front of a Radio Liberty microphone adorns my office wall in Prague. And it is Article 19 of the Universal Declaration that is the motto of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, indeed all of United States international broadcasting. It is a simple, but compelling and timeless pronouncement-- ``Everyone has the right . . . to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'' This motto appears on our stationery, in all of our literature, on prominently placed hall plaques. It symbolizes everything we strive to achieve. The more than 2,000 worldwide staffers of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are eternally grateful for receiving one of this year's Four Freedom awards. I promise this Foundation and this distinguished audience that we shall energetically continue our mission of promoting freedom and democracy today -- in order to expand freedom and democracy tomorrow. Thank you very much. Thomas A. Dine, President, RFE/RL, Inc.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues a speech made last week by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the House of Representatives Democratic leader. He offered ideas for constructing a strong, bipartisan, long-term approach to the war on terrorism in a speech to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and to the Council on Foreign Relations. As we have come to know and expect, our distinguished leader offered outstanding insights and thoughtful proposals for dealing with the urgent issues of our Nation's foreign policy. Leader Gephardt outlined proposals to build consensus for military transformation so we can win the war on terrorism. He offered a 21st Century foreign policy to promote prosperity, democracy and universal education for stability and opportunity in the developing world. He proposed greater citizen involvement in all aspects of our public diplomacy. Leader Gephardt urged the administration to do more to strengthen international alliances that will help fight terrorism, and he called for the much faster development of a tough new homeland defense strategy. Mr. Speaker, Leader Gephardt wisely stated in his speech that the goal of America's foreign policy in the 21st century should be ``to promote the universal values of freedom, fairness and opportunity, which has never been more in America's self-interest. We should seek to lead a community of nations that are law-abiding, prosperous and democratic. Such a world would leave fewer places for terrorists to hide and more places for citizens across the globe to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.'' The three qualities of this foreign policy, as Leader Gephardt points out, should be economic development, democracy, and universal education. These qualities are not only intimately interconnected and self-reinforcing, but they are critical to the achievement of long-term American security and prosperity and, more importantly, they are pragmatic, achievable, and cost-effective. Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out an additional observation that Leader Gephardt made in his speech. He could not have been more correct when he said that ``America must lead'' and that ``leadership is not a synonym for unilateralism.'' The recent U.S. foreign policy moves towards international agreements, multilateral institutions, and transnational issues such as the environment pose a threat to our ability to prosecute the war on terrorism effectively by putting at risk the assistance and cooperation of other nations, including some of our closest allies. America must remain engaged and America must lead. Leader Gephardt's ideas deserve the thoughtful consideration of all of us as we grapple with America's course in foreign policy. I am proud to enter a copy of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt)'s speech into the Record, and I urge all of my colleagues to give it the thorough reading and study it deserves. Building a New Long-Term Strategy for American Leadership and Security Today, we are gathering almost nine months after enemies of America killed more than 3,000 of our fellow citizens. It has been eight months since America sent troops into battle in Afghanistan and five months since dialogue in the Middle East broke down and that region sank into destructive waves of suicide bombings. Today, events continue to move swiftly, with momentous consequences for our nation and for the people of the world. I believe now is the appropriate time to reflect on how we have gotten here, but much more importantly, where we must go. Too often, issues of national security are considered separately--they are seen as fragmented, distinct disputes, such as: Must we prepare for two major simultaneous wars? What should be our diplomatic approach to the Middle East? Or will Americans back peacekeeping in some foreign land? But it is also evident, when we take a step back, that these issues are profoundly interwinded, and that we must approach them from the single perspective of ensuring America's security. The world in which we live is very different from the Cold War era, when a bipartisan group of ``wise men'' shaped our thinking. I do not need to talk very much about the trends that have remade our times--we live with them every day. Globalization has made events in faraway places more relevant to use that ever before. Information technology and the latest scientific revolution have changed the way we live and produced astonishing gains in productivity and knowledge. And, of course, the crumbling of the Soviet empire has fundamentally changed the strategic face of the globe. With the advent of each of these trends, the world has become closer, moved faster, and grown more interconnected. Great wars have been followed by uneasy peace as America has struggled to create international arrangements to preserve harmony. After each war, America has debated how engaged it should be in world affairs; and when the peace has been broken, America has chosen to engage the world ever more closely. I urge this Administration to build on this tradition of engagement, not turn away from it. Now is the time to take the long view of this challenge. We are often too focused on issues at the margins of the status quo. This is not going to be a short struggle or an easy one. In addition to all we are doing now, we will need to do more. We will need to make our military stronger, our homeland safer, and build alliances abroad to serve American interests. We are engaged in a global conflict. We face a competition between governance and terror, between the great majority who benefit from order, and the small few who thrive on chaos. The question today is whether a collection of nation states--committed to human values of democracy and freedom, the rule of law and tolerance--can succeed in a struggle against the ideology of fanaticism and extremism, an ideology that holds us to be the political, economic, and cultural enemy and states its desire to destroy America. While we now have terrorist organizations on the run, we must acknowledge that in some ways they are succeeding in creating division. Enemies of America still flourish, sowing seeds of hatred for this country and reaping violence. Some terrorist groups are small in number, limited in visibility and short on supplies. Others find harbor in failed states or enjoy support from sympathetic regimes, utilizing sophisticated technology to hatch their murderous plots. This is a tough, complicated foe, one that should not be oversimplified or underestimated. Over the past half-century, America's bipartisan policy of containment served to hem in and deter a singular, comparable adversary. Today, with smaller, less discernible enemies, we need a strategy that seeks not to wall off threatening parts of the world, but to engage potentially hostile regions. We need to be prepared to deliver the most forceful military responses to provocation, but also to expand opportunities for peace and prosperity. With deference to George Kennan, the seminal work he did at the Council on Foreign Relations, and the institute here that bears his name, I believe such a policy could be called one of commitment. With determination as our guide, we must move forward with a unified approach: A commitment to constantly updating the most effective military ever; A commitment to being engaged diplomatically all over the world; A commitment to making our homeland secure and involving our citizens and our leaders in the issues of the world. President Bush was right Saturday to say we are fighting a new war and will have to be ready to strike when necessary, not just deter. But on the home front, we are moving too slowly to develop a homeland defense plan that is tough enough for this new war. Let us be clear about the stakes in this struggle. As in all wars, the question is not just who shall govern, but also one of life itself. More than 3,000 people died on Sept. 11th. And American lives remain at risk so long as we are in this conflict. modernization of the military Of course, no one makes a greater sacrifice, or a more important contribution to our security, than our nation's military. The first challenge of a new policy is to strengthen our Armed Forces for the future. We know our military must go through a transformation--and we need our legislative branch to be working on this transformation along with the executive and uniformed services. Each of the branches is already reaching for the goal of modernization. In the future, our Army will be lighter and faster; our Navy will deploy smaller, stealthier ships; the Marines will move faster and with more firepower; and the Air Force will revolutionize its planes and weapons systems. The results will be positive. As Bill Owens, the former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has suggested, electronics and computers should dramatically improve our forces without huge cost increases. But to set goals and achieve them are two different things. While some experts foresee transformations that could take up to 30 years, much of what we must accomplish has to happen in 15 or less. So we need to focus our energies and our resources. My suggestions for military reform come with two qualifiers. First, I am deeply committed to not politicizing our military and strategic decision- making. We achieve nothing if a good idea for our Department of Defense becomes a Republican or Democratic idea and gets bogged down in politics. Good ideas are too crucial to our nation to let them founder on partisanship. We need to change the way we think-- not just update our weapons systems--and we need to look for good ideas everywhere. Second, I hope that the suggestions I make today form the basis for further discussions. A comprehensive plan will come from the contributions of many. While I have a broad view of the direction I hope we will take, the complete picture can only be sketched out here. I believe we can strengthen our military through bipartisan efforts in three key areas: supporting the people who make up our Armed Forces; improving our technology and weaponry; and modernizing our systems for logistics and supply. First, we must work together to make sure we have a sufficient number of troops, and that they receive better compensation, and get the superb training they need. Under President Reagan, the Armed Forces reached a peak of about 2.2 million. Much has changed since that time: we currently have 1.4 million soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are severely strained as they bravely carry out a growing number of missions. General Ralston, our commander of NATO and U.S. troops in Europe, recently told Congress that he does not have the forces to accomplish what we are asking of him. Rep. Ike Skelton has been a strong leader on this issue in the House Armed Services Committee, and I will work with him to add troops in 2003. I recently read a disturbing article in the New York Times that described the situation of a young Sergeant, Eric Vega, who is with the 459th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base. Since he was activated on Sept. 22nd, Sergeant Vega has been on leave from his job with the Virginia State Troopers. Because of his service this year, he has lost about $25,000 in overtime pay, is working 14 to 18 hour days, and can't see very much of his 11 month old twins. I was heartened to read that he still planned to ren- enlist. But it is wrong that we are putting men and women like him through that. It is enough of a sacrifice to risk your life for your country; you should not have to also sacrifice your financial future. Sens. McCain and Bayh, Reps. Ford and Osborne have introduced bills to let young Americans sign an ``18-18-18 plan,'' which is one smart option for bringing more people into the service. Under this plan, which builds on work already begun in the Armed Services Committees, a person could serve 18 months in active duty, 18 months in the reserves and receive an $18,000 bonus, which can be used for educational purposes at the end of his or her service. We need to keep investigating more innovative ways to help people serve. We also need to work together to reform our training system. When I was in the Air National Guard, back in my younger days, I enjoyed the fierce rivalry my Air Force buddies felt towards the Army. But we had little contact with the Army. You trained and worked with those from your own branch. When a mission was called for, you were supposed to be ready. When it was an Army job, then it was their turn. Wars, of course, don't work like that anymore. And in recent years, our service branches have worked well together to develop joint operational capabilities. But we can do better. I suggest we create and expand military academies that would train field officers from all the services in new forms of strategies and tactics. Such schools could teach joint operations more comprehensively--intermingling air, land, seas and space for the battles ahead. It would be a useful step in breaking down barriers between the services, and in creating integrated tactical units. If President Bush is interested, I think this is one area where we could easily work together and make quick progress. And I would be willing to go much further and support programs to recruit and retain even more of the best students to prepare our military for the tasks ahead. The second challenge in military modernization is the acquisition of smart weapons and technologies that provide better knowledge of the battlefield. Under the President's current budget proposal, we will be spending $470 billion a year on defense by 2007, making it seem that we will be able to buy every weapon imaginable. But even at that huge amount, we need to spend wisely. One of the best things we can do is transform our military by linking new technologies with existing ones. I have been heartened, for example, to hear about the success of the GPS guidance kits that can be attached to so- called ``dumb bombs'' dropped by pilot-less aircraft or B- 52's. This relatively simple innovation makes bombs more accurate and is less expensive than designing whole new weapons systems. And where we can design entirely new weapons that revolutionize our capabilities on the battlefield, we must move ahead at full pace. One of the great successes in Afghanistan has been our ability to integrate data, an area where we must continue to invest. Pilot-less surveillance aircraft, like the Air Force's Predator, helped us get real time data on the enemy's movements, saving pilots and allowing commanders to respond immediately. The acquisition of these planes may seem costly--the 2003 budget calls for $150 million dollars more--but pilot-less planes will cost much less than an F-22. The quicker we can move to a dominating position with them worldwide, the better off we will be. The third area where we could obtain improved performance, and make our budgets more efficient, is logistics and procurement. Experts generally refer to the amount of resources devoted to support functions as opposed to war fighting capability as the `tail to tooth' ratio--and while the ratio was once 50/50 it is now 70% tail and only 30% tooth. The financial planning process at the Pentagon has not been overhauled since it was implemented almost 40 years ago by Robert McNamara. And a 1997 DOD report found that of the US military's $64 billion inventory of supplies, over $20 billion was obsolete. We need to update our logistics and supply systems. I want to thank the Business Executives for National Security--in particular the Chairman of its Executive Committee, Dr. Sidney Harman--for the insightful and non- partisan work they have done to highlight these issues. Dr. Harman and his group found that by adopting the best business practices for the military, the Pentagon could save $20-$30 billion annually without sacrificing quality. In 2000, it took an average of 30 days to receive a part through the defense logistics system. In contrast, the Caterpillar company can ship a part anywhere in the world within 48 hours, and usually in less than a day. We also know that the buying process takes too long. I was struck to read that development of the Crusader artillery system has already taken over ten years, while Boeing developed the 777 in just five. These delays cost money and results in time lost on the battlefield. Congress has been guilty of its own share of micromanaging and politics. I hope that we can work together better in this era where a weapon may be ``smart'' for only so long, and prolonged congressional fights--and procurement delays--may mean technology is stale by the time it is fully deployed. Throughout the military and Congress, there will be opportunities to work together to make sure transformation happens quickly. We have a chance in this new era to break down some old left/right obstacles and build consensus for moving forward. I would like to make another offer to President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld. I am ready to work with them and Speaker Hastert to appoint members to a bipartisan advisory commission to help build consensus for updating and modernizing the Armed Forces. The commission could work with experts and the Congress to make sure--just as we did during the Cold War--that we create bipartisan support for modernization and succeed at the new type of fighting already upon us. In World War II, Churchill said, ``Let us learn our lessons. Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth or easy.'' We would be foolish to forget that. If we learn our lessons together, we can make our military more effective, and make the world safer for all people. 21st century foreign policy But meeting the terrorist threat means rethinking more than simply the way we fight wars. We also need to reexamine the way in which we conduct our foreign policy. Our enemies are no longer just hostile governments, but foreign demagogues who seek support from the most impoverished citizens of the developing world. On the diplomatic front, a policy of commitment helps us prevent war and promote stability. This is especially true in the area of foreign assistance. A central goal of our foreign aid during the Cold War was to preserve alliances and prevent Soviet influence. Whether a recipient government was authoritarian or democratic was not the primary consideration, and promoting economic development was not always a goal. On the one hand, the Marshall Plan rebuilt Western Europe and ultimately locked in democracy from Germany to Greece. On the other hand, American aid to Zaire did little to improve living standards in that country. But it did make President Mobutu one of the richest men in the world. Today, promoting the universal values of freedom, fairness and opportunity has never been more in America's self- interest. We should seek to lead a community of nations that are law-abiding, prosperous, and democratic. Such a world would leave fewer places for terrorists to hide, and more places for citizens across the globe to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Afghanistan offers an excellent example of the strategic rationale for such a shift. America was generous to that country during much of the Cold War, and American military aid following the Soviet invasion was successful in its limited goal. In terms of a Cold War calculation, we had won and the rationale for American aid to Afghanistan disappeared. But into the vacuum left by the Soviet departure and the reduction in American interest, came an era of lawlessness and then the repressive theocracy of the Taliban. While some may have argued before September 11th that what happened in nations like Afghanistan didn't matter to Americans, we now know that tragically, it does. Today, nations in trouble or chaos anywhere in the world have real consequences for the United States. Some people have suggested that we stop using the term ``foreign aid.'' I agree. We should remake and rename it. Traditional foreign aid may have worked as a Cold War construct, but our goal now should be what I call American Partnerships. We should work closely with countries that want to improve bilateral relations and benefit their people, and insist that these relationships are true partnerships based on shared values. If we can help create a world with more economic growth, better health care, stronger education, and more human rights, particularly for women, we will be fulfilling an essential part of our foreign policy. Let me outline three qualities that should comprise this strategy. Economic development, democracy, and universal education. First, economic development. People without access to jobs and the hope for a better life face a bleak and desperate future. In the last several decades, as the rest of the world opened up--as trade and freedom of movement have become more a fact of life for most--many parts of the Middle East and Central Asia have remained closed. Regional barriers have discouraged trade, populations have skyrocketed, and too many economies have grown dependent on a single commodity--oil. We know that when nations open themselves up economically, they will ultimately enjoy greater prosperity and moderation. Trade is one important part of lifting up poor nations. In a speech I gave in January to the Democratic Leadership Council, I said that it is time we crafted a ``new consensus'' on trade. Everyone knows that trade should be an engine of growth for all nations, and that we can move beyond simple left vs. right debates to craft agreements that both promote trade and protect the environment and labor. I suggested then that the US-Jordan trade agreement was a model that serves American economic interests. Today, I also want to point out that it profoundly serves our national security and strategic interests as well. There are promising signs that we can build on this new consensus. We are currently negotiating trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, two nations that are ready to use Jordan as a model. If we are to open the Middle East and other regions to the hope of peace and prosperity, we will need more agreements like the one we reached with Jordan that meet these goals. But trade alone for many countries will not be enough. We need a generation of development partnerships that promote free markets and democratic governments and are leveraged to spur growth. Luckily, we have an opportunity for progress with the Millennium Fund that the President recently proposed in Monterrey, Mexico. I support its goal of fighting poverty and hunger, encouraging universal education, enhancing women's rights and health, reducing child mortality and promoting sustainable development. But we need to make sure this fund is not a shell game, diverting resources from other worthy development efforts, and I hope the President will work with Congress to provide increases for effective programs in the 2003 budget. Some of these new partnerships should also come in the form of micro-loans: support to individuals or small businesses who need access to capital and opportunity. In almost two-dozen Moroccan cities, small indigenous NGOs supported by the United States are dispensing $50 to $700 loans to individuals seeking to establish and expand businesses of their own. Such programs have generated tens of thousands of jobs around the world, and they build a foundation for future macroeconomic growth. Other support must help to defeat the scourge of HIV/AIDS. To achieve economic development, we must work together to improve prevention, treatment and care for people with this disease. I have been to Africa and seen the devastating pandemic on that continent, from Zimbabwe's villages to South Africa's maternity wards. It is a humanitarian crisis. It is a development crisis. And its ability to spread rapidly and destabilize nations in Africa and elsewhere makes it a national security crisis, too. Updating our foreign policy also requires renewing our commitment to democracy. In my career, I've been fortunate to spend a good deal of time abroad meeting with foreign leaders and their citizens. You can't learn everything out of a briefing book, and I've learned a great deal from these travels. But nothing prepared me for the suspicions towards America I found on my recent trip to the Middle East. Many students I met in relatively moderate nations such as Morocco asked questions about American plots against their land that seemed outlandish. The questioners often cited regular news broadcasts--media that in too many countries are filled with calls for hatred and violence. Just weeks ago, an outrageous Saudi broadcast called for the enslavement of Israeli women. We know in America that the antidote to these voices is more freedom. The censorship of legitimate criticism by some governments too often leads to popular anger and a search for scapegoats. We need to help moderate voices be heard in these counties because they will offer a better way for the future. And we can help. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia should be marketed as models for the delivery of compelling, objective broadcasting cross the globe. In a world within terrorism, our security is enhanced when accurate information about our policies can reach every household. We need to nurture civil society in these regions, work with governments and nascent legislatures, and encourage free expression and the broadening of rights for all people. The National Endowment for Democracy and its affiliates, NDI and IRI, deserve more support to expand the good work they're already doing in this area. We also must fight corruption and take measures to advance the rule of law. Of particular importance at this moment, we must demand that the Palestinian Authority take steps to formulate a truly operational, accountable and democratic governing entity. To date, Chairman Arafat has failed in each of these areas. Real progress toward peace will only be possible when the Palestinian Authority begins to adopt the rule of law and accountability as guiding principles. The third value that I think is stressed too little in our current foreign policy is education. The Pakistani government spends 90% of its budget on debt service and the military, and practically nothing on education. Governments in other developing countries have similar difficulties in meeting the demands of a rapidly growing population. In some Middle Eastern nations, almost half the people are under the age of 15, and the total population is expected to double in the next two decades. The majority of children in the Arab and Muslim world do not have access to a public education. Worldwide, more then 130 million children are not in school and do not receive a regular meal each day. Beyond the intrinsic merits of education, we know that in countries where education is universal, economies expand and population growth is held in check. We should work with developing nations to help them create universal education systems. I am happy that the Farm Bill includes the bipartisan George McGovern-Bob Dole initiative to provide school meals to hungry children if their parents allow them to go to school, and if the host country agrees to a program of education development. It is a good start and one we should expand. We must also encourage and help nations develop objective curricula that will advance their place in a global society. In Arab nations in particular, we must work, with governments to force blatant and ugly anti-Semitic and anti-American rhetoric out of textbooks and out of the classroom. If we don't make this a high priority, our hope of achieving a lasting peace in that region will never be realized. And our hope of building long-term partnerships will be dashed. I've touched on a few ways in which a refocused diplomatic agenda can promote long-term change in the Middle East. But let me be more direct. Depending on the choices we make in the weeks and months ahead, the Middle East will either continue to be a tinderbox for international instability, or a land of new alliances and hope for the future. Having witnessed the downward spiral of events in the region over the past year, I believe our first choice is clear--America must lead. We cannot expect that the parties to this conflict will resole it without the active support of the United States. We must be steadfast in our support for Israel, in words and deeds. The United States must speak frankly: there is no moral equivalence between suicide bombings and defending against them. We need strong measures to replace violence with dialogue, and despair with hope. And we must seek a lasting peace that provides real security for Israel and opportunity for all people in the region. The other regional challenge that requires American leadership is Iraq. Saddam Hussein survives by repressing his people and feeding on a cult of victimization. He is clearly not a victim, and I share President Bush's resolve to confront this menace head-on. We should use diplomatic tools where we can, but military means when we must to eliminate the threat he poses to the region and our own security. New foreign policy initiatives can help remove one of the legs of Saddam's survival by reducing the desperation of many in the Arab world who see him as a defiant ray of hope. At the same time, we should be prepared to remove the other leg with the use of force. I stand ready to work with this Administration to build an effective policy to terminate the threat posed by this regime. Strengthening Alliances As we reform our military and update our foreign policy, we must recognize that America cannot and should not do this alone. Leadership is not a synonym for unilateralism. When we lead a coalition, we advance not just universal values, but mutual security as well. After World War II, the United States created institutions that promoted economic growth and forged the military alliances that stood against communism. President Clinton wisely built on that tradition, creating new alliances that strengthened America's security. I hope the Administration will consider a new generation of international partnerships, regional security alliances, more flexible financial institutions, and treaties to help manage increasing economic, political, and military complexity. Over the past year, despite the unifying force of the war on terrorism, an undercurrent of unilateralism has strained our relations with allies in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Instead, we need to redouble efforts to strengthen NATO and reinvigorate bilateral pacts with South Korea and Japan. In this hemisphere, we should take advantage of the recently invoked Rio Pact to harmonize security arrangements and pursue democratic and economic objectives. And we must leverage all of these ties to forge wider regional alliances. I commend the Bush Administration for its work to construct a stronger partnership between NATO and Russia. This new arrangement should ultimately break down lingering suspicions and allow us to maximize strengths to confront shared threats. At the same time, we must intensify our bilateral work with Russia on a range of issues, especially the need to destroy unneeded nuclear weapons and keep others out of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations. Former Sen. Sam Nunn has identified this threat as the new nuclear arms race, and I join him in calling for immediate steps to avert what is no longer the unthinkable--the use of a weapon of mass destruction by an unknown enemy. Our government must allocate additional funds to secure these weapons and their components, and accept no more excuses for the proliferation of dangerous materials from Russia to Iran and elsewhere. The severe consequences of proliferation are on vivid display in the current tensions between India and Pakistan. We must do everything possible--on our own and with our allies--to diffuse this stand off, because the terrorists who have fueled it will be the sole beneficiaries of an all-out war. This is the new world in which we live. Disputes once considered remote can have deadly consequences if met with American apathy. We must also continue to encourage China's participation in bilateral and regional endeavors, provided that it agrees to the price of admission--adherence to international standards including human rights, trade practices and nonproliferation rules. As former Defense Secretary Bill Perry proved a few years ago in helping to develop a visionary policy toward North Korea, the United States and China can make great progress if we recognize the common, long-term interests that our people share. We should also look to new regional structures for projecting strength and stability, especially in places where our government is not willing to commit U.S. forces. A case in point is Africa, which some have claimed is not a national security priority for the United States. I disagree, and I was disappointed when the Bush administration cut funding for the Africa Crisis Responsive Initiative. This program was designed to build indigenous capability within Africa that could respond when needed, and help regional leaders like Nigeria calm trouble spots so the United States would not have to. We must be prepared to build alliances in regions that flare up unexpectedly. Afghanistan is the best example of this today. The Administration deserves credit for the military victory there. However, it will be shortsighted if we stop now and withhold support for expanding the international security presence beyond Kabul, as Interim President Karzai has urgently requested. Instead, we must take steps to make that nation a prime example of the coalition's unbending commitment to democracy and development. challenge to americans The last challenge I'd like to discuss today is to instill all these initiatives with a new energy of civic involvement at home and abroad. In a new, more interconnected world, individuals or small groups can pose a serious threat to America's heartland. Nineteen hijackers did what Germany and Japan failed to achieve in the entire Second World War. This is a new front involving our firefighter and police, our EMS, the INS, the Customs Agency, the Coast Guard and all other organizations responsible for protecting the United States. This is a completely new threat to our home front, and I am deeply concerned that the appropriate sense of urgency is absent from our civil defense efforts. After Pearl Harbor, we moved with speed to mobilize our nation in defense of democracy. Almost nine months after Sept. 11th, America has still not crafted a strategy to significantly strengthen our nation's security, despite a series of recent warnings from our government. We need to reorganize our homeland defense agencies in order to maximize the safety of all Americans. Not only does the Homeland Security Director need to be a cabinet officer-- he needs budgetary authority. He needs operational authority. And he must provide a comprehensive plan to the Congress on our national strategy for homeland security. Such a plan should involve all Americans in our civil defense effort. As the Intelligence Committees begin their hearings today, we all know that our ability to coordinate information gathered at home and abroad needs to be improved. A task force led by former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft has developed proposals to better integrate the work of our intelligence agencies. Given the urgency of collecting and utilizing intelligence effectively, I hope the Administration will act upon these ideas. Finally, we must harness the spirit that defined people's response to the Sept. 11th attacks. American citizens who have enjoyed the rich benefits of democracy and free markets possess a unique capacity to energize these values across the world. Let's be clear: Americans face a special challenge in this conflict: to educate ourselves as never before, to participate in decisions that affect all out lives, and to make connections with people across the globe. We need to encourage citizens of all ages to get involved in the Peace Corps, the diplomatic corps, Americorps, the CIA and the FBI. One of the efforts I am most enthusiastic about helps experienced Americans go overseas and share their skills with people in developing countries. I met a retired businessman from Chicago on my most recent trip to the Middle East. He had volunteered to run a start-up micro-loan program in Morocco. With his project nearing completion, I asked him what he was planning to do next. ``I thought about going home to play golf,'' he said. ``But I have decided to stay in the Middle East. I've seen what can be achieved here in Morocco, and I am going to another country and do it all over again.'' For every American like him, we counteract a book of lies. For every business he helps succeed and every person who finds a job, we diminish the pool from which the haters recruit. At home, government, industry, and individuals must also participate in this effort to expand knowledge of other peoples, and foster interaction between nations. In 1994, Newt Gingrich and I sponsored a pilot exchange program devised by the San-Francisco-based Center for Citizen Initiatives. Individual families in St. Louis and Atlanta hosted a handful of Russian entrepreneurs who came here to learn skills from American business people. Today, hundreds of Russians are coming to the U.S. each year to get hands-on training and Americans in more than 40 states are participating in the program. The challenge for every American is to convince the world that it is better to live together than at war, looking toward the promise of the future rather than the grievances of the past. Updating our public diplomacy requires updating our politics. In the 1990s, with the Cold War over, it seemed like the parties could play politics with any issue. But today we need a new politics based on an open exchange of approaches. We must be free to propose ideas and work together to implement the best ones. This may well be the most important public policy question of our lifetimes. We must be doing our very best, thinking our very best, working together at our very best. If we do, I think there is every reason for optimism. Extremist leaders who advocate violence against America must constantly worry that their own rhetoric will consume themselves and their cause. To quote Churchill once more, ``dictators ride on tigers which they dare not dismount.'' In contrast, we have the luxury of trusting in democracy and the good sense of our fellow citizens. Just as we battled the Soviets through 50 years of the Cold War as a united America, so will we battle terrorists and their supporters for as long as it takes. Today, we enjoy a new and productive relationship with Russia; one day, we will hopefully enjoy a new and productive relationship with those who distrust us now. We know that civilization requires protection, and that freedom demands commitment and sacrifice. But it also requires imagination and clear thinking. In 1947, in an address to a joint session of Congress, Harry Truman spoke about the communist threat in Europe, and the struggle for freedom and democracy in Greece and Turkey. He ended his speech with the reminder: ``Great responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift movement of events.'' Twice in the last century, and now again, our nation is being asked to measure itself. If we fail, the consequences are severe. For ourselves, and for the world, let us succeed.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a distinguished and unique individual--Victor S. Wahby, M.D., Ph.D., founder and director of the VA-National Medical Musical Group, the largest medical chorale and symphony orchestra in America. The musicians of this award-winning group are healers and medical clinicians, scientists or medical administrators by profession, but they are all also extremely talented and well-trained musicians. They embrace Dr. Wahby's vision of ``music that heals.'' A renaissance man, Dr. Wahby is a physician, scientist, musician, poet, and a leading medical practitioner and administrator at the Veterans' Health Administration in Washington, DC. Dr. Wahby has had an extraordinary career. In his younger years at the Mayo Clinic, he provided critical medical care to such notables as the Rev. Billy Graham, Dr. Charles Malik and Corrie Ten Boom. Subsequently, while on faculty of Yale University, he published research on the hormonal correlates of depression and appetite. In his current position as a leading VA physician-executive, he has received many national recognitions. Just this year he and his team won the prestigious Government Executive Technology Award, the e-gov Pioneer Award, the Knowledge Management World Award, as well as numerous others. Mr. Speaker, in 1996 Dr. Wahby and the VA-National Medical Musical Group initiated a unique patriotic event that has become an annual tradition here on Capitol Hill--the Congressional Flag Day Concert. This program of word and music is sponsored by the prayer breakfast organizations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is held on or around Flag Day (June 14) for the past six years. The seventh in this annual concert series will take place tomorrow, Thursday, June 13, at 1:00 p.m. in the Cannon Caucus Room. The Congressional Flag Day Concerts have been embraced by members of both houses of the Congress and their staff, and it has enjoyed wide public support and strong media interest. Many leaders from different fields and varied backgrounds have endorsed and participated in this program, which emphasizes national healing and unity. I have personally had the honor of participating in several of these concerts, and I always come away entertained, refreshed and inspired. The 2002 Concert Honorary Committee is chaired by First Lady Laura Bush, and the vice chairs are my wife, Annette, and Mrs. Patricia Lott, the wife of Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott. Others who serve on the committee include Lynne Cheney, former President Bill Clinton, former Senator Bob Dole, Dr. Henry Kissinger and other distinguished Americans. Mr. Speaker, these Flag Day Concerts have emphasized the honoring of America's veterans and the men and women serving in our nation's armed forces. This year, the choir and orchestra will perform the ``Veterans Hymn''--composed by Dr. Wahby. It is a tribute to the energy, enthusiasm, patriotism, and showmanship of Dr. Wahby that the VA-National Medical Musical Group has been awarded the 2002 Congressional Medal of Honor Society's Bob Hope Award. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Dr. Victor Wahby for his service to our nation and for his outstanding leadership and dedication to healing through medicine and through music. And, Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues and their staff to join me tomorrow afternoon in the Cannon Caucus Room for the 2002 Annual Flag Day Concert.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, while America slept, another suicide bomber hit in Israel. Sixteen innocent people were killed, over 50 people were wounded, many of them critically. Our population is 50 times that of Israel. On a comparable scale, this would be like reading in our morning paper that 800 American citizens were massacred overnight, with some 2,500 wounded, many critically. In his speech at West Point, the President clearly stated, ``The only way to deal with terrorists is by preemptive action.'' We will have to do this wherever terrorists are planning to hit us, and the Israelis have to do it to protect their own citizens. This pattern of murder must come to an end.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution condemning Iran's continued support for international terrorism, its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, and a recent investment that supports these heinous activities, which are of utmost concern to the national security interests of the United States and to the war on terrorism. In particular, this resolution addresses the Canadian oil company Sheer Energy and the National Iranian Oil Company recent announcement of an $80 million contract for development of an Iranian petroleum field. I am appalled that a Canadian oil company would aid and abet Iran's campaign of international terrorism by cutting a deal with the regime's oil exploration and development arm. The $80 million contract to develop oil fields in Iran shows conspicuous contempt for the terrorist threat that Iran clearly represents. Furthermore, Iran is clearly embarked on a policy of developing weapons of mass destruction with oil profits such as those to be gained through this deal. I call on the Administration to impose the stiffest sanctions on this rogue company in accordance with the law of the land. We cannot permit greedy multinational corporations to lubricate the machinery of terrorism operating in Iran and elsewhere through such corrupt and inhumane oil deals. Mr. Speaker, this oil deal flouts much more than United States law. It flouts every principle America and all civilized nations are fighting for in the war against terrorism. It flouts the memory of all those innocent men and women that perished on September 11th, including a number of Canadian nationals. The profits reaped from this deal by the ayatollahs in Iran will be used to bankroll terrorist organizations, such as Hizbollah, that target U.S. citizens and interests abroad. I am introducing a resolution today which urges the Bush Administration to punish the Canadian company with economic and financial sanctions in accordance with the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. We must shut off the spigot of blood money to Iran now--or pay the price in lives lost later.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, H.R. 4073, which amends and reauthorizes the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 2000 and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan compromise bill that truly improves upon the original legislation, and I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for their extraordinary efforts in crafting this legislation as well as recognizing the support of our colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). I also want to acknowledge the pioneering work on the microenterprise that was done by the former chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and Mr. Gejdensen, who introduced the Microenterprise for Self- Reliance Act of 2000, which was signed into law by President Clinton. Microenterprise programs have proven to be an effective means of providing poor households with the financial tools needed to generate income, create savings, and develop businesses to help alleviate poverty. We have seen the transforming impact of these programs in every country and on every continent where development work is being done. Microenterprise is founded on the very basic premise that by providing poor households with the tools to manage their finances better, be it through the provision of small loans or even the ability to open a savings account, we can help to improve their lives and even lift them out of poverty. This principle is illustrated so dramatically in Bangladesh by the Grameen Bank that has been so successfully replicated around the globe and provides an effective tool for poverty alleviation and reduction. Therefore, I am very pleased that we are not only reauthorizing microenterprise legislation, but we are also increasing the amount of funding for these programs. Our legislation seeks to improve targeting of assistance to the poorest of the poor by requiring the administration to develop more precise tools to measure poverty, and it creates better means of reaching the very poor in every country where this program operates. Specifically, our legislation ensures that at least half of all microenterprise funding authorized be specifically set aside for programs or services in which half of the incoming clients are among the very poor. I hope that by passing this legislation we will be providing the tools and the resources needed to continue this most important work. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4073. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend from New Mexico, I feel compelled to recognize the fact that the distinguished member of his family, the late Mo Udall, gave this body so much wit and wisdom and judgment and service. His own father served with great distinction as our Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Speaker, we do not have an aristocracy of birth or an aristocracy of wealth in our country, but we do have an aristocracy of public service. I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), a member of that aristocracy.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), who has done so much work on this issue. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), who has played such a pivotal role in shaping intelligent, far-sighted foreign policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), my good friend and distinguished colleague.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before yielding time, I would like to comment on the previous speaker's observations. It is very much in the U.S. national interests not to allow the Taliban and al Qaeda to reestablish their bases in Afghanistan. Unless I am mistaken, it is their activities that resulted in the deaths of 3,000 of our fellow citizens in New York and at the Pentagon. It is very much in the U.S. national interest to put an end to opium production in Afghanistan. It is very much in the U.S. national interest to have a stable, prosperous, and democratic society in that part of the world. And I believe the overwhelming majority of Members of this body and the American people see that as clearly as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I do. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend my good friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for introducing this important resolution, as well as my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) for their leadership roles in moving it forward. Mr. Speaker, when the Indonesian military invaded East Timor in 1975, it seemed that the hope of the East Timorese people to live in freedom and with dignity had been extinguished forever. Those who subsequently spent more than 2 decades fighting for East Timor's independence, both in East Timor and internationally, were dismissed as hopeless dreamers. East Timor was gone, the argument went, and the United States Congress, nongovernmental organizations, and others were only causing unnecessary tension in our relationship with Indonesia by continuing to fight for justice. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that it was our Congressional Human Rights Caucus which held the first hearing on the outrages against East Timorese and spoke out for independence and freedom and religious freedom in East Timor. Well, Mr. Speaker, standing up for human rights and democracy in East Timor was the right and moral course of action and, as a result of the bravery of the East Timorese people and concerted international pressure, we stand here today welcoming East Timor as the first new nation of the new millennium. When the United Nations first entered East Timor in the brutal aftermath of the 1999 independence referendum, they found burned-out buildings, a devastated infrastructure, and hundreds of thousands of refugees who desperately wanted to return home. Many questioned whether the international community and the United Nations were up to the task of nation-building. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the U.N.'s record in East Timor since October 1999 demonstrates the relevance of the United Nations when it is not blinded by mindless hostility to the state of Israel. I want to pay special tribute to our friends in Australia who led the International Security Force that enabled East Timor to be created. Mr. Speaker, all this was accomplished in slightly over 2 years. The resolution before us today not only welcomes East Timor into the community of nations, but also expresses strong congressional support for the United Nations' peacekeeping forces, which are safeguarding East Timor's security. Some administration officials recently threatened to hold up the renewal of the enormously successful East Timor peacekeeping mission because of professed concerns regarding the International Criminal Court. I am very pleased that with the passage of this resolution, Congress is standing strongly in support of the U.N. mission which does include U.S. personnel. There is much work left to be done, Mr. Speaker. The House has already approved the East Timor Transition to Independence Act, legislation I introduced last year, to guide the U.S. political security and economic relationship with East Timor in the coming years. Our bill will ensure that the United States provides the foreign assistance and investment that East Timor so desperately needs, as well as help in establishing adequate armed forces so it can defend its own borders. I hope that our legislation will be signed into law as part of the State Department authorization bill in the very near future. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that East Timor has a bright future. East Timor citizens have a democratic government; they enjoy the rule of law; they have the support of the international community and the strong desire to succeed. I am confident that the United States will have a strong friend in East Timor's people and its government. I strongly support H. Con. Res. 405, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my good friend and distinguished colleague.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood). (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.