Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues a particularly insightful article by Joschka Fischer, Federal Foreign Minister of Germany. He discusses the unique relationship between the Federal Republic of Germany and the State of Israel. The article was published on May 13 of this week in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany's most distinguished newspapers. The Federal Republic of Germany is not the Nazi Germany that perpetrated the Holocaust, and the democratic and pluralistic government that has emerged in Germany since 1945 is rightfully one of our closest and most important allies and friends. Nevertheless, because of Germany's history, the German government has a special responsibility and a special relationship with the state of Israel. It also has a special responsibility to fight against intolerance and racism. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to read Foreign Minister Fischer's perceptive comments thoughtfully and carefully. His sensitivity to the relationship between Germany and Israel and his criticism of the atmosphere of anti-Semitism welling up in western Europe reflects the finest of German culture and tradition. I commend Foreign Minister Fischer for his courageous and outspoken article. I wish with all my heart that there were other such prominent individuals who would be as bold and outspoken and honest as Joschka Fischer. I wish there were others who would speak out with such clarity and force against the anti-Israel hysteria that is fast becoming anti-Semitic frenzy in France and elsewhere in western Europe. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Foreign Minister Fischer's article be placed in the Record, and again I urge my colleagues to read it thoughtfully. The Question Facing Germany: Can We Criticize Israel? (By German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer) Berlin.--Germany remained silent, conspicuously silent considering the unspeakable statements made recently by Jurgen Mollemann, the chairman of Free Democrats in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia and the head of the German-Arab Society, and those of like mind. In his statements, Mr. Mollemann showed that he was a verbal resistance fighter against corporation and bravely announced that he, of course, would also attack the aggressor in his own country. The heroic talk was directed at Israel, and Mr. Mollemann was referring to the Palestinian struggle against the occupation. We, therefore, can safely assume that he was not calling on Hamas to distribute leaflets to Israel, but justifying their terrorist bomb attacks. There was no national outcry, no resignation, nothing of the kind. Instead, Mr. Westerwelle said it should be possible to criticize Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism. Something seems to have changed in Germany, and nobody notices this with greater authority and distress than German Jews. They feel alone, again, and that ought not be so. Not in Germany. ``Given anti-Semitism in Germany and Europe that is becoming more manifest in the context of the Middle East conflict, the old Damocles sword question once again hangs over the heads of Jews living in Germany: Was it right to stay in Germany?'' When this kind of warning comes from the pen of such an attentive and sensitive observer of German- Jewish relations as Solomon Korn (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on May 6), it raises a question for each and every one of us and, indeed, the question of whether German democracy is credible. Mr. Korn, the leader of the Jewish community in Frankfurt, notes that many German Jews have felt abandoned in recent months. He describes how it feels to be viewed as ``collectively liable'' for any action taken by Israel against the Palestinians. And he also refers to the very understandable ``old traumas'' and ``barely healed emotional wounds'' that German criticism of Israel never ceases to evoke there. ``Were the same criticisms of Israel expressed by Americans, for instance, it would hurt far less than when expressed by the Germans . . .'' Why do such obvious things need to be explicitly stated again today? Strictly speaking, what is at issue is the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. But on a different level, whenever Israel is discussed in Germany, the fundamental debate about German identity is never far behind. ``Can we criticize Israel?'' The mere question raises suspicion because, of course, we can and indeed sometimes must criticize the politics of the Israeli government. Nowhere is this done more forcefully than in Israel itself. Every democratically elected government makes mistakes and is, by definition, subject to criticism. In the Middle East, a tragic conflict is escalating. Two peoples are fighting for the same land, and only a historical compromise based on the formula ``two states, one peace'', will be able to solve this conflict. The current situation inspires little hope. Israel feels threatened by continuing Palestinian terror. At Camp David in the summer of 2000, so the Israeli view, Israel offered the Palestinians a state of their own and was given the second Intifada in return. Since then, Israel has been fighting for its survival once again, for a life in safety and in recognized borders. The Palestinians finally want an end to the Israeli occupation, to the continued building of Israeli settlements and to the loss of territory. They are fighting for their own state, for a life in dignity. However, after the Camp David talks broke down, the agonizing question in Israel remains whether the Palestinian leadership in the end does not want more and indeed something entirely different. -The right of pre-1967 refugees to return to Israel, the terror deployed to force Israel to accept false compromises, the demographic factor that works against Israel, the fear for the Jewish character of Israel and the fear of a bi- national Palestine and the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state as the long term goal of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization--these are Israeli fears right across the political spectrum. -The Palestinians fear that Israel wants to force them to make further territorial concessions, though in their view, by accepting the borders of June 4, 1967, they are contenting themselves with 22 percent of the land. Land for peace is the only possible compromise formula. Radical Israelis want peace and land, while radical Palestinians want land without peace. Neither will work. -This tragic and extremely dangerous situation is not really appropriate for a German identity debate, but for coordinated action by the international community, led by the United States and supported by Europe, to break the spiral of violence and lead the parties of the conflict back to the negotiating table step by step. -So why is there such fierce criticism of Israel here in Germany and in Europe? Why is there such widespread bias? This is exactly what Mr. Korn's warning addresses, and quite rightly. Given Germany's history, criticism of Israel always also reflects the mental state of our country. -Fifty years ago, West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and Israel's first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, laid the foundations for relations between Israel and a democratic Germany that still apply today. Since then, German democracy has--occasionally in the face of some resistance--accepted Germany's continuing historical responsibility for the genocide of German and European Jewry, and this responsibility is the firm and central founding stone of German democracy after 1945. -This was the only way for trust to grow between the former perpetrators and victims. Only on this basis could a chance for new coexistence emerge from what historian Dan Diner called the ``negative symbiosis.'' No line can be drawn under Germany's historical and moral responsibility for the destruction of European Jewry. It forms the basis of Germany's social obligation to uphold the right of existence and security for Israel and its citizens. This responsibility is not a matter of current political constellations, but a permanent principle of German policy. -Israel can rely on democratic Germany as a partner and friend, now and in the future. Our obligations, our ties and the fact the ice remains thin even after 50 years must be respected by all criticism in Germany that does not aim to destroy what has been built since Konrad Adenauer and David Ben Gurion began. -Otherwise, criticism not only would cause harm, but also increasingly compromise Germany's capacity to help the search for a just peace in the Middle East. Or, to put it differently: Criticism is possibly only on the firm foundation of indelible solidarity--and there have been things in recent months that do compel Israel's friends to express criticism in the interest of Israel itself. -But there is a second issue that weighs just as heavily as Germany's special relationship with Israel. It concerns ourselves, Germany and us Germans. Do we actually comprehend what Nazi barbarism and its genocidal anti-Semitism did to us, to Germany, its people and its culture? What Hitler and the Nazis did to Germany's Jews they did first and foremost to Germans, to Germans of the Jewish faith! Albert Einstein was as much a German as was Max Planck. The Nazis excluded an entire group of our own people, deprived them of their rights, dispossessed them, humiliated and then finally expelled or murdered them. -This is why the question whether German Jews feel secure in our democracy and, though even today this can only be a hope, might one day be able to feel ``at home'' in it again, is not a minor one, but a question par excellence about the credibility of German democracy. -When Germany sent its Jewish citizens to Auschwitz and other extermination camps from platform 17 of the Berlin- Grunewald station and countless other ramps and enriched itself with their worldly good, it robbed itself, its culture and society. Germany has been unable to close this wound inflicted by the Nazis to the present day. The Holocaust monument will be a symbol of this loss that Germany inflicted on itself through its barbarity to its own citizens, the effects of which are still being felt today. -Jewish communities in Germany have grown perceptibly since German unification in 1990, largely as a result of immigration from the former Soviet Union. New Jewish schools are being built, German-speaking rabbis are once more being trained at the Jewish University in Heidelberg and the Abraham-Geiger College in Potsdam. And still Mr. Korn calls the Jews in Germany a ``source of continuing unease that is hard to define.'' An unease, that some possibly try to overcome by unconsciously--on the issue of the Middle East crisis--turning the descendents of the victims into perpetrators, believing this could salve one's conscience. But this is a dangerous misconception, that, under the slogan of presumed ``normalization,'' can end only in the abyss of anti-Semitism. -The unconscious mechanism of transferring guilt to Israel's policy in the Middle East will not release Germany from responsibility for its history. One should not even attempt that, for it will end in disaster. The only response to our history must be a positive one: a growing Jewish community in Germany with Jewish people who can live here in freedom and safety as citizens--and not as ``fellow citizens!''--of our republic. The extent to which we succeed in supporting and promoting the life and well-being of Jewish communities in Germany is also a yardstick of our ability to create an open and tolerant society. For that reason, each and every instance of anti-Semitism is not only a threat to Jews in Germany, but also to our society and our democracy as a whole. ``Is it right to stay in Germany?'' The ease or difficulty with which our Jewish compatriots are able to answer yes to this question depends crucially on whether they can live perfectly ``normally'' as Jews in Germany and as Germans. -Nevertheless, the German-Jewish relationship will always remain a very special thing. This is why there is a need for sensitivity and unrelenting self-scrutiny. Only once there is natural togetherness can there be criticism that does not attack the precarious German-Jewish relationship at its roots. And hence, silence about current events in the Middle East, Germany and Europe, which rightly distresses many Jews in Germany, is impossible. -Are the Jews in our own country strangers to us? Even today? What can we do against this mixture of unsparing frankness and speechlessness that Mr. Korn complains of between Jews and non-Jews in Germany? This challenge cannot be turned into a historical issue; it will not fade with time. On the contrary, criticism of Israel that is founded on the obligation imposed on us by our history, on trust and friendship is not anti-Semitism--and it does not force German Jews to unconditionally support everything that is democratically decided in Israel. -Under no circumstances can we permit the tragic conflict in the Middle East that pits the legitimate aspirations and rights of two peoples apparently irreconcilably against each other to be used as an instrument for domestic political ends. Those who practice such methods to capture a mood and votes, those who wish to dispose of German history, as it were, by a detour to the Middle East, and those who hit the wrong note by misconceived reaction must be opposed by all those who perceive German unity as freedom to accept responsibility and not act as an escape into a supposedly harmless ``normality.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ruth Nagler for her public service on the occasion of her 80th birthday on May 21, 2002. In addition to being a mother and grandmother, Mrs. Nagler has devoted much of her long and full life in service to her community. Mrs. Nagler was born in Brooklyn, New York, and received her undergraduate degree from the College of the City of New York (now the City University of New York) in 1943, and then a Master of Arts in education from New York University in 1945. Continuing her inclination towards education, Mrs. Nagler was elected to the San Mateo City Elementary School District Board of Trustees in 1963. She served in that body until 1973, and served as Chairman of the Board from 1965-1967. She was also appointed by the San Mateo City Council to sit on the San Mateo City Library Board of Trustees from 1963 to 1970. She also served as the Director of Community Education for Canada College in Redwood City from June 1968, when the campus originally opened, to June 1980. She then worked as the Director of Community Education for San Mateo County Community College from July 1980 to January 1988. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the success and vitality of a community is dependent on the actions and involvement of its citizens. I can think of no better example of a concerned and dynamic participant than Ruth Nagler. Ruth has shown a commitment to public service well beyond her enormous contribution in the field of education. She served on the Mills Peninsula Hospitals Board of Trustees from 1975 to the present, and is currently the Chair of the Joint Conference Committee. She is also the chair of the Friends of the Advisory Committee on Women, a position to which she was appointed in November 1986 by the Advisory Council on Women of San Mateo County. She is a member of the Board of Directors of the Women's Center of San Mateo County and is the chair of the San Mateo Performing Arts Center Board of Directors (SAMPAC). Mrs. Nagler's history of community service is indeed long and distinguished. From 1976 to 1986 she was a member of the Executive Board of the Human Investment Project (HIP) of San Mateo County, and served as the chair of that organization from 1984 to 1985. She was also on the Executive Board of the San Mateo County Women's Recovery Association from 1973 to 1984. Mrs. Nagler was a member of the Communications Committee of the San Mateo County American Cancer Society, aided the San Mateo City Citizens Task Force to Study Needs of Seniors, and participated in the United Crusade Sponsored Citizens Task Force to Study Educational Needs in South San Mateo County. She was also a key member of the Executive Board and Planning Committee for the San Mateo County American Revolution Bicentennial Committee from 1974- 1976. In addition to her elected and appointed leadership in these many community service organizations, Mrs. Nagler has been a member of the League of Women Voters since 1951 and served as president of the San Mateo League from 1959 to 1961. She has also been a member of the San Mateo branch of the American Association of University Women since 1965, and was a member of the San Carlos Branch from 1976 to 1979. Other memberships include Women's Resource Center in Palo Alto (since 1973), the Redwood City Soroptimists Club (1976-1977), the Program Committee of the San Mateo County Planned Parenthood Association (1970- 1971), the United Nations Association of San Mateo County, and the San Mateo Parents Cooperative Nursery School (1952-1956). The Naglers also served in 1965 as a host family for the Experiment in International Living. Mr. Speaker, those who know Ruth Nagler well admire her for her dedication and service. Her years of commitment to community have not gone unnoticed by those with whom she has worked. She has received numerous awards and recognitions, of which I will mention just a few. Mrs. Nagler was admitted to the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame in 1988. She received a bicentennial award in 1976 from the Trinity Baptist Church of San Mateo in ``recognition of extraordinary accomplishment and outstanding contribution to community education and cultural advancement and strengthening of home and family life.'' In 1976 she was honored by the Japanese-American Citizens League of San Mateo County with the Community Services Award ``for appreciation and recognition for outstanding leadership to the community.'' She has also received the San Mateo Elementary Teachers Association Community Services Award (1973), the Girls Club of the Mid-Peninsula Community Services Award ``for outstanding leadership and contributions to the community'' (1973), and the Civil de Hidalgo Certificate of Appreciation for work related to the human rights and education of Hispanic adults and children (1972). She was also given the Special Services Award by minority parents and students of the San Mateo City School District for ``long and devoted services to the youth of San Mateo and dedicated service to the integrated learning process'' in recognition of her work from 1961 to 1973. The Park, Foster City and Audubon schools of the San Mateo City Elementary District, the Canada College Patrons Association, and the San Mateo County Community College District have granted Mrs. Nagler honorary life membership in the PTA. Mrs. Nagler's perpetual devotion to education was also duly recognized by friends and supporters who established the Ruth K. Nagler Scholarship Fund at the conclusion of her service on the San Mateo Elementary School Board of Trustees. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Ruth K. Nagler's enormous service to our community are worthy of our praise and commendation. As a Member of Congress, I am proud to pay tribute to Ruth K. Nagler, who has taken such a firm and intense interest in those around her in our area. I join her many friends and admirers in the Bay Area in honoring her on her 80th birthday, and wish her many happy, healthy, and successful years to come.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the Hungarian embassy, along with the American Hungarian Federation of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., and the Hungarian Reformed Federation of America, organized a meeting to honor Lajos Kossuth, the influential Hungarian statesman and an advocate for democratic ideals in Hungary in the middle of the nineteenth century. The event commemorated Kossuth's celebrated visit to America 150 years ago. Following an invitation from the President of the United States, Kossuth arrived in New York City on December 5, 1851, marking the beginning of a six-month tour of the country. During his time here, Kossuth gave several hundred speeches throughout the United States, including separate addresses in both houses of Congress. Kossuth received praise by many notable American political leaders and intellectuals, including William Lloyd Garrison, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Horace Greeley, and Abraham Lincoln. In response to Kossuth's visit, approximately 250 poems, dozens of books, hundreds of pamphlets, and thousands of editorials were written about him. Mr. Speaker, since I was born in Hungary, the legacy of Lajos Kossuth holds a special place in my heart. But by no means are the ideals and values of this noble man limited to a specific country. He devoted his life to fight for and defend democracy, freedom, and human liberties. Kossuth has been named, alongside George Washington, as a symbol of ``universal human values.'' I do not hesitate to echo this sentiment and encourage all of us to learn more about Kossuth and the causes he held dear. In that vein, I would like to share with my colleagues the excellent speech given by the Hungarian Ambassador to the United States Geza Jeszenszky at the event to honor Kossuth. Jeszensky's speech, entitled, ``150 Years of Influence of Louis Kossuth, Governor-President of Hungary,'' gives an excellent overview of Kossuth's visit to the United States and its lasting influence on America. I would like to share his remarks with my colleagues, and request that they be placed in the Record. 150 Years of Influence of Louis Kossuth, Governor-President of Hungary (By Ambassador Geza Jeszenszky) Congressman Lantos, Mrs. Lantos, Your Excellency Ambassador Poptodorova, distinguished other members of the Diplomatic Corps, Leaders of the American Hungarian community, Ladies and Gentlemen, dear Friends: Senator Seward of New York described Kossuth in the U.S. Senate on Dec. 8, 1851 as ``a personage whose name and fame at this time fills the eye and ear of the world.'' Hungary had many great statesmen and other luminaries in her checkered history, but Kossuth stands out among them. Like George Washington, he was regarded as the father of the nation already in his lifetime. He was the first Hungarian political leader to make it into world history, on his visits he was admired and welcomed in England, France, the U.S. and in Italy by enthusiastic crowds. At least 100,000 turned out to great him in New York City on Broadway. He was a star matched by few politicians. Kossuth is considered as one of the great orators of all times. He could capture his audience in Hungarian, German, Latin and English, too. He also knew a lot about the history and constitution of America. As the editor of the first popular daily newspaper in Hungary he established the reputation of the U.S. as a most successful country and a political model. The democratic revolution in 1848, inspired and led by Kossuth, transformed Hungary from a neglected and oppressed province of the Habsburgs into a modern constitutional and independent state. The armed attack on it by the Habsburg Army led to a War of Independence, and it was followed with keen interest by millions in Europe and America. Following a series of spectacular victories in the spring the Hungarian Parliament elected Kossuth Governor-President on April 14, 1849. The U.S. sent an envoy, Mr. Dudley Mann, with the intention of recognizing Hungary's independence. That was forestalled by the Russian intervention--for the first, but not for the last time! President Zachary Taylor was an enthusiastic supporter of the cause of Hungary--his reports and instructions to the Senate at the end of 1849 testify that. The bloody reprisals following the surrender of the Hungarian Army in August 1849 even increased the sympathy worldwide--this is another painful parallel with 1956. There were a number of prominent members of the U.S. Congress who took a very strong interest in Hungary in those days, most notably Senator Cass of Michigan (who in early 1850 moved to break diplomatic relations with Austria), and Senator Webster of Massachusetts. There was even a move in the House of Representatives to censure the President and the Secretary of State for failing to recognize the independence of Hungary in due time. The death of President Taylor was a blow to the Hungarians as well. His successor, President Fillmore was more reserved, but his Secretary of State became Webster, an admirer of Kossuth. In Spring 1851 Senator Foot of Mississippi moved to send a warship for Kossuth to bring him over to the States from his exile in Turkey. The Senate concurred, and the frigate Mississippi was dispatched. Kossuth arrived in New York on December 4, 1851. He was welcomed by huge crowds, both there and subsequently in Philadelphia and Baltimore. The exiled Head of State came to the United States with far higher aims than raising money for the continuation of the Hungarian War of Independence. While he fully understood why the Founding Fathers of the Republic warned against entangling alliances, he hoped to bring about a fundamental change in U.S. foreign policy: to convince the country that the time came for taking an active role in international affairs, commensurate with its strength, and to make Americans realize the interdependence of Europe and the U.S., that the Atlantic was no longer a barrier but rather a link, that freedom and democracy in Europe was also a vital interest for the American Republic, and, finally, that the two English-speaking countries must be allied so that they could jointly prevent tyrannical, authoritarian countries like Russia from suppressing the striving of subject nations for freedom. The effort to bring about a fundamental change in U.S. foreign policy, to abandon neutrality and isolationism was bound to fail in 1852--but wasn't Kossuth's only a premature but sound idea? Sixty-six years later, in 1917, the U.S. acted along such lines, and ninety years later the Atlantic Charter came to embody the principles first advocated by the Hungarian leader. While Kossuth's first speeches in New York were received most warmly by crowded audiences, they cooled the enthusiasm of quite a few in Congress. On Dec. 2, 1851 the President expressed his wish that Congress should decide on how to receive the Hungarian statesman. A heated debate started on the following day. Foote's move for an official reception was opposed by Southern Democrats and by radical free-soilers, who saw a contradiction between welcoming a foreign freedom- fighter while denying freedom to slaves. Conservatives denounced Kossuth as a revolutionary. The debate ran for eight days! Charles Sumner of Massachusetts called Kossuth ``a living Washington,'' while Senator Seward of New York gave a moving testimony of his significance, as follows: ``Mr. President, in the course of human events, we see the nations of Europe struggling to throw off the despotic systems of government, and attempting to establish a government based upon the principles of republicanism or of constitutional monarchy. Whenever such efforts are made, it invariably happens that the existing despotisms of Europe endeavor to suppress the high and holy endeavor, and to subdue the people by whom it is made. The consequence is that despotism has one common cause; and it results that the cause of civil and constitutional liberty has, in all countries, become one common cause--the common cause of mankind against despotism. Now, whatever nation leads the way at any time--at any crisis--in this contest for civil liberty, it becomes, as we perceive, the representative of all the nations of the earth. We once occupied that noble and interesting position, and we engaged the sympathies of civilized men throughout the world. No one can deny that now, or recently, Hungary took that position. We had a messenger on the spot ready to acknowledge her independence; and this our own proceeding show that we, in common with the friends of civil liberty elsewhere, hailed Hungary as such a representative of the nations of the earth.'' Senator Cass said that while denouncing Russia's intervention was morally imperative, it did not mean that the U.S. would send a fleet to European waters. Stephen Douglas called attention to the fact that Kossuth challenged European absolutism, the antipode of the basic principles the U.S. had been built upon and that he was a representative of world freedom. (Today we might use the expression ``a world whole and free.'') Finally on Dec. 12 the Senate adopted Seward's motion with Shield's (Ill.) modification: Kossuth was to be received exactly like Lafayette had been. There was 36 vote for that and 6--from the South--against. The House of Representatives concurred on Dec. 15: 181 for and 16 against, with Rep. Smith from Alabama saying that if Kossuth continued to agitate against friendly Austria he should be arrested! All that shows that while the country came under the spell of the Hungarian leader, Congress overwhelmingly concurring, sectional interests and ideological concerns acted as a brake even in what was hardly more than a symbolic gesture. Kossuth's train arrived in Washington on Dec. 30. He was received by Senators Shield and Seward. Secretary Webster immediately visited him in his hotel, followed by the mayor and a large number of politicians and various associations, delegations. The House was still debating about the details of his reception. On the next day, Dec. 31, Kossuth called upon President Fillmore. In a masterly speech he presented the case of Hungary, calling for help. The President expected only a courtesy call, so in his answer he told that he personally sympathized with Hungarian independence, but the policy of the Union would not abandon the traditions. This should not have been a surprise, but nevertheless it was a cold shower for Kossuth. On Jan. 7 Cass, Shields and Seward presented him to the Senate, and on the same day the House appointed three members to show him to the House. Kossuth's answer to the welcoming words of the Speaker was brief but telling. ``It is a remarkable fact in the history of mankind, that while, through all the past, honors were bestowed upon glory, and glory was attached only to success, the legislative authorities of this great republic bestow the highest honors upon a persecuted exile, not conspicuous by glory, not favored by success, but engaged in a just cause. There is a triumph of republican principles in this fact. Sir, in my own and my country's name, I thank the House of Representatives of the United States for the honor of this cordial welcome.'' On that evening a banquet was given by both Houses in Kossuth's honor, with 250 attending, including Webster and two other members of the cabinet. Kossuth gave a non- controversial speech: ``Happy is your great country, Sir, for being so warmly attached to that great principle of self- government. Upon this foundation your fathers raised a home for freedom more glorious than the world has ever seen. Happy is your great country, Sir, that it was selected by the blessing of the Lord to prove the glorious practicability of a federative union of many sovereign states, all preserving their state-rights and their self-government, and yet united in one. Every star beaming with its own lustre, but altogether one constellation on mankind's canopy.'' Despite a few dissenting voices Kossuth's reception in Congress was exceptional in both form and substance. Since the political aims of the Hungarian leader could not be met by the legislature, he took his message to the country, embarking on a tour that took him as far as St. Louis in the West, New Orleans in the South and Boston in the North. There were moving outpourings of sympathy, and occasionally even the idea of intervention was endorsed. Much of the financial contributions were, however, spent by the local hosts on lavish hospitality--to the grief of Governor Kossuth. In an epilogue added to the reprinted version of a volume of Kossuth's speeches published in 1852 Professor Bela Vardy reminds us: ``Millions of Americans came under his spell . . . dozens of books, hundreds of pamphlets, and thousands of articles and essays, as well as nearly two hundred poems were written to him or about him.'' The names of Emerson, Longfellow, Horace Greeley, James Russel Lowell, Harriet Beecher Stowe stand out among those authors. But undoubtedly the greatest person who was inspired by the exiled Hungarian leader was Abraham Lincoln. On January 9, 1852, Lincoln said in the legislature of Illinois: ``We recognize in Governor Kossuth of Hungary the most worthy and distinguished representative of the cause of civil and religious liberty on the continent of Europe.'' Perhaps the most memorable speech of Kossuth was delivered in Columbus, Ohio, to the legislature on February 7: ``Almost every century has had one predominant idea which imparted a common direction to the activity of nations. This predominant idea is the spirit of the age, invisible yet omnipresent, impregnable, all-pervading, scorned, abused, opposed yet omnipotent. The spirit of our age is Democracy. All for the people and all by the people. Nothing about the people without the people. That is democracy, and that is the ruling tendency of the spirit of our age.'' It is quite probable that these words were remembered by Lincoln, as the Gettysburg Address echoes Kossuth's definition of democracy. The influence of Kossuth in the U.S. did not come to an end with his departure in July 1852. His contemporaries, the crowds and also the politicians remembered him for a long time. Many children were named after him. Generations of Americans grew up associating Hungary with Kossuth and liberty. Both Theodore and Franklin Delano Roosevelt showed a remarkable knowledge of and sympathy to Hungary, most probably going back to 1848 and Kossuth's memory. In the late 19th and early 20th century hundreds of thousands of poor Hungarians arrived in the U.S. in search of employment and a better life. Most of them stayed here. For these downtrodden immigrant ``Hunkies'' Kossuth represented a hero, known and respected by their new country, no wonder that they named streets and buildings after him and erected statues to him, in Cleveland, New York, Pittsburgh and elsewhere. In World War II, the warship ``U.S.S. Kossuth'' was built on the donations of Hungarian-Americans. The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 showed that Kossuth's spirit remained a force inspiring the people of Hungary. The symbol of the Revolution was the coat-of-arms used by Kossuth. The new fight of the Hungarians for freedom re- awakened sympathy throughout the U.S. Following its suppression, against by Russian arms, tens of Hungarian refugees were admitted and welcomed by America. Soon a stamp of Kossuth was issued in the ``Champions of Liberty'' series. Thirty-three years later the end of communism and Hungary's role in it was the realization of Kossuth's dreams of an independent and democratic country. Today Hungary is trying to live up to the high standards set by its great son. In 1990, in the middle of another, now bloodless, Hungarian revolution, on the initiative of Congressman and Mrs. Annette Lantos, a bust was unveiled in the Capitol in a moving ceremony in the Rotunda. And now, 150 years after the visit of Governor-President Kossuth dozens of commemorations are held in the U.S. reminding the present generation of those stirring times. I am extremely grateful to the American people for having preserved the memory of our great leader and for giving me this unique opportunity to speak in this magnificent institution, recalling when Kossuth and Hungary filled the pages of the Congressional Record.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, later in this debate we will be considering an amendment by the Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul relating to the International Criminal Court. I am perplexed by this amendment, since, if it were binding, it would undermine our ability to defend U.S. servicemen and women, protects war criminals, and express a profound distrust of the President of the United States. Although revising the amendment to make it non-binding was an improvement, the underlying policy suggested by the Amendment remains misguided. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Gentleman is opposed to the International Criminal Court, and this amendment is supposed to express that policy. Buy Mr. Chairman, that is already the policy of the United States. On Monday, the Administration announced that it would not ratify the Rome Statute which creates the Court, had given up on the court as a workable institution, and was not going to provide assistance to it. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, the language of this amendment simply goes too far and is fundamentally inconsistent with the national interest. In particular, the amendment provides that no funds may be used to ``cooperate'' with the court. Mr. Chairman, even opponents of the court should oppose this language. Let me give some examples of what the policy expressed in this amendment may prohibit: It may prohibit the Defense Department from responding to the Court's investigators when they ask us for exonerating information on actions by U.S. Servicemen or women. Perversely, this would mean this amendment would make it more difficult for us to defend our own troops. It may prevent us from allowing a member of the armed forces to testify on behalf of one of our NATO allies, who accept this treaty. And it may prevent us from providing any information with respect to a prosecution of enemies of the United States. If a war crime is committed by Saddam Hussein in country which is a member of the court, and it does not prosecute him for political reasons, then under this amendment we could not help the Court prosecute Saddam. Moreover, the subject of this amendment was already dealt with by the House in H.R. 1646, the State Department Authorization Act, which appears to be moving towards Conference. That is the proper venue for this topic. Mr. Chairman, the President has announced his opposition to the Court. This amendment, represents an expression of profound distrust in our commander-in-chief. I think that in the middle of a war, that is the last thing we should be doing.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, in recent months our Nation, and this Congress, has sought to understand the motivation for and consequences of religious fanaticism, especially in the Middle East. An opinion article entitled ``In Saudi Arabia, an Extreme Problem,'' published in the Washington Post today brings into focus the fundamental problem of religious fanaticism in Saudi Arabia. This insightful article asserts persuasively that political and religious fanaticism has given rise to the deplorable human rights conditions, particularly concerning women, in Saudi Arabia. The article is all the more compelling because its author, Sulaiman Al-Hattlan, is a Saudi Arabian citizen and a courageous voice for democracy and human rights and who has witnessed first-hand the devastating effects of religious fanaticism in his country. He believes that the Saudi government must pursue reforms in order to promote education, free-thinking, political participation, and the human rights of the Saudi people. Mr. Speaker, I earnestly commend the following article to the attention of my colleagues and request that the article be placed in the Congressional Record. [From the Washington Post, May 8, 2002] In Saudi Arabia, an Extreme Problem (By Sulaiman Al-Hattlan) While the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah rightly searches for peace in the Middle East, it is equally important for us in Saudi Arabia to seek peace for our own home. As a citizen of Saudi Arabia, I dread the possibility that Osama bin Laden might instigate a repeat of a deadly 1979 Saudi government mistake. In that year, a group of religious fanatics occupied the Grand Mosque of Mecca. They denounced the legitimacy of the Saudi government, claiming that it wasn't ``Islamic'' enough. The government managed to reclaim the mosque, and later the group's leader and most of his followers were executed. But the end of the story had a twist: Though the government killed the extremists, it then essentially adopted their ideology. After the Mecca incident, Saudi authorities began imposing crushingly strict and pointless rules. Women were banned from appearing on television. Music was not allowed to be played in the Saudi media. Stores and malls closed during the five daily prayers. Members of the religious police were granted more power to intervene in people's personal lives. The Saudi government did all of this to please the Islamists, perhaps fearing further extremist threats. The fundamentalists interpreted these government actions as a nod to their power and an indication that they were now dictating the rules of the game. The result has been all sorts of restrictions that have created notions of fanaticism in the kingdom, and a society with a constant undercurrent of a ``witch hunt.'' Different groups in Saudi society end up competing with fundamentalists over who can appear more conservative in the public eye. Our private life, too, has been full of contradictions and hypocrisy, as we seek to avoid being alienated or excluded as ``seculars'' or ``liberals.'' In our obsession with our image, and fearing each other, we all lose. As a society, Saudi Arabians lost 20 years of a generation by avoiding a harsh reality: Our government was wrong, and, by extension, so were we. None of us dared to say it loudly then, and some still cannot say it. But our reaction to the 1979 Mecca tragedy has created a generation of angry, confused young people, many of whom have become fanatics, including those 15 Saudis among the 19 suspects in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the 100--or more--Saudi prisoners in Guantanamo. How many other confused young Saudis are still out there? It does not take a great deal to describe the motives of terrorism. Oppression and poverty are an easy recipe for fanaticism. People with no option of independently leading their lives will more willingly follow an extremist mentality because they know nothing else, and have no moderate alternatives to compare it with. This extremist mentality becomes so entrenched and pervasive that its endurance is not dependent upon the life or death of one persuasive leader. Therefore, whether bin Laden eventually is killed or survives the current war is a temporary concern; in the long term, the real issue is the endurance or destruction of his rabid philosophy. The Saudi government itself must fight against all kinds of monopoly of thought or debate. Right now, it faces a historical opportunity to develop its educational system, augment freedom of the press and expand women's rights, among other pressing issues. It can begin to give qualified, young, educated Saudis access to more political participation. This would involve ending regionalism, a process that gives greater privileges to some families from certain Saudi regions. As an added bonus, such a measure would safeguard against future tribal conflicts--still very much a part of Saudi national politics--that could result from the continuation of regional economic and political favoritism. It might also help end the civil cold war our society, silently, is going through. Saudi Arabian society must also start a tough process of social and political reform. Our independent writers and intellectuals should be part of a public social dialogue that tolerates different ideas and thoughts. Our universities need to open doors for political and social activities to their students: At the very minimum, students ought to have the right to form students' organizations. This would teach them the concept of ``social activism,'' and to organize civilized and peaceful activities within their universities. Such ideas can help the next generation create and participate in a productive and peaceful civil society, instead of dying in Afghanistan or elsewhere for causes that most of them do not even fully comprehend. What we learned from the deadly 1979 Mecca experience should be put to use now. Ending political and religious fanaticism is crucial for the survival of the Saudi society and its leadership. Release from this chokehold can only come from within Saudi Arabia. Just as Prince Abdullab has become the most promising hope for peace in the Middle East, he is also our best hope for immediate social and political reforms in the kingdom.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel were meeting in the Oval Office, yet another homicide bombing took place in the state of Israel. How many more innocent civilians will need to be killed by this monstrous conspiracy before the administration and all Members of Congress recognize that we are dealing with a battle between civilization and the forces of chaos and destruction? How many millions of Saudi PR money will be used to try to tell us that none of this is true? In recent months, $135 million of Saudi money went to support terrorism, and it is high time we call facts by their proper names. The President indicated a few months ago that ``You are either with the terrorists, or you are with us.'' The time has come for a clear moral judgment. This terrorism must end, and we must recognize that Israel is in the forefront of the global struggle against terrorism.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of H. Res. 412. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend first the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for expediting consideration of this important measure, and I want to applaud the efforts of my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), who for many years has worked tirelessly to build and maintain the strong bonds that unite the United States and Canada. Madam Speaker, in World War II, Canadian troops fought side by side with American soldiers to defeat fascism in Nazi Germany. During the Korean War, Canadian volunteers joined United Nations forces to help protect South Korea from communism. Last year, Canada once again sent its finest sons and daughters into harm's way, this time to combat international terrorism in Afghanistan. Since the beginning of the year, approximately 800 Canadian troops have helped secure Kandahar and protected relief operations in that entire area. Unfortunately, as we all know, a terrible accident occurred recently. In the early morning of April 17, an American F-16 pilot accidentally dropped a laser-guided bomb on Canadian troops who were conducting combat exercises in a designated training area near their base south of Kandahar. Sergeant Marc Legere, Corporal Ainsworth Dyer, Private Richard Green and Private Nathan Smith perished in that accident. Eight other brave Canadian soldiers were wounded in the explosion. Madam Speaker, on behalf of all of us on this side, I wish to extend our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of these wonderful Canadian soldiers. We also want to express our deepest sympathies to a grieving nation. Although we will have to await the findings of the ongoing investigations to learn how this terrible tragedy occurred and what can be done to prevent its recurrence, several points are already clear. The United States and Canada and our respective peoples continue to enjoy what is one of the most powerful, unwavering friendships that spans generations and can withstand even the most challenging tribulations. As a result, our two great nations stand together in their eternal commitment to defend freedom, democracy, the right of civilized societies to live in peace and security; a right that in the 21st century is being threatened by global terrorism. In the fight against global terrorism, Canada, as always, is shouldering a heavy burden and making major sacrifices. We all appreciate this enormous contribution and we will never forget it. Madam Speaker, with Canada's continued help, and the assistance of our other friends and allies, I am fully confident that we will vanquish the scourge of terrorism forever. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in a salute to the 12 heroes of Canada by voting in favor of this resolution. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), my good friend, the ranking Democratic member on the Committee on Financial Services. (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to Ambassador Jan Eliasson--ambassador of Sweden to the United States. I want to call the attention of my colleagues to a particularly important speech which he gave before he assumed his current position at a special fiftieth anniversary commemoration marking the disappearance of Swedish humanitarian Raoul Wallenberg. That address was given in the Swedish Parliament on January 17, 1995. Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Eliasson has a distinguished career in the Swedish diplomatic service. He achieved international attention in 1991, when he was able to utilize his extensive knowledge of economics with a humanitarian purpose in serving as both the Vice President of the United Nations Economic and Social Counsel (ECOSOC) and as the Chairman of the U.N.'s emergency relief group. As the Vice President of the ECOSOC, Ambassador Eliasson was responsible for coordinating activities of social, economic, and humanitarian importance. Ambassador Eliasson is not only an outstanding diplomat but also a great humanitarian, who embodies the highest and noblest values Sweden has contributed to western civilization. After being named Under- Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs of the U.N., one of his first initiatives was to eliminate the problem of active land mines in countries such as Mozambique. Aid agencies were hired out to de-mine the most dangerous civilian populated regions of the country. Ambassador Eliasson publicly denounced the further production of land mines under existing law. From October 1994 to September 2000 Ambassador Eliasson was Sweden's Deputy Secretary of Foreign Affairs. In this position, his voice was particularly significant in formulating and implementing Swedish foreign policy. He continued to incorporate economic pragmatism, social development, and international peace and security into his agenda while serving in this capacity. Mr. Speaker, for the past two years, Jan Eliasson has served as the Swedish Ambassador to the United States. I am pleased that he is still dedicated to the humanitarian goals that have marked his long and distinguished diplomatic career and which clearly represent the best of Sweden. Ambassador Eliasson's commitment to helping other people mirrors the compassion that Raoul Wallenberg so nobly embodied during his unique rescue mission, in my native land of Hungary. In his 1995 address to the Swedish parliament, Ambassador Eliasson said, ``Raoul Wallenberg lives on.'' Anyone that dedicates his or her life to peaceful diplomacy and humanitarian causes as Ambassador Eliasson has done is carrying on Wallenberg's humanitarian tradition. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Ambassador Eliasson. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Ambassador Eliasson's address to the Swedish Parliament on the fiftieth anniversary of the disappearance of Raoul Wallenberg be placed in the Record. It is an outstanding statement of Wallenberg's humanitarian commitment, and it reflects as well the thoughtful commitment to democracy, human rights, and humanitarian action that Ambassador Jan Eliasson represents. Address to the Swedish Parliament on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Disappearance of Raoul Wallenberg By Ambassaor Jan Eliasson Looking back at his life in his autobiography, from the perspective of an ageing man, the philosopher Bertrand Russell said: ``Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a deep ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair.'' Perhaps Raoul Wallenberg would not have chosen precisely these words if he were looking back on his life today. But Bertrand Russell puts into words what I believe were also Raoul Wallenberg's strongest driving forces. And Russell also formulates the course which Raoul Wallenberg would probably want all of us to take in today's bewildering and violent world. Most of what I know about Raoul Wallenberg comes from books, and from the think dossiers at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. But many of the most important and finest things I know about Raoul Wallenberg I have learnt from his close relative, his friends, and some of those who were saved from the Holocaust. There are three concepts which have been etched into my memory, when I have been going through what I have read and heard about Raoul: action, passion, and it goes without saying. I am going to attempt to describe Raoul Wallenberg as a person in terms of these three words. And I will also be using them as my starting point when I try to explain the example he sets. What was Raoul Wallenberg's action? We know that he saved the lives of tens of thousands of people, together with brave and loyal colleagues. We know that he helped to prevent the destruction of the ghetto in Budapest, thus also preventing the murder of a further 60,000 people. And we know that he became one of the outside witnesses--the eyes and ears of the international community--in an inferno on earth, at a time of horrific human degradation. When we read his letters to his grandfather--we must remember that his father died before Raoul was born--we see few signs that he was preparing himself for a task or a role of this nature. He had studied in America, worked in offices in Cape Town and Haifa, and he had discussed various possible careers in some detail with his grandfather. Was he to become an architect, a banker, or a businessman? From his letters, he seems to have been carefree, active, full of curiosity and ideas and agreeable self-ironic. He once hitchhiked from Michigan to Los Angeles, where his birthday coincided with the pomp and circumstances of the 1932 Olympics. ``My birthday was a quiet affair, since I had asked the civic authorities not to go to any special trouble,'' he told his grandfather in a slightly bantering tone. Nonetheless, in the years he spent in America, there were already signs that action was waiting for Raoul Wallenberg. On one occasion when he was the victim of a holdup, he kept his sang-froid, requesting that he be driven to a main road after he was robbed. Afterwards, he merely regretted that he had not made a better job about bluffing about how much money he had on him. He was restless, waiting for something important to do, something meaningful. It was easy to understand that his heroes were Dumas' three musketeers, and Pimpernel Smith, whose final words in the film were--incidentally--``I always come back''. Nothing seemed to be difficult, or impossible for him. He even believed that he could tackle his incipient baldness if he shaved off all his hair. A man of action, certainly but also man who totally lacked a sense of prestige and who was not interested in appearances. And then action and Raoul Wallenberg fused together in the summer of 1944. He has six months to save as many as possible of the 200,000 Jews who still remained in Hungary--after the death or the deportation of more than 600,000. ``When does the next train leave?'' he asked Nina and Gunnar, his sister and her husband when he learnt in Berlin, on his way to Hungary, that the travel agency had given him a day of rest. He could not afford to waste a single hour. Once he arrived in Budapest, he started to organize things at a hectic pace, designing new protection passports and building up a closely meshed network of contacts--ranging from members of the Jewish Council to the wife of the Foreign Minister, and from his laundress to the detestable Adolf Eichmann, whom he asked to dinner (which he subsequently forgot or subconsciously suppressed, since he was so full of the thousands of other things which he had to do). The spirit of action was something which expanded ceaselessly, slowly permeating him. When the thugs of the Arrow Cross--Hungary's Quislings--took over the autumn of 1944, the situation became unbearable and the cruelty almost indescribable. Raoul was like the Dutch boy who put one finger after the other in the various holes to stop the dam bursting. Many lives were saved as the result of the meticulous planning, others by ruses and provisions in various languages and in different keys. But many, many people were murdered before his eyes. And often he arrived too late or was not able to intervene and stop the inferno. He saw people slip away, disappear, die--as when thousands of Jewish women and children, clad in high heeled or thin-soled shoes, were forced to trudge in the slush, day and night, without food and water for 150 miles to the border--and there a fraction of them were subjected to a roll-call, with traditional thoroughness, by Eichmann's command. I am sure that in these situations he thought of the danger in delay, the damage caused by waiting too long and not acting in time, of being forced to focus on putting out the cruel flames instead of looking for arsonists and the causes of the fire. Arriving in time, to forestall and take preventive action, is basically a question of respect for life and respect for human dignity. It was with this in mind with Raoul formulated a plan, together with his co-workers, in the last weeks in Budapest, for the rebirth and rehabilitation of the scattered remaining Jews in Hungary. He planned for tomorrow, for survival, in order to plant the trees that must grow. I am convinced that he had this plan in his rucksack--he did not have a briefcase--when he got into the black limousine en route for the Russian headquarters exactly 50 years ago today. To move on to my second keyword: passion, no only Bertrand Russell's compassion, but also Raoul Wallenberg's fervor and capacity to amuse his friends with the quick-fire macabre humor, in spite of the horrors, and to inspire other people to great exploits, to work day and night. It was a case of ``saving as many people as possible, to snatch as many as possible from the clutches of the murders,'' as he wrote in a letter in July 1944. In Wallenberg, passion and compassion lived, side by side, in symbiosis. Both are necessary for action and results. The American Wallenberg Committee has characteristically chosen as its motto the words of Edmund Burke: ``All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing''. But for Wallenberg, there was no choice. There is no decision-making process in the face of evil. The phrase ``it goes without saying'' became Raoul Wallenberg's invisible companion. He did not question whether he should go to Hungary. He did not ask any questions when he was awakened in the middle of the night in Budapest and took his bicycle to the ``Swedish houses''. With the streets filled with loudmouthed supporters of the Arrow Cross, who were running amok, raping or trading in human beings. He knew which path he had to walk. He had an unfailing moral compass. Thus, Raoul Wallenberg also set an example. He was one of us, a man who showed that action is possible and necessary. He showed that we do not always need to be prepared or to take deliberate decisions to do what is right. He showed that we can all rise to the occasion, which can then take over and inspire us to superhuman effort. He showed that powerlessness does indeed exist--but that it can be overcome by tackling one problem at a time and by always working and planning for a better future, for a new sense of fellowship. One of the books I read describes a long conversation Raoul had with a young girl about the League of Nations. He seemed much more interested in what the League of Nations--the United Nations of that time--should do than in the girl. His sister Nina also noted this. This episode comes to mind when we look around the world today, searching for a Raoul Wallenberg. He would be need in Pol Pot's Cambodia, in Idi Amin's Uganda, in the civil wars in Angola and Mozambique, in Somalia in 1992, in the genocide of Rwanda and in the nightmare of Bosnia. Many were there-- but were we too few? Were we--are we--onlookers on too great an extent? Where was the action, the passion and ``it goes without saying''? Raoul Wallenberg lives on. We must not give up on our efforts to have a full account of his fate. We had strong expectations that a new, open and truthful Russia would help us achieve this clarity. Let us hope that today's Chechen tragedy will not stop the ultimate triumph of the forces of democracy and openness. Russia can show that these forces cannot be conquered, either by producing Raoul Wallenberg or the whole truth about him. This can be achieved in the Swedish-Russian Commission which, since 1991, has been systemically examining documents and available information. The central issue is not the Wallenberg case or affair. It is Raoul Wallenberg as a human being. And, in the final analysis, the end of the Cold War should be a matter of focusing on human beings. We should stop viewing nations as pawns on a geopolitical chessboard but instead see them as societies with people who have to right to political freedom, to economic and social justice and to a life in dignity for all. For me, this is Raoul Wallenberg's message. That is why Raoul Wallenberg lives on. During his work in Hungary in the reign of terror, in the ghetto and on the streets, he looked the victim in the eye and tried to erase all the power games, all the prejudices and all the hate that encompassed this individual human being. He saw the forces of evil, but he never gave up the hope, and never stopped taking action. What more do we need today?

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch). (Mr. LYNCH and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, no, I am not. I strongly support the resolution.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, before yielding to my next speaker, to just point out to my colleague who equated a suicide bomber with a victim that that is precisely what this resolution is all about. There is no moral equivalence between a suicide bomber and an innocent victim of a suicide bomber. I find this analogy he portrayed sickening. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my good friend on the Republican side, Mr. Bereuter, to express to the distinguished Speaker of the Canadian Parliament Democratic support and appreciation of the generations-long friendship and solidarity the Canadian people have shown to us. There is no nation on the face of this planet which is a more dependable and a more solid and a more persistent ally and friend of the United States than is Canada. Through many wars we have stood together, and we have prevailed as we shall in this war on global terrorism. War inevitably entails losses. No losses are more tragic and more heart rending than the ones we call losses related to ``friendly fire.'' This means we kill our own by mistake, by error, through a tragedy. That is what happened, in Afghanestan, to four Canadian soldiers, and the American people are as one in expressing our heartfelt condolences to the families of these four heroes and to all of the Canadian people. We want to assure Speaker Milliken that Canada and the United States will stand together forever on behalf of defending freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law, the right of civilized societies to live in peace and security. We appreciate the friendship of our Canadian friends, and we want to assure them of our solidarity and respect.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2646. I want to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Agriculture and the Chairman and Ranking Member from the other body for their hard work in getting this bill through conference. The Committee on International Relations also has a substantial interest in H.R. 2646, as the Committee has jurisdiction on trade and export programs as well as international food aid, all of which we addressed in Committee consideration of Title III. The conference report strikes an appropriate balance between international food aid programs and trade promotion. I am pleased to note that the report also preserves the reform's to the Food for Peace authorities in substantially the same form as the Committees recommendation and contains further reforms for the Food for Progress suggested by the Senate. By strengthening our international food aid programs, this bill helps to ensure that tens of thousands of hungry men, women and children do not starve to death simply because they were born in a country with chronic food shortages, civil war or poor governance. While U.S. food aid programs authorized by the bill before us today cannot end world hunger, they can play a crucial role in helping our nation meet its moral obligation to alleviate human suffering in places like sub-saharan Africa, the Middle East and South Asia while at the same time help to support thousands of American farm families. As we have seen, suffering and despair can often be manipulated and turned into a breeding ground for evil and hate. I am also very pleased that we have been able to include two new but very important provisions. This bill will permanently authorize the Global Food for Education Initiative launched by Ambassador George McGovern and former Senator Bob Dole, and provides $100 million in bridge funding for the pilot program while additional funding is being identified. The second provision is the Farmers for Africa and the Caribbean initiative, first introduced by Congresswoman Eva Clayton as H.R. 1894 which will help bring American farming expertise to the countries that most need if through farmer to farmer type programs. This legislation will also increase American agricultural exports, which support thousands of farm families around our nation. Considering that agricultural exports account for nearly one fourth of all farm income, it is vital that we continue to support or trade promotion programs. Mr. Speaker, these programs epitomize the true American spirit and the values we hold dear. Through these programs, we are able to take the bounty of our lands and share it with the needy and the hungry around the world. At the same time, we are able to help sustain the family farms and help producers and growers expand their markets. It is no wonder that these programs enjoy such widespread support. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the tremendous work by the staff on the Committee on International Relations on this legislation. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to Nisha Desai and Paul Oostburg, without whom essential issues relating to U.S. international food aid would have been far less robust than the bill before the floor today. People around the world owe them their thanks. I hope that all of my colleagues will support the conference report.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, when a democracy is under siege from terrorist assault, it must defend itself. I am proud of our Nation's response to the horrors of September 11. For the last 18 months, Israel has been a democracy under siege; and it has responded in the only way that any democracy must, it has defended itself. It has not asked for this war any more than we asked for ours against al Qaeda and the Taliban. But when democracies come under terrorist attack, it is morally incumbent upon us as the world's leading democracy to express our solidarity. That is what this resolution does. Since September 2000, terrorist suicide bombers have claimed 180 innocent Israeli lives, a number proportional to 9,000 Americans, three times the lives we lost on September 11. This past weekend on the Jewish sabbath, Palestinian terrorists murdered four Israeli civilians, including a 5-year-old child. This was not collateral damage, Mr. Speaker. This was the deliberate and premeditated murder of an innocent little girl. Mr. Speaker, there is no difference between the pain and anguish felt by a bereft Palestinian mother or father who lost their innocent child and the heart broken Israeli mother or father who lost theirs. But as we mourn equally the innocent causalities on both sides, we dare not treat equally those who act out of self-defense and those who act out of terrorist designs. There is no moral equivalence in this struggle. Our bipartisan resolution, Mr. Speaker, is not neutral as some would have it. It does not equivocate. It draws a bright line between terrorist aggression, and self-defense. It clearly distinguishes between the side that made a historically generous offer of peace, and the side that spat on that offer and started a blood bath instead. This resolution is not for those who seek a neutral stance in Israel's struggle against terrorism. This resolution is for those who are committed to defend democracy against terrorism and stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in our shared struggle. In its 54-year battle for survival, Israel has suffered numerous attacks like ours of September 11. It has never waivered in its commitment to democratic values and human rights. Now, as its very existence is again challenged, we must not waiver in our support for Israel. I urge all of my colleagues to vote to reaffirm our strong support for our democratic ally, the state of Israel.