Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the victory of the New England Patriots in last night's Super Bowl was not just an incredibly good football game-- one of the closest and most exciting games in Super Bowl history--but it was also a cause for celebration that spanned our nation from coast to coast. Today the City of San Mateo and Peninsulans join fans in New England in celebrating the Patriots' victory. It is a shared celebration because New England Quarterback Tom Brady first showed signs of football greatness as the quarterback for Junipero Serra High School in his hometown of San Mateo in my congressional district. Mr. Speaker, Tom Brady was the youngest quarterback ever to lead a team to a Super Bowl victory and was also selected Most Valuable Player in the game. This was a fitting end to a truly magnificent season for Tom Brady. As a sixth round draft choice in the 2000 NFL draft, Tom started his second season as the back-up quarterback, whose goal for the 2001-2002 season was simply to become a better football player. Fate, however, had different plans as he was thrust into the starting role during the third game of the season. The newfound responsibility never fazed this calm young man. He accepted his new role and led the Patriots from a 0-2 start to the season to end with eleven wins in the regular season and a trip to the playoffs. During the playoffs, Tom faced and conquered a wide variety of adversities, from snowballs to ankle sprains, he never wavered and refused to back down as he lead his team to the Super Bowl. Entering the game as heavy underdogs, Tom Brady played the greatest game of his young career in the same way he played throughout the regular season-- calm, cool, and under control. After three quarters the Patriots lead 17-3, but then the Rams made a comeback and Tom Brady found himself on his own 17 yard line, facing the daunting task of moving the ball sixty yards with 90 seconds left in the game, and his team with no time outs remaining. Mr. Speaker, many thought he should run out the clock and move the game into overtime. Brady, a true competitor, walked onto the field to begin a drive to win in the remaining 90 seconds. As he said, ``I was going out to win the game.'' And that is exactly what he did, as he threw pass after pass to march his team into field range and set up his kicker to win the game. Adam Vinatieri's kick sailed through the uprights just as time expired, and the Patriots were champions. A roar not only erupted from the stadium in New Orleans, but a similar outburst erupted from the house on Portola Drive in San Mateo, where friends and family of the Brady family had gathered to watch the game. Mr. Speaker, from his days of flag football on Portola Drive in San Mateo, to the fields at Serra High, to the University of Michigan, to the National Football League and being named Most Valuable Player of Super Bowl XXXVI, Tom Brady always played with confidence and charisma and found success at every level. It is obvious from watching Tom Brady play that he truly loves the game of football. He always smiles, and his enthusiasm and confidence is infectious to his team. As one of his wide receivers said, ``You can't say enough about the kid. He has a tremendous amount of confidence, and it rubs off on everyone else.'' Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Tom Brady on an incredible game and wishing him continued success. All of us from San Mateo and the Peninsula are proud of our native son.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, as a nation we have recently celebrated the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the noble crusades of Civil Liberty and Equal Rights, and in a few days we will commence a celebration of the contributions of African-Americans to our nation's history in ``Black History Month.'' Dr. King was an exemplar and a martyr for these causes. As an advocate for an oppressed people, he was in a unique position to offer insights into the suffering of the Jewish people. My distinguished colleague from Georgia, Mr. John Lewis, recently summarized Dr. King's sentiments of empathy with the Jewish community in an article appearing on January 21, 2001 in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled ``King's Special Bond With Israel.'' Mr. Lewis was a contemporary of Dr. King in the Civil Rights movement of the sixties and has carried King's ``Dream'' of equality and justice into the twenty-first century. He has maintained an active role in politics and has been an outspoken champion of human rights and progressive social movements. His recent sponsorship of legislation discouraging racial profiling, and his dedicated support of the National Museum of African- American History and Culture, further illustrate his commitment to a society that is truly free of racial inequality. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that Congressman Lewis's article be placed in the Congressional Record. I encourage my colleagues in the House to consider the position articulated by Dr. King, and in so doing, develop an appreciation for the parallel sufferings of the Jewish and African- American communities. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 21, 2002] King's Special Bond With Israel (By John Lewis) The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. understood the meaning of discrimination and oppression. He sought ways to achieve liberation and peace, and he thus understood that a special relationship exists between African-Americans and American Jews. This message was true in his time and is true today. He knew that both peoples were uprooted involuntarily from their homelands. He knew that both peoples were shaped by the tragic experience of slavery. He knew that both peoples were forced to live in ghettos, victims of segregation. We knew that both peoples were subject to laws passed with the particular intent of oppressing them simply because they were Jewish or black. He knew that both peoples have been subjected to oppression and genocide on a level unprecedented in history. King understood how important it is not to stand by in the face of injustice. He understood the cry, ``Let my people go.'' Long before the plight of the Jews in the Soviet Union was on the front pages, he raised his voice. ``I cannot stand idly by, even though I happen to live in the United States and even though I happen to be an American Negro and not be concerned about what happens to the Jews in Soviet Russia. For what happens to them happens to me and you, and we must be concerned.'' During his lifetime King witnessed the birth of Israel and the continuing struggle to build a nation. He consistently reiterated his stand on the Israel-Arab conflict, stating ``Israel's right to exist as a state in security is uncontestable.'' It was no accident that King emphasized ``security'' in his statements on the Middle East. On March 25, 1968, less than two weeks before his tragic death, he spoke out with clarity and directness stating, ``peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.'' During the recent U.N. Conference on Racism held in Durban, South Africa, we were all shocked by the attacks on Jews, Israel and Zionism. The United States of America stood up against these vicious attacks. Once again, the words of King ran through my memory, ``I solemnly pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews--because bigotry in any form is an affront to us all.'' During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, ``When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.'' King taught us many lessons. As turbulence continues to grip the Middle East, his words should continue to serve as our guide. I am convinced that were he alive today he would speak clearly calling for an end to the violence between Israelis and Arabs. He would call upon his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner, Yasser Arafat, to fulfill the dream of peace and do all that is within his power to stop the violence. He would urge continuing negotiations to reduce tensions and bring about the first steps toward genuine peace. King had a dream of an ``oasis of brotherhood and democracy'' in the Middle East. As we celebrate his life and legacy, let us work for the day when Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Muslims, will be able to sit in peace ``under his vine and fig tree and none shall make him afraid.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Bay Area Council for Jewish Rescue and Renewal (Bay Area Council), an exemplary organization which has been carrying out important work in the Russian Federation. The Bay Area Council has designed and implemented a Climate of Trust program to enable Russian law enforcement officials to combat ethnic and religious intolerance and xenophobia in Russia by providing a sustained and supportive relationship between American and Russian communities, law enforcement professionals, city administrators, prosecutors, human rights activists, educators, and local media representatives. The goal is to promote tolerance and reduce incidents of hate-based violence in Russia through training, seminars, workshops, and symposiums. The Climate of Trust program has brought in tangible results. Over the 2000-01 period, more than five hundred Russian officers, civil servants, community members, and media representatives have taken part in its activities. In the Russian city of Ryazan, which had been marked by anti-Semitic acts, the Climate of Trust program proposed several initiatives which were later enacted and are in the process of implementation. In 2002-03, the Bay Area Council plan is to continue their activities in Ryazan and expand them to several other Russian communities outside of Moscow. This is a worthy and important work that earned Bay Area Council a tribute in the 2001 State Department International Religious Freedom Report. Not only our government has recognized the Climate of Trust program as effective and successful in training Russian law enforcement and other government officials in promoting tolerance. The government of the Russian Federation also identified the Climate of Trust program as a key component of its 2001-2005 national program for preventing extremism and promoting tolerance in Russian society. When Congress graduates Russia from Jackson-Vanik next session, the role of the Bay Area Council and other non-govemmental organization will become even more important in the human rights dialogue between our countries. The Climate of Trust is exactly the kind of program we should be supporting in Russia. It is cost-effective and it works at the grass- roots level with communities throughout Russian Federation. The program is interactive and responsive to the needs of these communities, I am confident it has immediate and lasting effect on individuals and communities besieged by xenophobia. The Russian Democracy Act, legislation which I authored and which passed the House unanimously last week, earmarks at least $50 million for activities designed to support Russian civil society at all levels. I respectfully ask the Administration and the State Department to extend all possible support to the Bay Area Council so that the Council may expand and continue its grassroots efforts at combating xenophobia and promoting civil society in Russia.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Ambassador Ulrik Federspiel, who was sworn-in as Denmark's Ambassador to the United States in May of 2000, for his record of achievement in fostering transatlantic ties. Throughout his remarkable career, Ambassador Federspiel has worked tirelessly to strengthen the already close relationship between the United States and Denmark. Indeed, the Danes are fortunate to have such an illustrious representative in Washington, and the United States has no better friend and ally in the Diplomatic Corps here in Washington than Ambassador Federspiel. Mr. Federspiel began his career in the Danish Foreign Service in 1971, and was immediately assigned to the prestigious European Community office within the Foreign Ministry. His outstanding contributions on E.C. matters earned him a tenure in London as First Secretary of Political Affairs from 1973 to 1977. During this time he worked in cooperation with several African states in the process of democratizing countries including Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia. Mr. Federspiel was especially active in supporting the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. As a result, he was personally invited to the inauguration of President Nelson Mandela in 1993 and became a consultant to the modern integrated South African administration. In 1981, Ambassador Federspiel returned to Copenhagen to become Special Assistant to the Permanent Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. A post he held until he arrived in Washington to serve as Deputy Chief of Mission at the Danish Embassy in 1984. He quickly developed a reputation in Washington as a quick study with an imposing intellect combined with a personable, friendly demeanor. Ambassador Federspiel came to understand that not only does Denmark have a critical role to play in European matters, but, for a small country, Denmark could ``punch above its weight'' on transatlantic economic and political issues. As State Secretary for Foreign Affairs from 1991-93, Ulrik Federspiel worked to support independence for the Baltic states, who were emerging from the dark years of Soviet occupation. Denmark was the first country in the world to recognize the three former Soviet countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. From 1993 to 1997 Ambassador Federspiel's outstanding record brought the notice of the most senior members of the Danish government and was asked to serve as Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister. At the EU summit in June 1993 under the Danish presidency, Mr. Federspiel drafted the portion of the Copenhagen Criteria that set standards for EU membership. Ambassador Federspiel became a staunch proponent of NATO expansion and has since taken a leading role in the process. Among his other accomplishments while in the Prime Minister's Office, he played an important role in the Danish decision to play an active part in Bosnia, having the largest contingency of ground troops there per capita, and the only country to have heavy armor, namely ten tanks. Mr. Speaker, since Ambassador Federspiel arrived in the United States last May, he has been actively engaged in solving trade disputes between the EU, Denmark and the United States. His diplomatic skills were evident while working with both the Congressional leadership and the Administration in resolving several high-profile trade disputes, including the carousel sanctions and the import ban on pork. Mutually beneficial trade has been expanded between the U.S. and Denmark through close cooperation between the former U.S. Ambassador in Copenhagen Richard N. Swett and Ulrik Federspiel. Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Federspiel has brought his dynamism and passion to so many political and humanitarian issues. Since completing his military service in the Royal Danish Navy in Greenland in 1970-71, Ulrik Federspiel has taken a keen interest in Greenland and its population. In 1984, when he became Deputy Chief of Mission to the Danish Embassy in Washington, D.C., the relationship between Greenland, the United States and Denmark became one of his priorities. The Ambassador has played an instrumental role in furthering the interests of the Home Rule Government and that of the Danish realm and has worked in close cooperation with the U.S. government, especially Thule Air Base. The island and the base are strategic elements of defense and security preparedness of both the United States and Europe. Ambassador Federspiel is also an accomplished academic. He graduated from the University of Aarhus in political science in 1970, and completed a year of post-graduate studies at the University of Pennsylvania, earning an MA in 1985-86. He has been a visiting lecturer at George Washington University and frequently lectured on international relations at the University of Copenhagen as well as served as a governing board of the university. His interest in supporting academic excellence continues today. He is an Honorary Trustee of the Crown Prince Frederick Fund for Harvard University that supports two scholarships annually for exemplary Danish university students. Ambassador Federspiel currently sits on the advisory board member of Humanity in Action (HIA), a unique educational program between Denmark, the United States, the Netherlands and Germany. HIA offers a number of competent university students an intensive study of human rights and democratic values each year. This summer the program was expanded to include internships on Capitol Hill. Ambassador Federspiel's commitment to working for others is undoubtedly a result of his and his family's experiences growing up in war torn Europe. During the Nazi occupation of Denmark, Ambassador Federspiel's father, Per Federspiel, was imprisoned for a year due to his involvement in the rescue of the jews in October 1943. Needless to say, Ambassador Federspiel has proven himself to be a strong and consistent supporter of the State of Israel. After the horrible events of September 11th, Ambassador Federspiel and the Danish people were among the first to support the American people and the cause of freedom. As a NATO member, Denmark is one of the strongest supporters of the United States in its campaign against terrorism. And a recent poll of the Danish population showed the Danish people as the America's strongest supporters in Europe in our war on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor and privilege for me to have the opportunity to thank Ambassador Federspiel for his uncompromising dedication to furthering the friendship between our two great countries.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I first want to pay tribute to our colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), for introducing this resolution; and I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for his invaluable work in refining the resolution and in bringing it so promptly to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.J. Res. 75, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so. Our Nation faces a critical terrorist threat that goes well beyond that posed by the Taliban and al Qaeda. The threat is from Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a nation that is both a supporter and a generator of international terrorism and a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. Increasingly, Mr. Speaker, the media is full of speculation as to whether Iraq is the next U.S. target in the war against terrorism. The resolution before us today speaks to that issue. Iraq has had more than a decade to comply with United Nations resolutions requiring it to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. Rather than comply, it has made a fool of the international community. A vote for this resolution, Mr. Speaker, tells Saddam Hussein this: you must comply with the terms of your surrender, once and for all, and soon, or you will face the consequences. In the past half century, no government has so consistently and flagrantly flouted the will of the international community as has Saddam Hussein's Iraq. No national leader has so regularly demonstrated that he is a threat to the lives of his citizens and his neighbors. Without provocation, Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, swallowed up all of Kuwait in 1990, the first time, Mr. Speaker, since Hitler that one nation tried to wipe another off the map. He rained missiles on Saudi Arabia and Israel in 1991. He is the only current national leader to have employed weapons of mass destruction, using chemical weapons to attack Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and to murder some 5,000 Kurdish citizens of Iraq itself. United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, the cease-fire resolution that ended the Gulf War in 1991, required Saddam Hussein to transfer his weapons of mass destruction and all related capabilities to the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, widely known as UNSCOM, and to the International Atomic Energy Agency for purposes of destruction. This was to have been done by the middle of 1991, Mr. Speaker. Now, more than a decade later, Saddam Hussein continues to defy contemptuously the requirements of the international community. During the past 10 years, Saddam first obstructed and lied to the inspectors, then he effectively expelled them, and now he will not let them return. Of course, Saddam Hussein has ignored virtually every United Nations Security Council demand, including those dealing with missing Kuwaitis taken prisoner by Iraq and property looted from Kuwait during Iraq's brutal 1990-1991 occupation. Meanwhile, the state-controlled Iraqi media continued to threaten Kuwait with another invasion. Saddam Hussein's resort to terror is legendary, including an attempted assassination of our former President, George Bush. Most recently, we have been reminded of his terrorist activities by the capture of a 15-man Iraqi-trained terrorist cell in the West Bank. In view of Saddam Hussein's total disregard of the value of human life and of his demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction and terrorism to achieve his aims, nobody in Iraq, the Middle East, or the West, including the United States, is safe from his evil designs. The world, Mr. Speaker, can no longer live with a Saddam Hussein who is developing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. An Iraqi defector who spent 20 years working on Saddam's nuclear program put it well. Khidhir Hamza wrote in the December 10 Wall Street Journal, ``Saddam's express goal is to continue building up his chemical and biological stockpiles and to ultimately wield a nuclear weapon. Each day we wait we allow him to go further toward that goal.'' Mr. Speaker, September 11 has demonstrated that we must take resolute action to prevent disasters before they occur. If our preferred recourse for now is to assure that UN's weapons inspectors return to Iraq, let this much be clear: The only acceptable inspection regime is one that assures, in the words of the UN Security Council resolution 707, ``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access'' to all weapons of mass destruction facilities and documents. I repeat, Mr. Speaker. Saddam Hussein must provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to all facilities where weapons of mass destruction may be hidden or produced and to all documents relating to these programs. An inspection regime that enhances Saddam's legitimacy, while allowing him secretively to continue his weapons of mass destruction programs, is totally unacceptable. The resolution before us today says, in effect, that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to do what he was obligated to do over a decade ago. I believe, Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein poses an imminent danger to our Nation, to our friends and to our allies, and there is little time to lose before we will have no choice but to take much stronger measures. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. Res. 75. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) be granted an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. LANTOS. I am not opposed to the resolution, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this measure is the exact opposite of what the gentleman has just suggested. It demands of Saddam Hussein what he agreed to 10 years ago: full and complete access to places where weapons of mass destruction are produced. It gives him one chance, one final chance to do what he agreed to do when he surrendered 10 years ago.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I each be given an additional 5 minutes, as we have other colleagues who wish to speak on this.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a distinguished member of Committee on International Relations. (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Let me first commend my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for his persistence in pushing Taiwan's observer status at the WHO. I also commend the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and chairman emeritus, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for their strong support of this legislation. Congress has addressed this issue several times, Madam Speaker, and we will continue to raise it until this inequity is resolved. Madam Speaker, the World Health Organization makes a major contribution to the international community every single day. WHO has new and innovative programs to stop the spread of HIV-AIDS and other infectious diseases. It has programs of development of basic health care services throughout the developing world, and it provides humanitarian aid to those in need. As we speak, the World Health Organization is laying the groundwork for helping to meet health care needs in a post-conflict Afghanistan. In this long and difficult struggle, the WHO and its member countries should be looking for help wherever they can get it. Unfortunately, due to opposition by the Chinese Government in Beijing, Taiwan's efforts to obtain observer status to the annual World Health Assembly meetings in Geneva have fallen on deaf ears. Although the administration has indicated support for Taiwan's bid for observer status, it is unwilling to ruffle any feathers in Beijing to make this bid a reality. The Department of State argues that the majority of WHO members would never support observer status for Taiwan and, therefore, the United States should not make an effort on Taiwan's behalf. Madam Speaker, this committee should strongly reject this defeatist and weak-kneed logic. We should demand that the administration make a concerted effort to ensure that Taiwan participates in this critical international organization. Their bid may fail, but I can guarantee that Taiwan will never be allowed to participate unless we try to get them through the door. Madam Speaker, Taiwan is a strong, prosperous and vibrant democracy. It has the financial, scientific, medical and humanitarian resources that can help the World Health Organization and all of its many member states who desperately need help. Taiwan is not even asking to join the WHO as a state but rather just as an observer. The case for Taiwan's observer status at the WHO is clear and the administration should do its utmost to make it happen. I strongly support H.R. 2739 and urge all of my colleagues to do so, as well. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from California yield to me?

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is the pain and suffering of innocent people all across the globe which is at stake, and I appreciate the support of my friend.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), my friend and colleague, for introducing this resolution. I wholeheartedly support closer ties between the United States and the Philippines, and this resolution will make a positive contribution in this regard. I wish, Mr. Speaker, that I could spend the balance of my time outlining the virtues of this resolution, but circumstances prevent me from doing so. Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on International Relations has prided itself since the first day of this session on its singularly bipartisan approach to all issues. This did not begin with September 11; it began with the first day we met and continues to this day and will continue in the future. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), my friend and colleague, for his enormous contributions for making the work of our committee bipartisan. I cannot say the same thing for the Republican leadership which schedules suspension bills, Mr. Speaker. Under the jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations, 46 bills have been considered, 34 of them under Republican sponsorship, 12 of them under democratic sponsorship. One of these is a bill I would like to say a few words about. Six weeks ago, the House Committee on International Relations unanimously passed H.R. 3169, the Land Mine Victims Assistance Act. There is no more bipartisan, noble, humanitarian bill to come before this body this year, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is in full support of this legislation. The vice chairman of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is in full support. The chairman emeritus on the Republican side, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), is in full support. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), my friend and colleague, is in strong support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill came through the Committee on International Relations with a unanimous vote 6 weeks ago. The fine piece of legislation by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) was passed just last week, but it was scheduled by the leadership for today. For 6 weeks, day after day, we have been pleading with the leadership to put this measure on our suspension calendar. The President of the United States and the administration have no objections to it; far from it, Secretary of State Colin Powell in the State Department dining room had a major event honoring organizations that help land mine victims. This is one of the most tragic human problems on the face of this planet. From Afghanistan to Cambodia, hundreds of thousands of children and adults lost a leg or two or an arm or both because of land mine tragedies. Today's New York Times has a major story with horrifying pictures of the Afghan ramifications of this nightmare. One of our own Marines was severely injured just a couple of days ago in Afghanistan as a result of a land mine explosion. Mr. Speaker, there is a controversial issue with respect to the treaty as they relate to land mines. My legislation specifically excludes that issue. The only thing this legislation deals with is to help victims of land mines: little boys and little girls and men and women whose lives have been destroyed by the millions of land mines across this globe. There is no justification, moral, legal, or otherwise, to keep this legislation off this floor. When it comes to the floor, it will pass with an overwhelming vote. Mr. Speaker, I have been here long enough to realize that partisan legislation is often bottled up. This is a nonpartisan piece of legislation. Republicans and Democrats on the Committee on International Relations unanimously supported it, as will the full membership of this body. I am calling on the Republican leadership, after waiting patiently for 6 long weeks, after the most sickening discriminatory treatment of having legislation come before us which was passed by the Committee on International Relations just this past week, to put, without any further delay, the Land Mine Victims Assistance Act forward so that our Republican and Democratic colleagues can vote on it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), my good friend and distinguished colleague.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and reaffirm my strong support for his legislation. The Philippines are great friends of ours. Their struggle against terrorism is our struggle. Their future in Asia guarantees that stability and prosperity; but most importantly, democracy will prevail in an important Asian country. And I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation. Before yielding back my time, I would like to put a face on land mine victims. This young man is Wazir Hammond. He was injured by a land mine in Afghanistan just a few years ago. He is now 9 years old. And every 6 months he requires a prosthesis refitting. He is representative of the tens and tens of thousands of children and adults who are desperately hoping that we will be able to participate in a global effort to give our fellow human beings who have lost a leg or an arm or two legs or two arms an opportunity to put their lives back together again. I call on the Republican leadership of the United States House of Representatives to schedule for debate and vote the Land Mine Victims Assistance Act, passed unanimously by the House Committee on International Relations and enjoying the support of all Republicans and all Democrats on that committee; and when the legislation comes before this body, I am sure of every single Member of this House. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to my friend and distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the International Relations Committee recently passed legislation to create Radio Free Afghanistan. I also commend the Administration for the steps it has taken to ensure that the United States does not lose the public relations battle as it wages the war on terrorism. It is vital that the people of Afghanistan and its neighbors know the truth about America's objectives in combating terrorism and understand how our actions benefit all of mankind. Setting up Radio Free Afghanistan will give us a valuable tool to fight the vicious propaganda that Osama bin Laden and his supporters continue to spew forth. But Radio Free Afghanistan cannot succeed in isolation. Its broadcasts must be supplemented by stepped up and improved broadcasts to Afghanistan's neighbors--Pakistan and the Eurasian states of Kazahkstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. As my colleagues are aware, the Taliban are actively supporting an Islamic extremist insurgency in the Fergana Valley, where the borders of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan converge. It is conceivable that the Taliban's ultimate objective is Kazakhstan, the largest country in the region, rich in oil and minerals. Broadcasts by Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty to these countries should be increased both in air time and in quality. They should also be broadcast in FM frequency, not short-wave, in order to reach the largest percentage of the population. In the case of Kazakhstan, I understand that these broadcasts are transmitted only in the Kazakh language, despite the fact that Russian remains the most widely used language in Kazakhstan. The only Russian-language broadcasts report on events in Russia, not in Kazakhstan. We need to broadcast in Russian to the Russian speakers in Kazakhstan. Journalists and publishers in Kazakhstan and elsewhere are struggling to report the truth to their readers and listeners, but they are harassed and periodically shut down by the authorities. Getting newsprint on a reliable basis is also a problem. On November 27, 2001, President Nazarbayev threatened the media unless editors developed a code of conduct for journalists. The threatened clampdown came after critical articles appeared in the media concerning President Nazarbayev's son-in-law. Government agencies are sabotaging or shutting down Internet access as well. Local sources of non-government controlled news would be a valuable complement to U.S. government broadcasts. U.S. assistance, including supplying printing presses and ensuring continued access to the Internet, would be greatly welcomed by these lonely and persecuted voices of democracy and freedom. In our broadcasts to these countries, we should bear in mind that repression and corruption are causing the people to lose hope; and if the governments that rule in the five former Soviet republics of Central Asia do not loosen their grip on their people, the people may respond to the siren call of Islamic extremists as holding out the only source of hope for change. Accordingly, even as we work with the governments of Central Asia to oust the Taliban and al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, we need also to make it very clear both to the governments and the peoples of the region that we oppose the repression and corruption that are causing so much suffering, deprivation and opportunities for Islamic extremists.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce the cowardly and barbaric terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament building that took place in New Delhi earlier this morning. First I want to express by deepest condolences to Prime Minister Vajpayee, the families of victims and to the people of India. This latest attack, which comes two months after the October suicide bombing on the parliament building in Kashmir, strikes at the heart of India, the symbol of its democracy. Six heavily armed terrorists, dressed in Indian military commando fatigues charged into the Parliament complex and set off a fierce gun battle in which six policemen and a Parliament staffer were killed as well as all six of the terrorists. From the amount of explosives found on the attackers, Indian authorities believe the terrorists were on a suicide mission. The attack took place minutes after both Houses of Parliament had adjourned for the day and could easily have taken the lives of numerous Members of Parliament, staff and visitors. Three months and two days ago, terrorists used box cutters, knives and fuel-laden passenger jets to launch suicide missions against the United States. One of those airplanes, we later learned, may have been intended to hit this very Capitol building--the symbol of our democracy. The attack against India, as with the attacks against the United States, were not aimed at bringing down buildings. They were cowardly attempts by criminal terrorist organizations to attack free and democratic societies, to intimidate their people and their government. India has waged a long and often-lonely battle against terrorism. Today, I want to assure the people and government of India that you are not alone. Mr. Speaker, it is time that the international community made clear that terrorism and violence as a means of political expression will not be tolerated and will not be allowed to continue. We must act together in rooting out the terrorist networks whereever they exist.