Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) honoring the victims of the Cambodian genocide that took place from April 1975 to January 1979.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 83.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 83, honoring the victims of the Cambodian genocide. It is difficult to gain a full perspective on historic events, particularly those that are most inhumane, such as genocide. Tragically, the 20th century, which was marked by advances in medicine and nutrition that raise the prospect of nearly doubling the life span of countless people around the globe, also was marked by explosions of hatred that mercilessly ended life for millions of others. The killing of so many Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s stands among the worst of those atrocities. In the field of law, there exists the precept of a statute of limitations. But for genocide, mankind's greatest crime, such a precept cannot be bound merely by time. There also must be accountability. While justice and time are interwoven, the preeminent principle is justice. To the extent that accountability today is inadequate, accountability tomorrow must follow. For some, justice for the Cambodian genocide seems a frail prospect, given that almost a generation has passed in that country. Indeed, it does not lie within our power to construct perfect justice for that, or any other, genocide. But as time goes on and mortality places more of the perpetrators beyond our reckoning, the most important accountability is not necessarily monetary, penal or retributive. The march of time underscores the importance of memory. Victims must be remembered and civilized peoples of the world must commit themselves to ensuring that such horrific circumstances are not repeated within human history. It is in this context that this resolution assumes its proper importance. I would like to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her efforts in introducing H. Con. Res. 83, which honors the victims of the Cambodian genocide, gives voice to our desire for justice, and notes the contributions of Cambodian Americans to our own society. To some, this resolution may seem unimportant because it principally marks an instance of symbolism. I disagree and believe that its power derives precisely from its symbolism. This resolution deserves our unanimous support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to conclude with great thanks to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her gentility and her civil leadership of this very important international human rights issue. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 288, honoring Seeds of Peace for its promotion of understanding, reconciliation, acceptance, coexistence, and peace among youth from the Middle East and other regions of conflict. I commend the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the other cosponsors of this resolution. Seeds of Peace is a courageous organization that prepares youth from conflict-ridden areas and trains them to be leaders of tomorrow. Seeds of Peace was founded in late 1993 by the late John Wallach, an award-winning author and journalist in order to bring together Arab and Israeli youth as a way for them to learn conflict resolution skills necessary for making peace. While the primary focus is on the Middle East, participants also come from the Balkans, South Asia, and Cyprus. Since 1993, over 2,000 teens from 22 nations have graduated from Seeds of Peace. Every year hundreds of Arab and Israeli teenagers are brought together and learn to recognize the humanity within each other. Seeds of Peace makes it possible for people who are blinded by hatred and prejudice to see the value in coexistence and mutual understanding. Seeds of Peace programs expose young people to critical thinking, respect for the rule of law, human rights, participatory decisionmaking, nonviolent dispute resolution, and a free press. The invaluable lessons learned and lasting friendships made through Seeds of Peace programs provide hope that respect and tolerance can prevail in communities where hate and ignorance have tragically hallmarked social interactions. For participants, Seeds of Peace takes the war out of the streets and puts some of the most difficult issues on the table in an environment free from violence. In a period of self-reflection, teens are challenged to deal with complicated and emotional issues. They are given a candle of hope to take back to their home societies, and are prayerfully provided the determination and will to participate in civil society discussions and initiatives that can lead to a more civil region and world. Negotiations and treaties are the responsibilities of governments. Peace, on the other hand, is made by people. In this context, Seeds of Peace are seeds of hope. I strongly urge the passage of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, each fall, the American Foundation for Urologic Diseases sponsors Prostate Health Month to remind people about the importance of maintaining good urologic health. Prostate Cancer Awareness Week was held September 14-21 and urologists around the country offered free screenings for prostate cancer, the second leading cause of cancer deaths in men. Encouraging reports indicate these cancers are being found at an earlier and more curable stage, resulting in a decline in prostate cancer death rates. Sadly, we also know that prostate cancer screening tests are not perfect and that the causes of other prostatic diseases, like prostatitis, still elude our full understanding. This problem is not limited to prostate diseases. Many other urologic conditions, such as painful bladder disease and interstitial cystitis, require further research. No gender, age or ethnic group is immune to these diseases. The key to addressing these and other challenges to good urologic health is more and better research. Of particular importance is research supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Congress has doubled the NIH budget over the last five years, providing our best scientists new resources for attacking these problems. Given the widespread impact of urologic diseases, however, the basic science research effort continues to lag. H.R. 1002, the Training and Research in Urology Act, was introduced to provide urologic scientists the tools they need to find new cures. It will create a Division of Urology at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the home of the urology basic science program, and expand existing research mechanisms, like the successful George O'Brien Urology Research Centers. This will give NIH new opportunities for investment in efforts to combat and vanquish these diseases. Millions of men and women are afflicted by these diseases. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of H.R. 1002.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to present to the House joint resolution 63, legislation that reauthorizes the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Because of the unique relationship between the United States and the Freely Associated States, the legislation before us today involves an extraordinary array of Federal programs, agencies, and policies. As a consequence, this joint resolution is the product of intensive bipartisan consultations between a panoply of different committees of jurisdictions, all of which have contributed to making this a compelling legislative product. In this regard, I would like to thank, in particular, the leadership of the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), as well as the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) whose expertise in island affairs has been invaluable to this Member and to our entire committee. Let me also acknowledge the exceptional leadership of the Committee on Resources, specifically the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and their staff for working so closely with us to ensure that the amended compacts would not only be considered on an expeditious basis, but enjoy the support of Members as well as the administration and the Freely Associated States. We also are appreciative of the prompt consideration of this bill by the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as the input of the Committee on Ways and Means. In addition, we are most appreciative of the cooperation of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, as well as the Committee on Appropriations working closely with us on education funding issues of keen interest and concern to many Members as well as the people of the FSM and RMI. Madam Speaker, here I note that under general leave, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) intends to insert into the record a letter to the Committee on International Relations from the Subcommittee on Appropriations for Labor, Health, and Human Services regarding funding for certain supplemental education programs as well as an exchange of letters confirming certain understandings on this joint resolution with the Committee on Ways and Means. Madam Chairman, as my colleagues may be aware, the economic assistance provisions of the current Compact with Micronesia and the Marshall Islands expired in 2001, but were extended for 2 years while the United States renegotiated the expiring provisions with these island countries, also known as the Freely Associated States. H.J. Res. 63, which is before us, is the authorizing and implementing legislation for the Amended Compacts of Free Association. Unless this resolution becomes law, critical portions of the original Compact of Free Association will expire with serious consequences for those nations and for United States' interests in the Pacific. By background, the United States has shared a uniquely close and mutually beneficial relationship with the people of the Marshall Islands, as well as Micronesia, for the past half-century. For nearly 40 years after the Second World War, the United States administered both islands as United Nations Trust Territories. In 1986, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands chose to become sovereign states and entered into a Compact of Free Association with the United States. The Compact was intended to ensure self-government for the new island nations, to assist them in their economic development towards self-sufficiency, and to advance mutual security objectives. It is my strong view that the interests of the people of the U.S. and these specific islands have been well-served by the Compact. Our former Trust Territories have emerged as sovereign democracies; America's strategic interest in the Western Pacific has been protected; and the bonds of friendship forged during World War II have only strengthened with the passage of time. Indeed, a significant number of Compact citizens have served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, including in the war on Iraq. Among other things H.J. Res. 63: one, secures expiring U.S. defense interests and extends U.S. access to the geographically unique Kwajalein Atoll Range, the key U.S. missile and missile defense testing site for up to an additional 70 years; two, it continues U.S. assistance to the FSM and RMI for 20 years, but fundamentally restructures the way it is provided to increase fiscal accountability and move it towards budgetary self-sufficiency; three, it prepares for the end of U.S. grant assistance in 2023 by capitalizing a U.S.- controlled trust fund for each nation; and, four, it modifies the unique U.S. immigration status enjoyed by FSM and RMI citizens, to address concerns primarily related to the United States homeland security. With respect to FEMA, the bill before us provides Compact countries continued access to FEMA programs through 2013, including essential public infrastructure rehabilitation programs. The Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, which is part of U.S. Agency for International Development, is also authorized to provide emergency assistance to the FAS. In an agreement reached with the Committee on Education and the Workforce H.J. Res. 63 would continue student eligibility under the Pell Grant program of the Higher Education Act, continue institution eligibility for certain competitive grant programs administered by the Secretary of Education, and create a new discretionary grant program for education in lieu of receipt of several current discretionary domestic education programs. This amount of roughly $20 million annually is in addition to the grant assistance otherwise provided through the Compact and would replace current Federal programs such as Head Start, Special Education, and others. Finally, let me just conclude by thanking Jamie McCormick and Douglas Anderson, counsels to the Subcommittee on Asia and Pacific for their exceptional assistance to me and the committee in helping to shepherd this complex measure through the legislative process. Again, before yielding to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), let me stress to the House what an honor it has been to serve with him and what a great addition his judgment has made to the committee and to the Congress on this particular issue, as well as so many others. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 63) to approve the ``Compact of Free Association, as amended between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia'', and the ``Compact of Free Association, as amended between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands'', and otherwise to amend Public Law 99-239, and to appropriate for the purposes of amended Public Law 99-239 for fiscal years ending on or before September 30, 2023, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this joint resolution.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to concur in the sentiments of my good friend, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) with regard to the professionalism of the staff on Capitol Hill. Prior to yielding back my time, I would like to specifically recognize the exceptional contribution of the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). The cooperation of his committee was crucial to our putting together this resolution. Madam Speaker, finally, consideration of this resolution is historically significant for the Pacific region. It provides a moment for the people of the United States and the Freely Associated States to celebrate our warm friendship and look to an enhanced and mutually respectful relationship.

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. LEACH. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, let me stress again the importance of this resolution. It has strong bipartisan support, I urge our colleagues to give this their unanimous support. This renewed compact is critical to the region.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 409) repudiating the recent anti-Semitic sentiments expressed by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the outgoing prime minister of Malaysia, which makes peace in the Middle East and around the world more elusive.

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

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 409.

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

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a resolution repudiating the recent anti-Semitic sentiments expressed by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the outgoing Prime Minister of Malaysia. At the outset, let me thank the majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), as well as the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for their introduction of this thoroughly appropriate and timely resolution. On October 16, Dr. Mahathir, the outgoing Prime Minister of Malaysia gave an address before the summit of the Organization of Islamic Countries in Kuala Lumpur which has drawn the condemnation of decent citizens throughout the world. In a speech, the Prime Minister made the widely reported comment, ``Today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.'' Dr. Mahathir chose to repeat Jewish conspiracy theories of world domination that first surfaced with the infamous anti-Semitic screed published in Russia by the Tsar's secret police back in 1905 known as ``The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'' While in the same speech the Prime Minister properly rejected terrorism and urged Muslims to embrace modern knowledge and technology, he nevertheless strongly implied that he viewed Islam and the West to be in fundamental historical conflict. While the totality of the remarks might have been intended to reflect some sort of ill-perceived leadership balancing act, the fact that they were uttered, premeditatively crafted, by a modern head of state, makes them particularly irresponsible and reprehensible. They deserve the strongest condemnation. Nothing can be more damaging to peace on this fragile planet than to perpetrate the most invidious myths about any ethnic or religious group. Particularly at this time when the Middle East is a seething cauldron of tension, it is imperative that thoughtful leaders underscore the need for understanding, rather than foment thoughts that lead to conflict. Madam Speaker, it is with the deepest regret and concern that I urge passage of this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, let me first thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for her tremendous leadership on this issue. Second, let me, in a broad way, stress that philosophically the three great monotheistic religions of the world, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are each rooted in the Ten Commandments. They embrace the Ten Commandments. And the Ten Commandments, above anything else, outline how we should live together in society; and they are doctrines of love and compassion, not hatred and revenge. One of the things we are all going to have to think through in all societies is how we emphasize what brings us together and not what tears us apart. Fundamentally, what is of deep concern to this body is that a leader of a great Muslim country, a country with which we are very close, a leader who is considered one of the most modern leaders in the Muslim world, has uttered words that, from an American perspective, seem out of context with the times, with good judgment, and with decency. What we have to emphasize to our friends, as well as to ourselves, is that we are going to have to think through differences in the world in such ways that we can reach compromise, based on a set of feelings that bring us together. Unfortunately, these remarks seem to move in the other direction. It is extremely unusual--not unprecedented but virtually unprecedented--that the Congress of the United States would deal with a resolution about the words of a head of state of another democracy, a country which we admire, yet we are obligated to do just that today because we want to bring the world together. So we say to Dr. Mahathir, we hope you repent and think through these words. We also say that we are willing to listen to differences of judgment, but we want to listen to differences of judgment that are based on decency in values, not in intolerance of views. It is this decency of values that we want to emphasize at this time.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, this spring I voted against the war in Iraq for a number of reasons. Principally I was concerned that intervention would prove counterproductive. But all of us must recognize that both Houses of Congress by majority vote authorized this action. Now we, collectively, have to bear the consequences of a constitutionally- sanctioned decision. We have no choice but to work together to get out of the predicament in which we have put ourselves. It may have been wrong to initiate war, but once American Armed Forces defeated Saddam's army and occupied Iraq, we became obligated to ensure that a more progressive kind of Iraqi society is created. Prior to the war, the cost of conflict was grossly underestimated by the administration. While, implicitly, cost implications were part and parcel of the decision some of us made against the war in the first place, they are no longer as credible a basis for denying American responsibility today. Great power, when it is unleashed, entails responsibility for actions contemplated and uncontemplated. I have grave concern about our inability to get Security Council sanction for the original intervention; also for a reluctance to allow greater internationalization of responsibility today. Nevertheless, the endorsement by the Security Council this afternoon of a resolution legitimizing the Coalition Provisional Authority and calling for a timetable for the drafting of a new Iraqi constitution has to be recognized as a positive step. The administration would be well-advised to build on this new international consensus, so reluctantly arrived at, to expedite the timetable for turning over the powers of government to the Iraqi people, and, in the meantime, to press for greater international responsibility and burden-sharing. Nothing could be worse for world order and for our budget than a long-term, largely solo American entanglement in Iraq. Hence, votes tonight should not be considered a preview of support next year. Given the thinness of the patience of the American people and the world community, the case for significant acceleration in the rebuilding of Iraq's political society and domestic economy, which the resources in this bill make possible, is compelling. While the administration may have been wrong to go to war this past spring, Congress grievously errs if we allow Iraq to disintegrate into chaos today. The issue is not principally Presidential credibility, although it, frankly, has been damaged. At issue is the American national interest as it now exists. If we refuse to rebuild a society we tore down, Muslims and others around the world will conclude we are a bullying power, uninterested in anybody else's fate but our own. If we are to deter terrorism in an increasingly anarchistic world, the vocabulary of war must be replaced by a commitment to reconstruction. The sooner we commit to this task, the sooner our troops can come home. The approach contained in this amendment, which I found quite attractive when it was first broached in the other body last week, appears less persuasive upon thoughtful review. It should be defeated. The right thing to do is to invest in peace today.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, it has been 12 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and one of the most remarkable stories to emerge from the wreckage of that failed system has been the steadily strengthening partnership between the United States and Russia. Two op- eds timed for President Vladimir Putin's recent visit to our country each highlight different facets of what is one of our most important international relationships. Ken Adelman explores the enormous successes of the Nunn-Lugar program, which has eliminated thousands of nuclear warheads and the systems that might have delivered them. Mark Medish, writing in the Financial Times, cites improvements in the Russian economy and the modernization and rise of free enterprise in Russia. In the aftermath of the unpredictably timed and unexpectedly rapid demise of communism, Soviet assets were devolved to too few in too conflicted a way. Instead of a free market, the Russian economy became characterized by oligarchic enterprises. But with each passing year the Russian economy has become increasingly subject to the strength of individual market decisions, especially consumer oriented ones. A middle class is growing and saving. Medish, in his article, optimistically emphasizes the positive. While it may not be the full picture, if sustained, the pace of entrepreneurial change in Russia bodes well for the future. I commend these articles to my colleagues. Real Arms Control (By Kenneth Adelman) While hanging out at Camp David this coming weekend, Presidents Bush and Putin should toast an impressive--though largely unknown--joint win in their war against terrorism. Over the past decade, their armsbuilders became arms- destroyers, cooperatively dismantling thousands of Russian nuclear systems. These weapons of mass destruction might otherwise have landed in terrorist hands. When the Soviet Union collapsed a dozen years ago, we feared Russian hucksters would sell nuclear, chemical, and biological components to terrorists. After all, Russian arsenals were massive, while their state controls were piddly. Incentives to sell--to get big bucks quickly; and to buy--to get big bangs easily--loomed large. Logic proved that what the late Secretary of Defense Les Aspin once dubbed ``Russia's loose nukes'' would be a staggering problem. But experience shows that it hasn't been one. Parkinson's most perceptive law tells us that the success of any policy is measured by the catastrophes that do not occur. By that measure--or, really, any measure--the joint American-Russian effort to dismantle weapons has been a big win for international security, especially against international terrorists. With Mr. Putin standing at his side last November, Mr. Bush said, ``Our highest priority is to keep terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.'' He went on to explain that ``our nations must spare no effort at preventing all forms of proliferation.'' Surely the leading light in this campaign has been the Nunn-Lugar program. For a bargain price of some $1.3 billion a year, America helps Russia disarm the meanest and most massive weapons in the world. According to the original co- sponsor, Senator Lugar, over the past dozen years, we've helped them destroy some: 800 ballistic missiles, over 800 launchers (followed by environmental restoration of the sites), over 100 bombers, more than 350 submarine launchers, 20 ballistic missile carrying submarines, and, most importantly, more than 5,500 nuclear warheads. That adds up to more than half of the old Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal. During the same period, much of the U.S. arsenal was eliminated as well, and newly independent former Soviet republics Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus were ``denuclearized.'' In all my years of handling arms control issues--first, as an American ambassador at the United Nations, and then as director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under President Reagan--I never imagined such a success. Indeed, nothing we achieved over the Geneva negotiating table produced anything on that order. Mr. Lugar's colleague, former Senator Nunn, said earlier this summer in Moscow that ``the gravest danger in the world today is the threat from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons'' and that ``the likeliest use of these weapons is in terrorist hands.'' Always one to think big, Mr. Nunn proposed that ``preventing the spread and use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons should be the central organizing security principle for the 21st century.'' It's hard to top his notion, especially since the prospect of the world's most vile terrorists getting their hands on the world's most vile weaponry makes every civilized person shutter. To make sure we keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists, there is still plenty of work to be done by Russia and the U.S. as partners. In Russia, for example, several thousand nuclear warheads are still housed in hundreds of weapons storage sites; several hundred metric tons of bomb-building materials are spread around Russia's nuclear facilities network; and millions of pounds of nerve agents are stored in vulnerable facilities. A single artillery shell, small enough to fit inside a brief case, if stolen from one of these facilities, could be powerful enough to kill 100,000 people. Imagine that last year's scare had been true--when the U.S. intelligence community thought terrorists had gotten their mitts on a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb and smuggled it into New York City. It turned out, thank goodness, that such a report was false. But if something like that could be true, as indeed it could be, then shouldn't we do everything possible to make it un-true? And to make sure it never happens? Again, Mr. Nunn had the right take here: ``If a nuclear weapon goes off in Moscow, Paris, Tokyo, or some other city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it? We may not be able to make these terrorists less evil, but we must make them less powerful. We must keep them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.'' The success of the cooperative efforts between Russia and America should give Messrs. Bush and Putin some pride this weekend. It calls for a Camp David toast.