Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 242) recognizing Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty's success in promoting democracy and its continuing contribution to United States national interests.

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. 242, the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just again compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), whose visions on these issues have been nothing less than extraordinary.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and simply stress that this resolution recognizes 50 years of outstanding broadcasts by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Earlier this year, we celebrated the one-half century of service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and now we bring before this House a resolution to memorialize this occasion: Today, RFE/RL continues its mission to promote democratic values and institutions by disseminating factual information and ideas, thus expressing the idealism of the American experience. As we face the war against terrorism and continued suppression of free media in many countries, it is clear that there remains a compelling mission for U.S. support of international broadcasting to provide factual information about world events and events within a given country. The resolution before us recognizes the work of the broadcasters, the editors, the journalists, and the managers of RFE/RL, who see their work not just as a job but as a mission. Daily, they bring hope to people who do not have access to fair and independent media. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to formally recognize the work and successes of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and our support for their ongoing work to promote democratic values around the world. Before reserving the balance of my time, let me just say I am particularly appreciative of the work of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), and so many others for their strong support of public diplomacy of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEACH

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, let me again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for their leadership on so many African issues. Symbolically, this bill is about the world family, about kids and their grandparents. If we keep our priorities right, the likelihood of moral and national splintering becomes remote. If, on the other hand, we wear blinkers, chaos is inevitable. The American national spirit, as well as our national interest, is interlinked with the commitment to end despair in the furthest reaches of the globe. Hope is the only hope for the world today.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Con. Res. 102) relating to efforts to reduce hunger in sub-Saharan Africa, as amended.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the cooperation of the majority leader, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for allowing the House to consider this Hunger to Harvest: Decade of Support for sub-Saharan Africa Resolution. The bill was introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and me earlier this year and currently has 150 cosponsor, including many of our colleagues on the Committee on International Relations. The amendment in the nature of a substitute that the committee is offering today conforms the House version with similar language already passed by the Senate. This resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should commit itself to acting with its partners in sub-Saharan Africa to reduce poverty and hunger on the sub-continent over the next decade. What is most extraordinary about the 20th century in relation to the rest of human history is that economic and social development, coupled with modern medicines, caused the life spans of human beings to double on much of the planet. Tragically, the exception has been in Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, where not only have life spans not been extended, but life has been shortened in the last several decades. While sub-Saharan Africa has tremendous untapped human and economic potential, for the most part the region has not prospered. Indeed, in all of the developing regions of the world, the severity of poverty and malnutrition is greatest in that sub-continent and is also growing at the fastest rate on the Earth. Roughly 290 million people in the region, nearly half the total population, live on less than a dollar a day. Mr. Speaker, 33 of the world's 41 most heavily indebted poor countries are in sub-Saharan Africa. According to the World Bank, those more vulnerable to poverty live in rural areas in large households which are often headed by women. In addition, the scourge of HIV/AIDS is fast reversing many of the modest social gains which have been achieved in recent years. There are many causes for this distressing state of affairs: interstate conflict, natural disaster, corruption, underdeveloped private sectors, to name a few. While the people of sub-Saharan Africa must take ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of these countries, the United States has the moral obligation and resources to help improve the lives of millions of people living there. This resolution directs the Agency for International Development to devise 5- and 10-year strategic plans in health, education and agriculture, and for promoting free market economies, trade investment, democracy, and the rule of law. In closing, I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of America's faith-based community, churches, synagogues, mosques and associated institutes like Bread for the World and its thoughtful president, David Beckman, for compelling support for this resolution. It is this private, faith-based community that has awakened the conscience of the world on the need to confront the moral and development challenges of issues such as debt relief and world hunger. In their name, I urge passage of this resolution. Before turning to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, let me thank the gentleman for his leadership and that of course of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), which has been so extraordinary on this subject. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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. 102, the resolution under consideration.

Mr. LEACH

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 matter on H.R. 3348, the bill under consideration.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and let me welcome this opportunity to bring H.R. 3348 to the House floor. The bill designates the National Foreign Affairs Training Center after a distinguished American, George Shultz. Mr. Shultz, among his many achievements, was responsible for creation of the new Foreign Service training facility established in Arlington, Virginia. He undertook the difficult task of convincing Congress that the funding of the new campus would be an investment in the future of our foreign affairs community. In 1993, the professional and modern facilities opened as the National Foreign Affairs Training Center. Secretary Shultz has a strong belief that the Nation should have a permanent home for training U.S. Government officials that serve overseas. Since 1947, the State Department has operated an in-service training facility, but by the late 1980s, it was apparent that there was a need for expanded course offerings and a larger facility to accommodate the increased number of participants. Secretary Shultz successfully pursued his goal to have a first-rate training facility established, which today has an enrollment of approximately 30,000 a year. As thrice a graduate of courses at the old Foreign Service Institute, it is an honor to bring this bill before the House. As a longtime admirer of the public service of Secretary Shultz, it is a particular honor to help bring his vision to reality. I would urge strong support for this resolution and again would commend my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his support for this initiative. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, George P. Shultz began his career in the South Pacific in World War II. He is ending his career, to the degree it is ending, and we hope it is not fully, with a bill aimed in his honor, a facility designed to prevent further wars. I think this could not be more fitting.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, today the World Peace Prize Awarding Council will award its highest honor, the World Peace Prize, to the Vice President of Taiwan, Annette Lu. The Vice President will be the first woman to receive the award. Ms. Lu has had a distinguished career in public service, and has been concerned in particular to promote democracy and open, accountable government in Taiwan and to further women's rights. In 1979, when Taiwan still had an authoritarian government, she made a brief speech on human rights during a public demonstration later known as the Kaohsiung Incident. Along with many other opposition figures, she was sent to prison for 12 years. After five years in prison she was released to undergo medical treatment, and promptly resumed her campaign for progressive political change on Taiwan. By the early 1990s, Taiwan had largely completed its successful transition to democratic governance. Ms. Lu entered politics in 1993 and became Vice President in March 2000--the highest-ranking woman to be elected to office in 5,000 years of Chinese history. While Ms. Lu has taken a controversial position on Taiwan independence, one which from a U.S. perspective is beyond the contemplation of the three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act that underpin U.S.-China relations, the heroic commitment she has made to the democratic evolution on Taiwan deserves the commendation of the world community. We honor Vice President Lu for her commitment to democracy and congratulate her for receiving the World Peace Prize.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I would first say with regard to the words that have been brought to us today that this is an important provision in law to bring a money laundering statute into being. Following the money is the most effective way of tracking criminal activity of a given nature. It also serves as a deterrent to crime. When we first looked at this in the last several years, the main emphasis has been on narco-trafficking; but clearly with regard to terrorism, it is an important ingredient. But it is with some disappointment that I must say that I am amazed and startled to learn that the provision of the bill that relates to Internet gambling has been removed by leadership. And I would only as strongly as I can say that I consider this to be an affront to the committee. I also consider it to be an assault on basic judgment. I would hope that there would be a greater courage and greater will in this body on this issue of Internet gambling. We are at one of the last moments if there is any hope whatsoever of trying to put a curb on something that is very destructive to the economy and very difficult for individual human beings. And a footnote to the Internet gambling issue is that gambling is one of the great techniques of laundering money. We have to put a footprint down now to stop this form of money laundering and stop the kinds of things that affect so many American individuals. A million Americans a day are now gambling on the Internet with over 600 casino sites with nobody having any idea what these casinos do with the credit card numbers that one gives to these illegal offshore entities. This Congress has to show a little more backbone when a few interest groups stand up and say they object, when a few ideologues stand up and say they have concerns. The judgment is one that I think has got to be based on compassion and decency, and I hope we can do better.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, American governance today is confronted with an unprecedented challenge. A concerted terrorist attack has been perpetrated against our institutions, people, and way of life. As legislators we are obligated to look to our constitutional heritage to craft an appropriate response. What is clear is the imperative to act. What is less clear is the methodology to pursue. Terrorism is neither easily understood nor combatted. The assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon represent perhaps more a conspiracy of hatred than a traditionally understood act of war. Yet the rationale for an international police action led by U.S. Armed Forces must be rooted in traditional just war doctrine. There is in the Western tradition a hallowed just war doctrine developed by ecclesiastics and jurists, followed by statesmen, instinctively accepted by the peoples of many countries in tradition and right. Briefly, it holds that for war to be considered just, it must be animated by a just cause and informed by righteous intention, that it be undertaken by a lawful political authority and only as a last resort, and that rectifying actions be proportionate to the wrongs committed. With this resolution Congress is obligated to lay forth an intent to hold accountable to the bar of justice perpetrators of a crime against civilized values. We do this, however, with no intent of territorial aggression nor desire to precipitate breaches between the Moslem and Judeo-Christian worlds. Indeed, we act our of a desire to emphasize what unites rather than divide the three great monotheistic religions. All moral communities are structured by religious values. Thus our revolution against British authority was premised upon ``self-evident'' individual rights and legitimized by an ``appeal to heaven,'' a higher law of conscience which precedes the more mundane civil laws of society. In establishing our constitutional form of government the Founders brought into being not a secular system, but a desectarianized one premised on the dual conviction that no political leader or institution speaks for God, and at the same time, that under God, truth and right are not matters ultimately decided by majority vote. The decision not to establish a state church, however, was never intended to precipitate a divorce of religious values from politics. Citizens were expected to derive their values from religion, but to practice their faith by example rather than coercion; to be moral without moralizing. Likewise, governance was intended to be rooted in law and due process and the resolution we are now debating is intended to underscore the role of our legislators in advancing a foreign policy decision. Here, it demands stressing that for a community founded as ``one nation, under God,'' a critical basis for making judgments of the nature thrust today before Congress is the Ten Commandments, the essence of the ethical teachings of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. As the scholar Huston Smith puts it: ``It is through the Ten Commandments that Hebraic morality has made its greatest impact upon the world. Taken over by Christianity and Islam, the Ten Commandments constitute the moral foundation of half the world's population.'' As Smith and others have pointed out, the ethical precepts contained in the Ten Commandments--whether as worded in Exodus 20: 1-17 or Deuteronomy 5: 6-21 of the Hebrew Bible, as summarized by Jesus of Nazareth in ``two great commandments,'' Matthew 22: 37-39 in the New Testament, or as in the injunctions and prohibitions in Surah 17: 22-39 of the Koran--represent the minimum standards of conduct if life in community is to be an enduring possibility. The Ten Commandments are not the exclusive possession of a single religious tradition nor the expression of a particular moral code. Rather the importance of the Ten Commandments lies not in their uniqueness but in their universality. They are not only the final word in any area, they are the first word. This is why, over three thousand years after their formulation, they remain the moral cornerstone of half the world. The Ten Commandants are relevant to discussion of this resolution because just as the Judeo-Christian tradition emphasizes the civilized belief that ``Thou shalt not kill,'' the Koran states: ``do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden . . .'' The distinction that matters is not nuanced differences between the Old and New Testaments and the Koran, but between committed individuals of faith and fanatics. The former are concerned principally with improving their own lives; the latter with imposing their beliefs on others. Yet it is impressive how closely St. Paul's admonition about modesty of judgement--that we all see through a glass darkly--parallels Mohamed's directive ``follow not that of which you have not the knowledge . . . do not go about in the land exultingly, for you cannot cut through the earth nor reach the mountains in height.'' These parallels are important in this discussion because as we contemplate the use of force, we the representatives of the American people have an obligation to emphasize the commonality of our values. We respect Islam and Islamic nations. The only brief we hold is against parties that manipulate hatred and employ tactics of terror. Here, to return to just war doctrine, a central tenet is proportionately. Care must be taken in any military action to limit to the maximum extent possible collateral damage and seek instead individual accountability. We must in the American tradition pay a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. Otherwise, we will not only create more terrorists than we root out and cause a world currently sympathetic to our dilemma to turn against us, however righteous our cause. Fanaticism, in other words, should be matched by a commitment to right or wrong, not counter-fanaticism. The fundamental goal of the policy we sanction this evening must be prevention, not revenge. Finally, a note about historical parallels. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution is not proper precedent. Tonkin, after all, involved an unconfirmed rifle attack from a wooden boat against a U.S. naval vessel in a combat zone off the shores of Vietnam. No one was killed or injured; no damage was inflicted. In this case, an unprovoked, cowardly attack was launched against American citizens and military personnel on American territory. The Congress, in conformity with the War Powers Resolution which resulted from the lack of constitutional clarity that engulfed our involvement in Vietnam, has no choice except to authorize executive discretion. What this debate must frame, however, is both the discretion that is appropriately delegated to the President or underscored under the Constitution and the limits of nature of judgement that must be applied to the circumstance. In this regard, this Member smply wishes to place in the Record a concern for the need for international cooperation and proportionality of response. Fundamentally, at this stage, the crimes that have been committed are of a few against two symbolic bastions of civilization. The goal should be individual accountability of parties that plan and participate in terrorism or harbor terrorist activity. Prayerfully, a war on terrorism need not precipitate a war between cultures or states.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more difficult than to provide perspective to events of this week, but it would be self- evident that two of the profoundest lessons are that all societies, particularly democracies, are vulnerable to terrorism and that there is a growing breach between elements of the Islamic world and Judeo- Christian values. In this context, it is imperative that those responsible for heinous acts be held accountable at the bar of justice. Likewise, it is critical that any response be fair as well as firm so that an action- reaction cycle is not precipitated. Force is justified against terrorists and their harborers, not Islam or innocents. I stress this point because from an American perspective, terrorism is the enemy. We respect Islam and Islamic nations. The only brief we hold is against parties that manipulate hatred and employ tactics of terror. Civilized values, whether of the East or of the West, are rooted in just behavior and fundamentals of faith. Accordingly, at this traumatic juncture, the U.S. has an obligation to emphasize our identity with those individuals of faith who derive their values from the Koran, as well as the Old and New Testament. The barbarous acts precipitated in New York and Washington are more crimes against civilization and humanity than attacks on the United States as a Nation. Hence, as we seek accountability, we look for the support of faithful people and justice seekers of all societies in a war to eliminate the cowardice of terrorism. The despicable acts of this past week do not put American security particularly at risk; it is civilization and civilized values which demand protection.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. There is a great deal at stake in this controversy. First is the damage that will be done to the environment by air pollution if the most populous state in the union is given an exemption from the oxygenate requirement under the reformulated gasoline program. Second is the setback which will be given to our efforts to become more energy self-sufficient if this waiver is granted. Third is the blow such a waiver will deal to the Midwest economy. Any rational national energy policy must include the development and usage of alternative sources of fuel--from wind to water, sun to corn and beans--need to be explored, cultivated and implemented more rigorously. This amendment would move our energy policy in precisely the opposite direction. From a Midwest view ethanol production provides a much-needed boost for the rural Midwestern economy. The USDA has determined ethanol production adds 25 to 30 cents to the price of a bushel of corn, and, according to a Midwestern Governor's Conference report, adds $4.5 billion to farm revenue annually, creates 195,200 jobs, brings in $450 million in state tax revenues, improves our balance of trade by $2 billion, and saves the federal Treasury $3.6 billion annually. Promoting the use of ethanol in reformulated gasoline makes good sense environmentally, geostrategically and economically. Again, I urge a no vote on this amendment.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly mention the subject the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) mentioned earlier and that is the courthouse issue and the priority that might be given it. I would first like to compliment the committee and the professionalism in which they have approached the courthouse issue. As the gentleman knows, there is a long list which has been developed with the Department of Justice in a very professional, nonpolitical way. I represent a town called Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which is on the cusp of whether it should be funded this year or the following year. It is my understanding, based on some public announcements this past week, that Senate appropriations leadership has indicated that they expect to fund the Cedar Rapids Courthouse, at least the beginning planning funding of about $15 million. What I would like to inquire of the gentleman is, if resources become available and we can move down this next step, if there is any possibility that Cedar Rapids could be considered in this round.

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. LEACH. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just conclude with two comments. One, again, I would express my appreciation for the professionalism of this whole consideration. Cedar Rapids, like many towns in America, has been on this list, and each town is anxious to get their courthouse done. There is a case for everyone around the country. It is my impression that the gentleman's subcommittee has been exceptionally professional in how they have done the prioritization. I would only conclude with one brief aspect for my community. The community has really done a whole lot on the cost containment grounds with low-cost ground, et cetera. This is the heart of community revitalization for Cedar Rapids, so it is both a judiciary matter and, frankly, a community matter. So to the degree that sympathetic consideration can be given this year, I personally would be deeply appreciative, and I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his thoughtful leadership.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from New York. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)