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. Speaker, I thank my friend and leader for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this bill. Many have spoken against the provisions that privatize part of our Nation's air traffic control system. Others have objected to the failure to direct the certification and training of flight attendants. Others have condemned the process that seems to have shut out Democrats, particularly our leader, from participating in the drafting of this agreement. As much as we respect the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), we know that he could have added a great deal so we would not have had this contentious argument.

I have one more reason to oppose it. In 1986, the Congress made an agreement with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to cede operational control and financing of our airports to our regional authority. The Metropolitan Washington Region has maintained our part of the bargain. This conference report breaks that agreement by adding 20 more flights and going beyond the 1,250 mile perimeter rule. That is not right. It increases the safety concerns at National Airport.

For this and many other reasons, I oppose this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference agreement.

Many here have already spoken against provisions in this bill that would allow privatilization of our nation's air traffic control system, others have objected to this agreement's failure to direct the certification and

training of flight attendants and still others have condemned a process that has shut out Democrats from participating in the drafting of this agreement.

Let me add one more reason to vote against this bill.

I object to this bill because it continues to intrude in the operations of this region's local airports.

While I appreciate the good efforts of the chairman to restore general aviation at National, to compensate businesses injured by the current shutdown, and assist hometown carrier, U.S. Airways, operate quieter, more efficient regional jets, I cannot support the heavy hand of this Congress in violating two long-standing agreements and mandating that National accommodate more flights and flights outside the current perimeter rule restrictions.

The agreement before us today continues to violate a promise this institution made to this region back in 1986.

In 1986, Senator Elizabeth Dole, President Reagan's Secretary of Transportation, helped broker an agreement between the federal government, the Congress, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to cede control of National and Dulles Airports to a regional authority that would have, in the words of current law, ``full power and dominion over, and complete discretion in, operation and development of the airports.''

In return, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland agreed to accept operational control of the airports and raise the money necessary to modernize National and Dulles airports.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia have upheld their part of the bargain. Congress, however, has not honored its part of the deal.

At least once every three years since this transfer took effect, Congress has tried to intervene and micro manage the operations of the two airports.

There may be a federal interest, and I recognize that both commercial airports are still owned by the federal government, but should Congress really be trying to determine what are clearly economic and business decisions on what carriers fly where?

With the bill before us today, Congress is once again telling the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to waive its existing rules and allow certain carriers more flights.

Mr. Speaker, these additional flights take us further down a controversial road whose final destination will make few carriers happy and cause real economic harm.

Three years ago, I spoke on the House floor opposing an FAA authorization bill that added more flights at National.

At that time I warned that breaking the 1986 deal would bring us down a dangerous path in which every FAA authorization bill would become a vehicle for further tinkering and interference by Congress.

Obviously not enough Members were sufficiently satisfied with the flights added in the last FAA reauthorization bill or we would not be back here again today with more changes.

Who is happy with the proposed changes? Not U.S. Airways, Delta or United, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority nor the residents of this region.

In fact, there is no solution that will satisfy everyone.

But, continue down this path of forcing more flights and there will be some real economic consequences that will ultimately undermine both the quality and quantity of air service this region is fortunate to now receive.

The point is being reached in which operational and safety constraints imposed by the type of runway and the number of gates, not slots, will limit the number of flights the airport is capable of handling.

Once this threshold is crossed, both the quality and quantity of flights will be compromised.

we risk:

(1) Losing direct air service to many smaller cities, those that can least afford a disruption from an economic development standpoint,

(2) We risk a reduction in international air service that may result in this region being bypassed in favor of other east coast airports with better transcontinental connections. (Hundreds of millions of dollars that have been invested to make Dulles an international gateway will have been imprudently invested), and

(3) We risk more delays and congestion as operational limitations and space cause delays throughout the system, something LaGuardia encountered when its slot rule was repealed.

(4) And, adding one more slot, one more flight, is one more than Washington area residents bargained for.

I know the support isn't there to rollback the 20 new slots, 8 inside the perimeter and 12 outside, in this bill.

But why pile it on with an additional provision that gives Congress yet another opportunity to tinker again with the operation of these two airports?

Why create the added burden and economic uncertainty that this bill invites by denying these two commercial airports the ability to receive any new Airport Improvement Program grants or new Passenger Facility Charges beginning in 2008?

Why single out and suspend federal assistance to just these two airports?

I thought an understanding had been worked out when Delegate Norton offered her amendment earlier this year on the House floor that this obnoxious provision would be removed in conference.

Congress doesn't need this provision.

There is already sufficient oversight over the airports to ensure that any federal interest is protected.

We've got the FAA reauthorization bill.

In addition, there's the authority's own board of directors that must include 3 presidential appointments approved by the Senate.

In the past former Members of Congress have served on this board, and the GAO has unique statutory authority to audit the activities and transactions of the board.

Mr. Speaker, Congress, visitors to the nation's capital, businesses and local residents have all benefited from the capital improvements that have occurred at the airport since the regional authority took over control.

Let's not place $100 of millions in future development at risk.

Let the two airports continue to be treated like all other commercial airports for purposes of receiving improvement grants and new passenger facility charges.

Reject this agreement.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support for House Resolution 409, repudiating the recent damaging rhetoric of the outgoing Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir.

Despite my steadfast and unequivocal support for this resolution, I rise today with a heavy heart. I am heavy-hearted not because I question the necessity of such a resolution, but because its necessity exists at all. I am heavy-hearted because in the year 2003 overt prejudice, racism and virulent anti-Semitism still exist. And I am heavy-hearted because I must take to the floor of the United States House of Representatives to condemn what should be an unfortunate relic of our past. To the contrary, anti-Semitism seems to grow stronger with every passing day. But I am not only heavy-hearted; I am outraged by this.

Madam Speaker, there are problems to be solved, world-wide problems, and

problems at home, homelessness, joblessness, poverty, famine, drought, flood, disasters. There are people that need our help and challenges we need to confront. But instead, today we take to the floor of the House not to confront these problems, but to confront a moral outrage and an affront to world civilization, overt racism and anti-Semitism on a massive scale.

This past week, Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mohamad, opened a 57- nation Summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference by characterizing Israel and Jews as the enemy who rule the world by proxy. He continued by calling worldwide Jewry an arrogant people who forget to think and will continue to spread oppression and domination.

Prime Minister Mohamad has made what amounts to a call for a global war against the Jewish people and a holy war against the State of Israel. This is incendiary rhetoric of the worst kind. It is scapegoating, and it is racist, and it serves only as an incitement to violence and death and destruction. Not only are the comments of this nature dangerous and morally repugnant, they are beyond the pale of civilized dialogue.

Nine decades ago, my grandparents walked across Europe to come to this great country. They sought a better life for their family and a better future for their children and their grandchildren. They came with nothing more than the clothes on their back, fleeing prejudice and hardship and oppression and, had they remained, almost certain death by the hands of the Nazis.

It has been 90 years since my grandparents came to this great country. In those 90 years, we have won two world wars, conquered the evil of totalitarianism, and congratulated ourselves for a new era of globalism and plurality in which we celebrate our differences and embrace our diversity.

Americans believed that the rest of the world have been celebrating with us. How wrong we have been. The senseless, mindless hatred and prejudice that my grandparents experienced in Europe still exists today. It exists in the burning of synagogues worldwide. It exists in the attacks on Holocaust memorials in Europe, and it exists in remarks made by a head of state at a conference, remarks that not one of the 57 nations in attendance, not one, raised a voice of protest over or left the room in disapproval or disgust.

As world leaders and elected officials, we share a great responsibility. We are looked to for wisdom and guidance. In times of crisis, we are called upon to lead with fortitude and courage. In times of sadness, we are called to lead with strength and conviction, and in times of joy, we are called to lead with our hearts, but never, never are we called to lead with hatred.

Words and actions by an elected leader have far-reaching consequences. They have the power to make policy, and they have the power to change hearts and minds. National leaders must set an example. Not only are the unconscionable statements of the Prime Minister damaging in their own right, and they are, they are damaging at this critical time as the Palestinians and the people of Israel struggle to form a lasting peace.

By inflaming tensions between the Islamic and the Jewish world with hatred-filled bigotry, he has only helped to make an all-too-elusive peace more difficult to achieve. Once again, he has attempted to delegitimize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State and demonize the Jewish people.

I am pleased that we will be voting today to condemn the offensive and damaging rhetoric of the Prime Minister. His words and the thoughts behind them are inexcusable. I am also pleased that we will be condemning the violence of other world leaders, silence that in the past has been deadly to millions.

I call upon my colleagues to join us in taking this strong stand against bigotry and intolerance, racism and anti-Semitism.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our Democratic whip and an original cosponsor of H. Res. 409.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for those poignant remarks, and I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and before I yield time back to the majority to close, I would like to thank the majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for helping to move this legislation to the floor and helping to ensure its quick passage.

I am pleased this was handled in a bipartisan manner, and I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their assistance. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) as well.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my good friend, as chief sponsors of this legislation, and I also want to thank my colleague and good friend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of our the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations.

Madam Speaker, I rise to lend my support to the provisions of H. Res. 409 to repudiate the comments made recently by Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad of the Republic of Malaysia. The prime minister's speech was given on October 16, about 2 weeks ago, at a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Nations. The conference was held in Malaysia and was attended by heads of states and government leaders and other political leaders from some 57 nations whose majority populations are followers of Islam.

Madam Speaker, Prime Minister Mohamad claimed that his speech was taken out of context. So I thought perhaps, in fairness to him, I would read his speech in its entirety, which I did, but I thought perhaps we also needed to examine the Prime Minister's prior statements, this very issue of anti-Semitic, this hatred of the people who are of Jewish ancestry. What I found out was a consistent pattern of anti-Semitic statements.

There was a great article in the Boston Globe written recently by Mr. Jeff Jacoby, who did some research on Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's utterances as a political leader of Malaysia. Thirty years ago, Prime Minister Mohamad wrote, ``The Jews are not merely hook-nosed, but understand money instinctively.'' The same Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, described the Jewish people as monsters.

In 1994, this same Prime Minister issued a ban in Malaysia not to show the movie Schindler's List because it showed too much favoritism towards the Jewish people, and in 1997, the same Prime Minister also accused an American businessman, an investor by the name of Mr. George Soros, as the cause of Malaysia's economic instability and currency collapse, specifically citing Mr. Soros as the ``Jew who triggered the currency plunge'' and coincidentally citing that he is Jewish.

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time Prime Minister Mohamad has made hateful and bigoted statements against the Jewish people. How convenient it is for a Muslim political leader like Prime Minister Mohamad to always blame the Jewish people for the failures of Muslim political leaders to solve the many socioeconomic problems that concurrently confront the needs of some 1.3 billion people who are associated with Islam or the Muslim religion.

Prime Minister Mahathir claims that the Jews rule this world by proxy. I say, in response to such an outrageous statement by the Prime Minister, the contributions over the years by those of the Jewish ancestry have been truly a blessing to our world community. In the fields of medicine, of law and of physics, literature, and social sciences, I need only to mention the name of Dr. Jonas Salk, who discovered the cure for the dreaded disease of polio, the names of Dr. Albert Einstein, Dr. Teller, and Dr. Oppenheimer as the founding fathers of modern nuclear physics and the theory of relativity.

Time will not allow me to elaborate further the many positive contributions made for the benefit of mankind by those in the Jewish community given generously to the world community. Suffice it to say to political leaders like Prime Minister Mahathir, if it was your intention to tell your fellow Muslims that the sacred writings contained in the Koran have been misinterpreted by your own Muslim scholars, and partly the reason why there is so much divisiveness among your own adherers to Islam, then say so; but do not blame the Jewish community for your own failures.

Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope as we contemplate the beginning of this sacred month called Ramadan among the adherents of Islam as a period of fasting and prayer and for greater patience and greater love towards all mankind, which in my humble opinion is the essence and the heart and soul of the religion of Islam as taught by the prophet Mohammed some 400 years ago, I do not believe, Madam Speaker, that Prime Minister Mahathir's statement reflects the real meaning and teachings of Islam.

This resolution will announce to the world that this institution, the Congress of the United States of America, will not tolerate and does not support the Prime Minister's statement. And I also reflect upon statements made earlier by my colleague, that I too remember what was said by Martin Luther King, Jr., years ago: ``At the end, we will not remember the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.''

Madam Speaker, I rise with great concerns over this legislation--both over its content and what it represents. First, I think it is absurd that the U.S. Congress believes it has the responsibility and authority to rectify the inappropriate statements of individuals in foreign countries. Have we moved beyond meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries--as bad as that is--to even meddling in the very thoughts and words of foreign leaders and citizens? It is the obligation of the U.S. Congress to correct the ``wrong thoughts'' of others that have nothing to do with the United States? Additionally, is it our place to demand that other sovereign states, such as the members of the European Union, react as we say they must to certain international events?

More troubling than what is stated in this legislation, however, is the kind of thinking that this approach represents. The purpose of this legislation is to punish inappropriate thoughts and speech--to free debate on difficult topics and issues. In this, it contains a whiff of totalitarian thinking. This legislation advances the disturbing idea that condemnatory speech that does not explicitly incite violence is nevertheless inherently dangerous. It asserts that even debating controversial topics inevitably leads to violence. This is absurd on its face: it is only debate that leads us to come to understandings over controversial topics without violence. That is why nations engage in diplomacy.

Those who feel aggrieved over an issue can either broach the issue through discussion and debate or they can attempt to address the grievance through the barrel of a gun. Which is preferable? I think the answer is self-evident. Once persuasion is taken from the realm of possibility, the only approach left to address grievances is violence.

Is the prime minister of Malaysia wrong in his statements? Debate him. Invite him to one of the various multilateral gatherings with someone who disagrees with him and have a debate and discussion over the issue. This approach is much more likely to result in a peaceful resolution of the dispute than what we are doing here: a blanket condemnation and a notice that certain difficult issues are not subject to any inappropriate thoughts or statements. This is chilling for a nation that prides itself on its tradition of protecting even the most distasteful of speech.

Dr. Mahathir has long been known for his statements on the Middle East. His views are no secret. Yet even President Bush, who invited Prime Minister Mahathir to Washington in May, 2003, chose the path of debate over blanket condemnation. President Bush said at a joint press conference that, ``we'll also talk about the Middle East, and I look forward to hearing from the Prime Minister on the Middle East. So we'll have a good discussion.'' Abandoning our beliefs and traditions-- especially those regarding the right to hold and express even abhorrent thoughts and ideas--when it comes to our foreign relations is hardly the best way to show the rest of the world the strength of our system and way of life.

A careful reading of the prime minister's speech did not find any explicit calls for violence. Actually, Dr. Mahathir called for Muslims around the world to cease using violence to seek their goals. He stated, ``is there no other way than to ask our young people to blow themselves up and kill people and invite the massacre of more of our own people?'' Also, he advises against ``revenge'' attacks and urges Muslims to ``win [the] hearts and minds'' of non-Muslims including ``Jews...who do not approve of what the Israelis are doing.'' While we may agree or disagree with the cause that Dr. Mahathir espouses, the fact that he calls for non-violent means to achieve his goals is to be commended rather than condemned. This is not to agree with every aspect of his address--and certainly not to agree with some of the ridiculous statements contained therein--but rather to caution against the kind of blanket condemnation that this legislation represents. Do we not also agree with his words that Muslim violence in the Middle East has been counterproductive? President Bush himself in May invited Dr. Mahathir to the White House to, in the president's words, ``publicly thank the Prime Minister for his strong support in the war against terror.''

I strongly believe that we need to get out of the business of threatening people over what they think and say and instead trust that our own principles, freedom and liberty, can win out in the marketplace of ideas over bigotry and hate. When the possibility of persuasion is abandoned, the only recourse for the aggrieved is violence. Haven't we seen enough of this already?