Commending the Palestinian people for conducting a free and fair presidential election on January 9, 2005, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I want to speak certainly in favor of the Solomon Amendment and remind my colleagues that it does not apply to institutions of higher education that have had a longstanding practice of pacificism based on historic religious grounds, and it exempts Federal student financial assistance from termination. But what it does do is allow students to look at career opportunities in the Army. And as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services said, there are so many legal issues involved in the military today and to go beyond that, to let people look at careers in, I would say, intelligence as much as anything, homeland security, there is a great opportunity for students to go into.

But we are also seeing so much push-back really from a crowd that is basically anti-American and anti-conservative. Indeed, there are so many prejudices against everyday middle-class values on college campuses, and serving in the military and being pro-American just seems to be one of them.

Students at Wells College, for example, were ridiculed by their professors

if they supported the war in Iraq. At the University of Missouri, a professor, a science professor, offered extra credit for students to protest a speech given by conservative activist David Horowitz. At the University of Richmond, a professor called President Bush a moron in his class. And at the University of Oregon, students were labeled ``neo-Nazi'' for expressing their opinion that Trent Lott was the victim of a double standard. And examples go on and on.

Another statistic, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that over 90 percent of well-known college campuses have speech codes intended to ban or punish politically incorrect, almost always conservative speech, and that campus funds are unequally distributed to left-wing groups as opposed to conservative groups by a ratio of 50 to one.

I think the judicial attack on the Solomon Amendment is just one of a series of a trend that is against, again, anything that is pro- American, pro-conservative, pro-traditional values. And so I would submit for the Record an article that was an opinion in the Wall Street Journal recently and then something on the academic bill of rights that I think also touches into this same subject.

The bill would express the continued support of Congress for the so- called ``Solomon law'' in title 10, U.S. Code, which improves DOD's ability to establish and maintain ROTC detachments and to ensure military recruiters have access to college campuses and students that is at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to other employers.

The bill would:

State Congress's resolve to achieve military personnel readiness through vigorous application of the ``Solomon law'' relating to equal access for military recruits to institutions of higher education, and express Congress's commitment to explore all options, including the use of its Constitutional power to appropriate funds, to achieve that equal access.

Express the Sense of Congress that the Executive Branch should aggressively challenge any decision impeding or prohibiting the operation of the ``Solomon law.''

Encourage the Executive Branch to follow a doctrine of non- acquiescene by not finding a judicial decision affecting one jurisdiction to be binding on other jurisdictions. The so-called ``Solomon law,'' section 983, title 10, U.S. Code, named for its original proponent Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY), is based on the principle that if a college or university accepts federal funding it must permit military recruiters and/or ROTC access to campus and to students. Enacted first in 1994, and added to by Congress in 1996, 1999 and 2002, and 2004, the ``Solomon law'' prohibits some defense-related and other federal funding from going to colleges and universities that prevent ROTC access or military recruiting on campus.

The Solomon law: (1) does not apply to institutions of higher education that have a long-standing policy of pacifism based on historical religious grounds; and, (2) exempts federal student financial assistance from termination.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on 29 November 2004, reversed a district court decision, which had upheld the Constitutionality of the ``Solomon law,'' by ruling that the ``Solomon law'' violated the 1st Amendment rights of free speech and association held by institutions of higher education. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the district court to enter a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ``Solomon law.''

The acting Solicitor General has announced his intention to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Third Circuit Court. The Government also filed a motion on 14 January 2005 with the Third Circuit Court seeking to stay the Court's mandate for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ``Solomon law'' until the Supreme Court decides the Government's petition. The Third Circuit granted the stay on 19 January.

H. Con. Res. 36, in expressing continued support for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education, makes the following points regarding the ``Solomon law'':

Under article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, Congress exclusively has the power to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces.

Military recruiting on university campuses is one of the primary means by which the Armed Forces obtain highly qualified new military personnel and is an integral, effective and necessary part of overall military recruiting. Efforts by colleges and universities to restrict or prohibit military recruiter access will have the harmful effects of increasing Federal spending to achieve desired recruiting outcomes and of compromising military readiness and performance. Such harm conflicts with Federal responsibilities to provide for the Nation's defense. Any reduction in the performance by the Armed Forces amidst the present national emergency declared by the President on September 14, 2001, operates against the national interest.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate spending and in that role Congress has chosen over time to appropriate funds for a variety of Government programs to be provided to institutions of higher learning. However, these funds are not an entitlement to any college or university and can be provided subject to criteria and conditions set by Congress.

The ``Solomon law'' is a legislative safeguard that links Federal funding of educational institutions to the willingness of those institutions to abide by a rule of access by military recruiters to campuses and students that is at least equal in quality and scope that is provided to any other employer.

For the last several years, a growing number of university law schools and colleges of law have treated military recruiters in ways significantly different from the recruiters of other employers. As a result, military recruiters and the persons they seek to interview have been subjected to various degrees of official and unofficial harassment or ill treatment that is designed to make military recruiting difficult, or to frustrate its objectives. The underlying reason for this differing treatment is opposition to Federal law that prohibits military service by openly gay people--the so-called ``don't ask, don't tell'' law.

Given that opposition, it is imperative that the safeguards that the ``Solomon law'' provides not only for military recruiters, but also for ROTC, be maintained. Without such safeguards, grave harm to military recruiting will result as colleges and universities move to limit or deny access to campuses and students by representatives of the Armed Forces.

Academic Bill of Rights

background

Hiring Practices for Professors

Faculty hiring is controlled by more senior members of the

faculty itself:

As Conservative faculty forced to keep political views

quiet until they achieve tenure.

Usually hire those who agree with them,

Creates a perpetual cycle.

Creates an environment where Marxists, Post-Modernists,

etc. can still dominate in academic fields even while their

views have been discredited:

Numbers of Liberal Professors vs. Conservative Professors

The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans at the 32

schools studied was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134

Republicans).

Not a single department at a single one of the 32 schools

managed to achieve a reasonable parity between the two main

political parties:

In the nation at large, registered Democrats and

Republicans are roughly equal in number.

The closest any school came to parity was Northwestern

University--Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by a

ratio of 4-1.

Other Schools:

Brown--30-1

Bowdoin, Wellesley--23-1

Swarthmore--21-1

Amherst, Bates--18-1

Columbia, Yale--14-1

Pennsylvania, Tufts, UCLA and Berkeley--12-1

Smith--11-1

Other Schools had ZERO registered Republicans:

Williams--51 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Oberlin--19 Democrats, 0 Republicans

MIT--17 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Haverford--15 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Most students probably graduate without ever having a class

taught by a professor with a conservative viewpoint.

Not Just a Faculty Problem But A Campus-Wide Bias

For example, the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie

Melon, and Cornell could not identify a single Republican

administrator.

In the entire Ivy League, there were only 3 Republican

administrators identified.

Impact on Students

Remarks belittling conservative ideas convey that these

views are not accepted on campus--Grading based on these

ideas reinforce this perception.

One student called a ``fascist'' for inviting Oliver North

to campus.

University of Oregon--Student labeled ``neo-Nazi'' for

expressing his opinion that Trent Lott was the victim of a

double standard.

University of Richmond--Professor called President Bush a

``moron'' in the classroom.

University of Missouri in Columbia--Professor offered extra

credit to protest a speech by David Horowitz.

Students at Wells College were ridiculed by professors for

their support on Iraq war and their views on feminism.

``It didn't take long to see how liberal it was after I

came here. The professors and the education I receive is

excellent, but the professors seem to use class as a

political soapbox,''--Kristy L. Hochenberger, a student at

Wells College.

Slogan circulated by Biology professor at Wells College--

``Lobotomies for Republicans: It's not just a good idea; it's

the law!''.

Many students conceal what they actually think in order to

protect their academic standing--a reality clearly at odds

with the educational mission of the university.

Nearly all distinguished doctoral programs rely on matching

students with professors who have compatible interests.

Preferential treatment shown to those with similar liberal

ideals.

Campus Guests, Speech Police and Commencement Speakers

Campus funds are unequally distributed to leftwing student

groups as opposed to groups with conservative agendas by a

ratio close to 50:1: These student groups are many times in

charge of hiring campus speakers.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found

that over 90 percent of well-known college campuses have

speech codes intended to ban and punish politically

incorrect, almost always conservative, speech.

The ratio of commencement speakers on the left and right

was 226-15, a ratio of over 15:1: Commencement speakers are

selected through committees composed of administrative staff,

faculty, and students.

Twenty-two of the thirty-two schools surveyed did not have

a single Republican or conservative commencement speaker in

the entire ten years surveyed: Six of the remaining schools

invited only one Republican or conservative each, as compared

to 38 liberals or Democrats.

Haverford, Swarthmore and UCLA, which host multiple

speakers every year, did not feature a single Republican or

conservative speaker as balanced against 54 liberals and

Democrats.

Academic Bill of Rights

Recognizes that political partisanship by professors is an

abuse of students' academic freedom.

Designed to take politics out of the university curriculum:

Does not call for more classics in curriculum,

Reading lists should provide students with dissenting

viewpoints so they may form their own opinions.

Designed to protect the right of students to ``get an

education rather than an indoctrination'':

Should not make professors afraid of what they say,

We defend professors' right to say anything and forbids

administration from punishing them for their political

opinions,

Professors should always be open to dissenting opinions.

Unequal funding of student organizations which host guest

speakers is unacceptable: Calls for pluralism in selection of

guest speakers.

Learning environment hostile to conservatives is wrong.

There is a lack of ``intellectual diversity'' within

faculties on college campuses:

University should be ``inclusive'' to all viewpoints,

Without it, free exchange of ideas are impaired.

It is not our intention to suggest that there should be

quotas based on party affiliation in the hiring process at

universities:

We support removing all politics and political affiliation

from the hiring process,

It is our purpose to point out the gross imbalance of

liberal vs. conservative professors.

While nearly all university administrations devote

extraordinary resources to defend the principle of diversity

in regard to race and gender, none can be said to have shown

interest in the diversity of ideas.

Universities have the privilege of being separate from the

society they inhabit:

Society grants faculty protection from the influence of

outside politics,

With that privilege comes a responsibility by the faculty

to also safeguard the free exchange of ideas.

Correcting this should be the goal and an integral part of

educational policy under the Academic Bill of Rights.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 2, 2005]

Wisdom of Solomon--The Disgrace of Blocking Military Recruiters From

Campus

Don't ask. Don't tell. Having no desire to crash our e-mail

server, we'll save discussion of gays in the military for

another day. Rather, today's subject is lawyers in the

military. Surely Americans of all points of view can agree

that in an age of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the military can

use the best attorneys it can get.

So it's a disgrace that some of the nation's law schools,

objecting to the Pentagon's ``discrimination policies,''

refuse to permit military recruiters to make their pitch on

campus, relegating them instead to unofficial off-campus

venues. Law students pondering their first career move can be

wined and dined by fancy firms that set up recruitment tables

at campus job fairs, but they have to stroll over to the

local Day's Inn to seek out the lonely military recruiter.

To put it another way, the same liberals who object that

the military includes too many lower-class kids won't let

military recruiters near the schools that contain students

who will soon join the upper-class elite. It's almost enough

to make us contemplate restoring the draft, starting with law

school students.

Needless to say, such scholastic shenanigans don't go down

well with Congress, which in 1994 passed the Solomon

Amendment, named for the late New York Republican, Gerald

Solomon. The law requires schools that receive federal funds

to provide equal access to military recruiters. Today, the

House is scheduled to vote on a resolution brought by Alabama

Republican Mike Rogers that would restate the House's support

for the Solomon Amendment. Something similar passed the House

and Senate by overwhelming margins last year and was

incorporated into the Defense Authorization bill.

The impetus for Mr. Rogers's move is a November ruling by

the federal appeals court in Philadelphia in favor of a group

of law schools and legal scholars that had contested the

Solomon law. The 2-1 opinion found that the Solomon Amendment

violates the schools' First Amendment rights to free speech

and association. Next stop is the Supreme Court, which is

expected to take the appeal that the Justice Department plans

to bring.

There are many peculiarities to this lawsuit, starting with

the fact that the group that brought it--the Forum for

Academic and Institutional Rights--declines to release the

names of the 26 law schools and faculties that belong to its

coalition. Some of the participants (New York University and

Georgetown, for example) have outed themselves since the suit

was brought in 2003, but others steadfastly maintain their

own don't-ask-don't-tell policy.

In any event, there should be no legal question about

Congress's right to put conditions on grants of federal funds

to universities. It does this all the time--including

requirements that colleges adhere to certain civil rights and

gender standards. With a few exceptions, universities have no

trouble going along and courts have no problem letting them.

If, as is likely, the Supreme Court overturns the appeals

court decision, that will be the end of it. Almost all

universities, public and private, take millions of dollars in

federal money that would be next to impossible to give up.

That's especially true of the elite schools, both public and

private. Still, it would be nice to think that the nation's

universities would welcome the military for reasons other

than the mercenary. Patriotism, perhaps?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 56, and I want to commend the bipartisan leadership for introducing this important resolution. I also want to commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her leadership on this issue.

I fully endorse the message of this resolution. The Palestinian people deserve our commendation for conducting a free and fair election and for electing as their leader a man who has spoken out against the use of violence.

I salute Mahmoud Abbas for opposing the intifada. Far too few Palestinians have had the courage to do so.

The change of Palestinian leadership has had a salutary effect on peace prospects. I am encouraged by recent steps taken by both Israel and the Palestinians, steps that have reduced the level of violence. I share the optimism of many that, for the first time in years, we now may have an opportunity to make real progress toward peace.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is desirable that this body welcome and contribute to the improved atmosphere between the parties. This resolution is an entirely appropriate way to do so. But what I would not want this body to do is to contribute to unrealistically high expectations. In that regard, I would like to make two points which bear on the subject of the resolution before us.

First of all, I respect the good intentions of the new president of the Palestinian Authority. I first met with Mr. Abbas in Ramala on the eve of his becoming Prime Minister some 2 years ago, and he emphasized to me his commitment to peace. But good intentions and commitment will not be enough to assure his success as a leader. In fact, they are barely enough to get him off the starting block.

To succeed, Mahmoud Abbas will have to show backbone that, unfortunately, he has not revealed in his previous high-level positions. As the resolution correctly suggests, he will have to take immediate and significant steps to dismantle the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure. He needs to confiscate unauthorized weapons. He needs to arrest and bring to justice the terrorists who have engaged in so much violent activity. He needs to consolidate and take charge of all Palestinian security organizations, and he needs to end anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic incitement in the Palestinian media, schools, mosques, and all other institutions.

Mr. Abbas is an intelligent man, and he surely knows that, in the long run, there is no such thing as a cease-fire with terrorists. He will control and defeat the terrorists, or he will be controlled and defeated by them. I am hopeful that he will be up to the task. I think he knows that, as the leader, he does not have the option of giving in to frustration and just walking away, as he did during the Camp David negotiations in 2000 and during his brief stint as Arafat's Prime Minister.

Although the incidence of violence has declined in recent weeks, the infrastructure of terrorism has, in many ways, grown stronger and more sophisticated. Kassam rockets that threaten Israeli civilians inside and near the Gaza Strip are becoming more accurate and gaining greater distance. In my travels to the region, I have discovered that Iran and Hezbollah are increasingly engaged with Palestinian terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, I think we must also keep in mind that there is no moral equivalence in the use of violence in this struggle. The Israelis have no interest in violence for the sake of violence but, unfortunately, some Palestinians do. If the current lull in violence breaks down, I am certain it will be because Abu Mazen could not control Palestinian terrorism.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we need to be realistic about the current state of the peace process and Israeli-Palestinian relations. The Israeli government which, since Prime Minister Sharon's recent coalition agreement with Labor Party leader Shimon Peres, now includes Israel's two largest parties, is preparing to take an historic action. In fact, it is the boldest, most creative act in the peace process since the outbreak of the intifada in September, 2000. The government of Israel is preparing to redeploy its forces from the Gaza Strip and to dismantle all of its Gaza settlements. This unprecedented action will pave the way for the Palestinians to govern their own contiguous territory and to demonstrate their ability to establish a free and orderly society.

Mr. Speaker, I fully identify myself with the hope and belief expressed in this resolution that a lasting peace in the Middle East is achievable and that we now have an opportunity to take steps in that direction. But we must be realistic about the time frame. Israel's decision to redeploy from Gaza is politically courageous, but it is also politically dangerous and difficult. The overwhelming majority of Israelis support it, and I fully expect it to be accomplished by the latter half of this year, as scheduled. But it will not be easy.

Then, once Israel does redeploy, the onus will be on the Palestinians to prove that they have what it takes to run the equivalent of a state. If and when they do so, I am certain both sides will move with dispatch toward a final settlement. But that agreement is certainly not going to be achieved in the next few months or even in the next year. It would be unfair to the parties to place on them such a burden of expectation. For now, let us be content that both sides are taking significant steps to create a beginning, and let us remember that it is only a beginning.

With those thoughts as context, Mr. Speaker, I would like once again to congratulate the Palestinians on their ably-conducted election. I support H. Res. 56, and I call on all of my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both of my colleagues for their extremely generous and kind remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend who has been fighting for peace in that region ever since she came to this body and before.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), my good friend and distinguished colleague.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is significant that within the recent past, three areas in the Middle East have succeeded in holding free and open elections, some of them under the most difficult and dangerous circumstances. We applaud the people of Afghanistan, who not long ago suffered under the horrific yoke of the Taliban, for organizing and conducting free and open elections. And I particularly want to recognize the fact that this took place with the full participation of the women of Afghanistan.

We in this resolution are commending the Palestinian people, who have lived under an undemocratic regime for too long, for organizing and conducting fair and open elections. And, of course, this past weekend we were all thrilled as we were watching our television screens seeing the courage of the Iraqi people under the most brutal and bloody threats go to the polls and exercise their right to select their own leaders. These are very encouraging signs. And it is highly appropriate for the United States to take the lead in underscoring the obvious, that just as in every other part of the globe we have led, assisted, and cleared the coming of free and open elections, at long last we are doing so in the Middle East and adjacent territories.

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe our resolution is more than appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Ranking Member for yielding me this time.

There are many accolades that we might share regarding the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and, I might say, his wife and family, but I thank him for the steady hand and the steady interest and the persistence which has brought us to where we are today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), and my colleagues for putting before this body H. Res. 56 to applaud what I consider to be the next opportunity, the next life-changing experience for those people who have worked, died, and prayed for peace in the Mid East.

I do want to acknowledge the election of Mahmoud Abbas and to say that I too had an opportunity to meet him in the West Bank just about 2 years ago with a number of my colleagues. His dream, I believe, has now come to reality where he is able to lead the region toward full peace. He can declare opposition in the war on terrorism and the terrorist acts that have been going on. And the Israeli people can embrace their dreams, as I heard from so many of them, desiring to live side by side in peace with the Palestinian people.

Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge my friends and constituents in Houston, strong Palestinians who have come to me with both prayer and petition to ask for intervention and efforts on behalf of Palestinians in the Mid East. They too need to be applauded, as do my friends in the Jewish community who have recognized the importance of the survival of Israel and the standing

alongside of each of those two extremely productive and contributing nations.

I had about 2 years ago the opportunity to co-chair the Partners For Peace. We met in Oslo, Norway. We met with women from Israel and the PLO. And I was gratified even in the emotional charge of that session, women crying and outpouring of their hearts talking about the loss of their children, the violence, and sometimes the anger. We came away from there with one single challenge, to make sure that our voices would continue to be raised for peace in the Mid East.

This election as now allowed gives the opportunity to see the light at the end of the tunnel, to see the sun rising and not setting.

I also recognize that it will be upon us, the United States, to be able to take a sledge hammer to those crumbling refugee camps. It is now time for us to rebuild Palestine, to be able to have it look as we would want people to be able to live and to be educated and to worship. So I hope the world family will join with humanitarian aid to this new fledgling nation so we can build schools and we can build hospitals and that we can build institutions that will last, so we can build housing, that they will not have to live amidst the rubble.

This resolution on behalf of this Congress is a wonderful first step to acknowledge what has happened and also to bring about the free peaceful existence between Palestine and Israel. I hope that we will be part of the solution and not part of the problem. God bless all of those who have worked so hard for peace.

I rise as a strong supporter of H. Res. 56 which commends the Palestinian people for conducting a free and fair presidential election on January 9, 2005. The elections held in the Palestinian Territories are a historic occasion upon which we can build the specter of a comprehensive Middle East peace plan. I want to congratulate Mahmoud Abbas on his election victory in becoming the President of the Palestinian Authority. I also want to thank him for his public service at this vital and momentous time in the history of the Palestinian people.

The two state solution represents the only possible peace plan that can be acceptable and viable for the nation of Israel and the Palestinian people. The Palestinian elections of January 9, 2005 represent the first step in the process towards a comprehensive peace agreement. With this new leadership the Palestinian people will be able to find stability and build their national infrastructure. However, President Abbas's first task will be to take steps to dismantle the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure, confiscate unauthorized weapons, arrest and bring terrorists to justice, consolidate and control the many Palestinian security organizations, and end the incitement to violence and hatred in the Palestinian media, educational institutions, mosques, and other institutions as this resolution calls for. Certainly, this task will not be easy and its resolution will not come quickly, but we as a nation must support the Palestinian people as they stand determined and ready to build a free and peaceful nation.

If history in the Middle East has taught us anything, we know that the United States must be an active and honest broker between the Palestinians and the Israelis in moving towards a comprehensive peace agreement. I urge the Bush Administration to not relinquish this opportunity to achieve a lasting peace that can forever change the face of the Middle East. The War in Iraq has lowered our diplomatic and public standing around the world, but we have especially done poorly in the Middle East. People in the region do not trust our nation, nor do they trust our intentions. They may watch our television, listen to our music and eat our food, but they still have no love for our nation because of our actions in the Middle East that are being viewed as aggressive. Bringing the Israelis and the Palestinians together represents the best opportunity to show the people of the Middle East and the world that we can heal the rifts that divide us, instead of inflaming them. Militant Islamic organizations throughout the world continue to use the plight of the Palestinian people as one of their main recruiting tools to incite hatred and distrust of the United States. We have the ability to strike a blow at these terrorist organizations if this Administration can seize the opportunity.

This resolution also encourages all interested parties to take advantage of this historic opportunity to remove obstacles to achieving a lasting peace in the Middle East. On this front, I am pleased to report that Egypt has offered to host an Israeli-Palestinian summit next week, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has accepted the invitation. I want to thank the nation of Egypt for taking this important step towards achieving a comprehensive peace agreement. Egypt has served as a key regional ally which has long taken active steps towards achieving peace in the Middle East. This summit will give the Israelis and the Palestinians the chance to meet face to face and negotiate terms to bring relative peace and stability to their people. Once these key objectives are met then a comprehensive agreement is possible. Already, since the election of President Abbas, armed groups in the Palestinian Territories have openly talked about halting attacks on the Israeli people.

No doubt there will be setbacks on the both sides as we have already witnessed too often, but now unlike in the past we must show extra resolve to achieve a lasting peace. Again, I urge the Bush Administration to take an active role in bringing the Israeli and Palestinian people together and not losing this opportunity. As we have seen in the past, these opportunities are fleeting, but their potential for a lasting peace is too great to take for granted. We must take all necessary steps to achieve peace now not only for the Israeli and Palestinian children who will inherit the Middle East, but for our own children as well who will inherit the world that we have shaped.

Mr. Speaker, on February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 authorizing the Secretary of War to define military areas in which ``the right of any person to enter, remain in or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions'' are deemed ``necessary or desirable.''

By the spring of 1942, California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona were designated as military areas.

In May of 1942, Santa Clara Valley Japanese Americans were ordered to ``close their affairs promptly, and make their own arrangements for disposal of personal and real property.''

Official government fliers were posted around California, Arizona and Washington instructing families to report to various assembly centers with just the bare necessities, leaving behind their homes, their lives, and most personal belongings.

Because permanent camps were not yet built, large community gathering places, such as the Tanforan Racetrack in San Mateo County in Northern California and the Santa Anita Racetrack in Southern California became home to Japanese internees for several months before being moved.

San Francisco Bay Area Japanese Americans were forced to live in horse stables at the Tanforan Racetrack until a permanent camp was built for them.

Eleven thousand Japanese Americans and aliens were evacuated from their homes and incarcerated throughout the duration of the war.

Three thousand of those interned were Japanese Americans from Santa Clara Valley.

By the fall of 1942, most internees were transported to camps far away from home, to internment camps in Arizona, Northern and Central California, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and even as far away as Arkansas.

Most remained in internment camps until the end of the war--3 long years later.

The horror for Japanese Americans did not end upon their return to Santa Clara County in 1945 at the end of the war. Upon release, approximately 7,000 Japanese Americans moved to Santa Clara Valley.

Most had no shelter, food, money, much less a job.

Some returned to find their homes looted and destroyed.

The San Jose Buddhist Church offered what it could--shelter and hot meals for most families.

In Santa Clara County, the family of Bob Peckham (later to become Federal District Court Judge Bob Peckham) took title to the property of Japanese-American neighbors and was able to preserve property and return it at the end of the internment, so people in our area in some cases were saved the loss of their homes and businesses.

All of this happened before I was born.

But I remember very well learning about it even before it was added to the history textbooks.

My mother was a young woman in 1942. My dad was in the army and she was building airplanes at Douglas Aircraft for the war effort.

She told me about driving past the Tanforan Racetrack and how ashamed and guilty she felt. There were people locked up at the race track-- living in horse stables--who she knew had done nothing wrong. People who had been her neighbors had been rounded up suddenly and taken away.

My mother told me how helpless she felt. She knew what her government was doing was wrong but she didn't know how to change it. She felt powerless but also felt guilty and ashamed because of what the United States government had done.

She was a life long Democrat and cast her first Presidential vote for FDR . . . but she never agreed with what he did to her neighbors.

There was no apology, no financial support, no help from the Federal Government until many years later.

Finally, on February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinded Executive Order 9066.

And, at long last, on July 21, 1980 Congress adopted legislation establishing the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) to investigate the claim that the incarceration of Japanese Americans and legal resident aliens during World War II was justified by military necessity.

On August 10, 1988 the Civil Liberties Act was signed into law, authorizing payments of $20,000 to each person that suffered from internment and established the Office of Redress to identify, locate, and pay these individuals, 82,219 were paid.

By then my neighbors and my parents neighbors who had been unjustly incarcerated--Ed Kawazoe, Jimi Yamaichi, Ted and Raiko, and many others--received at long last an apology. Some lived long enough to receive the compensation provided for in the law.

These efforts were celebrated in the community of Japanese Americans. But they were also celebrated in the broader community because Americans who were not incarcerated, like my mother, felt the shame and the guilt.

And while an apology could not undo the injustice and the compensation did not fully cover the loss, it helped that our country admitted the mistake and tried to make amends.

On March 4, 2004 H. Res. 56, introduced by Congressman Mike Honda, passed the House by a unanimous vote of 404-0. The resolution supports the goals of the Japanese, German, and Italian American communities in recognizing a National Day of Remembrance on the day FDR signed the infamous Executive Order 9066--February 19, 1942. It also seeks to increase public awareness of the events surrounding the restriction, exclusion, and internment of individuals and families during World War

Mr. Speaker, last week I missed two important votes relating to elections in the troubled Middle East. H. Res. 56 commends the Palestinian people for the free election held on January 9, 2005, and H. Res. 60 relates to the election held in Iraq on January 30, 2005. I rise today to say that I would have voted ``yes'' on both H. Res. 56 and H. Res. 60.

On Sunday, January 30, millions of Iraqis voted in a free election for the first time in their lives. Many walked great distances and nearly all risked their lives to exercise this new right. Though I opposed the war, the election that took place in Iraq is something to be celebrated. In addition to commending the people of Iraq, I would like to commend our men and women in the armed services. Without their hard work and bravery in developing and executing a complex security plan, this most successful election would not have been possible.

Now that the people of Iraq have had a free election, we need to put our efforts into helping them find ways to defeat the insurgency, involve all religious and ethnic persuasions in the political process and ensure that the rights of minorities are protected as they continue to draft a Constitution.

In addition, it is important that the United States look toward developing an exit strategy. In reality, this should have been done before we initiated military operations. We need to continue to train and equip Iraqi security forces. In order to properly do this, we need to have an accurate assessment of the capabilities of those forces now.

The free election in Iraq was an achievement that cannot be understated. That said, we have a vested interest in a secure and democratic Iraq and while the election was an important milestone, we need to look ahead to a time when our work over there is done and our troops can come home.

Now, turning to the recent elections in the Palestinian Territories. I would like to commend Dr. Mahmoud Abbas on his election as the second President of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people for making their voices heard. The elections on January 9 were conducted under difficult circumstances, including ongoing violence and a limited ability for candidates to campaign. Despite these challenges, an amazing 70 percent of registered voters turned out, according to Dr. Hana Nasir, head of the Palestinian Central Election Commission. The Palestinian people, political organizations, and presidential candidates all deserve praise for this significant step forward. Moreover, although voters in East Jerusalem experienced difficulties, elsewhere in the West Bank and Gaza Israel facilitated the election process. For this Israel also deserves commendation.

International observers--including some of our colleagues here--state that the elections were free and fair. Allow me to share a few key observations of the International Observer Delegation organized by the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center.

The election was contested vigorously and administered

fairly. Election day was orderly and generally peaceful.

The process, organized in just 60 days in accordance with

the Palestinian Basic Law and under difficult circumstances

of the ongoing conflict and occupation, represents a step

forward for Palestinian democracy.

Seven presidential candidates competed in the election,

presenting Palestinians with a choice among distinct points

of view. . . . This is a tribute to the seriousness of the

political competitors and to the Palestinian people's desire

to respect political pluralism.

Following the death of Yasser Arafat, many predicted that the Palestinian Authority would crumble into complete chaos. In fact, Palestinian institutions proved more resilient, and the Palestinian people showed greater determination for peace and self-determination than many expected. Consequently, the transition of power from President Arafat to President Abbas stands as a model for the region to emulate.

Mr. Speaker, the Palestinian elections of January 9 were clearly a proud day for Palestinians and a very positive step forward in the effort to broaden the reach peaceful, civil interaction. It is a clear mandate for President Abbas to pursue his agenda of peaceful negotiations with Israel in order to establish a viable, sovereign, and independent Palestinian state. It is now incumbent on the United States and Israel to support President Abbas in his effort to consolidate power, to generate political and economic benefits for the Palestinian people, and to engage seriously in the negotiation of a peace settlement. The recipe for a final agreement has been apparent to most of us for some time. Now all the ingredients appear to be assembled. Those interested in creating peace have no reason or excuse not to move forward.