Congressman John D. Dingell

Mr. Chairman, what does this amendment do? It eliminates two items of assistance. The first is $600,000 for the Lebanese Army. The second is $35 million to USAID for humanitarian concern and aid to U.S. educational institutions in Lebanon.

What my good friend, and I express great affection and respect for him, does is he aims at Hezbollah but he lands a haymaker on the person of the innocent Lebanese, USAID and U.S. educational institutions. That is what the amendment does. If you are for peace in the Middle East, you do not want to hurt those undertakings. I want my colleagues to understand what this does, and I cannot believe that my good friend from California really wants the result of what he is going to get.

Now, he has quoted a lot of sources, but I want to read what Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, had to say about this matter. He says, "The Department opposes the amendment proposed by Representative Lantos to H.R. 1646. If enacted, this amendment would severely impede our ability to pursue the critical U.S. policy objectives in Lebanon and the region, including stabilizing the south and providing a counterweight to the extremist forces." If you want to drive the Lebanese into the arms of extremists, the Lantos amendment is the mechanism for doing so.

Now, Kofi Annan has been quoted. What did he have to say? He had this to say about what the Lebanese are doing. "At present, Lebanese administrators, police, security, and army personnel function throughout the area, southern Lebanon, and their presence and activities continue to grow. They are reestablishing local administration in the villages and have made progress in reintegrating the communications infrastructure, health, and welfare systems with the rest of the country." That is what this amendment would bring to a halt. He goes on to say, "The deployment of both UNIFIL and the Lebanese Joint Security Forces proceeded smoothly, and the return to the Lebanese administration is ongoing. I appeal to donors to help Lebanon meet urgent needs for relief and economic revival in the south, pending the holding of a full-fledged donor conference."

He has gone on to point out that we should help, not hurt, the Lebanese in these undertakings.

Let us take a look at a little bit more here. Look at the resolution. I may not have time to put the whole of it in, but it does not call upon the Lebanese to do the kind of thing that the gentleman from California would have them do under penalty of loss of assistance. I call on my colleagues to remember, this is a haymaker at U.S. policy in the area. It hurts American universities, it hurts humanitarian aid, and it drives the Lebanese into the arms of the extremists and the terrorists. Is that what we want? No.

What we want is peace. American interests in this area are vital to this country and they are vital to us in terms of assuring world peace and to assuring the Arabs that this country wants to be an honest broker in terms of seeing to it that we can sell peace and that we can work together with both sides, with the Israelis and with the Lebanese and with the other Arabs and Muslims and other people in that area.

The amendment, I know the gentleman offers in the best of good faith; but, remember, it is a haymaker at innocent Lebanese, it is a haymaker at American educational institutions, and it drives the Lebanese into the arms of the terrorists. If that is what you want, vote for the Lantos amendment, and that is what you will get. You will have more trouble in South Lebanon that will affect the Israelis adversely and that will fill that area with more enemies of Israel and more terrorists receiving more support from the people in the area.

If you want to restore peace in the area, the small amount of money, which is supported by this administration and which is supported by the U.N., is the way to do it. The Lantos amendment is the way to kill this.

I urge this body to reject what is clearly on its face an amendment which does not look to the U.S. policy or understand what that amendment, in fact, does. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It is unwise, it is irresponsible, it is destructive of American interests, it is destructive of the interests of the people of Lebanon, and it is destructive not only of these, but also the best interests of the people of Israel and the people of the whole area over there.

If you want peace, if you want this country to work for and be able to effectively lead the people in that area towards peace, if you want to strike a blow at Hezbollah and the others who are causing trouble in that area, reject this amendment. Show the Lebanese people that you are in support of their desire to redevelop a peaceful land. And do something else: Let us show the people in the area that this is a country that wants to be a friend to all parties. I note we have established this for the benefit of our friends in Israel. There is about $5 billion in here for Israel. The amendment offered by my good friend from California would take out $35 million which would go to help the Lebanese. I urge Members to reject the amendment.