E-mail a friendRep. Tom Lantos
original airdate May 2, 2007
California's Tom Lantos is in his 14th term in the House of Representatives, where he chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee. The only holocaust survivor ever to serve in Congress, he was born in Hungary and has a Ph.D. in economics from UC Berkeley. Lantos was previously an economics professor, international affairs analyst for public television and a business consultant. He also appeared in the Academy Award-winning film The Last Days, a documentary of the Holocaust's effect on Hungarian Jews.
Rep. Tom Lantos
Tavis: Congressman Tom Lantos is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who is serving his 14th term in Congress. His personal journey to the halls of Congress is a truly remarkable story. Born in Hungary, he was placed into a Nazi labor camp at age 16. He later escaped, and in 1947 came to the U.S. with little more than the clothes he was wearing.
His story was included in the Oscar-winning Steven Spielberg documentary "The Last Days." He's been serving in the House, representing California's 12th district since 1980 and he joins us tonight from Capitol Hill. Mr. Chairman, nice to have you on the program, sir.
Rep. Tom Lantos: It's a pleasure being with you, Tavis.
Tavis: Let me start with the question I guess everybody's asking, given that the president obviously kept his word to veto the legislation for a time and date certain for withdrawal, what now?
Lantos: Well, I wouldn't say he kept his word. He continues to display a degree of stubbornness which is almost mind-boggling. The American people spoke last November. They wanted a chance in course. That is what the Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate are advocating, and the president is unwilling to listen to the voice of the American people.
Tavis: So what do the Democrats do, given that he doesn't want to hear, to your point, what the American people have to say?
Lantos: Well, we will obviously provide the funds for our troops, but we will insist that the Iraqi regime stand up and take responsibility for the security of their own country. And we will have to see to it that instead of escalation, which is the president's policy, we will move towards a responsible, gradual de-escalation of lf the conflict in Iraq.
And while he can veto this legislation, maybe the next one - the overwhelming voice of the American people will finally prevail, and this sorry chapter in American history will have to come to an end.
Tavis: What power, respectfully, does Congress really have if the president is intent on going his way, and if the Congress doesn't have the power or the wherewithal to cut the funding, what power, ultimately, does Congress really have to check the president on this matter?
Lantos: Well, I predict that as time moves on, and if the administration maintains its present policy of blindly following a bankrupt policy, more and more Republicans will join the Democratic majority and we will be able to override not this veto but perhaps the next one or the one after that.
Tavis: The president gave a speech earlier today, and to my ear, at least, he offered yet another definition of what success in Iraq means. I've been asking this question for a few years around here as to how we define success. Every time I ask that question, certainly of a Republican administration official, this administration, I keep getting different answers to success.
So today, to my ears, I heard something else. The president now says that success in Iraq is defined as sectarian violence down and a level of violence where people feel comfortable living their daily lives. Sectarian violence down, and a level of violence where people feel comfortable living their daily lives. One, what do you make of that definition, and how do we define (laughs) he definition?
Lantos: Well unfortunately, sectarian violence is not down; it is up. And it is self-evident that it is only an internal political resolution of the conflict that can bring sectarian violence down and that will come about when the Iraqis will recognize that our commitment is not open-ended.
Tavis: Tell me what your thoughts are, Congressman, on what the image of America is to the world tonight. Many of you on Capitol Hill have been concerned about this image, so now what the world sees is that Congress says one thing, sends it to the president, he vetoes it, but the House that represents the people doesn't have the power to check the president. Talk to me about that in terms of our image around the world.
Lantos: Well, unfortunately, our image around the world is at an all-time low, and I view as my responsibility as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee to work over the next few years to gradually build up our image to where it was not that long ago. The United States was viewed as the unquestioned leader of the civilized world, and the policies of this administration has resulted from Indonesia to the United Kingdom in a dramatic drop in our prestige, our reputation, and our image. It will take a long time to rebuild it, but we have to start without any delay.
Tavis: To your latter point, do you think that the damage done to the image of this country by this administration is irreparable?
Lantos: No, I don't think it's irreparable. I am determined to take a small part of the job of repairing it. But it will take a long time. And the fact that Congress and the administration are at loggerheads at the moment is part of the process of rebuilding that image. It shows that we have an independent parliamentary branch, a legislative branch, which is capable of thinking for itself and acting for itself.
And sooner or later, with the 2008 congressional elections not that far off, we will have a growing number of Republicans joining us in insisting that the course this administration is pursuing should be changed.
Tavis: This is the first time I've had you on the TV because since you assumed chairmanship of this powerful committee. Let me ask you about a couple of other issues that come, in part, under the purview of your committee, specifically the global fight against HIV/AIDS. As chair of this committee, what do you do about that?
Lantos: Well, it is one of the tremendous successes of the last few years, and I want to give the administration credit, because we jointly decided to spend $15 billion across this globe, basically in Africa and in a few other desperately poor areas of the world, to fight HIV/AIDS. We are now in the process of moving towards reauthorizing that legislation, and I will insist that we move in the direction of scientific recognition that merely talking about abstinence does not work.
The administration insists that in the last Congress to have one-third of the funds devoted to abstinence. While I'm all in favor of young people abstaining, we need to move in a more pragmatic direction. We need to provide for a more effective distribution of condoms. We must move in the direction of policies that experience shows works, and not just an ideological commitment to this administration's views.
Tavis: Speaking of ideology, how does the committee chair navigate that tightrope of doing what he and others might think practically makes sense, butting up against those who have an ideology that condom distribution is the wrong moral position to take, and issues like that?
Lantos: Well, there was an election last November. We were in the minority; now we are in the majority. And while single-handedly the Democrats cannot prevail, we now have considerably more power to make this very important approach of dealing with HIV/AIDS, be more pragmatic, more science-based, more experience-based, and less ideological in content.
Tavis: As chairman of this committee, another issue I want to get to here. Of course, we all saw it all over the news - you were on that trip with the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to Syria. Dick Cheney had a complete meltdown - the vice president had a complete meltdown about your going to Syria. As we all know, of course, Syria is one of three countries that's a part of that axis of evil that President Bush talked about. Talk to me about your reaction to Vice President Cheney going ballistic on the fact that you all went to Syria.
Lantos: Well, let me first say that in my judgment, on a scale of 10, Speaker Pelosi hit a 10. She represented the United States with incredible effectiveness and distinction and eloquence, and as the news are coming in today, I see that our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is about to meet with the Syrian foreign minister.
Well, we met not only with the foreign minister but with the vice president and the president of Syria. We did the right thing. An ostrich policy does not work in the field of international relations. At a time when thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles were aimed at American cities by the Soviet Union, we had an active dialogue with the Soviet leadership.
I am convinced that Nancy Pelosi was 100 percent correct in deciding to go to Syria, to open up a dialogue and to present the American position firsthand to the Syrian leadership. And I read today that the Syrian people considered her a singularly attractive representative of the United States, which cannot be said for Mr. Cheney.
Tavis: (Laughs.) I wonder, finally, Mr. Chairman, how long it will take and whether, in fact, they will get it in the time that they have left? That is the notion of having to engage the world diplomatically and having to talk to these countries that they've heretofore said they do not want to talk to.
Lantos: Well, Tavis, after a period of some 50 years, I had the privilege of opening up our dialogue with the communist dictatorship at that time of Albania. Albania today is part of an increasingly democratic and open European community. I had the privilege of opening our dialogue with Libya after many years of zero contact with Libya. I've been there now six times. There is a full-fledged Libyan embassy operating here in Washington, and an American embassy in Tripoli.
I had the privilege of visiting North Korea twice with the purpose of having them return to the six-party talks. They have now done it. I am hoping to go to Iran, because we must open up a dialogue with that country. An ostrich policy in an age of nuclear weapons, intercontinental missiles, simply does not work. We don't appease by opening up a dialogue. I fully agree with President Kennedy: we should never negotiate from fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.
Tavis: Mr. Chairman, it's an honor to have you on the program. I look forward to talking to you in the coming months and years, and thanks for your insight tonight
Lantos: It's my great pleasure, Tavis.
Tavis: Thank you, sir.
Lantos: Thank you.
Back to May 2, 2007