Affirming the commitment and leadership of the United States to improve the lives of the world's 1.3 billion people living in extreme poverty and conditions of misery.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the chairman and I are prepared to deal with all members of the committee on their ideas. We have explored the issue of the appropriate level of economic and military aid to Egypt; and the committee, as well as the House, has acted on this matter. But as with all matters, we have an open mind to discuss additional and new ideas.

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, passport security is a critical issue, and we need to be sure that the administration is doing everything it can to ensure that only U.S. citizens receive U.S. passports. However, while we are prepared to accept this amendment, we hope we can make some modifications as the legislative process moves forward.

Birth certificates are used by the State Department to help establish the nationality of an applicant, not their identity, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 establishes a Federal process to standardize U.S. birth certificates. The State Department is a full participant in that process, along with other Federal agencies, the States and the association that represents the registrars of vital statistics. That process should be allowed to run its course, and it would be counterproductive for the Department of State to establish its own criteria for evaluating birth certificates.

In addition, it is unclear whether the training mandated by this provision should be the responsibility of the State Department or the U.S. Postal Service, which employs most of the passport acceptance agents.

We hope to address these issues as this amendment moves forward.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment; I ask

unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Before I comment substantively on the gentleman's amendment, let me pay tribute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) for his leadership in this House in our joined fight against trafficking.

Mr. Chairman, there is no disagreement among Members of this body as to whether overseas recipients of U.S. HIV/AIDS funds should be promoting prostitution or trafficking. They obviously should not. To this end, in the original HIV/AIDS legislation Congress required that any grantee or subgrantee legally certify that they have a written policy against prostitution and trafficking.

This amendment, if approved, will place an onerous burden on the thinly staffed administrators of the global HIV/AIDS program to prepare within 90 days a report listing hundreds of grants and subgrants and retrieving policy statements from each one to satisfy the amendment. If Congress wants to set forth specific and reasonable guidelines for NGOs to follow, that is a different matter and should be addressed appropriately.

Mr. Chairman, because I support the intent of this amendment, I will not oppose it, but I believe that there are less burdensome ways to achieve this end, particularly by allowing for a greater period of time to prepare this information. I hope we will have a chance to work out appropriate language in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

I want to commend my friend from Iowa for offering this amendment. As the amendment soberly points out, 52 American citizens have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists since the PLO forswore the use of violence in the 1993 Oslo Accords.

This amendment acts, in effect, as a memorial, recording the name of each victim and offering condolences to their families.

It also demands that the Palestinian Authority work with Israel to protect all innocent individuals, of whatever citizenship, from terrorist atrocities. This is an important message at any time, but particularly now as Israel prepares to undertake a historic disengagement from the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority must do its best, and it certainly has not done so lately, to ensure that this disengagement takes place in an orderly fashion and not under a hail of grenades and Kassam rockets that would only cast doubt on the viability of a Palestinian controlled Gaza as a neighbor for Israel.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the Palestinian Authority takes the antiterrorist message of this resolution to heart.

Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that as our distinguished Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, leaves for the region she could not be going at a more appropriate and urgent time, and she fully understands that her prime responsibility is to make it clear to the Palestinian Authority that it must guarantee order and peace by using its military forces in Gaza to break the back of militant terrorist groups.

I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I want to offer my sincere thanks to the chairman of the International Relations Committee (Mr. Hyde), my dear friend, for working closely with me in a joint effort to tackle the critical problem of declining rates of foreign students seeking to study in the United States.

I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), who has worked with us on this problem for years.

Mr. Chairman, opening doors to well-intentioned foreign students is as critical to the security of the United States as is the task of identifying those who are engaged in terrorism and other hostile acts against us.

Foreign students who come to the United States to study and disseminate the core values of the American people as they relate their positive firsthand experience when they return to their countries of origin.

The education of foreign students is a critical part of the United States economy as well, and it is a key American export. Not many people know, Mr. Chairman, the United States earns $13 billion a year in tuition and expenses paid to us by foreign students.

Since 9/11, U.S. colleges and universities have faced great challenges in retaining their competitive position in the market for foreign students. These challenges have begun to erode our dominance as the world's leading and most desired destination for foreign students. During the 2003-2004 academic year, according to the Institute for International Education, the number of international students studying in the United States declined by almost 2\1/2\ percent. This was the first overall year-to-year decline in the number of international students since the 1971-1972 school year.

It appears, Mr. Chairman, that much of the problem stems from negative misperceptions by potential foreign students about new U.S. visa processes and fears that the United States has become a less friendly place for them to study.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to address this problem by encouraging the Department of State to work with the U.S. educational and academic community and with other Federal agencies to develop effective practices aimed at reversing these negative perceptions so that we may once again re-establish our competitive position as the choice destination for the world's best and brightest international students. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friends, Chairman Hyde and Chairman Smith, for their words and their comments. I hope we can all support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

I commend my good friend from Florida for offering this important amendment to increase the flow of objective information about the United States and world events into Venezuela. Recently, Reuters reported that Chavez had launched a new television station, Telesur, to counter what he considers to be pro-globalization bias in European and American news networks, like CNN. Chavez has also reportedly entered into a $200 million deal with China's National Space Administration to launch a satellite into orbit from which he could beam his anticipated hateful media content into homes across Latin America, the Caribbean and beyond.

As Chavez ramps up his information campaign, we should be prepared to present balanced news to the people of Venezuela so that they can be better able to make informed decisions about the activities of their government. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the amendment of my friend from Florida.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not object to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment and urge all of my colleagues to do so as well. The bilateral relationship between the United States and China has become increasingly complex and nuanced over the past decade. A new generation of Chinese diplomats has come into power, fluent in the language of diplomacy and international negotiations.

Unfortunately, the comments made by Chinese General Zhu demonstrate that key elements of the Chinese military continue to live in the long forgotten past when the United States and China were bitter enemies. General Zhu's comment that China might launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States in the event of a conflict over Taiwan are the height of lunacy, recklessness and irresponsibility. A nuclear strike by China against the United States would trigger a nuclear exchange which would

leave hundreds of millions of casualties.

China's political leadership fully understands that fact of life, and it is my hope that they will quickly repudiate General Zhu's comments and ease him into a long overdue retirement. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I wish to briefly respond to the comments by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) on efforts to promote abstinence in Africa.

America's efforts to stop the transmission of HIV/AIDS overseas are firmly based on the ABC model: Abstinence, Being faithful, and Condoms. As we have seen in Uganda, the successful reduction in HIV/AIDS infection rates is dependent upon using all three elements of the ABC approach, not simply one.

Our committee has conducted extensive investigations into U.S. HIV/ AIDS efforts abroad, and we have seen no evidence whatsoever that abstinence efforts are being denigrated by NGOs receiving U.S. funds. Groups across Africa receiving HIV/AIDS funds from our country are effectively implementing abstinence programs as part of the ABC model, exactly as Congress intended.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I strongly support this most important amendment by the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson). I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that our friend and ally, the country of Nigeria, should transfer Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone without any delay.

Taylor has been charged personally with 17 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. These charges include mutilations, rape, sexual slavery, forced recruitment of child soldiers, child abduction, and multiple killings. Many Members of this Congress witnessed the testimony of some of Charles Taylor's child victims, all of whom had amputated arms and legs, their bodies disfigured, and their lives transformed forever.

Mr. Chairman, there will be no justice for the people of Sierra Leone until Charles Taylor stands in the dock. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) for her continued leadership on behalf of the protection of intellectual property. The gentlewoman's amendment will provide a modest authorization of $5 million to assist less developed countries in their efforts to draft and to enforce laws aimed at protecting intellectual property in compliance with international treaties and agreements. This authorization would also be available to train judges and prosecutors in these countries in the proper application of new and existing statutes related to the protection of intellectual property.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very worthwhile amendment. The potential benefits to the American economy in terms of the protection of intellectual property of our artists and of our inventors that could result from this amendment passing are enormous, far outweighing its modest costs.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this thoughtful measure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Franks amendment. This amendment strikes an important provision of our legislation that requires the Department of State to report to Congress on the possibility of offering consular and visa services at the U.S.

office in Pristina, Kosova. Although the United States maintains a robustly staffed mission in Pristina, those Kosovars wishing to visit the United States must travel out of Kosova to receive consular and visa services.

Mr. Chairman, this is both inconvenient and expensive for the average Kosovar, who is not very wealthy, because many visa applications require multiple visits to a consulate outside of Kosova to places as far off as Skopje, Tirana, and Podgorica: three different countries and three different capitals.

The State Department says the current layout of the U.S. office in Pristina makes it difficult to provide adequate security to handle consular and visa matters there. The authorization bill, as written and passed by a vote of 44 to nothing by the Committee on International Relations, demonstrates the importance Congress places on providing consular and visa services in Pristina and having the State Department detail its plans for the future. It mandates no changes, but merely requires the Department of State to report to Congress on the matter as part of our oversight responsibilities.

Nor does it threaten to change the status of Kosova, as some proponents of this amendment may believe. In fact, the State Department affirms that there are no political or legal obstacles to opening a consulate in Kosova.

I urge all of my colleagues to defeat this needless amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Yes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

The Rio Grande, which separates El Paso in Texas from Ciudad Juarez in Mexico and is often dry, has been filled with the tears of countless families who grieve for a lost daughter, sister or mother who have fallen prey to a mastermind of murder and the reckless indifference of local Mexican law enforcement.

Since 1993, over 400 women have been murdered in the border region around El Paso and Ciudad Juarez. In the last year alone, over 30 women have been killed. According to Amnesty International, Mr. Chairman, at least 137 of the victims, more than half of whom were between the ages of 13 and 22, were sexually assaulted prior to being murdered.

Realizing the deliberate ineptitude of local law enforcement under whose jurisdiction these cases would normally fall, the Mexican Federal Government has begun to implement measures to prevent these abductions and murders in Ciudad Juarez, including by establishing a commission to coordinate Federal and State efforts, crafting a 40-point plan of action and appointing a special federal prosecutor.

Unfortunately, these efforts have not been enough to close the killing fields around this border town. Our own ambassador to Mexico has declared the area to be a public security concern and advised United States citizens against traveling there.

The amendment of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Task Force on International Relations, is a constructive provision that aims to raise the profile of these tragic cases and provide forensic assistance to our Mexican neighbors. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the author of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

In any war, the belligerents have the right to detain enemy combatants until the conflict has ended. Otherwise, there would be no way to prevent enemies from returning to the battlefield.

There is, of course, an exactly parallel concern in the war on terrorism. We already know, Mr. Chairman, that a number of individuals released from detention have returned to the battlefield against us. That is a fact.

It is also a fact, however, that the war on terrorism is unlike other wars that this Nation has faced. It is a struggle against deadly forces of extremism and nihilism which cannot be found in a bounded geographical space or located at one particular base. And, as our experiences over the last few years have demonstrated, our enemy is resourceful, able to adapt to new conditions, and the end of the conflict may be decades away.

In this context, the war on terrorism brings us to new ground. The first question we have to ask as we deal with individuals who participate in this global terrorist conspiracy is, should we treat them with the propriety to which every human being is entitled? The answer to that question is an unequivocal yes. There should be no torture, no cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and no humiliation.

In this context, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the U.S. military is dealing with a very difficult situation not of their own making and doing a great job. I am not aware of a single detainee who has lost his life at Guantanamo. I am not aware of a single detainee who has lost his life at Guantanamo. Prisoners have been accorded nourishing and adequate food, quality medical care, access to the Koran, and visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross. And I believe that the U.S. military has investigated abuses whenever they have come up. We need to keep aggressive oversight, including trips by Members of this House, to ensure that this continues.

Indeed, closing Guantanamo could well have unintended consequences. We should recognize that Guantanamo is a safer and more humane facility than the facilities in Afghanistan and in many places around the world where others are being held against their will. If we closed Guantanamo, where will the detainees go? We have already seen tragic incidences where their home country has tortured those who have been returned.

A second and critical question, Mr. Chairman, is what type of process should detainees get and how long can they be held without some sort of trial. So far, all these questions have been addressed by both the executive and judicial branches, with very little involvement from the Congress.

For my part, I support the amendment, but I believe we need to have serious and thoughtful debate on how to deal with all of these facilities.

This amendment relates to one aspect of this issue. Both here and in the other body, we must begin to make our own judgments regarding these issues, and consider legislation as appropriate to address these complicated matters.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) control the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the basic thrust of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we engage in debate over this amendment, let us be clear about the terms. We in this Congress are all motivated by sincere convictions about what best serves the interest of our great nation, whether we oppose or advocate setting a date for early withdrawal from Iraq.

Regardless of where we stand on that issue, there is no justification for impugning the patriotism of any Member of this body.

Mr. Chairman, let me raise one additional preliminary matter which is a source of profound disappointment to me. There is no issue more important for this body to debate than Iraq. Nevertheless, the majority has ruled out of order several appropriate Democratic amendments that are germane to this debate.

In fact, the measure we are about to consider is the only one the majority has ruled in order regarding Iraq.

Let me say this to all of my colleagues across the political spectrum, and I say it as a strong supporter of freedom for the Iraqi people: by muzzling the minority, this body is setting an abysmal example of democratic procedure, and I deeply regret it.

Mr. Chairman, I am among those who oppose setting an arbitrary timetable for leaving Iraq. Announcing an early date of withdrawal before Iraqi forces are prepared to assume full responsibility for their country's security would allow the enemies of democracy and stability in Iraq simply to wait us out and to reverse all that our troops have struggled and sacrificed for in Iraq.

We have committed ourselves to Iraq's freedom from the type of barbarity that was inflicted upon it by Saddam Hussein and that would surely be inflicted upon it again were the terrorists to win this war. Our mission in Iraq will be complete when Iraq is moderately stable and when its troops are capable of securing their own country. Our word and our credibility as a leader in this world are on the line. Success in securing stability should determine the course of our future actions in Iraq. That is why I support this measure, and I call on all of my colleagues to join me in that support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Acting Chairman. Is the gentleman from New Jersey acting as the designee of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King)?

Mr. Chairman, I am.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply requires that the State Department submit a report to Congress that one, identifies by name all NGOs receiving funding under the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief, the date that the funding was provided, and the date on which the NGO filed the statement certifying its policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.

Number two, it describes the Department of State's plans to audit the compliance by nongovernmental organizations receiving U.S. funding under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief to have and adhere to an explicit policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking and a description of the plan of the Department of State to transmit the results to the appropriate congressional committees.

Mr. Chairman, I would just note for my colleagues, this is a very simple amendment. When the Hyde historic legislation on HIV/AIDS was considered by the committee, I offered the amendment that was included in that bill to ensure that the NGOs, to which we provide considerable amounts of money and, in many cases, we are talking tens of millions of dollars, are not in any way complicit in sex trafficking nor in the promotion of prostitution and its legality.

I would point out to my colleagues that by way of historical background, I am the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act Reauthorization and Expansion Act of 2003. We take very seriously our obligation to ensure that we as a government, we as a provider of significant Federal funding, in no way are enabling this modern-day slavery called sex trafficking or prostitution, which is its very close cousin.

I would hope that Members would realize that this is a very simple amendment. It just requires that we get basic information, which I think in our oversight capacity we have an obligation to do as a Congress and as certain committees of the Congress.

So I hope that Members will support this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who is actually the prime sponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the Kucinich amendment. A key element in a robust defense against ballistic missiles is the deployment of space-based weapons to intercept them in flight. We are talking about in all cases nonnuclear interceptors to stop an incoming nuclear device.

I think the amendment, while well intentioned, and I respect the gentleman from Ohio, is very counterproductive and puts our cities and our population at risk. I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to defeat it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde). This is a very creative amendment; 9/11 should not mean that the welcome mat has been pulled. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) points out in the amendment's findings, $13 billion every year is earned from foreign students coming in. But it is not the money, per se, although that helps our colleges and universities. It is the fact that these students have the opportunity to learn what democracy is all about, to learn what a capitalist system can produce for their people when they return. They can also learn skills that will save lives in the area of medicine as well as in law and so many other areas.

It is a very, very creative amendment, I think, and will lead to best practices that will result in more students taking the good infection back to their respective countries. I again want to congratulate the gentleman on this excellent amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for his outstanding work on this issue, and I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Watson) very important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in August of 2003, the Government of Nigeria, at the urging of the governments of the United States and Great Britain, gave asylum to then-Liberian President Charles Taylor. The purpose was to prevent further bloodshed and to allow for a transition back to a democratically elected government in Liberia. The deal was struck in spite of the indictment of Taylor by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in June of that year on 17 counts of war crimes, including mass murder, sexual slavery, rape, hostage-taking, amputations, forced conscriptions of children and adults, arson, looting, and many other abuses of human rights.

Nevertheless, the action by the Nigerian Government likely saved thousands of lives and is providing at least a chance for free elections in Liberia in October. However, the deal was not without conditions, and there is ample evidence that Charles Taylor has violated this asylum agreement.

For example, Taylor is alleged to be cooperating with international terrorist organizations. He is engaged in illicit trade in blood diamonds in violation of U.N. sanctions and is linked to the proliferation of small arms throughout the region. He has also destabilized the entire subregion of West Africa, leaving thousands dead and millions displaced in its wake.

Nigerian President Obasanjo refuses to end the asylum agreement, however, unless there is irrefutable evidence of violations by Taylor. I would point out to my colleagues that on March 17, Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council that Taylor's former military commanders, party leaders, and business associates maintain regular contact with him and are planning to undermine Liberia's return to democracy.

I urge strong support for this amendment. It is an outstanding one.

A few days later, Jacques Klein, the UN Special Representative to the Secretary-General on Liberia confirmed that Taylor is ``still very, much involved'' in Liberian politics.

Outgoing Chief Prosecutor for the Sierra Leone Court, David Crane continues to accuse Taylor of ``ruling the country from his house arrest in Calabar'' In southern Nigeria.

So, yes President Obasanjo, there is plenty of evidence that Charles Taylor has violated the terms of his asylum. Has he continued to destabilize not only Liberia, but also Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea? That has yet to be proven in court, but there is enough evidence for him to be sent to the court in Sierra Leone to find out.

President Bush raised this issue with President Obasanjo at a meeting in May, but U.S. policy must consist of more than a brief discussion. Whatever evidence we have must be shared with the Nigerian government, and then they must make up their mind if they want to continue in the direction of helping West Africa to heal or if they want to close their eyes to continued interference and further upheaval.

Surely, the time has come for Charles Taylor's reign of terror in the region to reach its final, conclusive end.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the majority of the committee, I want to express our strong support for this amendment.

This amendment, the Watson-Issa amendment, will continue to support programs similar to those that were begun in fiscal year 2004. The State Department has designed programs to target areas of the world that have significant rates of intellectual property rights piracy with unique law enforcement assistance. This assistance has been tailored to particular activities in various regions of the world. It is critical to support the intellectual property rights community, Mr. Chairman, as the United States is the world's single largest creator, producer and exporter of copyrighted materials.

Rampant piracy of creative works poses a significant risk to U.S. creative work products, including music, movies, video games and other software. As the U.S. copyright industry alone accounts for nearly 6 percent of this Nation's GDP, it is an economic security issue as well for the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I commend my two colleagues for offering this very important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the concern of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), and for their strong statements here. The problem of the Chaldo- Assyrians has been brought to the attention of the committee. The committee has brought these concerns to the attention of the administration.

I have met with people myself who have expressed concerns about this, and believe that they should not get short shrift when it comes to U.S. foreign aid and efforts being made in Iraq. The administration has prepared materials attempting to show it has been fair and inclusive in its distribution of assistance, but this amendment puts every one of us on guard that we need to watch this very carefully to make sure that they are not shown the door or in any way denied the kind of assistance that we are capable of offering and I think we are obligated to provide to them. I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for crafting this very important amendment. It is creative as an amendment, and it also will get the job done.

The U.S. Interests Section, if this amendment were to be enacted, will get the information out that there is a bounty on the heads of these people who have committed serious crimes in the U.S. According to the FBI, 74 U.S. citizens convicted of felonious crimes in the U.S. are currently living in Cuba under the protection of the Castro regime.

Joanne Chesimard was convicted, and one of those who is living in Cuba. She was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1977 for the 1973 execution-style slaying of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster on the New Jersey Turnpike. Witnesses said she fired two bullets into his head as he lay on the ground. This is a very commonsense approach to try to get the message out, and hopefully it will empower everyday, ordinary Cubans to take action to bring these people to justice.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

Mr. Chairman, I do oppose the amendment. It is merely an amendment authorizing a study to determine whether or not the U.S. Office in Pristina ought to provide consular services. There are about 15,000 people that make that trip to Skopje every year. It is a burdensome situation for them.

But let me also point out there is some value to this debate in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), because it underscores the clear and nonambiguous intent here that we do not want to prejudge or predetermine the final status with regard to Kosovo. That is to be left to the negotiations.

Even if the State Department makes a recommendation that it is going to be left to a status negotiation, I think the gentleman's amendment and the fact we have had this debate helps to bring some light to that. This amendment would merely facilitate and expedite those individuals that would like to get their visas and to come here.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, I oppose the amendment, and I respect the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in opposition, even though I support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for his very compassionate and important amendment. It should be supported, and the majority on this side of the aisle supports it.

Since 1993, almost 400 women and girls have been murdered and more than 70 remain missing in Ciudad Juarez in Mexico. This commonsense amendment simply seeks to provide congressional authority and funding to the Secretary of State to make independent technical and forensic expertise available to the families of these young women and girls.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) represents, as we know, the El Paso area across the border from this area. His amendment extends a helping hand to these grieving families. I want to commend the gentleman for his compassion in offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my colleagues, the July 7 attacks in London, I believe, served as a chilling reminder of what is at stake in the global war against terrorism. We must fight this war, a war that we never sought, but which has been declared against our country and against our citizens; and we must fight in a way so as to win.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) underscores the resolve to do just that. Since the first prisoners were brought to the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in January of 2002, this base has provided a secure location for holding terrorists captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and from the many other places around the globe where we have obtained custody of suspected terrorists. It has provided a place where these people could be kept from returning to combat.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) a moment ago talked about the 12 detainees who were released and then returned to combat; two, I understand, in Afghanistan; and at least one that was killed in a firefight. We are talking about terrorists who went right back to attempts to kill Americans.

Mark Jacobson, a former special assistant for detainee policy at the Department of Defense, estimated that as many as 25 of the 202 released had taken up arms again.

For example, Mullah Shahzada, a former Taliban field commander who apparently convinced officials at Guantanamo that he had sworn off violence, was freed in 2003, and immediately rejoined the Taliban. He was subsequently killed in battle in the summer of 2004 in Afghanistan. Maulvi Ghafar, a Taliban commander captured in 2001, was released in February 2004. He was subsequently killed in a shootout with Afghan government forces in September 2004. Abdullah Mesud, a Pakistani who was captured fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan, bragged that he was able to hide his true identity for two years at Guantanamo before being released in March 2004. He was considered a low-risk security threat because of his artificial leg. After retuning to Pakistan, Mesud led a group of Islamic militants--part of a campaign against

the Pakistani government--that kidnapped two Chinese engineers working on a dam. One of the engineers and several militants were subsequently killed in a government raid. Mesud is still at large.

Mr. Chairman, Guantanamo is a place where crucial intelligence could be gathered that could help the United States understand the operating methods, patterns, financing, tactical skills and training of these terrorists. This information is critical to preventing future terrorist attacks and, in the long run, critical to developing a strategic vision for combating this new enemy.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, those who are held in Guantanamo must be treated, without exception, humanely. There must be zero tolerance for torture or degrading or inhumane or cruel treatment, and Congress does have a moral responsibility to ensure that that is the case. And I, like many of my colleagues, have gone down to Guantanamo to see for myself, to provide oversight, to ask the tough questions and to try to get answers to those questions.

I would point out to my colleagues as well that in last year's defense authorization bill, Public Law 108-375, this body unambiguously stated that it is the sense of Congress that, and I quote it, ``no detainee shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.''

Moreover, that law requires the Secretary of Defense to take steps to ensure that policies are adopted to ensure the humane treatment of detainees and that all DOD commanders have adequate training regarding the law of war and Geneva Convention obligations, and that standard operating procedures regarding detainees be established.

Mr. Chairman, finally, just let me say that the U.S. must continue to fight this war on terrorism on every front. We must not let complacency lead us to lower our guard. We must fight this war in a way that is consistent, however, with fundamental principles.

And I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has offered us a resolution that tries to make that clear.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would like to rise in strong support of the Rohrabacher amendment arguing that our facility in Guantanamo is essential to the defense of the U.S. and our coalition partners.

Mr. Chairman, the Guantanamo Bay facility currently houses some of the elite of our enemy's crop in the war against terror, including enemy combatants ranging from terrorist trainers and recruiters to bombmakers to would-be suicide bombers and terrorist financiers.

Guantanamo provides a strategic interrogation center where these enemy combatants can be questioned and where the results of the interrogations have produced information that has saved the lives of U.S. and coalition forces in the field, as well as has thwarted threats posed to innocent civilians in this country and indeed throughout the world.

Through the detainees held at this facility, we have learned about the detonation systems used in roadside bombs in Iraq, bombs that have been used by the insurgency to kill our troops and innocent Iraqi citizens. Detainees include some of Osama bin Laden's personal bodyguards and one of the suspected 20 hijackers in the 9/11 attacks.

Closing Guantanamo Bay, as some of our colleagues have suggested, will not relieve the United States of needing a facility to house and interrogate suspected terrorists. Should Guantanamo close, the government would have to relocate those functions. Furthermore, given the history of al Qaeda and the jihadists, the closure of Guantanamo would provide an enormous boost in morale to the terrorists and their supporters.

Finally, detainees held at Guantanamo pose a significant threat to Americans, to U.S. allies and civilians in their home countries. There are reports of detainees released from Guantanamo, returned to their home countries, only to resume terrorist activities and attacks against the U.S., our allies, and innocent civilians.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues strongly to support the Rohrabacher amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I did not arrive at the decision to offer this amendment lightly. I discussed it with former staffers and current interns who have served recently in both civilian and military capacities in Iraq. I discussed the situation with my husband, Dexter, a decorated Vietnam veteran who was wounded in combat and awarded a Purple Heart. But it was my talks with my

stepson Dougie, a first lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps, who is being deployed to Iraq in just 1 week, that had the most profound effect. He helped me to fully comprehend the importance of our mission in Iraq and the impact of what we say here and do here with the impact it has at home and on our Armed Forces serving abroad.

Mr. Chairman, our mission is just. It has far-reaching strategic and political ramifications. It is helping to further U.S. security and foreign policy goals throughout the region. For these reasons, and most importantly for my stepson, Dougie Lehtinen, his financee, Lindsay Nelson, who is also a Marine officer who will ship out to Iraq also in a week, and to all of the members in our proud U.S. Armed Forces serving in Iraq, I am offering this amendment and I ask my colleagues to render their full support for it.

Iraq is one of the epicenters of the U.S. comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism worldwide. Our ability to project major armed forces to the very heart of the Middle East provides the United States and our allies in the war against terrorism the wherewithal to directly address the tactical and the ideological challenges of Islamic extremism.

Our presence in Iraq further strengthens our leverage against current and emerging threats and it increases the deterrent value of U.S. power.

Finally, through the promotion of incipient Iraqi democracy, we can continue our concerted efforts to counter root causes of Islamist extremist and terrorism in the region. The terrorists are fighting for their survival because freedom threatens them. Democratic governments deny terrorists the weapons, the funds and sanctuary they need in order to survive. Democracy denies them new recruits.

Terrorism mastermind al-Zarqawi acknowledged that coalition forces were having success and that Iraqi sovereignty and democratic governance would thwart their plans. In a February 17, 2004 letter to an al Qaeda operative, al-Zarqawi said, ``Our enemy is growing stronger day by day. By God, this is suffocation. We will be on the roads again.''

One of Osama bin Laden's closest associates wrote in a book published in December 2003 that ``democracy is a far more dangerous threat,'' adding that it makes Muslims refuse to take part in jihad.

The continuing presence of U.S. and coalition forces must be determined by the achievements of concrete objectives, not by arbitrary dates on the calendar. Some may argue that my amendment sets the threshold too high by stating that ``calls for an early withdrawal are counterproductive to security aims of the United States and to the hopes of the Iraqi people.''

However, as we have repeatedly argued in this Chamber, words matter. What we say here to condemn human rights violations, incitement and anti-semitism or expressing support for pro-democracy advocates throughout the world has a tremendous positive impact. In stark contrast, incessant calls for an established date for withdrawal from Iraq has a negative effect. They diminish the morale of the troops and serve to embolden the enemy.

Do we want to send a message to the terrorists that their war of attrition is succeeding, that their commitment to violence, to hatred, and to terror is greater than our commitment to a democratic Iraq, to spreading freedom and fighting tyranny?

The amendment before us seeks to restate our commitment to the successful completion of our mission in Iraq. It establishes as U.S. policy the pursuit of transfer of responsibility for security to Iraqi forces, but cautions against withdrawing prematurely, calling for withdrawal to take place when U.S. national security and foreign policy goals relating to Iraq have been or are about to be achieved. Is this asking too much?

Let us not waver on our commitment to our mission in Iraq. The Iraqi people have not wavered. Our men and women in uniform are not wavering. In fact, this weekend we saw newspaper stories reporting that soldiers are reenlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets. Army officials say this is due in part to a renewed sense of purpose in fighting terrorism.

Let us demonstrate to our forces that just as our Nation stood behind the greatest generation during World War II as they fought against tyranny, so too do we stand behind our forces in Iraq, a new great generation of heroes whose actions will not only help to make the world safer, but will alter the political landscape towards the irreversible path of freedom and democracy.

I ask my colleagues to support our troops. I ask my colleagues to support the Iraqi people. I ask my colleagues to fight the good fight for freedom and for democracy. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I did not arrive at the decision to offer this amendment lightly.

I arrived at this decision after listening to a former staffer of mine, who recently returned from Iraq, and one of my current interns who served with the United States Army in Iraq.

I arrived at this decision after discussing the situation in Iraq with my husband, Dexter, a decorated Vietnam veteran who was wounded in combat and awarded a Purple Heart.

But it was my talks with my stepson Dougie, a first lieutenant in the U.S Marine Corps, that had the most profound effect on me and helped me fully comprehend the importance of the mission that our men and women in the armed forces are embarked on in Iraq.

My stepson, Dougie, is on his way to perform his duty in Iraq.

To him, it is not an obligation. It is an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity to serve his Nation, to contribute to the freedom of the Iraqi people, to confront the terrorists, and, perhaps, most importantly, to fight tyranny as the ``Greatest Generation'' did during World War II.

Our mission is just. It has far-reaching, long-term, strategic and political ramifications. It is helping to further U.S. security and foreign policy goals throughout the region.

For these reasons and, most importantly, for my stepson Doug Lehtinen, his fiancee Lindsay Nelson, who is also a Marine officer who will ship out to Iraq in a week, and all the members of the U.S. Armed Forces serving in Iraq, I am offering this amendment and I ask my colleagues to render their full support for it.

Simply stated, we cannot afford to yield a victory to the terrorists in Iraq and throughout the region.

Iraq is one of the epicenters of the U.S. comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism worldwide--a strategy that includes: killing and disrupting terrorists abroad, confronting theocratic and autocratic regimes that harbor terrorists and facilitate terrorist attacks, and promote economic reform and democracy as a means to address the grievances of people throughout the region that have been manipulated and turned against us by the dictatorial regimes that permeate the region.

Our ability to project major armed forces to the very heart of the Middle East provides the United States and our allies in the war against terrorism, the wherewithal to directly address the tactical and ideological challenge of Islamist extremism.

Our presence in Iraq further strengthens our leverage against current and emerging threats and increases the deterrent value of U.S. power.

Finally, through the promotion of an incipient Iraqi democracy, we can continue our concerted effort to counter root causes of Islamist extremism and terrorism in the region.

The objective is for the U.S. to proactively engage and support reformers and assist in developing within the Middle East a bastion of stable, free-market democratic societies.

We are engaged in a struggle between moderation and extremism.

The terrorists are fighting for their survival. Freedom threatens the terrorists.

Terrorist mastermind al Zarqawi acknowledged that coalition forces were having success and that Iraqi sovereignty and democratic governance would thwart their plans.

In this February 17, 2004 letter to al-Qaeda operatives, al Zarqawi said: ``Our enemy is growing stronger day after day . . . By God, this is suffocation! We will be on the roads again.''

He further said: ``we are racing time . . . If the government is successful and takes control of the country, we just have to pack up and go somewhere else again, where we can raise the flag again or die . . .''

Democratic governments deny terrorists the funds, weapons, and sanctuary that they need to survive. Democracy and freedom deny recruits.

One of Osama bin Laden's closest associates wrote in a book published in September 2003 that ``a far more dangerous threat'' is ``secularist democracy.''

He cautions against democracy's ``seduction'' as it drives Muslims to ``refuse to take part in Jihad.''

This is a clear illustration of how our efforts in Iraq are serving our long-term goals of spreading democracy as an antidote to extremism and terrorism.

Success does not come without challenges. Creating new and effective political and security institutions in Iraq takes time.

The task before us is not insurmountable, but, if rushed, we do risk failure for lack of persistence.

The continuing presence of U.S. and Coalition forces must be determined by the achievement of concrete objectives, not by arbitrary dates on the calendar.

The process of, and criteria governing, the withdrawal of U.S. and Coalition forces from Iraq must be performance-based, not chronologically-based.

Some may argue that my amendment sets the threshold too high by stating that ``calls for early withdrawal of United States and coalition forces are counterproductive to security aims of the United States and the hopes of the Iraqi people.''

I respectfully disagree. As we have repeatedly argued in this Chamber and in the International Relations Committee--words matter.

What we say in this Chamber through resolutions condemning human rights violations, for example, or condemning incitement and anti- Semitism, or expressing support for pro-democracy advocates throughout the world, have a tremendous positive impact.

These statements and measures serve to empower those who toil for freedom throughout the world.

In stark contrast, incessant calls for an established date for withdrawal from Iraq have a negative effect. They serve to embolden the enemy and the terrorists.

Do we want to send a message to the terrorists that their war of attrition is succeeding? That we are weakening in our resolve?

That the terrorists' commitment to violence, hatred, and terror is greater than our commitment to a democratic Iraq, to spreading freedom, and to combating the forces of evil and tyranny?

Many of our coalition allies in Iraq understand the importance of completing our mission there--allies such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and the Ukraine who understand the lessons of history and want to take steps to prevent any people from having to experience the suffering that they endured under German occupation and Soviet communist rule.

My colleagues, this amendment does not question anyone's patriotism.

In fact, the amendment before you is a modified text which includes recommendations from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

This amendment seeks to re-state our commitment to successful completion of our mission in Iraq.

It establishes as U.S. policy the pursuit of a transfer of responsibility for Iraqi security to Iraqi forces, and cautions against withdrawing prematurely, calling for withdrawal to take place when U.S. national security and foreign policy goals relating to Iraq have been or are about to be achieved.

Is this asking too much--considering our goals are to combat those seeking to export their extremist, terrorist ideologies; those who seek to deny the Iraqi people their freedom; those who threaten global peace and security?

Let us not waiver on our commitment to our mission in Iraq.

The Iraqi people have not wavered.

Our men and women in uniform are not wavering.

In fact, this weekend saw newspaper stories reporting that ``soldiers are re-enlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets.''

Army officials say that this is due, in part, to a ``renewed sense of purpose in fighting terrorism.''

Let us demonstrate to our forces that, just as our nation stood behind the ``Greatest Generation'' during World War II as they fought the evil pursuits of a tyrannical ruler, so too do we stand behind our forces in Iraq--a new great generation of heroes--whose actions in Iraq will not only help make the world safer in the long-term, but will alter the political landscape toward the irreversible path of freedom and democracy.

I ask my colleagues to support our troops.

I ask my colleagues to support the Iraqi people.

I ask my colleagues to fight the good fight for freedom and democracy.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is hardly a topic more misunderstood, mischaracterized, and exploited by America's enemies than the detention facility administered by the United States military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Mr. Chairman, we should be clear that the Guantanamo prison is reserved for some of the world's worst terrorists. Those there pose a great threat to our national security. Those there were primarily captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

Here are some specifics that the Department of Defense has stated publicly regarding Guantanamo. Since September 11, 2001, more than 70,000 detainees have been captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. The vast majority have been released. The U.S. is working with Iraq and Afghanistan and other governments to have them take control of detainees from their own countries.

Some 800 suspected al Qaeda or Taliban have been sent to Guantanamo; approximately 520 of them remain. Approximately 235 have been released, transferred or are presently in other countries; 61 are awaiting release or transfer.

So, who is in Guantanamo? Well, certainly no one under 18 years of age. That is important. The people who were there are terrorists, terrorist trainers, bomb makers, recruiters and facilitators, terrorist financiers, Osama bin Laden's bodyguard, and would-be suicide bombers.

And what are we learning from these people that are being held in Guantanamo? The organizational structure of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups; the extent of terrorist presence in Europe, in the United States and the Middle East; al Qaeda's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction; methods of recruitment and location centers for recruitment; terrorist skills and how they use them; both general and specialized operative training; and how legitimate financial activities are being used to hide terrorist operations.

Mr. Chairman, Lieutenant General Randall Schmidt recently headed a Department of Defense investigation of Guantanamo. General Schmidt's report described how military interrogators at Guantanamo broke down Saudi Arabian-born Mohammed al Kahtani, who was to be, I might add, the 20th hijacker on September 11.

By the fall, Mr. Kahtani had resisted all conventional interrogation techniques, so Secretary Rumsfeld approved a more aggressive action plan, although a plan that still did not violate the Geneva Convention.

Ultimately, this prisoner started talking, and we learned how al Qaeda, led by bin Laden, planned September 11 and the murder and the slaughter of almost 3,000 Americans. We learned how they recruited the terrorists and financed their operations, and how they entered the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, common sense prevents a greater discussion of the intelligence windfall that was reaped by the questioning of this particular prisoner. This case also shows that persistence and skill of our soldiers pays off. In short, intelligence gained at Guantanamo has prevented terrorist attacks and saved the lives of countless Americans and America's allies.

Mr. Chairman, no system is perfect, no group of people is perfect, our country is certainly not perfect, our defenders are not perfect. But of some 24,000 interrogations, of those 24,000 interrogations, again, it is not a perfect system, but only 9 of the 24,000 have been basically found to have any type of abuse or purported to be examples of abuse. Most significantly, Guantanamo is not shrouded in secrecy, as we are told over and over again. There has been enormous transparency, especially as compared to any other country in the world which is holding terrorist detainees.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has been there. They have 24/7 access to the facility, and it is at their discretion. The International Committee of the Red Cross had had a permanent presence, recently changed at its choosing, and basically that is what the report said.

We have also had media people go to Guantanamo, including more than 400 visits by 1,000 national and international journalists. We have had lawyers for the detainees there, especially in connection with habeas corpus cases. We have had congressional Members, including 17 Senators, 103 Representatives, and 129 congressional staffers. Now, if there was ever a case of openness and transparency in a place for holding prisoners, this is it.

Additionally, Congress has held at least a dozen hearings into this matter.

Mr. Chairman, our distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), stated after touring Gitmo last month that he noted that the detainees have gained an average of five pounds each over the last year. They have received first class medical services, averaging four hospital visits per month, and that 100 percent of the detainees have been given a written notice of their rights, a written notice of their right to contest their detention in a U.S. court of law, as well as instructions on how to obtain a free lawyer, and about 100 of the detainees have lawyers at this time.

What other country in the world would be so generous at a time of war, after seeing our people slaughtered in New York?

One military analyst, Jed Babbin, recently toured Gitmo and concluded the following: ``The common belief among the terrorists, fed by reports apparently conveyed to some by their lawyers, is that political pressure will soon result in our having to close Gitmo and to let them go. Critics are making the interrogators' job much harder than it already is. Because they, the terrorists, are beginning to believe we will close Gitmo, and many of the detainees resist interrogation'' because of this belief.

To the critics of Guantanamo, I would ask them, where do they suggest that we put these people? What do they suggest we do if we end up closing Gitmo? Where are we going to put those people we need to interrogate? Where are we going to put, in this war on terror, where are we going to put those we capture? At Gitmo, the people there have done a good job, a fantastic job, not a perfect job, and we should keep it open. It should not be closed, and we should actually congratulate

our people who work there for the fine job they have done.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time is still available?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, 12 of those detainees that were in Guantanamo who were released ended up going back to the battlefield in an attempt to kill Americans. Let us keep that in mind when people start complaining about holding people in Guantanamo in the middle of this conflict.

Let us know that those people that are being held are professional terrorists for the most part and were trained to claim that they had been tortured, and they were trained to make outlandish charges against the people who had captured them and against the United States of America. That is part of their tactic. Let us not fall for that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), who recently returned from a visit to Guantanamo.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for the American people to hold their heads up high, not only about the goals of the war on terror but the way we have conducted it, and especially the way we have handled the prisoners at Guantanamo.

Let us put it this way: the prisoners in Guantanamo, our prisoners, are better off for being our prisoners. They have gained weight. They have medical attention. They have regular meals, none of which they would have had if they would not have been captured. And life in their cell is probably a lot better than the cave in which they used to live. And perhaps as well, we need to say that the leaders, the people who hold power over them at Guantanamo are at least directed and guided by moral restrictions that are far different than those restrictions placed on them by their former leaders who followed radical Islam.

The people who used to be their boss and hold authority over them, the radical Islamist leaders, would cut people's heads off, participate in torture, not to mention of course send them out and send their families out on suicide missions. No, those people that we have captured that are in Guantanamo are better off because they are under our authority rather than those people they used to work for.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the International Relations Committee, as well as the co-chairman of the International Relations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, as our chairman of the Committee on International Relations just noted, it is always of benefit to get criminals off of the street and it is always to our benefit to take people who are involved, actively involved in terrorist organizations who have been engaged in suicide bombings, engaged in murdering other people, it is always good to get them off the street. And if it is in Guantanamo or anywhere else, that makes Guantanamo a very positive factor in keeping us safe.

Twelve of the people who we let go out of the 56 already returned to do battle to kill Americans. So it might have been better even to keep them in custody rather than put the Americans who they were aiming their guns at at more risk. Guantanamo is doing a good job. Those people down there, the Americans, are doing a good job for us. They are not perfect but no one is perfect, but they are making us safer and that is what this is about. I think we have no hesitancy whatsoever than to proclaim that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should note that there have been at least a dozen congressional hearings into Guantanamo itself and there has not been a lack of attention on the possibilities that some of our people were not meeting the high standards that we set as a Nation. That is number one.

Number two, and I think my colleague, and he is my dear friend and colleague, should understand that Guantanamo is not a result, as he suggested, of an unjust and illegal war in Iraq. Almost all the prisoners in Guantanamo, unless I am mistaken, are from the Afghan conflict and the conflict in Afghanistan was thrust upon us. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with Guantanamo whatsoever. The prisoners in Guantanamo are people who have been taken prisoner after serving as part of al Qaeda or the Taliban army in Afghanistan. We did not choose to declare war on the Taliban and al Qaeda. They attacked us. We were attacked on September 11.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, I think it is very clear that what is happening in Guantanamo, which is the discussion today, has come under attack by people who generally are opposed to a very tough and aggressive and engaged American foreign policy overseas.

We can no longer rely on our oceans and our noninvolvement in places like Afghanistan where we let the Taliban have their way and expect that we are going to be safe. We are not safe. 9/11 proved that.

When we engage in a war against people like these terrorists who have murdered our people and we capture people, we have to put them some place. Guantanamo has served that purpose, and Americans down there have uncovered information that have saved American lives. That is how we have gotten to know what al Qaeda is all about.

I am sorry there are times that people feel compelled to criticize American policy overseas and certainly that should not include Guantanamo, and that is what this debate is about today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), chairman of the Subcommittee on Middle East and Central Asia of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a member of the Committee on Armed Services, who has also returned from a visit to Guantanamo Bay.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

There has never been any proof of torture at all at Guantanamo, period, zippo. Also, let us not hear the complaint that we have not had enough investigation of Guantanamo.

Mr. Chairman, 187 Members of Congress and congressional staff have visited Guantanamo just in the last few months, 11 Senators, 77 Representatives, 99 congressional staff members, and there have been 400 media visits, including 1,000 national and international journalists have visited there. There has been a lot of attention paid to Guantanamo. We have been transparent. We can be proud of the job our people are doing. That is what this is all about today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

(Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment expressing the sense of Congress that our government should recognize the unique challenges facing Iraq's indigenous Christian communities, including the Chaldeans, Jacobites, Armenians, Assyrians and Greek Orthodox Christians.

I am a first generation American of Assyrian and Armenian descent. My grandparents fled their ancestral homeland in the early part of the 20th century. In fact, my mother received her First Communion in Baghdad in 1919. I am the only Assyrian American serving in Congress today, and one other did many years ago, the distinguished Adam Benjamin of Indiana.

There are approximately 250,000 Assyrian Americans in the United States, representing the largest population of Chaldo-Assyrians outside Iraq. All Chaldo-Assyrians are Christian. Because they are, they have been subjected to persecution in their homeland.

Today, there are between 1 to 1.5 million Christians remaining in Iraq,

mainly in the Nineveh plain in the north around Mosul. They live in villages that can trace their history back over 2,000 years. And a large number, because of their geography, have now come under the authority of the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Among indigenous Iraqi Christians, the Chaldeans represent the oldest rite under Rome. Along with the Assyrians who worship with the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, they represent the oldest surviving Christian population in the world and one, without help during this critical transition period, that could be on the brink of extinction.

These communities have welcomed the opportunity before them since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime to move toward greater prosperity and stability by cooperating in the development of a democratic, pluralistic state. Unfortunately, religious and ethnic tensions as well as discrimination continue to plague these Christian communities. I continue to receive troubling reports from religious leaders indicating that Iraq's Christian population is not receiving their fair share of development assistance. Because they are such a small minority, the indigenous Iraqi Christian population has one independently elected Chaldo-Assyrian in the entire Iraqi National Assembly, Younadam Kanna, whom I have met with and hold in high regard. Within the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq, representatives from Iraqi Christian communities hold five out of 100 seats. Because the Assyrian community is so very small, such a minority in Iraq with one representative in national politics, funding for reconstruction, housing and education are parceled out to those who control the villages and the regions where they reside without sufficient transparency to ensure the proper parity.

The visible result of these misallocations has been the emigration of as many as 80,000 Iraqi Christians since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. The majority of these individuals, approximately 50,000, have fled to Syria, while others have spread out to Jordan, the Gulf Emirates and Turkey, all living in desperate circumstances as refugees from their homes.

This needs to be dealt with. If a fully functioning and sustainable democracy is to emerge in Iraq, the basic rights and needs of all minority groups must be safeguarded. My amendment seeks to affirm that commitment by ensuring that all relevant U.S. Government agencies and departments pay special attention to the needs of this minority and ensure that they will continue to reside and thrive in their ancestral homeland.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I want to particularly thank Tim Carey of my staff for the very hard, diligent and closely held sincere belief in this issue. Without him, I do not think I would be on the floor today with this amendment.

Iraqi Christians Find Safety in Syria--Religious Violence Prompted Many

To Flee Homeland

(By Joshua E.S. Phillips)

Damascus, Syria.--Seated in his parish office, Father

Sarmad Yousef reflected on his hard choices: to disobey his

archbishop by remaining in Syria or to return to Iraq, where

his name has appeared on a death list. ``After the Americans

came, I was one of the people telling the Iraqi Christians

not to leave,'' he said. ``After the violence started, I

stopped telling them that.''

Christians all over Iraq face a similar dilemma as

relentless violence engulfs the country, some directly

targeting them. Staying in the midst of the threats is

dangerous, yet leaving means abandoning communities, church

property and a heritage with centuries-old roots.

Before the U.S.-led war, roughly 750,000 Christians lived

in Iraq, out of a population of 25 million. Most were

Chaldean and Assyrian, but there also were Armenian, Jacobite

and Greek Orthodox Christians and a small number of

Protestants. Most of them lived either in Baghdad or in

northern Iraq around Mosul.

Since then, 15,000 to 20,000 Christians have fled to Syria,

according to Christian groups, out of ``about 700,000''

Iraqis, most of them in flight from the war, according to the

U.N. high commissioner for refugees.

Yousef, a 30-year-old Chaldean Catholic who came here in

August 2004, was the parish priest of Baghdad's St. Pathion

Church, with 800 families under his stewardship. Today, he

occupies a simple office in Damascus, decorated with small

portraits of St. Therese, the patron saint of his new church,

cradling a bouquet of pink roses.

He says he actively supported the United States when

coalition troops first entered Baghdad in April 2003 and

helped organize community meetings on their behalf. Such

support came with grave risks, and he narrowly missed two

drive-by shooting attacks. But when the Abu Ghraib prison

scandal came to light, Yousef says, his view changed. Nor was

he alone. ``Before that, Iraqis loved Americans,'' said

Yousef, his eyes lowered. ``Directly after that--those

photos, that scandal directly destroyed the dignity of

Iraqis.''

Muneeb, an Iraqi Christian parishioner of St. Therese who

didn't reveal his last name because he said he did not want

to attract local attention, said general resentment toward

the Americans was transferred to Iraqi Christians.

``Americans are Christians,'' he said, ``so we're

automatically considered to be part of them.''

Christian-owned liquor stores and beauty salons were

attacked. While kidnapping has soared--both for terrorism and

financial gain--Christians felt particularly targeted since

they are often associated with successful businesses and

financial support of families living abroad.

With the rise of Islamic militancy, Muneeb said, his

sister, a doctor, was ordered to wear a veil outside her

home--a requirement that didn't exist, he said, when Saddam

Hussein was in power. ``I never thought of leaving Iraq,''

Muneeb said. ``But as a minority, we have no support.''

Emmanuale Khoshaba, a member of the Assyrian Democratic

Movement, who regularly commutes back and forth to Iraq, is

more optimistic. Through his job as the movement's Syrian

representative, he promoted Iraq's Jan. 30 elections among

absentee voters in Syria.

``Don't see the glass half-empty,'' said Khoshaba, who is

the organization's Syrian representative. ``Now, we have

rights: We have our names, we have members of the National

Assembly, and we have 35 schools that teach Syriac.'' Under

Hussein, teaching Syriac--the language used by Assyrians and

other Iraqi Christians, and one of the Middle East's oldest

languages--was strictly forbidden.

``We have coexisted for thousands of years,'' Khoshaba

said. ``The problem was the repressive regime, and today we

are in a transitionary stage. But one has to stay and

sacrifice something for it.''

There have been many examples of such sacrifice.

One Sunday last August, a spate of bombings that struck

five churches in Baghdad and one in Mosul left 11 dead and

scores wounded. Yousef's church was spared, but he said Iraqi

Christians increasingly had started to leave soon after.

When Yousef took a previously planned trip to Damascus, he

learned his was one of 18 names on a death list. Thirteen of

those people had been killed the previous month. ``I decided

not to go back--I felt that I was too young to die,'' said

Yousef. He left behind friends, family and his parish. The

archbishop of Baghdad instructed him return to his post, but

he stayed in Damascus to fill an opening at St. Therese.

Yousef's new church, wedged within Danlascus' Old City of

cobblestone streets and crumbling houses, overflows with

worshipers during Sunday Mass. Of the 2,000 families now

connected to St. Therese, 90 percent are recent Iraqi

refugees. Just outside the church doors, a group of

parishioners from Yousef's old Baghdad parish discussed how

their lives have changed.

``Life was better--we didn't have any problems,'' said

Jamila Tama, referring to the relative peace between

religious sects under Hussein. ``There's killing, bombing

and kidnapping. We have nothing now--even our house is

sold.''

Her son, Bassam Bahnam, was grateful for the haven in

Syria. ``But I have three boys who worked in Baghdad, and

they're all unemployed now,'' he said.

Bahnam and his family want to return to Iraq--when the

violence ebbs. ``Of course there's no place like home,'' said

his younger brother, Hisham Bahnam. But he criticized

Christian leaders' calls to stay in Iraq. ``They're asking us

to stay, but they're not giving us any solution,'' he said.

``Even Christian leaders need an army to protect them

whenever they go outside.''

George Abona, a former priest who attended a seminary with

Yousef, agrees. ``When my Christian leaders say, `Don't leave

your heritage,' what are they going offer me?'' he said.

``What will heritage do for me and my son?''

In Iraq, Abona worked for the United Nations for seven

years, before and during the war, and was in its Baghdad

compound when it was bombed in August 2003. He survived, but

the blast killed his brother, along with the top U.N. envoy

in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and 20 other U.N staffers.

Then last October, he was kidnapped for 19 days. He was

released after another brother paid a $20,000 ransom. Despite

all that, he said, ``The security issue is not a big issue--

it's that I'm not ready to raise my son in an extremist

Islamic society.''

Syria has relaxed immigration rules for its Arab neighbors.

But aside from Palestinians, refugees are not allowed to hold

jobs in Syria, forcing most Iraqi newcomers to live off their

savings. Government assistance--especially health care--is

limited, and the refugees must return home periodically to

get their temporary visas renewed.

Yousef tries to provide his new community in Syria with

food and money for medical needs. The main reason he and

other Christians have fled Iraq, he said, is ``because we

don't feel it is our country any more.''

``I have bad memories now,'' he said of events since the

invasion. ``Most of my friends were killed there, and we only

saw cruelty and blood. I don't think I'll ever be able to go

back.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), who represents a very large community of Assyrian Americans in his congressional district.