Calling upon the President to appeal to all sides in the current crisis in the Middle East for an immediate cessation of violence and to commit United States diplomats to multi-party negotiations with no preconditions.

Mr. Speaker, if neither gentlemen is opposed to the bill, I request the time in opposition.

I am opposed to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time in opposition to this resolution because I very sincerely believe that resolutions of this sort actually do more harm than good. I know that it is very good to condemn the violence, and I certainly do agree with that.

But I am convinced that when we get involved and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, that it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately it comes back to haunt us.

Generally speaking, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called noninterventionism. It is not generally acceptable in this current time that we do this, but I think there is every reason to consider it. It certainly was something that the founders talked about.

The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world. And for this reason, we should talk about it. And that is why I take this opportunity to do so, with the sincere belief that we would be better off with less intervention overseas.

The founders talked about that, about rejecting entangling alliances. And we have been involved in a lot of entangling alliances since World War I, especially after World War II, and we have been doing a lot of things, losing a lot of men and women and costing a lot of money; and too often, these events have come back to haunt us. There is blow-back from our policy.

The policy of interventionism, which I object to, really doesn't work. It is well intended, and we have these grandiose plans and schemes to solve the problems of the world, but if you are really honest with yourself and you look at the success and failure, it doesn't have a good record. I mean, are you going to defend the great victory in Korea, the great victory in Vietnam? And on and on. The great victory in Iraq?

And I see resolutions like this step in the wrong direction. Actually, I believe it is going to expand the war in the Middle East.

The other reason why I strongly object to interventionism is it costs a lot of money. And someday we will have to deal with that. Supplemental bills come up now to the tune of tens of billions, and next year, already, they are planning to come up with another $100 billion for our intervention overseas. But it is off the regular budgetary process, so it doesn't meet the budgetary restraints that we are supposed to follow. So it becomes emergency funding, although we have been in Iraq for 3 years, and with plans to stay endlessly. We are building permanent bases in Iraq. So there is a lot of cost, and eventually that will come home to haunt us, and it already has.

And then there is the problem of unintended consequences. We went into Iraq for all kinds of reasons, some disproven, and all well intended, and who knows what the real motivations were. But one thing was that we would gain access to oil, and oil would be produced and would help pay the bills. Yet oil, when we went into Iraq was $28 a barrel. Now it is $75 a barrel. That is an unintended consequence.

We have done more to fall into the trap of what Osama bin Laden wanted in Iraq than anything else. And actually we have helped Iran. Iran is stronger. They have probably already more influence with the grass roots, the democratic process in Iraq, than we do. Those are the kind of unintended consequences that, on principle, I strongly object to.

I believe that the founders were correct in advocating avoiding entangling alliances, to have a strong national defense, to defend this country, I believe that is just plain common sense. Most Americans, if you just flat-out put it to them, think we should not be the policemen of the world. Do you think we should be involved in the internal affairs of other nations? People say no. We shouldn't do this. The Constitution doesn't give us the authority to do it.

And we now are in the business of maintaining an empire. A noninterventionist foreign policy concedes up front that is not our goal. We are not supposed to be going overseas and building permanent bases and staying there endlessly. Even the election campaign of 2000 was won partially on the foreign policy issue that, you know, it was said that we shouldn't be the policemen of the world and we shouldn't be in nation building.

I think those are good ideas and the American people agree. They didn't object to it. But each step along the way we dig a deeper hole for ourselves. And that is the general philosophic reasons why I believe nonintervention is beneficial. Intervention is very, very dangerous. Later there will be a lot of specifics that I would like to mention.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment just briefly on the comments made by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), because I think his point is well taken about the emphasis on this legislation, and to deny that would be just trying to fool one's self.

It is very clear that if one were objective and read this resolution, all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side, which I, quite frankly, find unfair, especially coming from the position that I want to advocate, neutrality, rather than picking sides.

But he also mentioned the fact about trying to change the resolution. I would like to emphasize also that being on the International Relations Committee, I was anxious to see the resolution, but characteristically it was very difficult to get. We didn't hold hearings and we didn't debate it and we didn't get a chance to have amendments to it, and even last night I couldn't receive it. There were some news articles very early this morning. Lo and behold, they had copies of it. It took me until about 9 o'clock this morning to get it.

So I think it would be fairer within this Congress to allow us to have a chance to debate these in the committee, to bring them to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) derogatorily said there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if it were a crime. I would suggest there is room for an open mind to another type of policy that may save American lives.

I was in the Congress in the early 1980s, and then I left Congress, and I just come back recently. But I was here when the Marines were sent in to Lebanon, and I strenuously came to the floor before they went, when they went, and before they were killed, arguing my case. And then they were killed. Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run.

Then, after the marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this.

He says, ``Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.''

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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

I just want to make a couple of comments before yielding. It has been well advertised about the three prisoners that have been taken, the three Israeli prisoners. Everybody in the country knows about it. What I find a bit interesting is that some people estimate between 8,000 and 10,000 Palestinians and Lebanese are in prisons and under the authority of the Israeli police and government.

It is also known that one-third of the Cabinet of Palestine have been arrested and held hostage by the Israeli Government, and once again, I think this is a distortion of what is going on. It is hard to get the information out to find out exactly what is happening in this area.

Also, I would like to make one additional point that it is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to everything Hezbollah does because I am a strong opponent to all violence on both sides. So I object, too, but I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel was there for 18 years, and Hezbollah did not get any weaker, and they are stronger than ever. So I think, again, a little bit of balance is worth considering.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of accusations made about who precipitated the crisis, the charges made that it all occurred because three prisoners were taken, and that Hezbollah and Hamas deliberately provoked the situation. And it may well be true. I have no idea exactly what is true.

But there are others who have indicated that they believe that it was precipitated mainly with the intent of our foreign policy, along with Israel's foreign policy, as an initial step to go into Iran. We have talked about Iran around the House and around Washington, and there are a lot of people very, very concerned. Our administration talks about it all the time; taking out Iran, taking out the nuclear sites. But to do that, the theory is that these missiles had to be removed and, in a practical military sense, that seems very reasonable. So there could be the deliberateness of Hamas and Hezbollah precipitating the crisis for whatever gain they think, or deliberately precipitated by both the United States and Israel with the intent to follow up with bombing in Iran. And I am frightened about that. I think that may well occur.

I have talked to a lot of military people, a lot of CIA people, who actually believe this is a possibility within months. And this is the reason I have such great concern about what is happening in this area of the country, because if us going into Iraq didn't go so well, can anybody imagine what is going to happen when the bombs start to fall on Iran? I think it is going to be catastrophic. And there has been talk on television this past weekend, the beginning of World War III. And this war is about to spread, and this is the reason that I oppose this resolution, because, deep down in my heart, I believe that what we do here helps to provoke things and agitate things and bring us closer to a greater conflict. And I am just arguing that there is an alternative other than violence to settle some of these problems.

Now, a lot of bombs have fallen on both sides, and of course, if they are coming from Lebanon, Syria and Iran are blamed, and they may well deserve the blame. But we haven't talked about who gets the blame for the other side. More people are getting killed on the other side. And as we mentioned before, innocent people are killed, and a lot of nonmilitary targets have been hit, farms and buildings and electrical plants and airports that have nothing to do with the military.

And yet the reason I believe this is going to be worse is because we see it in this country the way we want to see it. And we have no willingness to think about how it might be seen elsewhere, like how is it going to be seen by 1 billion Muslims around the world? And you know, quite frankly, every single bomb that is dropped by Israel, by their calculation, and they have reason to believe so, those are U.S. bombs. Those are our airplanes. We paid for them. And they get the money to buy these weapons. So whether it is deliberate or whatever, it doesn't matter. It is the perception by the Muslims who are radicalized by this.

You can't deny it. There are more radicals today than there were 2 or 3 years ago. And the reason why I am worried about this is we are now getting the information about the reaction to 9/11. 9/11 occurred, and the immediate response by many of our leaders and the administration said, let's go to Iraq. People would say, well, why Iraq? Well, we have been planning on it all along. This is the opportunity.

As soon as this crisis built, we heard very similar comments. Let's go to Iran, you know, to go forward.

There are others who suggest that this crisis has come about not out of our strength, but out of our weakness. If Hezbollah and Hamas has deliberately done this, they might have calculated we have been stretched fairly thin around the world and with Iraq, and know that a lot of the American people and the taxpayers are getting tired of the war, so they may have seen this as a sign of weakness on our part. But then the ``neocons'' say, yeah, that may well be true, that is why we have to be tougher than ever. We have got to unleash the bombs. We have got to consider nuclear weapons, and back and forth and back and forth, until one day we are going to get ourselves in such a fix that World War III will be here and it will be irrevocable.

And there are some people who sort of like this idea. There are some ``neocons'' who thrive on chaos, because their theory is they want regime change. They want regime change in Syria, and they want regime change in Iran. They wanted it in Iraq. And we are, by gosh, we are going to have regime change, and they are going to be our friends and they are going to be democrats. We are going to have democratic elections.

So we go to war and our men and women die. We spend all this money, and we have elections. And then sometimes we don't like the results of the elections, so we ignore them.

What if we had elections in Saudi Arabia? What if we had elections in Egypt? And then what if their radicals were elected?

So we are fighting and dying to spread democracy. And it is probably one of the most dangerous things for us with our current foreign policy, is that when they do vote and elect Hezbollah and Hamas, then we have to reject the principle of democracy.

Self-determination is a great principle, and we should permit it and encourage self-determination. But encouraging elections under these circumstances, and by force, in hopes that we get our man in charge just doesn't work.

I think we are going to have regime changes, a lot more regime changes than most people want around here. I think the regime changes are coming in Saudi Arabia, and I think there will be a regime change maybe in Egypt. Who knows? In Libya. And you are going to be very unhappy with those regime changes.

So, yes, it was well intended to have regime change in Iraq. But what has it gotten us?

And now we want to spread that philosophy and have more regime changes, and who knows what the results are going to be? They are not going to be good. They are going to backfire on us.

You know, when Osama bin Laden responded to why, he had a list of reasons on why he encouraged or directed the attack on 9/11. And the one thing that he listed we shouldn't ignore, because as bad as that individual is, and as violent as he is, nobody has ever proven he tells lies. Nobody has ever proven this. Nobody says he is a liar. So we ought to listen to what he says.

And one of the reasons that he listed for this was back in 1982, back to the problems we had in Lebanon, there were 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinians killed. And who knows whose bombs and who was doing it? But you know, we were in there, although our troops weren't fighting and we left, but Israel was involved, 18,000. But regardless of whether or not we directed it or wanted it is irrelevant. The conclusion was that we were participants, and it rallied his troops and helped him organize to get people so hateful that they were willing to commit suicide terrorism and come here.

Now, we can ignore it and say, well, he is a liar. That is not the reason they did it. But we do that at our own peril.

Now, one of the reasons why I believe that it wouldn't be difficult to put the label USA on these weapons, obviously the airplanes have been built here. But what about the money? How much money have we given for weapons?

Between 1997 and 2004, and that doesn't even count the last 2 years, we gave over $7 billion in weapons grants. It wasn't a loan. It was a weapons grant.

Now, the neat thing about this, this was an economic deal because it was beneficial because under the foreign military financing program that we have, Israel is required to spend 74 percent of that back here. So you are talking about a military-industrial complex, a pretty good deal. You know, we subsidize them, send the money over here, it comes over here, and our arms manufacturers make even more money and then dig a bigger hole for us in foreign policy and contribute to the many problems that we have. And that amount of money, they get $2.3 billion of these military grants, and they automatically increase it $60 million per year. So it is locked in place.

Now, you say, well, that is money for our ally. And fine, if it was used for defense, maybe. But if it is used to antagonize 1 billion Muslims and there is no willingness to even consider the fact that we should look at it in a balanced way, and instead it is ridiculed and said, oh, this is ridiculous to think of neutrality or balance and think about both sides, and the innocent people dying on both sides should be considered.

So we are moving toward a major crisis, a major crisis financially and a major crisis in our foreign policy. I don't believe we can maintain this.

So even if you totally disagree with our aggressive empire building and policing the world, let me tell you, I am going to win the argument, because we are running out of money. We are in big debt, and we are borrowing it. We borrowed $3 billion a day from countries like China and Japan and Saudi Arabia to finance this horrendous debt. And it won't be, it can't be continued. The dollar will eventually weaken. You are going to have horrendous inflation. Interest rates are going to go up, and it is going to be worse than the stagflation of the 1970s.

And domestic spending is never curtailed. We have been in charge of the Congress and the Presidency for several years now, and the government gets bigger, probably faster than it was getting before.

So we are facing a crisis that is liable to escalate and get out of control in the Middle East. At the same time, it has a bearing on our finances, because when it contributes to the deficit, there is a limit to how much foreigners will loan to us. We have to print the money. We have to go to the Fed, create new money. That is the inflation.

And what does it do to the cost of oil? Inflation pushes the cost of oil up. That should be a concern to everybody. And at the same time, the production of the oil didn't work. I mean, the oil production went down in Iraq.

What happens if this happens to be true? I actually pray that I am completely wrong about this. And you can say, well, you are, so don't sweat it. But what if I am right? It is frightening, because if this leads to bombing in Iran, look for oil at $150 a barrel. Then the American people will wake up. They will say, hey, what's going on here? Why is gasoline so expensive? It is expensive because we have less production out of Iraq, and it is expensive because the value of the dollar is going down. And it is expensive because they are anticipating that this crisis is not going away, and what we do are antagonizing the world.

So, once again, I come to this from a slightly different viewpoint than those who like to pick sides. There is nothing wrong with considering the fact that we don't have to be involved in every single fight. That was the conclusion that Ronald Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of Israel. He was a friend of Israel. But he concluded that that is a mess over there. Let me just repeat those words that he used. He said, he came to the conclusion, ``The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.''

I would like you to rethink our policy, not only there, but the kind of policy that led to 60,000 people dying in Vietnam and then walking away. And what happened after we walked away? We are better off than ever. We had a naval ship going into Vietnam just recently. We trade with them. We do

deals with them. Yet it was a total fiasco and a total loss because of the way we went to war.

And this is also the reason that I am determined to persist that if we take our country to war, that we ought to be responsible. We should never send these kids and young people to war without a declaration, win the war, and get it over with. When we don't declare it, it goes on and on and on. We don't win them.

And literally, this Persian Gulf War, and this Iraqi war, it has been going on since 1990. We never stopped bombing Iraq, never stopped bugging them, and antagonizing them and inciting them.

So it is not a sign of weakness to talk about neutrality. It is a sign of strength that you have a little bit of courage and you believe in your own system. If we want to spread our values, it is a good way to do it. Set a good example. Put our financial house in order. Treat people evenly, and trade with people, and talk to people and travel.

But don't think that we can force our values at the point of a gun, and think they are all going to be democratic elected governments that we are going to be pleased with. It is not going to happen.

So there is reason to reconsider the total policy that has been followed in this country essentially for 100 years. And it hasn't been productive for us. Essentially, Woodrow Wilson started it. We are going to make the world safe for democracy. And look how safe the world has been since Woodrow Wilson introduced that. We are less safe than ever. And our financial condition is worse than ever.

And we are running our program, whether it is our domestic welfare program or our foreign policy, it is being run on borrowed money. It is borrowed money from overseas, and it is also from inflated currency. And we can get away with it for a while longer, but let me tell you, there is a crisis coming, and it is going to be dealing with the dollar and it is going to involve our foreign policy. And then we will, as a sign of weakness, we will have to come home. We will have to come home because we can't afford the empire. It is not wise to have it, and we should have more confidence and more belief that what we have in this country, and what America used to stand for, that we should spread that message more by setting an example and through a voluntary approach. And when that time comes, I think that maybe more people will reconsider it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield 3 minutes to Mr. Rahall, but first I would ask how much time I have left after I yield the 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 25\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

I strongly support this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. The conflict now raging in the Middle East is between a stable, pro-Western democracy and the terrorists who seek to destroy it. It is obviously in our country's interest and that of the civilized world as a whole to oppose and denounce the vicious war against Israel by Hezbollah and Hamas. We simply cannot accept a world in which terrorist bands can trigger cross-border conflicts in violation of international law. Even the 22 member states of the Arab League have recognized this fact. They unequivocally denounced Hezbollah for provoking the current crisis because they know that Hezbollah's nihilism threatens not just Lebanon but their own stability.

Hezbollah's contempt for human suffering is total, as it showed once again this morning when its rockets murdered two Israeli Arab children in Nazareth.

Mr. Speaker, Israel is doing all it can to limit the civilian suffering as any civilized, responsible, legitimate government would do. Its air bases, weapons and other military assets are located as far from population centers as they can be. But Hezbollah and Hamas have deliberately placed their weapons among the people, in their homes, in their schools, in their mosques. In a struggle between the two sides, the risk of civilian casualties is naturally disproportionate. The terrorists care nothing for human life, and care only to the extent that they can cynically leverage the damage in their favor in the court of public opinion.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, Israel is not facing just the terrorists Hamas and Hezbollah. Those criminal groups are merely proxies for the real masters of terror, Syria and Iran. If there was ever any doubt as to whether Hezbollah is a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran, it has now been put to rest. The unprovoked murder and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers on undisputed Israeli territory clearly served Tehran's interests. It occurred just days before the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, which was set to focus on Iran's nuclear projects and transgressions. And, Mr. Speaker, the plot worked. The G-8 was indeed preoccupied with events in the Arab-Israeli arena, rather than with Iran's unrelenting march to secure nuclear weapons. But it is a mark of how alarmed the G-8 members were at the current situation that even Russia joined in the final communique condemning Hezbollah's actions.

Mr. Speaker, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, passed in 2004, declared that all foreign forces should be removed from Lebanon, all militias dismantled, and the Lebanese Armed Forces be deployed to the entire border with Israel. In fact, none of this happened. Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops roam freely. And thanks to Hezbollah, Iran has established, effectively, a base in southern Lebanon right on Israel's border.

This is the same Iran that has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, the same Iran that has armed Hezbollah with 13,000 deadly missiles.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the Lebanese Government stands by, helplessly watching its sovereignty evaporate. Hezbollah and Iran are holding Lebanon hostage as surely as they are holding the two Israeli soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, there will never be real Lebanese democracy or real Lebanese sovereignty as long as Hezbollah is armed and occupies southern Lebanon.

We also know that Syria is the primary culprit behind the Hamas kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, which also took place, unprovoked, on undisputed Israeli territory. It strains credulity to believe that the Syrian regime is merely a passive host for the Damascus-based Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal. Syria is his master.

Mr. Speaker, how often have we heard the complaint that there would be peace in the Middle East if only the Israelis ended their occupation?

The watchword of this school of thought was land for peace. But as events of the last week have shown, it should have been land for war. Israel ended its occupation of Lebanon and of Gaza. There was not one Israeli citizen in either Gaza or Lebanon when this murderous and cynical pair of attacks took place. And where did the murderers and kidnappers attack from when they invaded Israeli territory? The very places from which Israel withdrew.

How are we ever to establish peace?

How will decent people in the region ever believe in peace if Arab terrorists interpret every gesture of peace as a display of weakness and then act accordingly?

Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon and Gaza. But where is the goodwill on the other side? Since Israel evacuated Gaza, more than 1,000 Hamas rockets have been fired at Israeli homes and Israeli schools. Since Israel evacuated Lebanon, the terrorist gang Hezbollah that occupies south Lebanon has stockpiled 13,000 rockets. As we have learned in recent days, these rockets travel farther and are far more deadly than had been previously believed. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that Israeli support for Prime Minister Olmert's plan to withdraw from large areas of the West Bank has been plummeting even while Olmert himself enjoys wide support among his people.

Given the stakes, I believe that the United States must support Israel in combating enemies who will not be mollified by anything less than Israel's total destruction. Any result of this fighting that leaves Hezbollah in occupation of southern Lebanon will be a victory for Iran and for Syria, for fanaticism and for terror, and the defeat for Lebanon and for Middle East peace.

That, in my view, is the message of the resolution before us today, Mr. Speaker. And that is why I strongly support this resolution, and that is why I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do likewise.

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

Mr. Speaker, will my friend yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

First, let me react to your comment that the resolution does not deal with the loss of innocent life. The resolution expresses its condolences to all families of innocent victims of recent violence.

Secondly, it is critical to prevent the resupply of deadly rockets from Iran and Syria. Unless the airport is closed down, unless the border with Syria is closed down, these deadly weapons will be resupplied in no time. That is why the airport was attacked. That is why the border crossings with Syria were attacked.

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

Before yielding to our distinguished whip, I would like to make a couple of observations. I first visited Lebanon in 1956, in the summer of 1956.

It was the jewel of the Middle East. And what has destroyed Lebanon during the course of the last half century were various terrorist groups, first Arafat's PLO and now Hezbollah.

No one is in favor of hurting a single innocent human being. The fact is that with Hezbollah placing its weaponry in the midst of population centers, collateral damage is unavoidable. Israel has gone to every length to minimize collateral damage.

As a matter of fact, the difference between the tragedies befalling the Lebanese people and the tragedies befalling the Israeli people is very simple: Hezbollah deliberately, deliberately, attacks civilians. Israel does its utmost not to attack innocent civilians.

I am glad to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Democratic whip, my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my friend from Massachusetts, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a comment about Mr. Paul's observation as he calls for neutrality.

Calling for neutrality between a democratic ally of the United States and a gang of terrorists is not worthy of this body. There is no neutrality between a gang of terrorists who indiscriminately kill and the democratic state.

May I also say that it was Hezbollah terrorists who killed the largest number of U.S. Marines in Beirut a quarter century ago. Some of us were there visiting with them just a couple of weeks before they were all killed. Lee Hamilton, a distinguished former Member of this body, and I visited with our marines just days before they were all killed by Hezbollah terrorist activity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my good friend from Louisiana for his very thoughtful statement, and let me just add that if Hezbollah is, in fact, defanged, the primary beneficiary will be the people and the State of Lebanon.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3\1/3\ minutes to my distinguished friend from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend from California for his very thoughtful observations, and I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), ranking member of the International Relations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 7 minutes to the distinguished member of the International Relations Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, how much time do we have?

Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that this is one of the most substantive debates of the year, that colleagues have been waiting for a long time, I respectfully ask unanimous consent that we extend the debate by 40 minutes, equally divided between Ms. Ros- Lehtinen and myself.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished member of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Engel.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Madam Speaker, before yielding, I would like to offer an opportunity to Mrs. Lowey to ask for a unanimous consent.

(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, a distinguished member of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Blumenauer.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend for yielding.

I am delighted to recognize a distinguished member of the committee, my good friend from Nevada, Ms. Shelley Berkley.

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Schiff.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Kentucky, our distinguished colleague on the International Relations Committee, Mr. Chandler.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Florida, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Madam Speaker, before yielding, I want to express my appreciation to the chief of staff on the Democratic side, Dr. Bob King; Mr. Alan Makovsky; and to all other members of our staff who worked so hard on this measure.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Pennsylvania, Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz.

(Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from North Carolina, Congressman Price.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New York (Mr. Israel).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank you for your patience. I want to thank my dear friend from Florida for her extraordinary graciousness. And I want to thank all of my Republican and Democratic colleagues for a serious and substantive debate. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I do thank Mr. Lantos and his good leadership and his history. It is reflected in what I think is both a potent, important and very directed resolution. It draws upon all of the voices that we have heard this evening.

Might I acknowledge Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for her patience and leadership, along with Chairman Hyde as well as and the leadership of this House.

This weekend I will go home and meet with members of the Jewish community, and as well meet with members of the Muslim and Arab community. I believe it is important for Members to be forthright, and in doing so, it is to understand that we stand here promoting peace, and to say to the Palestinians, those of good faith, and President Abbas, we will stand with you to rid yourself of those who believe that their basic existence is for the nonexistence of Israel.

And to Lebanon, we will stand with you, so that you will have the courage, the fortitude and the leadership to free your nation, for it to be the shining pearl, the financial site of the Middle East of which it has the potential to be.

I want to offer to those who have lost their lives, their families, my deepest sympathy. To the innocent civilians in the Gaza strip, in Palestinian, in Lebanon, in Israel, all who have lost their lives, we offer the deepest sympathy.

But, Madam Speaker, let me simply say, Israel fully complied with Resolution 425 in 1978, and wants us to know that they have removed themselves from Lebanon, and Secretary Kofi Annan said Israel has withdrawn, in full compliance with the Security Council resolution, as well it has withdrawn from the Gaza Strip.

And so today I am interested in a cease-fire. I am interested in engagement. But I am also interested in making sure that we have permanent peace in the region, that we do not allow those who would perpetrate terror against innocent individuals to be able to survive and to continue their violence.

I would ask Syria and Iran to be forthright with the world and to give away their continued intrusion into Lebanon and fueling the fires of those that would perpetrate terror in the region. I also ask that our refugees, if you will, Americans who are stuck in Lebanon, be fully brought home safely and quickly.

So as I close, Madam Speaker, might I just say this evening that I will be voting for this resolution, but I will be continuing to press for engagement. I will continue to press for resolution. And I will continue to ask that the Arab States become engaged, and that Syria and Iran stand down, and that there is peace, and that the existence of Israel is reaffirmed, and our Arab neighbors live freely and peacefully for all the world to see.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 921, condemning the recent violence in the Middle East. I remain dismayed at the fact that, once again, violence is poisoning and engulfing the Middle East.

This resolution condemns the recent attacks against Israel, holds terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, and supports Israel's right to defend itself.

This resolution is a very strong statement. While we must acknowledge the culpability of the perpetrators of violence, we must always stand for a solution that engages all parties.

The conflict is between those who wish to end the violence and those who do not. All involved have created a sense of victimization, and turned away from the most important goal: protecting their people, abating violence, and stabilizing the region.

With this bill, we denounce terrorist acts, and we recognize the right of all sovereign nations--including Israel--to exist, and to defend itself. In addition, if Hamas is going to lead the Palestinian Authority to participate in the international community, it must accept Israel's right to exist and eliminate its violence against Israel.

This past January, I visited Israel prior to the Palestinian elections, and visited with the emerging leadership of Kadima on the eve of a new era of Israeli diplomacy and security policy. I have traveled extensively in the region, and I have witnessed first-hand the promise of the Holy Land, as well as the devastation of long-term strife. Although Prime Minister Olmert has only held this position of leadership for a few short months, he has led his nation with strength and clarity.

We acknowledge Israel as a democratic and strategic ally, and we look to Israel for regional leadership. No cause should ever warrant aggressive terrorist acts against others who have not sought to initiate any acts against the offending party. It is an absolute necessity that kidnapped soldiers be returned, that soldiers stolen from their own country, from their own land, must be returned to their homeland. Israel was not the aggressor.

Hezbollah has committed acts of war, and Israel responded in kind. Hezbollah has yet again demonstrated its easy familiarity with terrorist tactics, and tensions continue to rise. Over the last several weeks, we have seen the situation crumble. Accusations of blame and responsibility fly like shrapnel.

Last week, the Lebanese government briefly called for a ceasefire after Israel blockaded the country by air and sea in an effort to distance itself from the Hezbollah faction. In a statement, the Lebanese government said that all means must be used to end this ``open aggression.''

When both aggressors are acting in defense, the only result is destruction.

We must immediately engage Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and any other stakeholder willing to take action to protect the people and cease this swift escalation. We must engage them in multi-party negotiations, and the United States must send a high-level delegation to meet with the leaders in the region. The desecration of life and the disrespect of boundaries in the last few weeks are offensive, yet must be surmounted, and the violence must end. The U.N. Resolution 1559 must be complied with by Lebanon--to fully disband and disarm Hezbollah.

I commend Israel for its willingness to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza. I remain hopeful that the Palestinian Authority will soon be able to assert itself and secure the Gaza Strip for its citizens, and stop the invasion into Israeli territory.

I wish to relay to the Lebanon Government that America is their friend, we support their independence, and we need them to assert their independence and sovereign authority. Because of their independence, Lebanon is well positioned to be an integral part of long term negotiations and an eventual settlement to this terrible crises.

I urge decision-makers in Israel, Lebanon, and the PLO to observe a ceasefire, and that the terrorist be brought to justice.

I also urge neighboring nations, such as Syria, to stop harboring terrorists and to participate honestly in negotiations, to pursue a mutually beneficial resolution without violence, and to respect the sovereign Lebanon.

Violence is not the only thing to fear. We must do everything within our power to prevent further escalation. We must silence the rumbling of bombs and the screaming of missiles and restore at least the semblance of peace.

We must condemn the poor response that the Administration has exhibited in rescuing Americans. It is not befitting of the most powerful nation, and we must expedite the rescuing of American citizens. The President must also take to the airwaves to speak to Muslims and Arabs to assure them that America remains their friend, and the friend of all freedom-loving peaceful citizens of those nations. We do not condemn all because of the missteps of some individuals or governments in the region.

It is increasingly important that we immediately begin negotiations to resolve this aggression on the northern and southern border, observe ceasefire, and the United States must act urgently yet fairly, and remain steadfast to bringing peace to the region.

We must do everything we can to assuage the fear and devastation of the last two generations, and take decisive action to ensure that today's children, and their children's children, can live in peace and safety at last.

This past Saturday, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and several Persian Gulf states, chastised Hezbollah for ``unexpected, inappropriate, and irresponsible acts'' at an emergency Arab League summit meeting in Cairo. At last, perhaps we will see the larger international community--including the Arab League--denounce terrorism and terrorist tactics and commit to securing first calm, then peace, for the region and for the rest of the world.

The Middle East is at a crossroads, and Israel needs a partner for peace. The new governments of Israel and the Palestinian Authority must overcome the burden of history and begin writing the textbooks anew. Palestinian and Israeli children should begin to learn that their neighbors are good, peace-loving people, and that the region is capable of coexistence and friendship.

I hope that soon all people in the Middle East, Jewish or Muslim, Israeli or Arab, can

look to God with thankful, not pleading eyes. May the words of our tradition inspire our decisions, as it says in Proverbs 34:14: ``Seek peace, and pursue it.''

Before we can have peace, let us pray for calm.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I address my colleagues tonight in support of H. Res. 921, but acutely aware of some of its shortcomings.

Let me stipulate two things from the beginning. First, Hezbollah attacked Israel without provocation, and it now threatens the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Israelis in the range of its rockets. Such a situation is intolerable for Israel. It would be intolerable for any country. And a robust response is necessary to protect Israel's sovereignty and its citizens.

Secondly, we must fully acknowledge the human toll of this conflict on innocent civilians in Lebanon and Israel and on our own citizens caught in the crossfire. As Israel meets the imperative of self- preservation by disabling Hezbollah, it must also do all it can to obey the moral imperative of protecting the innocent, though it is an imperative we know is wholly disregarded by Hezbollah.

The Lebanese people are not the enemy of Israel, nor is the Lebanese Government, which is led by a reform coalition that is fighting against Syria domination. Our ultimate need is for a stronger, not a weaker, Lebanese Government. And Israeli strategy should take that, too, into account. The real enemy here of both Israel and Lebanon is Hezbollah.

With those stipulations the question before us is how can our Nation play a productive role in bringing a swift and just end to this conflict? The resolution offers little insight into this; so I want to use the limited time I have here to urge my colleagues to consider this critical question.

I recently returned from a mission to Beirut with the House Democracy Assistance Commission, which is working with Lebanese parliamentarians as they seek to establish an independent and effective representative body. We met with many of the reformers who won a majority of seats in the Parliament in the 2005 Cedar Revolution.

Democracy has a foothold in Lebanon, and we must find a way to empower those Lebanese leaders who seek reform and democracy in their country.

To bring about such a resolution, the United States must dramatically increase its engagement in the region. Secretary Rice should go there sooner rather than later, work with the international community toward a resolution of the conflict. I am not talking about a settlement that leaves Hezbollah intact and merely postpones the fight. We must have a resolution that guarantees Israel security, that permanently disarms Hezbollah, and supports the development of democracy in Lebanon.

If we are truly to support Israel, we must do far more than the resolution before us suggests.

Madam Speaker, I address my colleagues in support of H. Res. 921 but acutely aware of its shortcomings.

Nearly two years ago, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling for the disarmament of all armed militias in Lebanon. As Lebanon's Cedar Revolution has brought new pro- democratic forces into power, one group has defied the world's mandate: Hezbollah. Hezbollah has justified its defiance by claiming to be a legitimate resistance against Israel's occupation of a small parcel of land in Syria, adjacent to Southern Lebanon, called Sheba Farms. It has tried to straddle the fence, claiming political legitimacy by participating in democratic elections and the Lebanese government, yet refusing to disarm and adding to its arsenal of rockets and other weapons.

Hezbollah's decision to kidnap two Israeli soldiers and kill three others--without provocation--and to launch rockets deep into Israel belie its claims to legitimacy and reveal its true mission: fighting not for Lebanon, but for its own interests and those of its patrons in Iran and Syria.

No nation should be expected to tolerate a situation in which a terrorist organization bent on its destruction has free rein to ignore established borders through ground attacks or air strikes. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis are living in constant fear of deadly rocket attacks. I join with my colleagues in strongly supporting Israel's right to defend its sovereignty and its citizens.

The human toll of this conflict has also been frightful on the Lebanese side of the border. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of innocent lives have already been lost. Hundreds of homes housing innocent Lebanese citizens have been destroyed, and tens of thousands of families have been displaced. The Lebanese people, like the Israelis, are living under a dense cloud of fear and danger.

Our own citizens, too, have suffered from this violence. Over the last few days, I have received calls from tearful fathers with young daughters stuck in the hills of Lebanon with no way out; from families stuck in Beirut on vacation; from relatives with Lebanese family members killed in the conflict. We must remember the suffering of these innocent citizens, caught by chance in the storm of war.

As Israel faces the imperative of disabling Hezbollah, it must do all it can to obey the moral imperative of protecting the innocent, though it is an imperative we know is wholly disregarded by Hezbollah. The enemy here is not the Lebanese people. And the enemy is not the Lebanese government, which is led by a reform coalition that continues to fight against Syrian domination. The real enemy here is Hezbollah.

Our ultimate need is for a stronger, not weaker, Lebanese government. What sense does it make, for example, to demand more vigorous action against terrorists by the Lebanese Army, and then proceed to destroy that Army's barracks?

Our country's role must be to work for an end to this conflict that is both swift and just. Let us harbor no illusions: a cease fire that allows Hezbollah to remain intact and merely postpones this fight until another day is not an acceptable option. We must require Hezbollah to disarm permanently and guarantee that Hezbollah will no longer threaten Israel or Lebanon. That will likely require the establishment of an international peacekeeping presence.

We must also work for a resolution that preserves the promise of the Cedar Revolution and empowers those Lebanese leaders who seek reform and democracy in their country. I recently returned from a mission to Beirut with the House Democracy Assistance Commission, which is working with Lebanese Parliamentarians as they seek to establish an independent and effective representative body. Our Commission met with many of the reformers who, in a stunning victory, won a majority of seats in the Parliament in the 2005 Cedar Revolution. While key positions in the government, including the Presidency, are still controlled by those who would do the bidding of Syria, democracy has a foothold in Lebanon--the most significant foothold for democracy in the entire Middle East, outside of Israel. We must not allow the current conflict to destroy that foothold.

To bring about such a resolution, the United States must dramatically increase its engagement in the region. As the conflict has unfolded, we have watched the international community react with promising diplomacy. The United Nations, our allies in Europe, and key actors in the region--Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia--have come forward with mediators, cease fire proposals, and calls for international peacekeepers. Even the Arab League, too often silent in the face of past attacks against Israel, is working to convene an emergency summit to deal with the crisis. But where has our own Administration been? As one commentator recently wrote, ``the world's sole superpower is also its only no-show.''

With so much at stake for our national security interests in the region, the Bush Administration's lack of engagement is troubling. But it is not surprising. This Administration has taken a hands-off approach to the area, at great cost to the prospects for peace. It has allowed the Road Map for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to wither on the vine. It has failed to sufficiently support the moderate Palestinian leader Abu Mazen, watching as Hamas capitalized on his political struggles. And, after trumpeting the gains of the Cedar Revolution, it has done too little to actually support the fledgling reform movement in Lebanon. With the Administration's gaze still fixed on Baghdad, the tensions that have led to the current conflict mounted unchecked.

Madam Speaker, the current crisis demands decisive leadership. Secretary Rice should go to the region sooner rather than later, working with the international community toward a resolution to the conflict that guarantees Israel's security, permanently disarms Hezbollah, and supports the development of democracy in Lebanon. If we are to truly support Israel, we must do far more than the resolution before us suggests.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our distinguished majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 2 minutes to my colleague the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), who is a staunch supporter of Israel and who has been there many times.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of the resolution before us, introduced by our distinguished majority leader and two foreign policy giants, our International Relations chairman, Henry Hyde and our ranking member, Tom Lantos. We wish that circumstances were different in the Middle East, and we regret the loss of innocent human life.

However, silence on our part in the face of these outrageous attacks against Israel would only serve to embolden these Islamic terrorists and their neighbors. Our stance, therefore, must be clear, Mr. Speaker; we condemned these armed attacks against Israel.

We fully support Israel's right to take appropriate action to defend itself in the face of these existential threats, and we must hold not just Hamas and Hezbollah but also Iran and Syria accountable.

Mr. Speaker, the current conflict in the Middle East is not simply the result of these most recent developments. Rather, it results from the efforts of the chain of interrelated extremist entities and their state sponsors who threaten not just Israel but our own security interests as well.

It stems from a deep-seated desire to destroy the State of Israel, or, as the Iranian leader has said, to wipe Israel off the map. It stems from Iran's desire to export its revolution and to exert regional domination. It is based on a world view that led to the taking of American hostages in 1979, who were held for 444 days, and that hatred against the U.S. as not gone unabated.

The events of the recent weeks find their roots in an alliance between Iran and Syria and their terrorist proxies, which, throughout the years, have caused the deaths and injuries of countless Israelis and Americans alike. Current developments are also linked to the failure of the United Nations to ensure full implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559 requiring Hezbollah to dismantle and disarm.

Over the past year, Israel has shown tremendous restraint in the face of continued assault from Islamic extremists. Despite Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last year, terror attacks targeting innocent Israeli civilians continued and, in fact, have increased.

In the last year extremists in Gaza have launched over 1,000 rockets at Israelis. Weapons, money and manpower were smuggled to Gaza through tunnels, enabling continued terrorism and transforming the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority into havens for international terror groups like al Qaeda.

Hamas and other jihadist groups use such underground tunnels to sneak into Israel, to kill two soldiers and kidnap Corporal Shalit in order to exchange him for imprisoned, condemned, Palestinian terrorists. The situation intensified on July 12 when members of Hezbollah, without a hint of provocation, went into Israel and killed three Israeli soldiers and took two others hostages.

Again, this was not an isolated incident by Hezbollah. In the past year these extremists launched at least four attacks into Israel. One of these took place on November 2005 when Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel while a large number of its jihadists infiltrated and attacked an Israeli village.

The enemy should not and must not be underestimated. Iran and Syria and other terrorist enablers are engaged in a never-ending struggle to improve their relative power position. They have declared war on freedom and democracy, and will use any means available to them to achieve their ends.

They not only present a threat to Israel and to the U.S., but also to moderate reforming Arab governments in the region. In turn, we must resolve, as this resolution clearly states, to work with Israel and other U.S. allies to fight these extremists worldwide.

As Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policies recently said, defeat for Israel is a defeat for U.S. interests. It will inspire radicals of every stripe. It will release Iran and Syria to spread more mayhem inside Iraq, and make more likely our own eventual confrontation with this emboldened alliance of extremists.

By contrast, Satloff adds, victory in the form of Hezbollah disarmament, the expulsion of Iran's military presence from Lebanon, the eviction of Meshal and friends from Damascus, and the demise of the Hamas government in Gaza is, by the same token, also a victory for the U.S. and for Western interests.

Mr. Speaker, this says it all. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I also ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on this measure be extended for 40 minutes, to be equally divided between the proponent and opponent.

Mr. Speaker, further, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the chief deputy whip.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Dr. Paul for yielding me that time, and I yield 12\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Madam Speaker, before yielding to my colleague from Florida, I would like to thank Mr. Dan Freeman, our parliamentarian of the House International Relations Committee who has steered us correctly through this debate; and Dr. Yleen Boblete, who spent so many hours drafting this resolution; and, of course, our staff director for the committee Dr. Hillel Weinberg, who has been working so many hours as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), who is ever patient.

Madam Speaker, before yielding my time to Mr. Lantos, I would also like to recognize the work of Jen Stuart, the foreign policy advisor to the majority leader, who has spent so many hours working on this resolution.

And with that, Madam Speaker, I will be glad to yield the remainder of our time, minus 1 minute, so we can close, to Mr. Lantos.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I also would like to thank the gentleman from California, our ranking member of the International Relations Committee, for handling this debate in such a skillful manner. We want to thank our majority leader Mr. Boehner, who was one of the authors of this resolution; and, of course, our esteemed chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Hyde.

I would like to thank all of the Members who participated in this debate, in this very civil debate on a very important topic.

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