Condemning the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and reaffirming the commitment of the United States to assist the people of Pakistan in combating terrorist activity and promoting a free and democratic Pakistan.

Madam Speaker, let me offer my gratitude to Chairman Ackerman and to his cosponsor, Mr. Pence, and our chairman of the full committee, Mr. Lantos, for all of his leadership and certainly his recognition as a peacemaker as well, and to the ranking member, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen.

I rise today with a great degree of somberness and, to a certain extent, hopelessness. But I also rise to express my appreciation for the life and the legacy of Benazir Bhutto. I also want to offer a personal sympathy and acknowledgment to her husband, Mr. Zardari; her son, Bilawal; and her daughters, Bakhtwar and Aseefa, for our families mourn with you.

And I think it is important in the backdrop of one of the greatest peacemakers' birthday, Dr. Martin Luther King, to place former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in her rightful place. I am glad my colleagues called her a peacemaker. I call her a humanitarian and someone who was willing to sacrifice her own life to push the envelope of democracy.

I hold in my hand the Washington Post today that has as a headline, ``Bhutto's last day in keeping with her driven life.'' It indicates a quote that I think speaks to her life. It says, ``Wake up, my brothers.'' That is why she was campaigning in such a frenzied manner. That is why she was waving to her constituents and fellow brothers and sisters as she left the place of her speech.

So I think it is important for us to make the very important note that we should not victimize the victim. Her assassination was not her fault. Everyone in a pressing democracy wants the ability to communicate with those who you are trying to encourage to wake up. Today we honor that bravery, that courage.

We say to the Pakistani Government, for this Nation to move forward, there must be an enlisted and entrenched commitment to democracy. There must be a full investigation of this assassination. It must be determined whether al Qaeda had others beyond its reach to be involved in what may have been a conspiracy. And yes, the leadership of the Pakistan Government must ensure the security of all candidates going forward for these elections. The elections must be ensured.

But we must thank former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto for her legacy; that she was not concerned about her own safety, that she wanted greatness and excellence for her country.

I joined with President Clinton in a visit some years ago when we met President Musharraf, and there were great hopes that he would move his country towards democracy. There were times that occurred. Now he must show that he is sincere about this democracy and let the elections go forward and let a democratic leader emerge from this election. At the same time, he must of course make sure that the instruments of democracy, the court system, the media, and all of those different voices be heard, but it must be ensured that the government is in the business of security and making that happen.

In speaking to Prime Minister Bhutto in the days and weeks before her death, as I did, it was obvious that she was concerned about her security, but she was concerned about the future of the people of Pakistan. Again, a peacemaker, someone who put her life behind her love and affection for this country.

And so we rise today to acknowledge the horrific tragedy, the fact that her family has suffered such, and the fact that she was truly a fighter globally. But there is a challenge that she knew that we had to confront together, and that is the tribal areas in Pakistan. It is a place where we must accept the collapse, if you will, of the foreign policy efforts of this nation, for it is there where the Taliban is resurging and there where al Qaeda may be strong, and it is there where it is alleged that Osama bin Laden rests.

So this policy must begin to address what former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto wanted us to address: the social and economic needs, along with the security needs, of the Pakistani people. And it is my call that we not give up on the Pakistani people or Pakistan. It is a country that was founded on democratic principles. We must not give up on the Pakistani people around the world and Pakistani Americans. They want democracy. Those in my community want democracy for their nation, and my constituents in Houston, Texas, are calling me every day so we can come together to find a way to put Pakistan on the path to democracy.

Sleep well, my good friend, former Prime Minister Bhutto. We owe you an enormous debt of gratitude, and deepest sympathy to your family. But our commitment is that your lust and love for peace will never be forgotten. We owe you that in our tribute and our words and actions and deeds. May all rest in peace, in you, a great and wonderful leader.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 912, introduced by my distinguished colleague Mr. Ackerman. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan resolution, which condemns the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and reaffirms the commitment of the United States to assist the people of Pakistan in combating terrorist activity and promoting a free and democratic Pakistan. I express my sincere condolences to Ms. Bhutto's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, and her children, Bilawal, Bakhtwar, and Aseefa. I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Ackerman for introducing this resolution, and I would like to commend Mr. Lantos for his leadership on Pakistan as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

As my colleagues are aware, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on December 27, 2007, as she left a peaceful political rally, in an attack which also killed over 20 innocent bystanders. Ms. Bhutto's death came 2 months after she returned to Pakistan from exile and was immediately attacked in a suicide bombing that killed over 130 people, and just over 2 weeks before Pakistan's democratic elections were scheduled to occur.

It is with deep sadness that I mourn the passing of former Pakistani Prime Minister Bhutto. Ms. Bhutto was a woman and a leader who pursued excellence and greatness for her country, putting the needs of her nation above concerns for her own safety. As co-chair of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, I had the opportunity to speak with Ms. Bhutto several times in recent months, and I was always struck by her commitment to remaining in Pakistan, despite attacks and threats on her life. Benazir Bhutto's return to Pakistan in October 2007 came in the midst of an explosion that would have driven away anyone of lesser heart. She left the relative security of family life in Dubai to return to her homeland, determined to see democratic processes and institutions grow in Pakistan.

Benazir Bhutto was one of the world's most high-profile female leaders, and she rose to prominence amidst a male-dominated political hierarchy. After gaining her education at Harvard and Oxford, Ms. Bhutto followed her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, into politics. Like her

father, she served as Prime Minister of Pakistan, holding the office from 1988 to 1990 and again from 1993 to 1996. Also like her father, she was violently killed for her convictions, her dedication to her country, and her unwillingness to hide in the shadows upon her return to Pakistan.

The assassination of Ms. Bhutto is a horrific tragedy for Pakistan and for the world. It is essential that her killers be brought to justice immediately. This is an extremely critical time for the nation of Pakistan, with elections that had been expected in early January now scheduled for February 18, 2008. Pakistan has seen serious political instability throughout the past year, weathering approximately 60 suicide bomb attacks, which killed nearly 800 people over the course of the year.

Pakistan continues to be an important ally in the global fight against terrorism. I am particularly worried about the security of Pakistan's leaders and people, and I believe that we must examine the measures that are being undertaken to ensure their safety. As co-chair of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, I have long advocated the need to ensure that Pakistan is stabilized, and that its leaders and people are protected.

According to the United States Department of State, Pakistan currently has 85,000 troops stationed along the border with Afghanistan. Richard A. Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, recently noted that Pakistan has ``captured more al-Qaeda than any country in the world, and lost more people doing that.'' Pakistani authorities have also killed or captured several top Taliban commanders in this area in recent months.

Prime Minister Bhutto's assassination is a great blow to the democratic process in Pakistan. The international community must work together with the Pakistani government to ensure that those responsible for this brutal crime are brought to justice. In addition, we must stand with the people of Pakistan during this turbulent time, and, together, work together against our common enemy: terrorism.

Benazir Bhutto was a truly courageous woman, and a true leader for her nation and the world. Her violent and untimely death is a true tragedy, and I join with the people of Pakistan, as well as my colleagues here in Congress, in mourning the passing of an extraordinary leader, as well as those who died in the December 17th attack with her.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution, paying tribute to former Prime Minister Bhutto, condemning her assassination, supporting Pakistani and international efforts to bring her murderers to justice, and reaffirming our commitment to a free and democratic Pakistan, standing strong against our mutual enemy of terrorism.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, it is imperative that the over 200,000 miners in the United States work in a safe environment. Tragedies in recent years have highlighted the need to improve mine safety. In an effort to improve mine safety and prevent future tragedies, I was pleased that in 2006 the Senate unanimously, and the House overwhelmingly, passed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act, which was signed into law. This comprehensive, overwhelmingly bipartisan law represented a significant step, the first in some 30 years, forward in improving mine safety. But, Madam Speaker, it's unfortunate that today Democrat leaders have put bipartisanship aside and brought forth a rule to allow the House to consider legislation that threatens to jeopardize, not improve, meaningful achievements and efforts currently under way.

The MINER law of 2006 is still being implemented, and to date, the Mine Safety and Health Administration has met all of its statutory deadlines in implementing the new law. However, Democratic leaders have chosen to bring forth the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, which ignores the progress that has been made, and further, provides no opportunity for stakeholder participation in the regulatory process and imposes unrealistic time requirements on employers.

In addition, it is concerning that this bill would allow technology to be placed in mines that has not been deemed ``intrinsically safe'' by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. This has the potential, Madam Speaker, to result in serious safety issues, such as maybe an explosion.

Another major safety concern is that this bill creates a two-tiered notification system in the event of an accident, with one set of reportable incidents being subject to be reported within 15 minutes and another set within an hour. Madam Speaker, current law requires a mine operator to call the Mine Safety and Health Administration within 15 minutes of a reportable incident or face a fine. This new confusing tiered system could potentially lessen protection to miners.

Lastly, this bill does not empower all miners to participate in the development of safety policies and procedures through the formation of safety teams. Currently, miners who are not part of a union can be prohibited from working with management to promote safety. Representatives Kline of Minnesota and Wilson of South Carolina will be offering a substitute amendment later to end this discrimination between union and nonunion employees. All miners should be able to have a say when it comes to their safety, and this bill fails to do that.

Before enacting additional legislation that could be counterproductive, Congress should allow current law to be fully implemented. Congress should also review the law first before dictating mine safety regulations that fail to advance safety, potentially threatens jobs, and impose over $1 billion in unfunded mandates on the mining industry.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I do have another speaker.

At this time, I would like to recognize the ranking member of the Workforce Committee, Mr. McKeon, for 5 minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, for the last several months, Republicans have highlighted the need to change the House rules in order to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Clearly, the rules are flawed when it comes to enforceability of earmarks. House Republicans believe every earmark should be debatable on the House floor, but time after time Members have been denied the opportunity to challenge earmarks during consideration of the rule and the bill.

Over the last several months, we have learned that the earmark rule does not apply when considering amendments between the Houses. This loophole has prevented numerous earmarks from being challenged in the energy bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion legislation, and the omnibus bill, which contained nearly 9,000 earmarks, including at least 150 earmarks that were air-dropped in the bill at the last minute.

Madam Speaker, in October Parliamentarian John Sullivan sent a letter to Chairwoman Slaughter confirming that the current rules are flawed as they relate to earmarks. In his letter, he states the earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''

Madam Speaker, I will insert this letter from House Parliamentarian John Sullivan into the Record.

House of Representatives,

Office of the Parliamentarian,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on

how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that

waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the

rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill

or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or

joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''

to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

The same would be true in the more common case of a

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule

XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability

of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object

of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the

question whether a special rule waives the application of

clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any

application.

In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

points of order except those arising under that rule--when

none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its

negative implication would be that such a point of order

might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

except those that can only arise in the case of a general

appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this

area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

response is to be shared among all members of the committee.

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan,

Parliamentarian.

.Madam Speaker, today I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule in order to close the loopholes and restore accountability and enforceability to the House earmark rules.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, oppose the rule.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 918.

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

H. Res. 918 provides for consideration of H.R. 2768, the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, under a structured rule.

As the Clerk just read, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order all four amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee on this bill, including a full substitute. The amendments are debatable for 10 minutes each, except for the substitute which is debatable for 30 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, like most Americans, I vividly remember the terrible mine tragedy at Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah last August as we waited day after day, praying for the safety of the miners. We watched with great trepidation and sadness as three rescue workers were also killed attempting to save six miners who were trapped in a horrific mine collapse, all of whom, I am sad to say, did not survive.

As a native Kentuckian and one who remembers vividly the mines and particularly the whistles in the middle of the night indicating something had gone wrong at the mine, I was touched by that tragedy on a very personal level. It reminded me not only of the dangers of the profession but also the important role of Congress to do all that we can to ensure their safety.

I was simply shocked by some of the disturbing facts that were revealed after just a brief review of the evidence. The Crandall Canyon tragedy appears to have been preventable, and the rescue effort handled by the Mine Safety and Health Administration was tragically mismanaged.

Following the tragedy, the New York Times and other publications reported that the Mine Safety and Health Administration ``failed to conduct the required inspections . . . at 107 of the Nation's 731 underground coal mines,'' and ``that the agency had misstated the number of inspections it had conducted, apparently to inflate its rate of completed inspections.''

How tragic that is when lives are at stake. Sadly, on the day of the accident, we saw it was not NIOSH that was in charge of safety for the miners, but the owner, concerned only with his bottom line.

Madam Speaker, the evidence shows that, despite significant progress over the last several decades, mining remains one of the most dangerous jobs in America. Mining fatalities occur at a rate more than seven times the average for all private industries, far exceeding other dangerous occupations. Last year alone, 56 miners died on the job in the United States.

Unfortunately, the tragedy at Crandall Canyon Mine was only the latest in a series of mine disasters, including three others last year which combined claimed 19 lives, the Sago Mine explosion, the fire at Aracoma Alma Mine, and the Kentucky Darmy Mine.

Madam Speaker, Congress owes it to the victims and to their families to perform a vigorous investigation to uncover what went wrong during these tragedies and how we can ensure that it never happens again. I am proud to say that we stand here today resolute in our promise to enhance the safety of our mine workers, bringing forth a bill that will aim to fulfill that pledge.

The Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, or H.R. 2768, will help to prevent future disasters as well as improve our emergency response should another tragedy occur. We took an important step last Congress enacting into law the MINER Act, the bill intended to prevent disasters such as Crandall Canyon. However, the administration made it crystal clear that it did not intend to go any further or move more quickly than required under the MINER Act, despite new evidence that quicker action is necessary to ensure the safety of miners.

This bill empowers the Mine Safety and Health Administration to protect miners, providing them with the much-needed authority to investigate mine operators and punish those that ignore or break the law. Unfortunately, too many persons on the Oversight Committee are mine owners themselves. By providing the agency with subpoena authority, it will be permitted to stop production in mines that do not pay off delinquent accounts, and to shut down mines that do not abate violations. That is certainly long overdue and should have been done at least a century ago.

The bill also requires oversight and accountability by the agency, demanding that MSHA take a more active role in protecting the safety of the workers. For example, MSHA will be required to carefully review every plan for the notoriously dangerous practice known as ``retreat mining'' and to physically observe the process when it begins. In addition, they will be required to issue emergency response plans. Remember that the Crandall Canyon Mine had already been retreat-mined before these miners started work.

Furthermore, the bill is an important tool to enhance the safety and security of miners. It creates a miner ombudsman office to process incoming complaints and to assist whistleblowers while establishing solid ground rules for independent investigation of multiple fatality mine accidents. In addition, it requires improved communications and tracking systems, and it cuts the coal dust exposure limit in half, which is so important because I learned yesterday from Chairman Miller that black lung disease, one of the most awful ways to live and die, is on the upsurge.

While this legislation takes groundbreaking steps to protect miners, we still have a long way to go to ensure that mining no longer carries the ominous description of ``one of America's most deadly professions.'' More must be done to reduce long-term health risks facing miners, such as

black lung disease, which can be just as deadly as on-the-job tragedies. We must expand on the MINER Act until tragedies like Crandall Canyon are a thing of the past and the death toll ceases to rise. Many oversight hearings conducted by the Committee on Education and Labor concluded that not only were the recent mining disasters preventable, but that the risk of a repeat incident is still very real.

I would like to take a moment to commend the House Education and Labor Committee under the wonderful leadership of Chairman George Miller. It was Mr. Miller who leapt into action to take on this immense responsibility.

This represents a marked change in the way the Congress has been operating following last year's election. Since Democrats regained control of the House and Senate last November, we have once again begun to use two of the most basic tools in our legislative tool box, they are oversight and investigation, and today's bill is no exception.

The bill shows our commitment to proactively advocate for working men and women, especially the victims and families of disasters like that that occurred at Crandall Canyon last August. We must do everything we can to ensure that every single miner is able to return home at the end of the day to their family. I am proud to say this is, at its heart, the true intention of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Washington has any remaining speakers.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question so that we can give more safety to the miners who work day after day in

sometimes unsafe and unspeakable conditions. I also urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 918

Offered By Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

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

I rise in strong support as an original cosponsor of House Resolution 912, condemning the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and reaffirming the commitment of the United States to assist the people of Pakistan in combating terrorist activity and promoting a free and democratic Pakistan.

Let me begin by commending the chairman of the subcommittee, on which I serve as ranking member, for taking his usual efforts with speed and sensitivity and professionalism to bring this resolution to the floor forthwith. I also want to commend Chairman Lantos. And I would take note of the presence of the Speaker of the House on the floor. This is an important resolution for this Congress to embrace, and it is important in the wake of this tragedy that it be the first thing this Congress do in this year.

All of us, as we were enjoying time with our families in the immediate aftermath for many of us of a memorable Christmas, we were struck by the extraordinary and tragic events of 27 December 2007. As my colleague, Mr. Kennedy, just said, some of us were closer to those events at the time than others, but they were events that shattered the hopes of the entire world for a move in the midst of our critical ally, Pakistan, from a military dictatorship to democracy.

And while there is always second-guessing about decisions that were made and policies that were made, let

me say squarely, as does this resolution, the blame for this outrage, the blame for this tragedy lies squarely with the assassins. They alone are responsible for the horrific death of Benazir Bhutto. In fact, an al Qaeda commander and spokesman, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, gloated to the Italian news agency that they had ``terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat the mujahadeen.''

And, of course what makes this tragedy so moving and this congressional action so timely is that the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto knew the stakes. She knew precisely the dangers into which she was entering. In a late November interview even with Parade magazine here in the States, she said, ``It is only now that America has awakened to what we are already fighting, namely, Islamic jihadists.''

As the ranking member of the full committee said moments ago, eloquently, Secretary of State Rice called Benazir Bhutto ``a woman of great courage.'' And courage is a word we throw around a lot in political life, it seems, but it was in this moment that I was struck with the reality of courage. Courage is not the absence of fear; courage is action on one's principles in the midst of fear. One has to know that this 54-year-old Harvard and Oxford graduate, giving up a life of luxury in exile, knew the dangers that faced her and the mortal peril in which she was walking on behalf of a free and democratic Pakistan. One cannot fail but be moved by that. If there was any doubt, then the immediate attack upon her on 18 October 2007, which left some 145 of her supporters dead, relieved all doubt of the danger in which she was entering. And yet Benazir Bhutto, the first woman elected to lead a Muslim country, went forward, continued to take the risk, continued to advocate freedom, and paid the ultimate sacrifice.

I will say that while I want to acknowledge her unapologetically secular approach to leadership in government, I can't help, when I look at Benazir Bhutto, to think that she will long be remembered with a verse that comes out of a Christian tradition, which is, that greater love has no man or, if I may, woman, than this than to lay down their life for their friends.

Benazir Bhutto showed a love for the people of Pakistan. She showed a love for freedom. And in this resolution, the United States of America by its Congress will reaffirm to the people of Pakistan our commitment to justice in this instance, and our commitment to see stability and democracy reign in that critical ally.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the legislative branch of the Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and original cosponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. I have no additional speakers, but would reserve the right to close for a minute or two.

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

I want to rise again to express my strong support of this resolution and urge as near a unanimous adoption of this resolution as this Congress can muster.

I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) for his swift and sympathetic and thoughtful legislative workmanship on this measure. As I said before, I think, given the tragic events of 27 December 2007, it is important that this Congress be heard on a resolution condemning this assassination, and it is important that it be the first substantive measure that this Congress takes up. And I commend Mr. Ackerman, the chairman of the committee Mr. Lantos, and Speaker Pelosi for facilitating that, as I do my colleagues on the committee in the minority.

This resolution condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. It supports efforts by Pakistan to bring to justice those who have perpetrated this cruel and cowardly act. It welcomes the provision of assistance by the government of the United Kingdom, and it commends the government of Pakistan for accepting such assistance.

In addition, it urges the people and the government of Pakistan to be relentless in their pursuit of a democratically elected government, including the holding of free and fair elections at the earliest possible opportunity. It urges support for a free media.

And perhaps in the seventh paragraph, as I close, Madam Speaker, it, this resolution, which I hope and trust will be unanimously adopted today, reaffirms the commitment of the United States to assist the people of Pakistan in combating terrorist activity and promoting a free and democratic Pakistan.

I quote again the words of the late and, no one would argue, great Benazir Bhutto who said just this fall in an American magazine, ``It's only now that America has awakened to what we were already fighting, Islamic jihadists.''

I believe the greatest legacy that Benazir Bhutto could leave is not only a legacy of a democratically elected government in her country, but it would be a legacy of a further awakening in the world to the threat that free societies and those that seek to be free face from radical Islamic jihadists. If her legacy can be not only progress for her people toward democracy, but progress in the free world to renewing our determination to confront those who oppose our way of life with violence, both in support of the Pakistani Government and in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, if I might add, then that would be a powerful and meritorious legacy indeed.

I urge support of all of my colleagues for this important resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my anger and sadness regarding the assassination of former Prime

Minister Benazir Bhutto. The horrific murder of Prime Minister Bhutto is a chilling reminder that extremist forces are continually trying to undermine democracy and freedom. Today, we stand with the democrats in Pakistan and throughout the world to oppose tyranny and terrorism.

Benazir Bhutto was the first woman elected to lead a Muslim state and served twice as Prime Minister of Pakistan. I had the distinct honor and privilege to meet her when she spoke to members of the House International Relations Committee during the mid-1990's in an ornate ceremonial room just one floor below this rostrum. Her accomplishment paved the way for other women leaders to seek and win top offices throughout the developing world. Bhutto's dedication to democracy in Pakistan is closely tied to the time she spent as a student in the United States. In fact, she credits her exposure to America as a driving force behind her push for a free Pakistan.

Former Prime Minister Bhutto was also no stranger to the good people of Illinois' 16th Congressional District. In 2002, she spoke to an overflow audience at Rockford College about the link between promoting democracy and defeating extremist terrorists. I know I speak for the people of northern Illinois in expressing our heartfelt gratitude that she visited Rockford. Bhutto's speech was inspirational and enlightening. I enclose for the Record the article titled, ``Ex-Premier Pushes U.S. to Aid Democracy Fight'' from the Rockford Register Star, published on September 20, 2002, discussing Bhutto's historic remarks at Rockford College.

Pakistan must continue its journey to political reform and democracy. The United States must stand with those who advocate for the fundamental freedoms that were bestowed onto all of us by our creator. Let's not forget Bhutto's legacy and stand with the people of Pakistan in this dark hour.

[From the Rockford Register Star, Sept. 20, 2002]

Ex-Premier Pushes U.S. To Aid Democracy Fight

Rockford.--Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto

said Thursday that people of her country support her battle

to bring democracy to Pakistan. She wants President Bush to

help.

The deposed leader--who at age 35 became the first female

prime minister in the Muslim world--continues her efforts,

made more important in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001,

terrorist attacks.

Bhutto remains critical of the regime of Gen. Pervez

Musharraf, who has controlled the country since 1999. She is

an author and active in the Pakistan People's Party, the

country's largest, pro-democracy party.

``I support democracy in Pakistan and, with the war on

terrorism, there is a new commitment to bringing democracy to

the Muslim world and the empowering of the Muslim people

based on fundamental human rights,'' she said.

Bhutto planned to share this message later Thursday night

with a sold-out crowd at Maddox Theatre at Rockford College.

Additional crowds were seated in the Cheek Theatre and dance

studio to watch a live television feed of Bhutto's

presentation.

Bhutto's visit kicked off the 2002-03 Rockford College

Forum Series, a program of speakers and workshops focused on

the politics and culture of Islam.

Bhutto acknowledged that she hasn't met with Bush about

bringing democracy to her home country but ``other U.S.

officials'' assured her that the United States remains

committed to fostering democracy in Pakistan.

``I want President Bush to say `Look, you've been our ally,

and we want to help bring democracy because democracy doesn't

promote terrorism,' '' she said.

Her determination to see Pakistan become a democracy began

after she completed her education at Radcliffe College and

Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, in the late 1970s.

Bhutto was born June 21, 1953, in Karachi, Pakistan. In

1977, at age 24, she returned home and took up the struggle

to restore democracy and human rights in the country as a

leader of the Pakistan People's Party.

Bhutto faced imprisonment and exile while guiding the

resistance to Pakistan's military regime.

Her government was replaced by opposing political forces in

1990, but Bhutto was again elected prime minister in 1993 and

served until 1996, when the government was overthrown by a

military coup.

``My leadership was of different vision than the

conservatives. It was dictatorship vs. democracy.''

Jeff Hendry, chairman of the forum series committee, said

Bhutto's visit was ``huge, especially now with all the news

in that part of the world.''

In her speech: ``she will deal with the international

political climate and deal more with what the U.S. can do and

should be doing to bring democracy to Pakistan as well as the

strategic importance of the region,'' he said.

What she said

The Register Star asked Benazir Bhutto:

Is Osama bin Laden dead? ``It's 50-50, and it's anybody's

guess. I thought for a while if he was dead, there had to be

certain funeral ceremonies done for the soul, but maybe he

was killed and nobody knew. He could be playing dead and he

could pop in the next five years. But if he's hiding, it

would probably be in the mountains of Afghanistan.''

How the people of Pakistan view the United States:

``Pakistan has mixed feelings toward the U.S. It's like a

love-hate relationship. They see it as a land of opportunity

and power and to them, they feel they are powerless. They

like the power the U.S. has, but they hate their own

powerlessness.''

Have the Pakistani people been treated differently in the

United States since the terrorist attacks? ``I have respect

largely in the area of academia. I have talked to students

who have said Americans came to them and asked `Are you OK?'

Other stories I hear from big cities are of hate crimes and

of some men who have shaved their beards off in fear of being

targeted. But President Bush is right when he says Pakistan

is safe here. I hear others say, `We are Americans, and

please accept us as the way we are.' ''