Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I come down in this short amount of time, Mr. Speaker, to say the claim and the facts. The claim that these folks make is the bill takes focus away from advancing cures through federally funded embryonic stem cell research from excess IVF embryos. Fact. In other words, it is another way to advance those cures which all supporters of embryonic stem cell research claim to support as well until now.

This is a very strange argument, when all supporters of this research and the Senate just voted to support this bill.

Claim. Alternative methods described in legislation are highly speculative, and are either simply ideas or unproven in a human model. We all know that the Federal money is going to cost the taxpayers a lot. But privately, you can go out and do what you folks want to do. So if there are so many cures for this, why not have the

private sector provide them for you? And all of these baby boomers that you talk about who will not get these, of course, will in fact get them, because the private sector can solve it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Let me ask the people, including my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), Candice Miller was the Secretary of State of Michigan, and she told me there are 23 Arabic dialects in Wayne County, in one county, in Michigan. Now are all of you prepared to have 23 separate languages on the ballot? Is that fair?

This amendment does not infringe on anybody's ability to cast an informed vote. States can still choose to provide language assistance and individuals can still choose to bring their friends as translators into the ballot box and help them understand.

This is simply a commonsense amendment that merely removes a

Federal mandate to provide translations. Are you going to ask the Federal Government to force a State to have 23 Arabic dialects in Wayne County? It is a States' rights issue.

Let's look at what Margaret Fung of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund said: ``I think all of the language assistance is supplemental to what, hopefully, will happen, which is that everyone will learn English.''

Immigrants arriving on our shores add to the vibrant fabric of our Nation, but it is important as a melting pot that all of these immigrants learn to speak English

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague for all his leadership on this issue, going back, way back, and I rise in strong support of this amendment. I thank my friend for his leadership.

I rise today in strong support of this amendment and I thank my friend, Mr. Bilirakis and my other Florida colleagues for offering it. This amendment ensures that no oil or natural gas leasing occurs within 125 miles of a State's coastline unless the State requests leasing. This amendment provides the States with real authority to protect their coastlines and I urge its adoption.

We can all agree that the United States is far too reliant on imported sources of energy. Currently we import 60 percent of our oil demand, and by 2025 that number will increase to nearly 75 percent. In addition, the rising price of natural gas is causing serious problems to many different sectors of our economy.

This dependence on imported sources of energy is a threat to our economy and to our national security. In addition to expanding alternative fuels and employing clean fuel technologies, we need to produce more oil and natural gas domestically.

The United States encompass a wide diversity featuring deserts, tropical forests, and arctic tundra. The States vary, with some dependent on agriculture and others on manufacturing. States such as Alaska rely on developing its natural resources, and I support the will of the Alaskan people to open their land to oil and gas development.

However, my State of Florida has a different reliance on its natural resources, maintaining

our pristine beaches and waters that could be damaged by offshore drilling. If Alabama or Louisiana wants to permit leasing off its shores, then such leasing should be allowed. But, if my State of Florida has concerns about the effect leasing would have on its fragile ecosystem and its tourism economy, then Florida should be have the authority to ban leasing off its shores.

The underlying bill opens areas to oil and gas leasing that are currently under moratorium while protecting the rights of States to control activities off their shores. As written, H.R. 4761 gives States 1 year from the date of enactment to decide whether to permit or deny natural gas leasing in the area between 50 and 100 miles of their coastlines. If a state does not act, however, leasing can occur. Thus, States have to act in order to prevent leasing between 50 and 100 miles.

This amendment seeks to increase the power States would have in deciding whether or not to allow leasing off their shores. It would prohibit oil and gas leasing within 125 miles of a State's coast unless the Governor and State legislature agree to permit leasing in this area. Instead of having the State take action to prevent leasing, as the DOER Act would require, leasing could only occur within 125 miles of the coast if the State explicitly allows it.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, in a nation as diverse and with as many competing interests as the United States, it is important to return greater authority to the States so they can control activities 125 miles offshore. This amendment does that and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Since 1975, the Bilingual Election Assistance Provisions of the Voting Rights Act have forced States and political subdivisions to accommodate multiple languages at the polls. The provisions prohibit States from providing voting material only in the English language.

While all of us enjoy hearing a wide variety of languages spoken here in the United States, I think that official government functions of the government ought to be conducted in English. Let me repeat that. I think the official government functions of this government ought to be conducted in English.

Let me state that my amendment is not about immigration, intimidation or discrimination. It is about assimilation. This is also an amendment about States' rights. States or political subdivisions can provide voting assistance in other languages if they want to, but I do not believe this is good for the United States to mandate.

The United States of America is a Nation of immigrants. We are the original melting pot. Importantly, though, the first motto of the United States of America was E pluribus unum: ``Out of many, one.'' This motto symbolizes the integration of the 13 independent colonies into one united country. The motto assumed even further meaning as Americans welcomed ever more immigrants from many lands to our shores. And one of the most unifying elements of one Nation is a common language.

Since our Nation's founding, there have been people who would literally suffer life and limb to be an American citizen. And I think that if you have the good fortune to be able to vote in the United States, then it is not too much to ask that this be accomplished in English. You can bring your own assistance to the polls if you need it, but I do not think the United States Government should be forced to pay for such assistance.

So, in my opinion, section 203 of the Voting Rights Act would exacerbate isolation and segregation. If individuals are not nudged, not pushed by the circumstances of daily living, including voting, to get out and master the basics of the English language, then they are denied all the rich opportunities that life in this great Nation offers. Further, depending upon how you got here, it is generally expected that you have a command of the English language. If you are born here and you obtain voting age and are limited for some reason in English proficiency, then I consider this quite a failing of the schools. And for most naturalized proceedings, you must pass a limited English proficiency requirement. Of course, democracy does not end at the polling place, so if one faces a language barrier to voting, then I suspect that he or she is secluded from enjoying all the full rights and privileges of democracy in the United States.

And, finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about applying our scarce resources wisely in this country. The Bilingual Election Assistance Provisions come at no small cost to our States, our counties and our small towns.

For example, does a language with several dialects, such as Chinese, trigger the assistance requirement? Then the statute says that the jurisdiction's obligation is to ascertain the dialects that are commonly used by members of the applicable language minority group in the jurisdiction and to provide oral assistance in such dialects. Does a language that is unwritten trigger the requirement? Then oral assistance and publicity are required. We simply cannot, Mr. Chairman, afford to translate government documents and transactions into every possible conceivable language.

Now, if my amendment passes and becomes the law of the land, what would happen? Here is what: Voters not confident of their command of the English language would do what all of us would do, bring in their friends and neighbors and ask for help and assistance. Until 1975, there was no government duty to provide ballot translation, but a voter could certainly bring an interpreter of his choice to the voting booth.

I think that all eligible voters should knowledgeably, vigorously seeking knowledge, exercise their franchise. But let us just be a Nation that votes united, not divisively.

And I would say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, States should not have to print ballots in all these various languages. Let us just have the ballots printed in English.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

My amendment would prohibit funds from the United States being used for the design, renovation, construction or rental of any headquarters for the United Nations in any location in the United States.

I offered this type of amendment 1 year ago, and then I agreed to withdraw it. My honorable colleague, Chairman Wolf joined me in requesting a GAO investigation of the United Nations headquarters renovation. That ongoing investigation has done little to advance our understanding of what the U.N. is doing besides how good the U.N. is at spending our taxpayers' money.

One of the lead experts in the GAO's ongoing investigation, Thomas Malito, testified in the Senate just last week. ``The U.N. is vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement due to a range of weaknesses in existing oversight practices.'' That is why I have returned to ask that we withhold funding until the United Nations makes public and transparent its contracting and disbursement information relative to the renovations.

The United Nations estimates that the planned renovation of its headquarters building in New York City would cost $1.7 billion, billion, for a work site that is over 2\1/2\ million square feet.

The most expensive building sold in Manhattan, the General Motors building, recently sold for $1.4 billion. The entire U.N. building could be built again for under $2 billion. Still, repair and refurbishing are activities that involve greater financial opportunities, one would suppose.

Now, even if the U.N. cost estimates remain constant, a big if, the U.S. share of renovation would be about $480 million. That would be in addition to our regular annual dues of $423 million, plus all other contributions of nearly $2.4 billion.

The General Assembly has yet to approve a plan amongst the four being considered, but the U.N. has already spent almost $40 million on preferred renovation plans, $20 million in the last month alone, according to the GAO.

The GAO also found that the $1.7 billion cost estimate only scratches the surface of the expected costs. The estimate does not include any of the following: new furniture, at least $100 million per year for an unknown number of years; new security costs, as well as temporary security costs during construction; new phones and information technology systems; and new office equipment.

Moreover, according to the GAO, ``While the U.N. has yet to finalize a specific procurement strategy for the renovation project, to the extent that it relies on current U.N. processes, implementation of the planned renovation is vulnerable to the procurement weaknesses we have identified previously.'' And the GAO continues: ``For example, it has not,'' the U.N. now, ``has not established an independent process to consider vendor protests that could alert senior U.N. officials of failure by procurement staff.'' And the U.N. has yet to establish an independent bid process, something that the U.S. Government has in place and we all take for granted.

In addition, although the U.N.'s Office of Internal Oversight Service, OIOS, has a mandate establishing it as an independent oversight entity and to conduct oversight of the renovation, it lacks the budgetary independence it requires to carry out its responsibilities. The OIOS is dependent on the whims of the very department and program heads it is auditing. The problems with this setup were made plain in the Oil-for-Food program when OIOS was prevented from examining high-risk areas where billions of dollars were subsequently found to have been misused.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the patience of my good friend from Virginia, Chairman Wolf, on this amendment, and his approach to the very difficult work of crafting and passing the appropriation bill for this subcommittee. In this case, dealing with the United Nations, we have 61 years of patience, and this patience has to be very frustrating for all of us. But, Mr. Chairman, do we simply continue to grant the United Nations the possibility of continued corruption and possibly graft with this project? I don't think so.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I have an amendment that Mr. McCotter and Mr. King of Iowa have indicated they support this idea. So it is similar to H.R. 5476, legislation which I introduced to withhold the U.S. share of the U.N. Human Rights Council's budget from our regular U.N. dues. It transfers funding from the Council to hire more prison guards in the Federal Prison System.

Let me just speak briefly I think before I get into the meat of it, to just talk to you about the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Forty-one years ago this past Monday, 50 nations signed the United Nations Charter. A year later, former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt became the first chairwoman of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, to monitor and prevent the abuse of human rights throughout the world.

Her chairmanship was the last for the U.S. on the Human Rights Commission, which has failed to uphold even the most basic ideals iterated in the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It quickly lost any credibility and allowed tyrannies like Cuba, Sudan, Libya, Belarus, China and Zimbabwe to shield themselves from criticism for their human rights violations.

Over the life of the Commission, it failed to act or speak out against egregious human rights abuses like the atrocities committed in many of the Communist blocs and the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. It also failed to condemn countries that sponsor terrorism, including Iran, Syria and North Korea. Instead, the Human Rights Commission repeatedly castigated Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, while overlooking horrific human rights abuses throughout that same Middle East. At least 30 percent of all country-specific resolutions of the Commission critical of human rights were directed at that very small country, Israel. None targeted persistent violators like former Burma, which is now Myanmar, Syria and Zimbabwe and, of course, early on, China.

The U.N. recently replaced the discredited Commission with a Human Rights Council. For all the superficial changes, it will fail just as miserably as its predecessor. The reforms advocated by democratic nations were rejected, and that is why the United States declined to seek membership this year.

The Council cannot even prevent human rights violators from being elected to the Council itself. The only supposed protection, that a country can be suspended if two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly agree, is useless since less than half of the General Assembly could agree that Sudan was guilty of human rights violations. The new Council only reduced the number of seats on the Council from 53 to 47, not enough to make the Council more efficient or effective. It also retained geographic quotas that will allow countries like Iran, Venezuela, Sudan and Zimbabwe repeated chances to run for membership.

This new U.N. Human Rights Council is littered with abysmal human rights abusers. The newly elected membership includes nine countries that the democracy watchdog Freedom House designates as not free: China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Algeria, Cameroon and Azerbaijan. According to the Geneva-based human rights monitor U.N. Watch, almost half of the new members fail to meet accepted democratic standards.

The U.S. cannot fund such a human rights sham while our own Federal Prison System needs the money. The Federal Prison System requested a $500 million increase in fiscal year 2007. The

committee report falls $400 million short of that request. This unmet increase is vital to grapple with a growing prison population.

More than 188,000 inmates are confined in the correctional institutions of the Federal Prison System today. As a result, the Federal Prison System is operating 41 percent over capacity, up from 32 percent as of January, 2000. The number of Federal correctional officers cannot keep pace. In the 1990s, when inmate populations were approximately half as large, the prisons were at 95 percent staffing levels. Today, it has less than that. This has resulted in a significant increase in inmate assaults on correctional staff.

According to the Federal Prison System data, assaults against correctional staff increased by 75 percent, and assaults against correctional staff with weapons increased by 61 percent. These are alarming statistics.

This particular statistic concerns me because we have in my district the largest prison system, Coleman Correctional Facility.

So my amendment is significant. I ask support of it. It is symbolic. It is important to pass it.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that I realize you are doing a wonderful job in your position here, and this, in a larger sense, is symbolic to show to the United Nations where our priorities are and to give an opportunity for some Members, like myself, to voice their concerns about this Human Rights Commission, and I thank you for your courtesy.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, with the Fourth of July celebration next week, it is important to again remember why we fought for independence, namely, to free ourselves from foreign domination.

I fear that the Supreme Court's appeal to foreign legal practice has headed us down a slippery slope, down which our rapid descent could hurt the values we hold so dear.

In fact, to measure the standards of our Constitution by foreign opinion is to believe the false premise that other nations are evolving toward better answers than we are capable of finding ourselves. If we begin thinking that way, surely we will cease to be Americans.

In 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, five Supreme Court justices created a new right to sodomy based largely on legal precedents from the European Convention of Human Rights. In his dissenting opinion on this ruling, Justice Scalia agreed with what I am trying to point out in this speech by saying, he ``expects and fears that the court's use of foreign law in the interpretation of our Constitution will continue at an accelerating pace.''

Later, in the 2005 Roper v. Simmons case, the United States Supreme Court found juvenile execution to be unconstitutional. In deliberations, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor claimed that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give the juvenile death penalty official sanction. She allowed international law to override her own decisionmaking abilities. In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy stated that using foreign law ``does not lessen our fidelity to the Constitution or our pride in its origin to acknowledge that the affirmation of rights by other nations and people simply underscores the centrality of those same rights within our heritage of freedom.''

Though it may be proper to acknowledge the weight of foreign opinion against the juvenile death penalty, should it be the basis for American law? Justice Ginsburg, one of the most prominent advocates of using international opinion in U.S. courts, recently delivered a speech at the Constitutional Court of South Africa. She essentially concluded that she and other justices have the authority to change the Constitution as they see fit, deferral to foreign laws and rulings being a key part of their creative process. She insisted that U.S. jurists honor the Framers' intent to ``create a more perfect union,'' which would allow justices to alter the Constitution, to keep it from being ``fixed forever by the 18th century understanding.''

My colleagues, the Framers of the Constitution did not give justices the authority to create a more perfect union; in fact, they purposely made changing the Constitution a very difficult process, to ensure that these changes were thoroughly vetted and absolutely necessary. Any amendments require a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of State legislatures to convene constitutional conventions to ratify them. But, as we have seen, some justices believe they have the power to amend the Constitution to suit every whim.

Foreign laws and decisions simply provide a convenient justification for some justices to almost thumb their noses at the Constitution and the legislative branch.

Foreign legal standards can help U.S. courts determine the meaning behind treaties, foreign law might even aid us in interpretation of our Constitution as the Framers were of English descent; but there needs to be a distinction between appropriate and inappropriate consultation, aside from justices' personal opinions.

In an address to the American Enterprise Institute earlier this year, Justice Scalia said, ``If there was any thought absolutely foreign to the Founders of our Country, it was the notion that we Americans should be governed the way Europeans are.'' In the Federalist Papers Number 46, to take just what one example, James Madison speaks contemptuously of the governments of Europe, which are afraid to trust the people with arms. Are we now to revise the second amendment because what these other countries think?

During his confirmation, Justice Roberts pointed out, ``Looking to foreign law for support is like looking out

over a crowd and picking out your best friends.'' A judge relying on foreign law in their decisionmaking can hand-pick a precedent based on a predetermined outcome of their choice.

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that our courts should rely on our history, our laws, and most importantly our Constitution to help them reach a decision, especially when it comes to domestic issues. That is why we must focus our energies on the other body on confirming quality judges with a healthy respect for the Constitution like Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 20: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 21: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following:

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 22: Page 16, line 14, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $500,000)''.

Page 67, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $500,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 23: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 24: Page 27, line 3, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)'' and

conform the aggregate amount set forth on page 26, line 6,

accordingly.

Page 86, line 17, after the second dollar amount, insert

the following: ``(reduced by $3,000,000)'' and conform the

aggregate amount set forth on page 86, line 17, accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, crime by illegal immigrant members of criminal street gangs is exploding. Immigration and Custom Enforcement has stated, ``The victims of gang crime are not limited to rival gang members. Entire neighborhoods are held hostage by and subjected to the violence of street gangs.''

Currently alien members of criminal street gangs are not deportable. Many of the U.S. members of one of the international criminal gangs are present here under temporary protective status. MS-13 originated in El Salvador, complicating detention and deportation. A 1988 Ninth Circuit Federal Court injunction prevents expedited removal of Salvadorans due to a vicious civil war in this country. That civil war ended in 1992, and the injunction still remains. As a result, captured El Salvadorans are immediately released. In 2005, 40,000 Salvadoran illegals were apprehended. However, we currently estimated that for each individual caught, five cross our borders successfully.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have this amendment, and it took quite a bit of expertise on myself and staff to get this so it would be germane, and I sort of feel that that is one of my accomplishments. I intend to offer this, but then I am going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw it out of great deference to the chairman.

The second is to bring it on the House floor and to discuss it so we can put it in the Record so that the Armed Forces, particularly the Air Force, when they talk about the revised interim guidelines concerning free exercise of religion in the Air Force, have an understanding what we in the House believe is appropriate.

The amendment is basically saying that none of the funds made available in this act may be used to interpret voluntary religious discussion as official, because within this interim guidelines concerning free exercise of religion the word ``official'' is in the paragraph where we are talking about voluntary worship. Let me read this portion to you:

``Voluntary participation in worship, prayer, study, and discussion is integral to the free exercise of religion.''

Now, that we all agree upon. And then they go on to talk about this voluntary discussion of religion. But then there is a sentence in this that goes on to say: ``Voluntary discussions of religion or the exercise of free speech where it is reasonably clear that the discussions are personal and not official.''

So even within the paragraph talking about voluntary, talking about voluntary discussion of people coming together, there is still an interpretation by the Air Force that it is reasonably clear it is not official. Well, obviously if these people come together voluntarily to talk about their faith, to pray, to study, and have this discussion, it is voluntary and should the word ``official'' not even be in this paragraph. But it still gives the Air Force the ability to go in and say, well, you know, we can reasonably say that it is not clear that the discussion that you men and women have had while you are worshipping, you are praying, you are studying is an integral part of this free speech. It appears that there might be some official overtone. So it is official overtone. Then at that point they can step in and say, okay, you cannot have this discussion.

So my amendment is basically saying that, no, the Air Force could not step in anytime there is voluntary participation in worship, prayer, study, and discussion. And it is simple on that respect.

Some of the revised interim guidelines that the military put together is worded in such a way that it makes many of us feel a little uncomfortable. It seems like it is a little bit over the line, and I felt personally, and I say to the chairman, my colleague from Florida (Mr. Young), that when you add voluntary, I think that should be enough. And the word official and reasonably clear and some of these extraneous words that would imply intimidation to the people who are trying to worship and pray should not be a part of this interim guideline.

So I wanted to go on record to say I as one Member don't agree, and I hope perhaps there are other Members who would take this amendment to heart. And so if we find that the Air Force somehow intimidates these people during voluntary participation in prayer, worship, and study, that they would remember my amendment.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw out of deference and understanding the lateness of the hour and also the understanding that you have just been through one donnybrook and perhaps this one might be another one, but I still feel and I might at a later date bring this forward now that I finally figured out a way to make it germane.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Offered By Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 861 and believe many of my colleagues on the other side of the isle have said that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the Global War on Terrorism. I could not disagree more with their assessment. Iraq is the central front in the overall Global War on Terrorism. An immediate withdrawal would merely embolden our terrorist enemies and lead to open season on America and our allies. We cannot allow this to happen. We must prevail in Iraq. The stakes are too high to fail.

Coalition forces are having a great deal of success in Iraq. The recent killing of terrorist leader Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, along with seven of his aides, is a serious blow to al-Qaeda's operation. The man Osama bin Laden called ``the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq'' arguably had more innocent blood on his hands in the last few years than any other terrorist. Zarqawi led one of the most deadly insurgent groups in Iraq in a bloody campaign of bombings, shootings, beheadings, and kidnappings aimed at killing Iraqi Shi'as to incite sectarian violence and derail democracy in Iraq.

Furthermore, after receiving confirmation of Zarqawi's death, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces conducted 17 simultaneous raids in the Baghdad area, yielding a treasure trove of information and intelligence that is being analyzed for future use.

Iraq's National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said today that these documents and computer records would give the Iraqi government the upper hand in its fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq.

``We believe that this is the beginning of the end of al-Qaeda in Iraq,'' al-Rubaie said, adding that the documents showed al-Qaeda is in ``pretty bad shape,'' politically and in terms of training, weapons and media.

``Now we have the upper hand,'' he said. ``We feel that we know their locations, the names of their leaders, their whereabouts, their movements, through the documents we found during the last few days.''

He also said that he believed the security situation in the country would improve enough to allow a large number of U.S.-led forces to leave Iraq by the end of this year, and a majority to depart by the end of next year. ``And maybe the last soldier will leave Iraq by mid- 2008,'' he said.

Throughout American history, we have been tested in times of war. But virtually every time, we stayed the course and prevailed.

We did not experience quick victory in the American Revolution. In fact, it took our Founding Fathers years to win our hard-fought independence. We were defeated at the Battles of Long Island, Harlem Heights, White Plains and others, and we will never forget the dark days at Valley Forge, yet we did not give up our desire for freedom.

And let's not forget in World War II, where we suffered rapid and repeated defeats at Guam, Wake Island, the Philippines and Kasserine Pass.

We must also remember that the terrorists were at war with us long before we were at war with them. In April 1983, 63 people, including the CIA's Middle East director, were killed in a suicide truck-bomb attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Later on that year, simultaneous suicide truck-bomb attacks on the American and French compounds in Beirut killed 242 Americans and 58 French. In 1988, all 259 people on board Pan Am Flight 103 were killed when a bomb believed to have been placed on the aircraft by Libyan terrorists exploded. These are just a few examples. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker there are others.

Noted Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis has written that the sources of Islamic antagonism toward the West stems from the belief that the American way of life is a direct threat to Islamic values. But it is basic Western democracy that especially threatens Islamic extremist because within its own community more and more Muslims are coming to value the freedom that political democracy allows. Lewis has also written that attitudes toward the West have evolved through contacts with first the Eastern Empire in Constantinople, then Spain, Portugal and France, and through years of direct conflict in the Crusades and the colonial wars of the 19th and 20th centuries. As we can see, the War on Terrorism did not begin on September 11, 2001

The Global War on Terrorism will not be won next week, next year, or even in the next 10 years. Like the Cold War, this struggle is a generational conflict, potentially spanning decades. The Cold War stretched from Asia to Africa to the very heart of Europe, just as our struggle today reaches from the Philippines to the mountains of Afghanistan to, as we recently saw, our neighbor Canada. Terrorism knows no bounds and will strike wherever freedom reigns, from London to Madrid, to a quiet field in Pennsylvania.

Victory cannot be found on a single battlefield or a single treaty signing. Our enemy does wear a uniform and is not governed by international rules of war. They have one goal: kill as many Americans as possible and establish tyrannical regimes that rule according to a violent and intolerant distortion of Islam.

The War on Terror will be a long war. Yet we have mobilized to win other long wars, and we can and will win this one.

Last year, I traveled to Iraq and everybody I met was enthusiastic about doing their job and helping the Iraqi people. We found our troops have high morale and a commitment to their mission. The troops told us that we are winning the war.

Because of our intervention, a murderous dictator and a totalitarian regime have been overthrown, free elections have been held, a new constitution has been drafted and ratified, and a new national unity government has been completed.

Mr. Speaker, Iraq is only one theater in the overall Global War on Terror and success in Iraq is vital to victory. Much has been accomplished but much is left to be done. The question for all of us here is do we have the will to stay the course and leave with honor I believe we do. We must finish the job. The stakes are too high to fail.