Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, and I have just introduced a bill, to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to limit the provisions of the United States military assistance and the sale, transfer or licensing of United States military equipment or technology to Ethiopia.

The bill requires that before the United States provides military equipment to the regime in Addis Ababa that our President certifies that the Government of Ethiopia is not using our equipment or assistance against prodemocracy advocates or peaceful civilian protesters in Ethiopia. Is that too much to ask?

It is an outrage that in Ethiopia that over 80 opposition leaders and human rights activists and journalists have been recently charged with treason, violent conspiracy and genocide. These prisoners of conscience face brutal captivity and the possibility of death sentences. They include 10 newly elected members of the Parliament and other officials of the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party, that is the

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule but in opposition to the underlying bill, the so-called PATRIOT Act, the USA PATRIOT Act.

I supported the PATRIOT Act when it was first passed and would do so again. I support the war on radical Islam. Our country is under attack and under grave threat. But my original support was based on the inclusion of 4-year sunsets in those sections of the PATRIOT Act, those sections that drastically expanded the police and investigative powers of the Federal Government.

That is what was included in the original PATRIOT Act. Instead, the current legislation before us makes permanent the expansion of police powers which were meant to be only temporary until this war was over. Of the 16 sunset provisions, sections sunsetted in the original 2001 bill, the current conference committee report establishes 4-year sunsets on only two of those 16. The rest of the expanded police powers are being made permanent, the most drastic permanent expansion of these powers being section 213, the sneak and peek section; the section 205, the secret search section; and section 214, which permanently eliminates probable cause needed for the use of eavesdropping devices.

I would support redoing the PATRIOT Act as originally came forward. As the war on terrorism continues, I can support these expanded powers. However, this effort to use the war as a way to alter forever the balance of personal liberty and legitimate restraints on government power should be defeated. Long after the war on terrorism is won, under permanent sneak-and-peek rules, American citizens will have their homes and businesses searched without court order and without legal notification for a month after that search is conducted. Long after the threat of Islamic extremism is over, under permanent secret search rules, Americans will have their business records, phone records, credit records and computer files seized without a judge issuing a warrant based on probable cause. Long after the crisis we face today, under permanent eavesdropping rules, American citizens will have their phone conversations monitored without a warrant.

There is no excuse in peacetime to give our police and our investigative agencies wartime powers, and that is what we are doing here. There have been a few improvements in the bill but not enough improvements, as far as I am concerned, for us to support it. My central theme has always been based on the need for periodic review by Congress of all those dramatic expansions of police power that we are giving our government now in order to win this war on terrorism. This is best achieved by sunsets. We should not live in peacetime under the extraordinary laws passed during times of war and crisis. Emergency powers of investigation should not become the standard.

Let me just note that I think people will rue the day if we give the Federal Government this permanent power over our lives.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report which would reauthorize the PATRIOT Act by making permanent the expansions of Federal police powers that were temporarily put into the original bill and sunsetted in that bill.

I am unmoved by the argument that we can have faith that, in the future, that there will be proper oversight because there has been proper oversight so far in determining whether or not the new police powers that were put in the original PATRIOT Act were abused. Long after Mr. Sensenbrenner and myself and others are gone from here, these powers will remain, and Congress may not have that proper oversight.

Let me note that the people in the pro-life movement should take note of what is happening here because the expanded police powers of the Federal Government will be used against them. Our second amendment friends already understand that. Proposition 187, the anti-illegal immigration group in California, the FBI went after them in the last administration.

When you expand the police powers of the Federal Government, no matter how much oversight we might have today and say that power is not being abused, we have opened the door to abuse. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. Our Founding Fathers said, only temporarily increase those powers in an emergency. Otherwise, deny those powers to the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of a valiant American soldier who, through no fault of his own, never became an American citizen. 1st Sgt. John Castellano of New York State and California was worthy of becoming an American citizen. I would like to tell you his story.

John Castellano was a native of Sorrento, Italy. He joined the United States Army in 1911. He served with the U.S. armed forces for more than 25 years with honor and distinction. For example, Sgt. Castellano served admirably in World War I and the Pacific Theater of Operations. For his valiant service, he was awarded numerous medals and ribbons, including the ``West Indies Campaign'' ribbon, the VFW medal, and an award for bravely rescuing a man from drowning on July 21, 1921.

Sgt. Castellano believed that he was a naturalized U.S. citizen by dint of his service to the United States. Unfortunately, through circumstances unknown to us today, he was required but failed to fill out the necessary documents to become a U.S. citizen. As a result, he did not become the American citizen that he always believed he would become. Today, we have members of the Armed Services who assist foreign members of our armed forces to become U.S. citizens. According to recent newspaper articles, foreign soldiers serving with coalition forces in Iraq can become U.S. citizens in less than six months. And it is right to honor those who fight and risk their lives for this great country. Unfortunately, no one was able to assist Sgt. John Castellano, an Italian immigrant, to become a naturalized U.S. citizen so many years ago.

His family lives in my district. Members of the Castellano family learned of this tragedy only in recent years although John Castellano died in 1937. Since they learned of these circumstances, the family has been trying for several years to obtain posthumous citizenship for John. Unfortunately, the law does not allow John to become a U.S. citizen at this late date. Therefore, I am honoring Sergeant Castellano's service to the United States, and want to state for the Congressional Record that his service and heartfelt love for this country is commendable and makes him worthy of citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to place in today's Congressional Record

this excellent speech by Congressman Joseph J. DioGuardi on Gjergj Kastrioti ``Skenderbeg.''

Gjergj Kastrioti ``Skenderbeg''

(By Joseph J. DioGuardi)

From 1443, when he returned in triumph to the White Castle

in Kruja to his deathbed at Lezha in 1468, Skenderbeg left an

unforgettable legacy of great heroism in the defense of

freedom. Gjergj Kastrioti lived and died for what he firmly

believed were the sacred values of faith, virtue, honor,

freedom, courage, and love of country. These universal values

are clearly displayed in his correspondence and speeches,

along with his deep philosophy of life and his incredible

deeds. Who was Gjergj Kastrioti? Why is he an important

historical figure? What can Albanians today learn from his

life and deeds? Why is he not better known around the world?

Kastrioti was the son of an Albanian prince, Gjon

Kastrioti, who ruled the Albanian lands in the Balkan

Peninsula at the end of the 14th century and the beginning of

the fifteenth century. Gjon had kept the invading Ottoman

Turks at bay for more than twenty years when he was forced

into a deceptive peace treaty in 1422 with Sultan Murad II to

secure the rear of the Turkish army in Southeast Europe and

spare the lives of his people from the wrath of the Ottoman

Empire. To guarantee the arrangement, the Sultan took Gjon's

youngest son, Gjergj, hostage to Adrianople, the European

capital of the Ottoman Empire. Here, Gjergj was sent to the

Ottoman military academy where he excelled in all ways and

adopted the Moslem alias ``Iskender Bey,'' or Lord Alexander

after Alexander the Great. Skenderbeg's excellent academic

and military record caught the eye of the Sultan, who gave

him the rank of general even before reaching twenty years of

age. Skenderbeg's military successes against the enemies of

the Ottoman Empire became legendary, as were the decorations

and gifts bestowed on him after each incredible triumph.

An important turning point in Skenderbeg's life came when,

in 1443, he received the sad news from Kruja of his father's

death. Gjon had defied and frustrated the Ottomans for more

than fifty years and the Sultan grew suspicious of

Skenderbeg's potential to take his father's place in trying

to perpetuate a free Albania even after Greece, Bulgaria,

Romania, and Serbia had been conquered. Skenderbeg sensed the

danger to him and to his father's people and decided to seize

the moment in November 1443, when he was sent on a military

excursion to defeat the Hungarians led by another great

freedom fighter (and thorn in the side of the Sultan),

Janos Hunyadi. Rather than do the Sultan's dirty work at

Nish (in Serbia today), he fooled his fellow Ottoman

commanders and fled the battlefield to Kruja with three

hundred of his loyal Albanian horsemen. Two weeks after

triumphantly entering Albania at Dibra, he stormed the

White Castle at Kruja on November 28, 1443 and deposed the

Ottoman governor there. The next twenty-five years would

see some of the greatest military feats against the ever

powerful and growing Ottoman Empire. It was only after

Skenderbeg's death in 1468 that the Ottomans were able to

get a foothold in Albania. Without their great leader, the

struggle against the Ottomans faltered, leading to a

complete occupation of Albanian lands in 1488. This lasted

425 years until Ismail Qemali raised Skenderbeg's double-

headed eagle banner at Vlora on November 28, 1912.

It is one thing for Albanians today to praise and honor

Gjergj Kastrioti. But let's now take some time to hear about

this saintly knight, his incredible military genius, and our

Albanian national hero from those who knew him well. Having

now read a great deal about Skenderbeg, it became evident

that a Roman Catholic priest from Shkodra, Marin Barletius,

wrote the most comprehensive and vivid account of

Skenderbeg's life and deeds. His twelve-volume work included

Kastrioti's letters, speeches, and his philosophy of life,

religion, and nation. Since Barletius was a contemporary of

Skenderbeg, he had access to firsthand information from the

battlefields, the archives in Rome, and many other personal

firsthand accounts from witnesses of Kastrioti's phenomenal

accomplishments, character, and charisma. The scholarly work

of Barletius, originally written in Latin, was translated

widely, including French and English, which allowed many to

know about the legendary feats of Skenderbeg.

The nineteenth-century American poet Henry Wadsworth

Longfellow had been mesmerized reading about the incredible

life and deeds of Gjergj Kastrioti. His epic poem

``Scanderbeg'' gave a vivid account of Kastrioti triumphant

in Kruja on November 28, 1443:

. . . Anon from the castle walls

The crescent banner falls,

And the crowd beholds instead,

Like a portent in the sky,

Iskander's banner fly,

The Black Eagle with double head.

And shouts ascend on high

. . .'' Long live Scanderbeg.

Skenderbeg's genius has been likened by many military

experts to Alexander the Great. Major General James Wolfe,

commander of the English army at the siege of Quebec, Canada,

wrote to Lord Sydney that ``Scanderbeg exceeds all the

officers, ancient and modern, in the conduct of a defensive

army. I met him in Turkish history but nowhere else.''

Historian Edmond Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the

Roman Empire said: ``In the list of heroes, John Hunyadi and

Scanderbeg are commonly associated and entitled to our notice

since their occupation of arms delayed the ruin of the Greek

(Byzantine) Empire. . . . The Albanian prince may justly

be praised as a firm and able champion of his national

independence. The enthusiasm of chivalry and religion has

ranked him with the names of Alexander the Great and

Pyrrhus. . . .''

Even the Elizabethan poet Edmund Spenser held that

Scanderbeg was ``matchable to the greatest of the great'' in

his preface to an English translation of Barletius, which

concluded by saying:

To one whom later age has brought to light,

Matchable to the greatest of the great:

Great both in name and great in power and might,

And meriting a mere triumphant feat.

The scourge of Turks, and plague of infidels,

Thy acts, O' Scanderbeg, this volume tells.

Finally, among the many, many accounts of one Albanian

hero, we turn to the notable nineteenth-century English

literary figure Lord Byron who fell in love with everything

he saw in Albania. Like Kastrioti, Byron had a deep love of

freedom and national independence. In his poem ``Child

Harold's Pilgrimage,'' he wrote:

Land of Albania, where Islander rose,

Theme of the young, and beacon of the wise,

And he, his namesake, whose oft-baffled foes

Shrunk from his deeds of chivalrous emprize.

Land of Albania, let me bend my eyes

On thee, though rugged nurse of savage men!

Where is the foe that ever saw their back? . . .

In short, Gjergj Kastrioti was an exceptional military

genius, a man of great faith and courage, a philosopher and

one who cherished personal freedom and national independence.

He was the subject of many books, poems, and even an opera by

Vivaldi! His imposing figure, sword in hand, atop his

majestic stallion, graces the capitals of Italy, Austria, and

Hungary today. And, on the 600th anniversary of his birth, a

Congressional Resolution introduced in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the most democratic forum in the world,

recounts his many deeds and his importance as an historic

figure not just for Albanians and the Balkans, but Western

Europe, which he saved from Ottoman domination.

What Albanians can learn today from Skenderbeg's life and

deeds is limitless. As a man of great faith, he placed

himself at God's mercy on many occasions where he was facing

overwhelming odds. On one such occasion, after defeating the

Hungarian army at Varna in 1445, Sultan Murad sent a

threatening letter to Skenderbeg, who now stood between the

Ottoman Empire and a Europe in disarray. True to his nature

as a great leader and man of God with a steadfast vision of

freedom for his people and all of Europe, he boldly

responded to the Sultan:

``Cease your angry threats and tell us not of the Hungarian

(mis)fortune. Every man has his own resolution . . . and so

will we with patience endure such fortune as it shall please

God to appoint us. Meanwhile, for direction of our affairs,

we will not request counsel of our enemies, nor peace from

you, but victory by the help of God!''

Albanian leaders today, especially in Kosova seeking

complete independence from Serbia, would do well to emulate

the resolute way in which Skenderbeg pursued his vision of

freedom for his people. He made no room for compromise with

his enemies and showed fierce determination to prevail even

in the face of such a formidable adversary as the Ottoman

Empire. He did this relying not only on his skill as a great

national leader and military tactician, but on his belief in

God's providence as well. We can all learn from Skenderbeg's

great example in pursuing the Albanian national cause today.

Skenderbeg again showed his great faith in God and deep

loyalty to friends after his great friend and patron

Alphonse, King of Naples and Sicily, died in 1460. Italy was

plunged into bloodshed and rebellion, and Ferdinand I,

Alphonse's son and successor, came under attack from the

French once again. Feeling a deep moral obligation to repay

his steadfast friends and allies on the other side of the

Adriatic, Skenderbeg himself led an elite cavalry of 2,000

men there in the summer of 1461 and soon turned the tide

against the French and their Italian collaborators in the

bloody battle of Apulia. In reading the accounts of

Skenderbeg's exhortation to his soldiers before the battle of

Apulia, one is reminded of George Washington exhorting his

troops at Valley Forge:

``This now is our case, my good soldiers. . . . We are now

across the sea far from our own homes and from our own

country. . . . We are amongst strangers, altogether without

hope of ever returning again to our own (home) . . . if we do

not win a notable victory over our enemies. But have courage,

my men: Let us consider that this is God's will . . . that we

should maintain . . . the seat of the Church. And never doubt

that He will send us even from heaven an easy and speedy

victory.. . and then shall we return to our own country

victors, joyous and triumphant.''

One might ask, after hearing of the greatness of

Skenderbeg, why he is not as well known today as before. I

believe that the history of Gjergj Kastrioti is inextricably

tied to that of the Albanian people. The Albanian nation was

submerged under the Ottoman Empire for 425 years. When it

emerged in

1912, it was unfairly divided so that only half of the seven

million Albanians who live in the Balkans today live in the

State of Albania, with the other half living on her borders

in five other jurisdictions. The State of Yugoslavia was

created after World War I on the backs of the Albanian people

and on their land. Then Communism again submerged the

Albanian people--this time throwing them into a political

and economic ``black hole,'' stretching from Belgrade to

Tirana, for almost fifty years after World War II. It is a

wonder that the Albanian people kept their language, their

history, and their hope alive throughout the last six

hundred years of occupation and resistance. It is a wonder

that, amid all the national stress and personal sacrifice,

that Gjergj Kastrioti has not been forgotten altogether.

But he has not been forgotten, and it is a tribute to his

greatness and to the besa of the Albanian people that,

against all odds, Albanians are standing free today, in

Albania and Kosova, and that the sons and daughters of

Skenderbeg continue to adore him as their national hero

and liberator, and are building even more memorials to his

past and present glory and significance--even, with a U.S.

Congressional Resolution (H. Res. 522), in the capital of

the only superpower in the world today, Washington, DC.

author's postscript

The battle of Apulia in the southern part of the Italian

Peninsula, near Naples, is of special significance to me and

my family. In 1461, after Skenderbeg and his elite cavalry

helped save the Kingdom of Naples from French domination, the

future security of the Kingdom was assured when Gjergj

Kastrioti decided to leave two thousand horsemen there, while

he returned to Albania to continue to defend the Albanian

people from Ottoman Turkish domination. As an inducement for

Skenderbeg to agree to what must have been a difficult

decision for him, the King of Naples awarded the Albanian

soldiers an area about forty miles east of Naples, including

a high mountaintop village called Greci. Greci had been

formed by Greek farmers and merchants in 535 AD and had since

declined after most Greeks abandoned the area that they had

controlled in the first millennium. Albanians changed the

name of the village to ``Katundi,'' which is the name used

today by the Albanian residents, even though the Italians

still call it Greci. My father, Joseph, Sr. immigrated to

America from Katundi in 1929 at the age of fifteen. His

family is descended from one of Skenderbeg's two thousand

soldiers, and this is a great reminder that the seeds of

Skenderbeg are still spreading across the oceans of the world

today.

With all due respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, especially my friend who just finished, this is selective memory at its worst. I can remember the very people now crying these crocodile tears and the vilification that they put forward on Ronald Reagan for trying to stop the Communists in Latin America, trying to end the Cold War. He was vilified as a warmonger, et cetera, by the very people who now are making these statements.

Let me note Jack Murtha. I have the greatest respect for him. He is a patriot. But let me thus note that how many times have the people who are saying this have been down here calling our President a liar and vilifying the President of the United States. Come on. Let's be fair to one another here. The fact is there is a disagreement on the character. Our hearts break when we see in the newspaper that four or five more Americans have lost their lives. That does not mean the cause that they are fighting for is unjust.

You had an opportunity tonight to discuss that cause if you were opposed to the war. But instead what we have heard is this type of rhetoric, getting around the issue of the discussion that we should be talking about, the war, and then, in partisan terms, trying to make it partisan saying that we are being personal. No, let's discuss the war, let's discuss it honestly, and let's not obfuscate the issue.

Mr. Speaker, the international community knows that the May 15 election in Ethiopia was rigged, and yet our government and other nations along with international banks and aid agencies, continue to prop up the corrupt regime of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. Last week Meles security forces killed 76 members of the opposition party that refused to join the parliament and yet U.S. taxpayer money continues to flow.

Mr. Speaker, what will it take to turn off the spigot? The United States Agency for International Development in FY 2004 spent $75 million propping up the Ethiopian dictators, in FY 2005 it was $55 million and in FY 2006 it will be $51 million. What have we received in return? We have aligned ourselves with a ruler who is complice in the murder of voters who only wanted an honest election. Thousands of good people were arrested last week when they peacefully took to the streets after the Ethiopian political opposition refused to join parliament because of the rigged election. Many were greeted with live ammunition and gunned down dead like animals.

Prime Minister Meles must now step aside and the international community must step forward to decide what to do about the stolen elections. This week thousands came out to protest in front of the White House. Today many Americans of Ethiopian origin are demonstrating at the State Department. Our Nation must support them and democracy in Africa. Continuing business as usual with Ethiopia is not the way to do so. It's not the American way.

Let it be understood, America is on the side of the people struggling for an honest democratic government in Ethiopia. The popular opposition to Ethiopia's current corrupt regime is comparable to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the brave Lebanese demonstrators who removed the Syrian puppet regime in their country. Our State Department is often wrong and timid. In the case of Ethiopia, Americans clearly back democratic reform movement and that should be our government's policy.

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I yield myself a moment here to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for the time that he has yielded us and shown good faith with us in having an honest discussion of this very significant issue.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct conferees on the PATRIOT Act. Let me note that I am one of several, if not many, Members of Congress who feel that it was an act of bad faith on the part of those in this body who turned the temporary sunsetted provisions of the PATRIOT Act into permanent law for the United States of America.

I supported the PATRIOT Act and would have again voted for the PATRIOT Act as it was when we first voted for it, except now we end up with a PATRIOT Act that permanently changes the balance of power in the United States between the police power and the limitations of power of the policing authorities of the Federal Government. That, I do not believe, should be tolerated by those of us who love liberty and justice and feel that limited government is vital to the protection of freedom.

Second of all, let me note that any, any investigation or hearings that we have had so far into the PATRIOT Act are irrelevant to the issue at hand, the issue at hand as to whether or not we have permanently changed this law and whether in the future there could be abuse. I would say, along with many others, that by permanently granting these excessive powers, or extended powers, to the Federal Government in a time of war and then permanently extending it so that now it is the norm for a time of peace is asking for abuse. So whatever hearings have been held so far in this conflict are irrelevant.

On September 11, our country was attacked and we saw 3,000 Americans slaughtered before our eyes, and it totally justified the major expansion of the police and investigative powers of our government. I voted for the PATRIOT Act, as I just said, and I continue to support its provisions as a necessary expansion of police powers in order to prosecute this war on Islamofacism. They declared war on us every bit as much as the Japanese declared war on us on December 7, 1941.

However, as I said in the original bill, sunset provisions were placed in all of these expanded police powers that were going to enable us to protect our people in this time of war. It was a consensus that when the war was won, it was a consensus when this war was won, those powers would be rescinded and their purposes would have then been served.

The expanded authority we are talking about in terms of eliminating these sunsets in the current bill, this has nothing to do with fighting the war or winning the War on Terror. It has everything to do with using that war as an excuse to permanently change the way we do business in the United States. The standard we set for a war when we are at war with radical Islam should not be the new standard set for America once that war is over. It is as simple as that.

I support the expansion of those powers until we win that war. But we cannot, and this is what we have been handed, a bill that permanently does it so our way of life is changed after the war is over.

The special grants of police power that we have approved we believe should only last for the duration of the war, and we must demand at least a forced reexamination of these provisions to ensure that winning the War on Terror does not result in a permanent change of our way of life.

Of course, we are not here to debate the PATRIOT Act again. Today, we are limited to instructing conferees to adopt the Senate's version of the bill, which would sunset in 4 years the same two provisions that the House bill would sunset in 10 years. The rest of the expansion of the police powers, such as the sneak-and-peak searches, Internet and credit card seizures, the lowering of standards for logging all calls dialed from one particular phone, and the rules against discussing property seizure, all without the traditional warrants that would be required for those activities, have been made permanent in U.S. law. The two provisions being allowed to sunset, as one might expect, are the most questionable of the lot.

Specifically, section 206 of the House version of the PATRIOT Act extends to Federal authorities for 10 years until 2015 the right to employ roving wiretaps, whether they have the name of a specific suspect or location notwithstanding. This should be reexamined before 10 years has lapsed if for no other reason than to just understand whether or not this tool is working for us in the War on Terror. Is it achieving the goals that it set out to achieve in this war?

The Senate version sunsets the clause in 4 years; that is much more responsible. Let us come back and reassess it. That is reasonable.

Section 215 will also be sunsetted in 2015 in the House version rather than in the 5 years in the Senate bill. This section allows for law enforcement to examine library and financial records of any person in connection with a Federal investigation. This provision is possibly the most controversial in the entire bill. My colleagues on one side of the aisle say that this is an unconscionable invasion of privacy, never justified, even in wartime. Others, however, argue that this particular provision is rarely, if ever, used, so why worry about it?

Well, let us be frank and admit that searching library and financial records of our citizens is hugely intrusive, even if it is rarely used. Nonetheless, this section 215 may be needed in a time of war to secure our country and to make sure our people are safe.

While granting the expansion of this police power with a reasonable time limit, such as the expansion of a shorter term of years to ensure section 215 is not abused, that seems reasonable. But it may, again, 215 may be justified now. We may have a justification to find out if someone who checked out a book on radical Islam has also checked out books on how to make bombs. That is why sunsetting this provision 4 years from now, rather than 10 years, is the right thing to do. We do not want to have that kind of power in the hands of the Federal police authorities after this war is over.

Finally, we need to ask, why do the radical Islamists hate us? They hate the openness of our society. They hate our tolerances, our belief in the equality before the law, the right of those of other faiths to worship, and the right of us to express our beliefs. In short, radical Islam is the enemy of freedom; thus, they are our enemy.

If we permanently alter the traditional limitations of our government here in America, the terrorists have won. They have changed our way of

life. During no war in the past, whether World War II or the Cold War, were the police powers of the Federal Government permanently changed so that after the war a new standard of government would exist.

Well, Ronald Reagan would never have supported such an expansion of Federal power and neither should we.

I ask my colleagues to vote on this motion to instruct conferees, and I would ask them to search their consciences about voting for a new PATRIOT Act at all that threatens to permanently change the American way of life.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Mack).

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

The discussion today is not whether or not the Federal Government after 9/11 should have had expanded police powers and investigative authority. That is not the issue. And I voted for that expansion of the police power, just as most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle did, almost all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle voted. That is not the question, because when we voted for those expansions, we put in a sunset clause that after a certain number of years, 4 years, that the issues of those expanded authorities would be re-examined.

The only question at hand in the debate today is whether or not those expanded powers for wartime expansion in the war against radical Islam should be made permanent even now in this time of crisis. This is not a good strategy for free government to change permanently its law during a moment of crisis. I would vote for the PATRIOT Act again because I think that these powers that were just described are needed at this moment, even the ones that were just described by my friends on the other side of the aisle.

But that still does in no way justify permanently expanding those powers so that once the gentleman from Wisconsin is no longer here to conduct hearings that the Federal Government still has those powers perhaps for people who are less, let us say less responsible than Mr. Sensenbrenner in overseeing those expanded powers. Our Founding Fathers understood limitations on government is a guarantee of freedom. Now is not the time for us to permanently change law and permanently put freedom at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify a confusing or mistaken impression that may have been left by one of my colleagues during the House floor debate on S. 1713, the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act of 2005, for which I served as the majority floor manager.

The purpose of enacting S. 1713, as amended by the House, is twofold: to strengthen our nonproliferation tools in dealing with Iran and also Syria, and at the same time enable necessary cooperation between NASA and U.S. businesses with their Russian counterparts on the International Space Station. Just to be clear, in no way does S. 1713 favor our space goals at the expense of effectiveness in nonproliferation. In fact, the time-limited authority we give NASA to purchase, either directly or through U.S. companies, Russian space goods and services, is in my view a net plus for nonproliferation, not a minus.

That said, I want to stress that the legislation the House adopted, and the intent of that legislation, allows NASA significant flexibility in using Russian space goods and services to support the assembly and operation of the International Space Station between now and January 1, 2012. NASA is free to make payments pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement on ISS ``or any protocol, agreement, memorandum of understanding, or contract related thereto.'' As Chairman Hyde pointed out in his floor statement, this means that after enactment of this legislation, NASA can enter into new arrangements to meet our needs regarding ISS, but that NASA will not enter into new obligations beyond or unrelated to the ISS.

The primary limitations with respect to ISS payments are the sunset date of January 1, 2012, and the existing statutory requirement that the specific Russian entities to be paid have not been sanctioned as proliferators under the earlier sections of the Iran Nonproliferation Act.

I point all of this out because my friend and colleague, Mr. Sherman, mistakenly suggested during the floor debate that the phrase ``necessary to meet United States obligations'' added to the Hyde- Lantos substitute to S. 1713 implies that NASA could not purchase Russian goods or services if any other alternative was available. That is certainly not the plain meaning of the phrase, nor the intent behind it. However, because Mr. Sherman explicitly invited correction, I am doing so here in some detail.

Here are three examples of arrangements that are wholly consistent with the legislative text, the Senate and House floor statements by the architects of this legislation, and the Administration's request for relief, but which would not be allowed under Mr. Sherman's interpretation.

First, NASA has stated it wants to use the Russian Soyuz crew capsule to exchange long-term ISS research crews, even during the time the Space Shuttle is flying, because this will allow the Shuttle astronauts to focus on the job of assembling the Space Station to meet our international partner commitments during the Shuttle's limited remaining lifetime. Under the previously negotiated agreements between our countries, Russia is no longer obligated to provide NASA with Soyuz crew transport seats. Therefore, in this example, NASA would not be paying Russia for an obligation they have promised to us. However, because NASA could theoretically use the Space Shuttle as an alternative to carry out crew transfer, albeit at some risk and a cost to our other ISS commitments, Mr. Sherman's inference would suggest NASA cannot do this. Given that the primary exigency for adopting this legislation is enabling continued U.S. occupation of ISS beyond April of next year, which requires payment for training and launch to ISS of a NASA astronaut on the next Soyuz launch, Mr. Sherman's interpretation is incorrect.

Second, Chairman Hyde's statement explicitly makes clear that cargo resupply services to ISS using technology developed by Russian companies would be legal under the amended Act, again within the limitations I stated above. This would be the case regardless of whether the Space Shuttle might technically be available to deliver cargo to ISS, namely through the middle of 2010.

Third, some bidders may wish to use a very reliable and capable U.S. launch vehicle, one which the Defense Department uses right now to launch critical military satellites, and which happens to incorporate Russian rocket engines. Nothing in this bill was meant to preclude such activities, even though there might be similar launch vehicles which do not use Russian rocket engines. Mr. Hyde's statement makes this clear.

Beyond those examples, I would offer the words of House Science Committee Chairman Boehlert as further disputation of Mr. Sherman's reading. In his floor statement, Chairman Boehlert declares that ``by setting a specific end date for our current relationship with the Russians'' the bill ``encourages NASA to find commercial firms that are not dependent on the Russians to carry cargo in the future.'' While I may disagree with that goal or a sunset date's effectiveness as a management tool, if Mr. Sherman's reading were true, the sunset date would be superfluous, because once a U.S. provider whose service had no Russian content emerged, NASA would be barred from any further payments, let alone purchases, from companies which do use

some Russian content. Clearly Chairman Boehlert's interpretation is the same as Chairman Hyde's and my own: Russian content is allowed up until the January 1, 2012 date.

Finally, I would just echo the comments made by Chairman Calvert during the floor debate: the ISS program requires long-term flexibility for NASA to safely and cost-effectively execute both for our taxpayers and to meet our international commitments. We are partners with Russia in the Space Station. Both NASA and its commercial providers need to be able to exchange goods and services at ISS with nonproliferation compliant Russian entities for the lifetime of the station, particularly as we seek to engage the U.S. private sector in ISS operations. Last week the House made clear that even in a time of great concern over the manifest threat from Iran, we want NASA and industry to have this ability at least through January 1, 2012.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. We need to send a message. This message is being sent immediately upon hearing these despicable words from the President of Iran. Again, understanding the significance of these words, we must recommit ourselves in this body to seeing to it that Iran never does possess nuclear weapons and these weapons of mass destruction that would create a hell on Earth and not only disturb the peace but could threaten the lives not only of the people of Israel but the people throughout the world who support Israel's right to exist.

Let me make that very clear. All of our allies, all of our neighbors, every neighborhood in the United States of America would be at risk if the Iran mullah regime has possession of nuclear weapons. We know this not because Iran threatens Israel. We know this because any country that has a president that would threaten to wipe off the face of the map another country is a threat to all decent people in the world, and they know it.

The President of Iran has said they will wipe Israel off the face of the map. Let us note that he and those in his regime hold power only because the people of Iran are denied the right to choose their own leaders. He is not the President of Iran; he is part of a gangster regime run by radicals who are out of touch with Islam and do not represent their own people.

As so often happens, those who oppose the freedom of their own people end up being a threat to the peace and stability of the world, and that is exactly what this statement exemplifies.

The mullahs are playing a horrible role in the lives of their own people. They promote hatred, violence, and intolerance in a region that is desperate for peace. They are spreading hatred and violence and an intolerance in a region that right now is poised and ready for peace, reconciliation and, yes, democracy.

The people of Iran are not our enemies. This resolution is not about the people of Iran. We would ask the people of Iran today to join with us, the free people of the world and the decent people of the world, in building a better world, a peaceful world, a tolerant world, a world of democracy and freedom. We can do this together by eliminating the mullah regime. They are the ones that should be removed from the face of the planet, not Iran, but their mullah regime, the dictatorship that holds power over them.

They should go back to the mosque. The people of Iran should be free. The people of the region of the Middle East, including the people of Israel, should live in peace and harmony with their neighbors. That is what this resolution is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. I think it is important for conservatives and Republicans to speak up at this moment because they did not speak up back in the 1950s when they should have. I think that this is a fitting moment for this conservative to offer his apology to all those who were active with Rosa Parks in the civil rights movement for not being as supportive as I should have been as well as other conservatives who I know.

At that time many conservatives were blinded by the stupidity of the arguments presented to us called ``States rights,'' which was a bunch of baloney, and we know that now. We know that the people who really were offering that argument, many of them had evil hearts and sinful hearts, and that they hate their fellow human beings and were trying to just oppose the efforts to perfect our country and to make it what our Founding Fathers and Mothers dreamed it would be, a land of liberty and justice for all.

Rosa Parks and the other activists in the civil rights movement at that time were doing their part to try to make our country better, to try to live up to its ideals. So as we name this Federal building, as we talk about this tonight and honor this great lady, I think it is fitting for those Republican conservatives to realize we did not do what was right back then. We recognize it, and we will make sure to do what is right in the future.

I thank the people who have spoken today. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for reminding us of what hypocrisy really was, and that we really should not be hypocrites in our lives, and we should speak out strongly for wonderful people who gave their lives trying to make this country a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1713) to make amendments to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 related to International Space Station payments, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 1713, the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and ask unanimous consent that he control that time.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for the leadership that has been demonstrated in getting this legislation to the floor.

One of America's challenges as we seek global security and stability is stopping the proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies.

Several years ago, we enacted the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 to give the United States several tools in our fight against proliferation to Iran, one of which was a restriction on U.S.-Russian space cooperation. As a member of both the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Science, I was deeply involved in that aspect of the Iran Nonproliferation Act.

While many of the INA's tools have helped and should be continued, the limitation on space cooperation has not been effective and is now counterproductive. So, today, we have an opportunity to both correct and strengthen that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amended version of Senate bill 1713. First and foremost, the bill strengthens the tools available to fight proliferation to, and from, Iran. This bill also provides urgently needed relief for NASA so that the United States can maintain a continued presence on the International Space Station and enables cost-effective commercial partnerships to support the Space Station. This latter benefit also strengthens non-proliferation, because over the past decade we have learned that commercial ties between the United States and Russian aerospace companies have been an effective tool against proliferation. We need to employ such carrots along with our non-proliferation sticks.

The changes put in place by S. 1713 will prevent a major setback for America's space program, and that is one of the most important things we are talking about today. It will prevent this setback by ensuring a continued and uninterrupted presence, an American presence, on the International Space Station.

Cooperation with Russia, just as similar cooperation with Russia by the State of Israel in terms of space policy, will help us achieve America's space goals while maintaining our commitment to non- proliferation.

This bill needs to be passed. There is a time element here, and I would like to thank all those who have been involved in trying to get this legislation to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from

Texas (Mr. DeLay), a Member whose leadership has been a major factor in the passage of so much historic legislative reform that has gone through this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), a Member who was both the senior member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as well as serving as chairman of the Committee on Science.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

First of all, thank you very much to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and all those on the other side of the aisle and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who has done such great work in our committee and on issues dealing with Iran and trying to secure the safety of our country as well as the Middle East. The gentleman has my respect; and as he knows, he has had my cooperation in the past, and we appreciate his cooperation on this effort as well.

This legislation needed to come to the floor, and we needed that type of bipartisan cooperation as well as cooperation with the Members on this side of the aisle and the hard work of the staff of both the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Science to ensure that we were able to get this legislation passed in time to prevent what would have been an embarrassment, a major embarrassment, to the United States of America, which would have done irreparable damage to our credibility.

Our space program would have been humiliated by the elimination of America's presence on the International Space Station, having an International Space Station, which we paid for, then to be occupied and controlled by Russians. We have, by this effort today, and by this cooperation, prevented that shortcoming, that humiliation from happening.

But let me note, it was never the intent of the authors of this part of the Iran Nonproliferation Act that we should ever come to a crisis like this. I can say that with certainty, because I was the one who was involved with writing this portion of the Iran Nonproliferation Act. I felt at that time we should have taken care of this issue a long time ago with carrots rather than sticks.

I went to both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration years ago to ask them to offer Russia an alternative to being involved with Iran in terms of building nuclear facilities. The Clinton administration did not act and the Bush administration did not act to prevent this crisis that we are averting right now at the last minute from happening.

Thus, for the record, let us note that, yes, we have averted a crisis; but a long time ago, positive and responsible actions by either the Clinton administration or the Bush administration could have prevented this from happening in a most important way.

Let me note, cooperation with Russia in the space program is not inherently bad. It is something that is inherently good. It places the Russian scientists working on positive programs such as cooperation with America's space program. Israel itself is very involved with the Russians in their space program. Russian rockets launch Israeli satellites. Thus, we know that it is not inherently tied to Iran, the cooperation with Russia in space matters.

But let us make sure that by passing this today we in no way are belittling the argument about the importance of dealing with Iran's development of nuclear weapons. This should be of concern to each and every one of us, and passage of this bill does not lessen that concern whatsoever.

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States and Ethiopia have a long diplomatic history. It is a place that many Americans are familiar with.

Next door to Ethiopia spreading out along the strategic Red Sea coastline is Eritrea, a relatively new country, and a place that few Americans seem to fully understand.

The United States wants to have a good relationship with both Ethiopia and Eritrea. However, bilateral ties with both are weak and deteriorating.

This situation can be corrected, but it will take more interest and involvement by senior leaders in the U.S. government.

Congress is doing its part.

Chairman Chris Smith and Representative Don Payne of the Africa subcommittee have held hearings on the border dispute earlier this year and have recently traveled to the region.

Last year Congress passed Senate-originated legislation, which became law, restricting assistance to Ethiopia or Eritrea for non-compliance to the Eritrea-Ethiopia Border Commission findings. Unfortunately, in January 2005, the executive branch waived this provision on national security grounds. I say ``unfortunately'' because it is because of our national security interest that the provision should have been kept in place. Uncertainty on the border issue creates uncertainty in the region.

Members have written letters to Secretary Rice and President Bush. We have urged them to clarify our policy and to become engaged in this increasingly volatile part of the world. The responses from the State Department have been unhelpful and lead us to believe that either there is no policy, or the policy is to apply political pressure on Eritrea until there is war--and then blame Eritrea for not compromising with Ethiopia--or continuously pressure Eritrea until they agree to renegotiate the final and binding decision of the EEBC.

From Eritrea's perspective, everything depends on full implementation of the EEBC decisions. The U.S. supposedly supports the EEBC decisions, but if it does, then its support appears to be very weak.

The U.S. policy, whatever it is, has one clear result: the status quo remains in place.

Unfortunately, the status quo is untenable and will ultimately result in a renewal of hostilities. The current stalemate is clearly driving the region towards war.

The border demarcation crisis is an existential threat to the security of Eritrea. The dialogue and discussion now being requested by Ethiopia has already occurred and is articulated by the EEBC. This fact underlies Eritrea's unwillingness to dialogue further with Ethiopia or with U.N. Special Envoy Lloyd Axworthy on border demarcation. The failure to resolve the border impacts all aspects of thinking in Eritrea. Eritrea believes that protecting the security and sovereignty of the nation is the first responsibility of the government.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: Ethiopian troops are occupying sovereign Eritrean territory today and have done so for years.

Because Eritrea is a small developing country the current situation puts into effect enormous internal pressures. But Eritrea will not compromise its national sovereignty, and will instead invoke the right to self-defense as articulated in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and move to secure its territory by force as the international community fails to implement and enforce the rule of law and U.N. Security Council resolutions.

I am confident that if President Bush knew the details of this situation personally, that he would be very disappointed in the officials responsible for this weak policy. It does not reflect the President's love for freedom and justice. Our policy leads nowhere but to war. That is unacceptable.

Someone has this problem figured out wrong. Today's approach mirrors the thinking of the Clinton Administration. One wonders where the Republican appointees are in the policy-making process concerning this part of the world.

There is active discussion among Members about potential solutions. One common aspect of all potential courses of action is that more U.S. leadership is needed.

U.S. leadership makes a difference. Clear policy statements by President Bush and other senior officials preceded Charles Taylor leaving Liberia, Syrian troops leaving Lebanon, Israeli settlements leaving Gaza, Viktor Yuschenko's election as President in Ukraine and so many other recent developments.

China is paying attention to this region. Sudan has thousands of PRC advisors working in the oil and gas business as well as military advisors. China is rapidly expanding its relationship with Ethiopia and Eritrea. These relationships with China will falter over time, but right now Beijing seems to be paying attention to the Horn of Africa and we appear to be asleep at the switch. Someone at the State Department needs to wake up before it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress is calling on the Administration to make a clear statement of our policy on the Eritrea-Ethiopia border demarcation issue. A clear statement urging Ethiopia to unconditionally and swiftly implement the EEBC's final and binding decision will set in motion positive forces that enable success. Further, such clarity would go a long way to starting a process that would very likely resolve this knotty border matter through a peaceful and diplomatic process rather than by more bloodshed.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues the important contribution Kyrgyz Republic President Kurmanbek Bakiyev is making in supporting United States and Coalition Forces in our mission to fight terrorism in Afghanistan.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has just concluded a visit with President Bakiyev in the Kyrgyz Republic's capitol of Bishkek. On October 11, 2005, Secretary Rice and President Bakiyev issued a ``Joint Statement of the United States of America and the Kyrgyz Republic on the Presence of the U.S. Military in the Region.'' I ask that the full statement be placed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud President Bakiyev's leadership in making this courageous commitment to provide the United States and Coalition Forces access to the Manas air base. This agreement provides certainty at a time when there is great uncertainty in the region. This new U.S.- Kyrgyz agreement follows a statement released July 5, 2005, by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization comprised of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, requesting a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal in the region due to the lessening of operations in Afghanistan. The U.S.-Kyrgyz agreement also comes at a critical time for our military presence in the region, in light of neighboring Uzbekistan's decision to deny the U.S. access to a key military base which has been used for

counterterrorism, military and humanitarian missions.

The United States has a very real and expanding interest in Central Asia. The United States looks forward to working closely with our partner The Kyrgyz Republic to successfully eliminate global terrorism and bring peace and stability to the region.

Department of State,

Washington, DC, October 11, 2005.

Joint Statement of the United States of America and the Kyrgyz Republic

on the Presence of the U.S. Military in the Region

Following is the text of a joint statement issued by the

United States of America and the Kyrgyz Republic on the

Presence of the U.S. Military in the Region.

Kyrgyzstan understands the need to resolve urgently the

military and political situation in Afghanistan, to contain

the sources of terrorism and to create peaceful conditions

for the social, economic and democratic development of the

country.

in this regard, the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic

recognizes the important contribution of the international

anti-terrorist Coalition, located at the Ganci Airbase, in

strengthening regional stability. The Kyrgyz side will

continue to take part in these and other joint efforts of the

international community to contend with modern-day challenges

and threats to security.

We support the presence of Coalition Forces in the Kyrgyz

Republic until the mission of fighting terrorism in

Afghanistan is completed, a mission supported by the United

Nations.

The governments of the United States and the Kyrgyz

Republic express their readiness to review the transparency

of investments made for the use of the Manas Airport and at

the same time to discuss other organizational and technical

questions.

Regarding its domestic policy, Kyrgyzstan intends to

continue its orientation toward strengthening democratic

principles and carrying out a decisive battle against

corruption in order to create the necessary conditions for

sustainable development.

Adam Ereli,

Deputy Spokesman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and celebrate the 20th Anniversary of KKLA-FM Christian Talk Radio in Los Angeles, California.

KKLA-FM began broadcasting out of a small studio in North Hollywood on October 15, 1985. The launch of an afternoon drive call-in talk show, ``Live From L.A.,'' in 1986 moved the station into position as the voice of the Southern California Christian community on local and national issues. KKLA-FM was the first station in Los Angeles--and the second in the country--to stream programming live on the Internet, beginning in late 1995.

In the late 1990s, KKLA-FM's success led parent company Salem Communications Corporation to acquire and develop other stations around it in a cluster, including News/Talk 870 KRLA-AM, 95.9 KFSH-FM (The Fish), News/Talk 590 KTIE-AM and 1190 KXMX-AM. Salem Los Angeles, as the cluster is known today, encompasses nearly the entire 5th floor of its Glendale headquarters with 11 studios and production suites, and satellite offices in Orange County and the Inland Empire.

For 20 years, KKLA-FM has provided a place for Southern Californians to tune in and listen to the Christian perspective on national events. Their success is also due to the generosity of their listeners who voluntarily contribute to pay for programming rather than expecting it from the taxpayer. I congratulate them on 2 decades of excellence and look forward to another 20 years of quality Christian talk radio.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and thank the people, especially the royal family, of Thailand.

In my lifetime, the people of Thailand, guided by a benevolent and wise royal family, have been among America's best friends. Throughout the ups and downs of the Vietnam era, the Thai's have stood with us steadfastly, even when it was uncomfortable for them to do so. They have also played a tremendous humanitarian role by taking in refugees from tyranny from all directions.

Their generosity and friendship is recognized, respected and appreciated. In a time when millions of Americans are suffering the disastrous affects of Hurricane Katrina, they have stepped forward to offer a helping hand. They have donated thirty tons of humanitarian goods such as food and blankets. It is inspiring to see that there are countries who appreciate our help in their times of need and are

expressing it by helping our distressed people now.

To the people and royal family of Thailand--thank you. Your compassion and friendship is much appreciated.