Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address H. Con. Res. 152, recognizing the 40th anniversary of Israel's victory in the Six-Day War. This resolution will pass by a large majority, but I fear that it will become the latest in a series of missed opportunities for this body to support a viable peace process in the Middle East.

This resolution has several positive features. It is appropriate to commemorate Israel's victory in the Six-Day War. Its overwhelming military victory helped to secure Israel's continuing existence as a sovereign nation, something that was very much in doubt on the eve of the conflict.

I particularly support the third clause of the resolution, which commends Egypt and Jordan for their bold and brave decisions to reach peace with Israel. Their leadership has been a critical, if often underappreciated, guarantor of Israel's security and survival, and I continue to hope that other nations in the region will follow their lead.

It is also important to affirm that Jerusalem is the rightful capital of Israel, while acknowledging that the Palestinian people also have a

claim to Jerusalem as a capital and as a sacred city.

Nevertheless, I am concerned that this resolution, while calling for peace negotiations, actually undermines U.S. efforts to secure the trust of all sides in the search for peace. The resolution pursues an obsolete notion, put forth as if the last decade of peace negotiations simply had not occurred.

The idea of an undivided Jerusalem under sole Israeli sovereignty has not been part of any serious peace proposal--proffered by Israelis, Palestinians, or the international community--in the last several years. Israel's 2000 Camp David proposal and the Clinton compromise proposal, the 2002 Road Map for Middle East Peace, the 2003 Geneva Initiative, the 2003 ``People's Voice'' Initiative offered by Ami Ayalon and Sari Nuseibeh: none of these plans envision an undivided Jerusalem under sole Israeli sovereignty.

And this idea is not just outdated in theory; it fails to reflect the present reality in Jerusalem. Israel's security barrier is rapidly creating a physical barrier between already segregated neighborhoods of East and West Jerusalem.

Recognizing Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel under sole Israeli sovereignty does not help to bring peace to Jerusalem or Israel, nor does it help achieve the vision the resolution espouses. In fact, the only thing likely to fully guarantee Jerusalem as the permanent capital of Israel is the official, international recognition of Israel's neighbors and the entire international community--and this recognition is unlikely so long as Palestinian claims to their own capital and sacred city are denied.

As Christians, Jews, and Muslims, we can best honor our holy city by helping it become a model of peace, unity, and reconciliation. Doing so requires sustained, courageous, and open-minded efforts to promote negotiations, stand against violence, and find solutions. Congress and our Administration must play a much more effective role, returning our nation to active and sustained engagement in seeking peace.

I just returned from a brief visit to Jerusalem, now divided, threatened, strained by the anxiety of constant conflict. It is my great hope to one day visit a revitalized Jerusalem, undivided and shared as the capital of Israel and an independent Palestinian state, where Jews, Muslims, and Christians live together in peace and mutually honor the sites sacred to all of us. I can only wish that the resolution before us more adequately expressed this aspiration.

Mr. Speaker, today we are asked to vote for a fourth time in 2 months on legislation to provide funding for the ongoing military mission in Iraq.

The tally of this vote will reflect the dilemma facing this Congress as well as the American people. We are torn by two deeply held sentiments: on the one hand, we support our troops and want to make sure they are protected and supported in the field of battle; on the other hand, we are frustrated by a failed war policy and a President too stubborn to change course.

I voted against giving the President the authority to wage war in Iraq. I have introduced legislation to place a termination date on that authorization and to require the President to formulate and execute an exit strategy. But I have consistently voted for bills to fund the war effort because that funding is essential to our troops in the field. Over the last 2 months alone, I have voted three times for funding for the troops in different versions of a supplemental appropriations bill. But I will not vote yes today.

In addition to funding troop needs, the previous versions of the bill--despite differences among them and the compromises they contained--would have made substantial progress toward bringing this war to an end. The legislation before us today takes some modest steps forward by including benchmarks for progress for the first time and requiring the administration to report on whether its strategy is achieving them. Unfortunately, however, it does not advance us nearly far enough toward ending this war and putting Iraqis in charge of their own governance and defense.

The progress the bill does make has been the result of the pressure brought to bear by

the prior supplemental votes. I will be voting against this bill as a way of helping maintain and increase that pressure.

Let no one mistake the significance of the vote we take today. This fourth vote is not primarily about material support for the troops-- every Member of this body supports our troops. This vote is fundamentally about the future of our policy in Iraq.

Even if this bill were to fail today, the result would not be a cut- off of funding for the troops. The result would be to force the administration to give ground it should have given long ago, and that, sooner or later, I believe it will be forced to give by this Congress.

There is nothing about our military strategy that can solve what are fundamentally political and sectarian conflicts among Iraqis. Military and intelligence leaders have consistently declared that the solution in Iraq will be political and diplomatic in nature, not military. We have increasingly asked the military to work toward goals that military force cannot achieve: political agreements between intransigent Iraqi leaders, equitable sharing of power and resources, and an end to sectarian-based civil war. In the meantime, our presence has become a provocation for insurgency and a magnet for international terrorism.

We have, in short, left our troops in an impossible situation. I am not willing to vote to fund their operations without at the same time compelling a change in policy that will bring them home.

The struggle to change the U.S. course in Iraq is not over. The American people are speaking loudly and clearly. Our efforts over the last 2 months have moved the debate in the right direction, and we will continue exerting pressure on the administration to alter its course in the days and weeks to come as we consider other legislation related to the war. In fact, it should not escape notice that we also passed today a resolution requiring consideration of legislation in September that would require an end to the occupation of Iraq.

Our goal in considering the President's supplemental appropriations request was to confront the President over his failed policy and to force a change in course. Even as this supplemental legislation likely passes into law, we can be confident that we have taken important steps toward this goal. We have demonstrated to the administration that it can no longer proceed with its failed policy unaccountably. While many in the House and the other body, where the power of filibuster can be used to obstruct progress, have resisted efforts to craft a more effective Iraq policy, the President and his allies in Congress have been put on notice that the tide is turning.

I regret that this bill will not immediately bring the change to our Iraq policy that we so desperately need. But it does represent one more turn of the screw. The President should recognize that a growing number of Members of this Congress, and a clear majority of the American people, will continue boring deeper toward the heart of his failed policy. And we will not stop pressing until our troops begin to come home.

Madam Chairman, I thank Ms. Schakowsky for yielding and for her good work on this amendment, the Schakowsky- Price amendment.

I also want to thank Chairman Skelton for his significant steps he takes in this bill to address the vast challenges surrounding battlefield contracting. He generously worked with me to include key elements of H.R. 369, my bill regarding security contractors, and I appreciate his leadership.

Very quickly, I want to highlight three additional improvements this amendment will make to language in the bill. First, it will require the departments doing the vast majority of contracting, DOD, State, USAID, to track contractor casualties. We believe over 800 contractors have been killed in Iraq and many more injured. But what's the exact toll? We do not know. Our amendment will change that.

Secondly, the amendment will require these departments when appropriate to issue guidance on appropriate equipment and uniforms for contractors.

And thirdly, it will require the departments to clarify how a provision inserted in last year's defense bill, which places certain contractors under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, will be implemented.

These are three simple but important additions that make the bill's current language even stronger, ensuring that the agencies engaged in contracting on the battlefield will develop an effective framework for managing and overseeing contractors.

Four years into the war in Iraq, and after all the stories of waste and abuse and criminal misconduct, I think we can agree that this is not too much to ask. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of Ms. Schakowsky and myself that would complement the provisions already in this bill related to the use of private contractors by intelligence agencies.

I applaud Chairman Reyes for his leadership in addressing many key questions associated with the use of contractors. Last year, I stood at this podium and proposed an amendment that would have required an extensive look at these questions: How extensively are contractors being used? What types of activities are appropriate for contractors? How are they held accountable? Are they achieving savings for the American people? And

what are the impacts of contracting on the intelligence workforce?

My amendment passed the House, but the other body did not act on the bill. This year, Chairman Reyes has included language in his bill that addresses many of these questions, and I am grateful for his leadership.

I also want to acknowledge the efforts of the new Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, who has begun an examination of the questions raised by my amendments last year. He and his staff have just completed a community-wide survey of contracting and are reportedly working on a strategic workforce plan. These efforts are important first steps.

Our amendment today focuses on additional aspects of this situation that have not yet been addressed, aspects that are absolutely critical.

There's a legitimate debate in the Intelligence Community about how contractors should be used. Our amendment simply asks the Intelligence Community to respond to three basic questions underlying this debate.

First, what functions may contractors appropriately perform for the intelligence communities, and what tasks should be viewed as inherently governmental? For example, should they be involved in intelligence collection? Should they be involved in analysis? What about interrogation? What about covert operations? Are there some activities that are so sensitive that they should only be performed by highly trained Intelligence Community professionals?

Secondly, how should contractors be vetted and trained?

And thirdly, how can we ensure that contractors are as accountable for their actions as Federal intelligence professionals are?

Madam Chairman, service contracts, in some instances, represent an acceptable and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. But a decision to use contractors should be made deliberately based on a careful analysis of the issues raised by this amendment. This is true for any use of private contractors. But it is particularly necessary in the context of sensitive Intelligence Community activities.

I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for her leadership on this amendment and on this issue. For a long time now she has helped this House focus on the use of private contractors.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Chairman, as a matter of fact, this amendment is drafted very carefully to avoid redundancy. It's crafted to deal with a separate area, a different area from those areas covered in the bill itself. And it mandates a reporting requirement, not to add work to the Executive Branch; to ensure that we get the information we need to do our job. Surely, no one would argue that Congress shouldn't be able to assess whether our approach to intelligence is effective or to conduct oversight on the way billions of dollars in taxpayer funds are expended each year. We're not establishing new regulations. We are simply requiring contractors to report on their activity.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Francis T. Miko, Specialist in International Relations with the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service. Mr. Miko retired on

April 27, 2007, after serving the Congress for over thirty years in various positions at CRS. Mr. Miko's tenure spanned multiple Congresses and several epochs in foreign policy and European affairs, his area of specialization. He has served as the institutional memory of Congress on important issues in which he was the recognized expert. His work as an analyst, manager, and leader in the CRS organization is particularly notable for his tact, judgment, and unswerving commitment to the core CRS mission of supporting an informed national legislature with nonpartisan analytical and research work.

Mr. Miko began working at CRS in 1974 as a research assistant in Soviet and Eastern European affairs. As an analyst and later as a specialist, Mr. Miko served as the principal CRS expert on Central and Eastern Europe. The quality of his work earned him widespread recognition and significantly contributed to CRS's reputation as a center for advanced policy analysis. During the Cold War years, he produced numerous studies on Eastern Europe and the detente period between the United States and Soviet Union, including major east-west initiatives such as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). He participated in the congressional delegation to the Belgrade Conference of the CSCE in 1977 and the Budapest CSCE Cultural Forum in 1985. He was seconded to the Department of Defense in 1992 to serve as a representative of the Secretary of Defense at the CSCE Review Conference in Helsinki. As the Cold War wound down, Mr. Miko completed major CRS projects on the impact of the transformation of Eastern Europe after 1989 and the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. Later, he provided key analyses on global security issues such as organized crime, trafficking in persons, and approaches to counter- terrorism. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Mr. Miko served as co- coordinator of the CRS Terrorist Task Force that worked across subject divisions to coordinate related research needs for Congress.

I got to know Mr. Miko well in another role, one through which he also provided invaluable service to Congress. He has played an instrumental part in two congressional programs to assist with the development of new democracies. From 1990 to 1996, Mr. Miko coordinated the CRS role in the Frost-Solomon Special Task Force on the Development of Parliamentary Institutions in Central and Eastern Europe. The role of the Task Force was to help strengthen the parliamentary infrastructures of the formerly passive legislatures in twelve countries of post-communist central and eastern Europe. This unprecedented initiative of the U.S. Congress entailed extremely demanding and complex activities involving technical assistance on legislative practice, library and research institutional development, and automation systems and design. Mr. Miko's understanding of Europe on the one hand, and of Congress on the other, was essential to the success of the program, as his first-hand knowledge of the people and cultures of Eastern European countries helped the Task Force appropriately tailor its activities to the needs and working styles of its legislative partners in the region.

Rep. David Dreier and I worked closely with Mr. Miko on the Frost- Solomon Task Force, and our positive experiences inspired us, in 2005, to establish the House Democracy Assistance Commission to strengthen democratic institutions in emerging democracies worldwide. In this effort Mr. Miko has again proven an invaluable resource as a veteran expert in the development of democratic legislatures. He has helped the Commission determine appropriate partner nations, participated in needs assessments, and delivered direct technical assistance to partner legislatures. Most recently he accompanied us on a mission to Georgia, where we are working to support the democratic gains of the Rose Revolution. I and other Members of the Democracy Assistance Commission will greatly miss having such ready access to Mr. Miko at CRS, but we hope to find ways to continue to draw upon his insights and expertise as we move ahead with our work.

Over the years, Mr. Miko assumed several senior management positions at CRS, serving twice as section head of the Europe, Middle East, and Africa section, and once as deputy assistant director for the foreign affairs division. He represented the Library of Congress at the National War College in 1984-1985. He earned a Distinguished Service Award for his performance as representative of the Office of the Secretary of Defense at the 1992 Helsinki Review Conference.

In all of his professional endeavors, Mr. Miko has been a role model of the highest level of service to the U.S. Congress, the Library of Congress, and CRS. He has excelled as a capable manager of programs and resources, as a nationally renowned expert in his field of policy expertise, as a diplomat, and as a notable contributor to the legislative work of Congress.

On behalf of my colleagues in Congress, I want to express my appreciation to Francis Miko for his many years of public service and for his multiple contributions to the Congress, and to wish him well in his retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the extraordinary accomplishments of a distinguished educator, coach Frank Comfort. It is fitting that we recognize this exceptional gentleman for his remarkable contributions to higher education, his manifold successes and abiding dedication to college athletics, and his enduring influence on generations of college students.

Frank Comfort has the distinction of being the winningest dual-meet swimming coach in NCAA history. He has amassed an unparalleled record of leadership and has devoted his time, skills, and energy to cultivating the very best in student-athletes. His career has been defined not only by athletic achievement, but by a dedication to the development of young men and women who are student-athletes in the finest sense: those who successfully combine athletic prowess with academic achievement.

Frank Comfort is a 1967 alumnus of Syracuse University, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts in history and physical education. He went on to earn a Master of Arts in physical education from the University of North Carolina, UNC, and in 1968, became the head swimming coach for men and women at Johns Hopkins University. At Hopkins, his swimmers won 12 NCAA individual titles and one NCAA relay title. In 1977, Frank Comfort returned to UNC, where his consistent leadership and dedication to excellence for 30 years as Head Coach have made him one of the most respected college swimming coaches in history.

Many people have made notable contributions to collegiate athletics. Few leave the legacy of Frank Comfort. He has developed swimming teams that have thrilled the collegiate athletic world with their courage, skill and achievement. Frank Comfort's swimmers and divers have won often and won big. Of his 578 dual meet wins, 308 have come while coaching men's teams and 270 while coaching women's teams. More than a decade ago, Frank Comfort became the winningest swimming coach in the history of the Atlantic Coast Conference in terms of league championships won. Overall, he has led Tar Heel teams to 25 Atlantic Coast Conference championships during his tenure--the most in conference history by a single coach. In his 30 years at UNC, his women's teams have been a consistent national force, finishing in the top 25 an astounding 25 times, including nine seasons in the top

ten. During his long tenure at UNC, he has taught many National Collegiate Athletic Association, Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women and U.S. Swimming national champion swimmers. Several of his swimmers were chosen to represent the United States in the Olympics as well. Because of these accomplishments, Frank Comfort's stature as a coach has solidified in the amateur and international ranks. Among his many additional coaching positions, he served on the coaching staff at the U.S. Olympic Festival on six occasions and as the head coach of the U.S. Women's Team which competed in the Goodwill Games in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1994.

It comes as no surprise that Frank Comfort's name has been on the U.S. Swimming International Coaches List consistently since 1976, an honor going only to the most elite coaches in the United States. He was named the youngest recipient ever of the Master Coach Award from the College Swimming Coaches Association and was inducted into the Johns Hopkins Athletic Hall of Fame.

Frank Comfort is a living testament to the positive role that collegiate athletics plays in our national experience. His guidance has empowered both teams and individuals to fulfill their promise and to extend their purpose and passion, to step out of their comfort zone and excel. Athletic achievement is not an endeavor that runs itself. It requires the constant leadership, foresight, encouragement, and discipline that can be afforded only by dedicated coaches. Coaches are one of the best examples of what is great about our country. They inspire students and athletes to become better people; to give their best in every endeavor and to make the most of their God-given abilities. Frank Comfort's leadership is about cultivating the promise of the human spirit and encouraging those who work daily to make that promise a reality.

Frank Comfort's career will soon come to a close. After almost 40 years as a coach and educator, he has left an indelible mark on college athletics and on countless students whom he has coached, mentored, advised, and inspired. Please join me in commending Frank Comfort, distinguished coach and educator, and an exemplar of strong character and leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill as chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, advocating for the bill's acceleration of programs critical to the integrity of our borders and the safety of the American people. These are carefully crafted, legitimate emergency security measures, and there is no good reason to wait further to make this country more secure.

Today, however, I want to address the broader bill, speaking colleague to colleague, mindful and respectful of the struggles with conscience so evident among us in recent days.

I did not support originally giving the authority to the President to wage war in Iraq. I have introduced legislation calling for an end to that authorization. But I understand there is a wide range of opinion on where we should go from here, and there are many who believe that this bill, which takes a major step towards changing our course in Iraq, either goes too far or not far enough.

Our discussions on this issue have brought to mind lessons from my days in divinity school and as a teacher of ethics, lessons I believe are helpful in sorting out what it means and should mean to follow one's conscience on a matter such as this.

On the first day of Ethics 101, we learn that we often face two kinds of moral choice in life. One has to do with the morality of an act itself, which is what many colleagues are referring to when they say they are ``voting their conscience'' on what we know is an imperfect bill.

The second kind of moral choice requires us to consider the consequences of our acts. That is also an exercise of conscience, perhaps an even more demanding one.

Think about the consequences. What if the consequence of voting ``no'' is to let slip away the best chance we may have for a long time to compel a change of course in Iraq? What if a consequence is the further crippling of this House's influence in this country's foreign and defense policy? What if the consequence of a ``no'' vote is to allow the President to continue on the same failed policy course? Are those not matters of conscience?

Some talk as though we should simply square the contents of this bill against an ideal and vote accordingly. No, I am afraid moral choice and our obligations as public servants run deeper than that.

Please, don't sell short a vote in favor of this bill as though it were a mere practical or political accommodation. By all means, treat this vote as an act of conscience, but an act based on a searching consideration of the full range of consequences that may result.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the escalation of troop levels, to call for an end to the American occupation of Iraq, and to support the resolution before the House.

The two clauses of this resolution go hand in hand. There should be no doubt about the support from this Congress and indeed from the American people for those who risk their lives to defend this Nation. As a Nation, we have learned to sincerely honor the warrior, even when we disagree with the war.

I have personally been moved by my own interactions with our troops. I have been honored to meet with them here at home, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Kosovo, and in numerous other places where they are serving honorably. And I have mourned with their families when their service has led to the ultimate sacrifice. No one who spends time with the members of our Armed Forces can fail to be impressed by the dedication and valor with which they carry out their duty.

In addition to guaranteeing that they have the resources, equipment and compensation they need, supporting our troops also means ensuring that the missions we ask them to perform are viable and well-designed in terms of our national objectives. The President's surge plan does not meet these criteria, and Congress should oppose it.

The question before us today is whether an escalation of as many as 48,000 American troops is the best way to turn things around in Iraq. However, this question is part of a much larger debate that this country and this Chamber must conduct, a debate about the future of the U.S. military mission.

There cannot be a simply military solution to the challenges that we, and the Iraqi people, face in Iraq. The size of our military presence will not make the difference, because any solution to Iraq's problems will still be political, not military.

The recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq confirms this conclusion. The unclassified report noted that even the term ``civil war'' is not grave enough to convey the complexity of the security challenges in Iraq. More to the point, the NIE noted that there were three ``identifiable elements that could help to reverse negative trends'': broader Sunni acceptance of the federalist political structure, Shia and Kurdish concessions to Sunnis, and ``a bottom-up approach to help mend frayed relationships between tribal and religious groups.'' Note that none of these elements can be achieved by military force.

The outgoing commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq, Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, recently stated, ``We need to get out of thinking that this is solely a military conflict. All of our Nation's strengths--diplomatic, economic, political--must be leveraged to help the Iraqis find their way through this process.'' Other military leaders have echoed this sentiment.

My colleague from North Carolina, Brad Miller, and I have proposed such an approach in our bill, H.R. 645.

Our bill would dramatically strengthen U.S. political and diplomatic efforts. It would send special envoys to the region to encourage Iraq's neighbors to play a more productive role in resolving the conflict and to facilitate a national reconciliation process in Iraq. It would also authorize a program to get would-be insurgents off the streets and into the workforce. And it would provide ongoing support for the development of democratic institutions, particularly at the local level.

While enhancing our political and diplomatic efforts, our bill would de-escalate our military commitment. It would terminate the authorization for the war at the end of this year, and require President Bush to develop an exit strategy for bringing our troops home by that date.

We can no longer ask our troops in Iraq to do the impossible. In fact, their presence is fueling the insurgency and is a magnet for international terrorism. It is time for the American occupation of Iraq to end, and for Iraqi leaders to assume responsibility for their country's future, for better or for worse.

Some have argued that our troops must remain in Iraq to prevent intolerable outcomes. But the outcomes that we have most feared--a civil war, a training ground for terrorists, an ascendant Iran--have already become reality, despite the continuing presence of our troops. While a military presence may delay even worse outcomes, it cannot prevent them. If we are to avoid a regional war or an exponential increase in Iraq's carnage, our best hope is the increased political and diplomatic effort that I have proposed.

Mr. Speaker, how we leave Iraq does matter. A well-planned withdrawal can enhance our ability to protect our troops and prepare Iraqis to assume control. We must not make the same mistake ending the war that we did in beginning it, pursuing a strategy without adequate planning. But we should not hide behind this imperative. We can't allow an exit strategy to prevent or postpone an exit.

I urge my colleagues to consider H.R. 645, which I believe offers the best way to pursue American national security interests in Iraq.

Let me close on a note of caution. The resolution we are debating here today is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The President should hear our message, which expresses the conviction of the majority of the American people that the time to end our occupation of Iraq has come. However, if he doesn't take steps to bring our troops home, the President should be under no illusion that this nonbinding resolution exhausts Congress's role. Rather, it is a first step in holding him accountable and reversing a failed policy that has made our Nation less safe, and has cost us so dearly in blood and treasure.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California for those very generous and indeed extravagant words. Coming from him, they mean more than I can say.

Thank you.

And we do thank the chairman and the ranking member, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, for scheduling this resolution so promptly, so that the House could act on this and our commission could get on with its work.

I also want to acknowledge the previous speaker, Mr. Dreier, the previous chairman of the House Democracy Assistance Commission, who did a wonderful job in getting this commission launched in its first 2 years. As he said, we have operated every step of the way on an open and bipartisan basis; and so as we swap roles, with my assuming the chairmanship and his being the ranking member, I am very hopeful that this will be a seamless transition, and that this cooperative way of operating will continue. Indeed it should, as we work together in this body to take the message and the practice of democracy to our partner legislatures around the world.

House Resolution 24 would reauthorize the work of the commission. This is a body that was inspired by the work of the Frost-Solomon Task Force back in the early 1990s. We worked then with states in Central and Eastern Europe as they were emerging from communism.

Our commission has undertaken this same kind of work. We are building the institutional capacities of legislatures in emerging democracies. We are working with them to develop their research and budget analysis, oversight, legislative drafting, and other capabilities.

There is a difference, though. In contrast to the Frost-Solomon effort, our scope is not just Central and Eastern Europe, although some of our partner countries are still in that region. We are undertaking around the world to work with partner legislatures. In the commission's first 2 years, we have worked with legislatures in 12 nations. Many of these countries are of key strategic import for our own Nation, and all are enthusiastic, worthy, and willing partners: Afghanistan, Colombia, East Timor, Georgia, Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Mongolia, and Ukraine.

Madam Speaker, we view our work as a small but important niche in the United States's mission to spread democracy around the world. We do this not in the sense that we have all the answers about how to promote democratic rights and governance. The commission's work is rooted in the fundamental realization that the heart of democracy is not found just in elections but between elections. Between elections, that is when a nation's ability to govern itself in a way that is responsive to its citizens and representative of its citizens is established. What happens between elections, establishing representative institutions of governance, is just as important as the nation's free determination of who will govern.

Our commission works with partner legislatures to support development of the tools legislators need to establish responsive, effective government. We carry on our work in the sure realization that we do not have all the answers. We know that our own democracy is a work in progress. We do think we have an important story to tell. But we approach each of these legislatures in a true spirit of partnership, learning from them as they learn from us.

We also don't have a corner on the market of democracy promotion, and we coordinate closely with USAID, with the State Department, with other actors in the field to ensure that our efforts complement and enhance theirs.

We have high expectations for the program which we hope to implement in 2007 with the support of this body. During the last 2 years, our focus has been on assessing candidate legislatures and seeking to establish partnerships. Now we plan to move toward consolidating these relationships by expanding and focusing our programming. We plan to conduct advanced seminars on critical legislative capabilities, to enable sustained communications between members and staff of our legislatures, to identify and support pro-democracy reformers in partner legislatures, and to provide small-scale material assistance in cases of significant need.

So, Madam Speaker, let me close by again thanking my colleague Representative David Dreier, the founding chairman of the House Democracy Assistance Commission, thanking him for his leadership. He has led us with vision and with an inclusive spirit. I also want to thank Speaker Pelosi, past Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Hoyer, Chairman Lantos, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, and many others who have supported the commission and helped bring forward quickly this resolution to get our work going.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, which offers Members of this body a promising opportunity to directly contribute to the important work of championing democracy around the world.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an accomplishment for which my constituents and all North Carolinians have tremendous pride. The 2006 Lady Tarheels of the University of North Carolina have just claimed their 19th Women's Soccer National Championship, beating the Notre Dame Fighting Irish 2-1 in the title game last Sunday.

Under the leadership of Head Coach Anson Dorrance, Carolina women's Soccer has been the most dominant program in the history of college athletics, winning 18 of the last 25 national championships since the NCAA established the women's tournament.

The national title game capped off a stellar career for senior captain Heather O'Reilly, who was named the tournament's Most Outstanding Offensive Player, as well as for Carolina's other seniors. Junior Defender Robyn Gayle was named Most Outstanding Defense Player, and seven freshmen played for the Lady Tarheels in the game.

I also take great pride in the fact that the championship game took place in my district at the SAS Soccer Park in Cary. The sell-out crowd of more than 8,300 enthusiastic fans is a testament to the growing popularity of soccer in North Carolina and across the country.

So I extend my congratulations to the Lady Tarheels on their outstanding success, to a Notre Dame squad for a well-played tournament, and to the university community in Chapel Hill that has come to embrace women's soccer as one of its most precious gems.

Even the great Dean Smith, himself the winningest coach in college basketball history, once remarked: ``This is a women's soccer school. We're just trying to keep up with them.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about S. 2370, the Senate-passed version of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act before us today.

Earlier this year, the House considered a version of this legislation. I rose in strong opposition to that bill, because it would have unfairly punished the average Palestinian citizen for the crimes of extremist Hamas leaders. It would have shut off all aid but the most narrowly defined humanitarian assistance, ending U.S. support for successful non-governmental efforts to promote democracy, tolerance, and peace in the region. In short, though well-intentioned, it would have undermined our ability to stop attacks against Israel and to achieve our most important foreign policy goals in the region.

I was joined by several of my colleagues in opposing the bill. Though the House passed this flawed legislation, we were able to send a vital message: at this critical moment, we cannot afford to pull the rug out from those working for democracy and reconciliation in the region.

The Senate heeded our message, and passed a much improved bill. Specifically, the bill addresses two significant concerns we raised during the House debate.

First, the Senate bill provides the Administration far more flexibility to deliver aid to the Palestinian people and to those working for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. In addition to broader humanitarian aid, it explicitly authorizes ``assistance to promote democracy, human rights, freedom of the press, non-violence, reconciliation, and peaceful co-existence.''

Second, the bill expands the Administration's options for engaging diplomatically with Palestinian leaders not associated with Hamas, including Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, who will be a critical ally if we are to negotiate a peace agreement.

I am greatly pleased to see the improvements the Senate legislation has made, and for that reason I will support the bill's passage. However, because events have evolved since this legislation was first considered, I want to add a few words, lest our action today send the wrong message at the wrong time.

After a summer of crisis, during which the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier led Israel to send its military into Gaza, there have been several recent positive developments. First, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PA President Abbas negotiated a ceasefire to end the violent confrontation in Gaza. Second, both Prime Minister Ohmert and President Abbas have recently made clear their commitment to resuming peace talks. And third, Palestinian leaders are reportedly on the verge of forming a unity government that would end Hamas's sole control of the PA.

Passage of this legislation at this time should not be interpreted as unawareness of these positive developments or unwillingness to support them. Such progress should be rewarded with an increased U.S. commitment to work for peace in the region, not punished by the erection of new obstacles or the imposition of new sanctions.

With that said, however, I strongly support the goals of isolating Hamas and encouraging the Palestinian leadership to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist, practical and principal steps toward the resumption of negotiations aimed at a two-state solution. This bill would accomplish those goals and I will support it. I hope it will serve not as an endpoint but as a launchpad for reinvigorated U.S. action to support a settlement that will bring a lasting peace to Israelis and Palestinians.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and am proud to add my voice of commendation in support of House Resolution 1088, which I have cosponsored with the gentleman from California, chairman of the House Democracy Assistance Commission.

In July, I traveled with the commission to Beirut to initiate a partnership with the Lebanese Parliament. While there, I had an opportunity to have lunch with Pierre Gemayel. I was struck then by his charismatic personality and his enthusiasm over the prospects for real reform in Lebanon.

In many ways, Pierre Gemayel represented the promise of Lebanon's future. A strong advocate of democratic governance in Lebanon, he shook off the constraints of confessionalism to battle side by side with Christians, Sunni and Shia Muslims to guarantee Lebanon's sovereignty against the persisting threat of Syrian domination.

Pierre Gemayel was named to lead the Industry Ministry in the wake of the Cedar Revolution demonstrations of March 14, 2005 and the subsequent national elections which brought to power a cross-sectarian coalition of pro-democracy politicians, determined to reform the Lebanese Government to make it strong and effective and to resist foreign domination.

Our Nation celebrated the courage of the Lebanese people in registering their demand for democratic government in these elections, but we have not done enough since the elections to support the democratic institutions and leaders like Pierre Gemayel have worked to strengthen.

This resolution before us sends a clear signal that the United States must do more to support these institutions if we hope to help the Lebanese people achieve their dreams.

I thank my colleague, David Drier of California, for his strong leadership as chairman of our House Democracy Assistance Commission. This commission, as he has stated, has allowed Members of this body to work colleague to colleague to strengthen the Lebanese Parliament and other parliaments in emerging democracies. I look forward to joining with him in the next Congress to continue this important work.

And I join my colleagues in expressing condolences to the Gemayel family and the people of Lebanon on their tragic loss. We must also acknowledge that Mr. Gemayel is but the latest in a succession of leaders recently martyred in Lebanon because of their fight for democracy, beginning with former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. We must fight to bring justice to the perpetrators of these crimes and to bring fulfillment to the goals these pro-democracy leaders have sought.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution and to support efforts to strengthen democratic institutions in Lebanon.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to join the chairman and our ranking member in paying tribute to Martin Sabo, whom I also consider a dear friend and one of this institution's finest Members.

Martin has served here for 28 years. He was the chairman of the Budget Committee when Congress passed the largest deficit reduction package in its history. He served as our ranking member on Transportation Appropriations and on Homeland Security Appropriations ever since that subcommittee was formed.

Martin is an exemplary Member of this body in every way. He is a skilled legislator who is more interested in achieving results than in claiming credit. He is a gifted politician with a knack for finding common ground. He is a man who understands and loves this institution. He is a congenial colleague and he is a good friend, displaying qualities of character that in the end matter above all.

So we will miss Martin Sabo. We salute him for his service to Minnesota and to this country, service that is indeed exemplary and has inspired and encouraged us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to confront a question of central importance to our Nation: are we doing everything we should to protect our Nation from terrorism?

This is not a threat we can afford to underestimate. The terrorists' means of organization, communication, and attack challenge our intelligence community, our armed forces, and our domestic law enforcement agencies in fundamentally new ways.

We must take the fight to the terrorists, but that does not mean we must sacrifice our moral leadership in the international community. We must defend our homeland from attacks, but we must also avoid self- inflicted damage to the values we stand for and the liberties of our people. Our strategy cannot be merely aggressive; it must also be smart and efficient, and it must be true to the values that make us American.

We must not only kill and capture specific terrorists and dismantle their organizations. We must also reduce the number of new terrorists and organizations that might exist tomorrow. Ultimately, we will win this war not by denying the rights of detainees and not by law enforcement excesses, but by protecting the integrity of our free and democratic society, and by repairing our diplomacy and showing the world that there is a better way.

The Bush Administration has repeatedly implied that Americans must be prepared to set aside moral considerations, American values, and America's image in the world if such concerns get in the way of the aggressive pursuit of terrorists. In reality, such a strategic blindness will hamper our ability to win the war on terrorism. An anti- terrorism strategy informed by moral considerations, American values, and our effort to lead the world by example is consistent with an anti- terrorism strategy that pursues terrorists smartly, effectively, and aggressively. What's more, such a strategy augments our efforts because it unites the American people--and the world--behind us.

Following the 9-11 attacks, President Bush had two choices. The first option was to create and implement a smart, bipartisan anti-terrorist strategy. Such a strategy would have been focused on devoting sufficient troops and resources to Afghanistan to bring down the Taliban, find and incapacitate Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and enable that nation's successful reconstruction--not just in the capital but in the outlying areas that we have never fully secured.

The President could have capitalized on the tremendous outpouring of public support in the wake of the attacks to build bridges between our nation and the rest of the world, including the millions of moderate Muslims who hold no sympathy for the terrorists who are hijacking their religion. He would have proactively sought a resolution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, which has historically been the largest source of inspiration for new generations of terrorists. (The Iraq war can now lay claim to that ignoble reputation.) And he would have more significantly bolstered our defense and intelligence assets to prevent future attacks and dismantle terrorist networks.

Instead, the President chose a second option that has simply failed to meet the standard of an intelligent anti-terrorism strategy. He diverted resources from the hunt for bin Laden to prepare for and initiate a war of choice in Iraq--a war, incidentally, that has made the threat of terrorism worse, not better. The recent National Intelligence Estimate makes this quite clear.

In doing so, President Bush left Afghanistan vulnerable to the resurgence of the Taliban we have seen over the last several months, resulting in a deteriorating security environment in that country five years after we supposedly defeated them. He has undertaken policies that have seriously undermined public support for the U.S. in the Islamic world and beyond, including policies that cultivated a culture within the military and the intelligence community that have tolerated and even encouraged the abuse of detainees--many of whom were later determined to be innocent bystanders. He has largely neglected the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with disastrous results for Israel, Lebanon, and the entire Middle East region.

David Schanzer, one of my constituents and director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism, got it right in a recent op-ed. He wrote: ``Unfortunately, we have made no progress, and in fact may have lost ground, in the ideological conflict that is fueling jihadist violence around the globe.''

So I ask today: are we doing everything we should to protect our nation against another terrorist attack? Is President Bush pursuing a smart, effective strategy to win the war on terrorism? The answer to these questions is clearly ``no.''

This week in the House, we are debating two prominent components of the President's strategy to fight terrorism: a bill to grant the President the right to circumvent checks by the judiciary to wiretap the phones of American citizens, and a bill to establish an extrajudiciary system for trying detained terrorist suspects. These bills are both clear examples of how the President continues to make the wrong choices in the war on terrorism.

There is no doubt that we need a more extensive and sophisticated wiretapping program directed at those who mean us harm, both outside and inside the United States. That is not the question. The question is who should make decisions that balance civil liberties with surveillance needs. The Administration says ``just trust us.'' To that, we say a resounding no. This is not merely because the Attorney General and the Bush administration have proved unreliable stewards of our liberties. It also recognizes what our founding fathers knew quite well, that balancing power among institutions with different functional roles is the essential to our form of government. The executive branch is in the business of putting criminals and terrorists in jail; the judicial branch is in the business of interpreting the law and the Constitution, and protecting individual rights. Neither can effectively do the job of the other.

The 1978 FISA law established procedures governing how the Federal Government can constitutionally collect foreign intelligence, including the ability to gather intelligence immediately in urgent situations and to obtain a warrant post-facto. Unfortunately, this administration feels that protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens has become too cumbersome. Instead of abiding by current law, the administration has chosen to make up new ones. And now that we have called the administration on this violation of the law, it is asking Congress to formally authorize its practices. In essence, the administration is telling us that we have to choose between being safe and being free. I, for one, am not willing to accept this overly simple analysis or the proposed wiretapping bill.

We do not yet know what provisions will be included in the House bill, but the President's proposal would allow warrantless surveillance of international calls and e-mails of American citizens without any evidence that they are conspiring with terrorist organizations. The communications of Americans would only be protected if the National Security Administration ``reasonably believes'' all senders and recipients are in the U.S. Essentially this provision would allow anybody communicating with family or friends outside the U.S. to be monitored at any given time without any real justification or oversight.

In addition, the President's proposal would pre-approve warrantless searches on all Americans following a terrorist attack in the United States for up to 45 days. I know the investigations that take place in the days and weeks following a terrorist attack are crucial in apprehending all of those involved, and I agree that we need to make sure the intelligence community has whatever resources it needs. However, providing pre-approval to the President to violate the 4th amendment of the Constitution after an attack is completely unnecessary. Current law already allows the President reasonable exemptions in these situations, and if extensions are needed, he simply needs to request judicial approval.

The second key terrorism bill under debate in the House this week would establish a system for bringing detained terrorist suspects to trial. Again, there is wide and bipartisan agreement that this issue must be addressed. But President Bush has once again failed to choose the smart and morally acceptable way to do it.

Over the past 3 years, many of us have watched in horror as new details about the Bush administration's treatment of detainees have been revealed. Torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, indefinite imprisonment--Americans used to think of these as charges off the pages of reports about other countries, not as sanctioned American policies. While some of us have spoken out against these practices since they became public, recent actions by

the Supreme Court and a handful of courageous Senators have forced the administration to revisit them. Yet, the legislation before the House-- legislation supported by Republicans in the House, Senate, and White House--would do little to rein them in.

In fact, under the proposed legislation, the Administration could continue to arbitrarily arrest and detain foreign citizens. It could continue to imprison these detainees indefinitely, without standard judicial protections such as their right to challenge their detention in court and the right of the accused to know the charges against them. And, despite the coverage granted to the so-called compromise between the White House and Senate Republicans, the Administration would still be able to continue practices that violate the Geneva Conventions prohibition of torture.

Many have argued that we must prioritize winning the war on terrorism above considerations for the rights of detainees accused of having links to terrorism, as if the two were always mutually exclusive. It might be tempting to understand the issue in such simple terms, but we should resist that temptation.

It is certainly true that terrorism is such a grave threat to our nation that, in some circumstances, extraordinary actions may be necessary to protect American lives. The question we should be asking, however, is whether particular policies advance our fight against terrorism, both now and over the long term. In this case, the moral argument--that potentially innocent detainees do have rights that should be protected--is in line with the appropriate strategic argument.

In the short-term, the Administration's approach fails because, as current and former military and intelligence officers have repeatedly stated, torture does not reliably produce actionable intelligence. In addition to the statements of these experts, we have hard evidence: the New York Times has reported that, according to our military, interrogators were able to obtain up to 50 percent more actionable intelligence from detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq after coercive practices like hooding, stripping, and sleep deprivation were banned.

In the long-term, the Bush administration's approach is even more detrimental to our progress in the war on terrorism. First, it is already having disastrous repercussions on our effort to win the hearts and minds of those at risk of being tempted by terrorist recruiters. Let us be clear: while stopping active terrorists is a critical challenge, disrupting the development of new generations of terrorists is the single most important task in winning the war on terrorism. Every person that we can persuade to renounce violence and cast his or her lot with the forces of moderation is one fewer threat to our Nation, one fewer potential airplane hijacker or train bomber.

Winning hearts and minds is no exercise in sentimentality; it is perhaps the key strategy in protecting our Nation from another 9-11. The Administration's approach negates such efforts, as it essentially endorses indefinite imprisonment, arbitrary detention, and treatment of detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The Administration's approach further harms our progress in the war on terrorism by placing our own troops at risk. It sends a dangerous signal to other nations that the United States has endorsed these practices for foreign detainees, inviting these nations to visit the same practices upon our own troops. It is that risk that has led several top-ranking former military leaders to object to the Administration's proposal.

There is no question that a system is needed for bringing terrorists to justice. But doing it the wrong way will impede our ability to stop terrorists in the future. And the Bush administration's approach is, quite clearly, the wrong way. Victory in the war on terrorism demands, and the American people deserve, a smarter approach, consistent with the values that have made our country great.

Mr. Speaker, we can choose a smart, effective strategy for combating terrorism that makes our Nation safer, or we can opt for an irresponsible, shortsighted approach that undermines our progress. These bills represent the latter. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer thanks for the life and work of Bishop F. Joseph Gossman in the Raleigh Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church and to welcome his successor, Bishop Michael F. Burbidge, whose installation I attended at Meymandi Concert Hall in Raleigh last month. It was a grand event, dedicated to the glory of God. The community is indebted to Father Gerald Lewis, General Chair of the Planning Committee, and others who so carefully and lovingly prepared this service.

Bishop Gossman led the Roman Catholic diocese for 31 years in Raleigh, becoming the longest-serving diocesan bishop in the United States. The diocese grew from about 38,000 members in 1975 to 200,000 in 2005, with 62 new churches dedicated during that time. Priests who worked with Bishop Gossman describe him as collaborative and collegial, genial and gentle. But he was a warrior on issues to which his faith spoke. He supported the right of factory and farm workers to organize, spoke out against the death penalty, and stood up for civil rights and social justice. In recent years, he addressed the divisive issue of immigration, advocating for laws that respect the human rights of immigrants and preserve the unity of their families, and paid special attention to the spiritual needs of North Carolina's growing Latino population.

Bishop Gossman broke new ground in promoting and participating in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. He moved women into more and more responsible leadership positions; eight of the parishes in the diocese are now headed by women. Noting that his leadership drew on expectations flowing from the Vatican Council of the 1960s, William Powell, historian of North Carolina Catholics, recently recalled what Bishop Gossman said when asked how he would like to be remembered: As someone who loved people and . . . who let people breathe, not just the air of the Church but the air of life.

Joseph Gossman leaves a rich legacy, not only of burgeoning parishes and schools, but also of countless lives touched and enriched by his witness and his ministry. I join a grateful community in wishing him health, happiness, and many rewarding years to come.

Bishop Michael Burbidge comes to Raleigh from Philadelphia, PA with a rich history in the church despite his relative youth. He studied for the priesthood at the Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary and subsequently served as parish priest, school chaplain, seminary dean, and administrative secretary to the Archbishop of Philadelphia. More recently Bishop Burbidge has led in the formation of future priests as Rector of St. Charles Borromeo Seminary and has served as an auxiliary bishop of Philadelphia with oversight duties ranging from the Secretariat for Clergy to the Office for Communications.

Bishop Burbidge thus brings a wealth of experience to the Diocese of Raleigh, where he has invited the faithful ``to join him in his prayer for grace always to `walk humbly with God,' in loyalty and fidelity, trusting the past to His mercy, the present to His love, and the future to His providence.'' He has made an auspicious beginning, and the citizens of North Carolina welcome him warmly and wish for him grace and strength in the work he has undertaken.