Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as The Washington Post says today: ``Altogether, the House Democratic leadership has come up with more than $20 billion of new spending, much of it wasted subsidies. And it makes us wonder how $74 million to extend peanut storage payments or $250 million for MILC subsidies will aid our troops.''

Perhaps my colleagues believe that these agricultural subsidies are necessary, but I don't see how they are going to help us defeat Islamist terrorists. Is this really what General Petraeus needs? Is this what he asked for? No, it is not. And it is bad policy to start, and it is worse by mixing it without backing of our forces in the field.

It is not just the language that gives us pause here. If it is our mission to win in Iraq, then we should not be making it more difficult for our troops to succeed. Cutting off funding and micromanaging a war does that, according to our commanders in the field. And as The Post adds: ``The bill excludes the judgment of General Petraeus, excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat that the bill mandates.''

And as The Post goes on to say: ``Democrats should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to start by congratulating Congressman Bilbray for his position as head of the Immigration Caucus. I thank him, also, for taking on this tough, but very important, issue.

What I wanted to make as a point, Mr. Speaker, was that before 9/11 border security was not seen as a national security matter. But we, as an institution, asked the 9/11 Commission to give us direction, to look at how 9/11 occurred and to suggest steps that we should take. Today, thanks to the 9/11 Commission, we now know that national security must be the number one priority when it comes to border security policy.

The commission found that our immigration system has, in their words, ``the greatest potential to develop an expanded role in counterterrorism.'' And I think that still holds true today.

The challenge we face for national security in an age of terrorism is to prevent the very few people who pose overwhelming risks from entering or remaining in the United States undetected. And terrorists, unfortunately, have used evasive methods to enter and stay in our country, including specific travel methods and routes over the border, liaisons with corrupt government officials, human smuggling networks, and immigration and identity fraud. This needs to be addressed. It is elementary. It is imperative as well to border security to know who is coming into the country. I don't think anyone today can say with any certainty that we know who is crossing our borders.

When I was chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, I held field hearings on the border in San Diego and in Laredo, Texas. One thing that was expressed at these hearings is that the border fence that was built in San Diego is very effective. The double fence on that border, according to the Border Patrol that testified at these hearings about the effectiveness of the border fence, is, as they said, a great force multiplier. The reason they wanted to expand the fence and the reason we passed legislation to do that and included an appropriation of $1.2 billion to do it was partly because the Border Patrol told us that there were over 400 attacks on the Border Patrol and that if they could have that double border fence the way they had it in San Diego at other routes where the smugglers cross, that would help protect them. They said it expanded their enforcement capability; it has allowed them the discretion to redeploy agents to areas of vulnerability or risk. It is one component, they said, that certainly has been integral, in their words, to everything we have accomplished raising the level of our security in San Diego. What happened in San Diego? The crime rates on both sides of that border, which had been lawless, dropped by over 50 percent on the San Diego side and on the Tijuana side.

With the establishment of the border fence in San Diego, crime rates fell off dramatically, but also vehicle drive-thrus fell off. San Diego is no longer one of the most prolific drug smuggling corridors. It was cut by over 90 percent.

The bill that we passed last year puts a fence where it is needed most, in the areas that have the highest instances of drug smuggling, human trafficking, gang activity. All of the smugglers' routes, where there are roads, basically, through those areas, all of that will be fenced with a double border fence. It would allow the Border Patrol to better focus its resources and better protect our borders.

Now, we have some say that to finish that project would cost $3 billion. Well, $3 billion is less than the cost of the 250,000 inmates who have committed felonies, who are here illegally in the United States. The cost to the taxpayers in one year is more than the cost of building that double border fence.

But the focus I want to make here, the point I want to make, it is a matter of national security. We had Kris Kobach testify at my hearings. He was chief adviser on immigration law to former Attorney General John Ashcroft. And he spoke of concern about terrorists illegally crossing our borders into this country. I will just share with you a couple of cases he cited.

Mahmoud Kourani was one; he was indicted in 2004. He paid to be smuggled out of Beirut, Lebanon; paid $3,000 to the Mexican Consulate to be smuggled into Mexico. And at that point he paid a smuggling organization to bring him in the trunk of a car over to the United States. This is the brother of the Hezbollah general who was in charge of security in the southern sector of Lebanon at the time that the attacks occurred. He was involved in the attacks against Israel. I was there in Israel in August. I visited Rambam Hospital when the city was under rocket attack and saw some of the effects of Hezbollah there in that country, where there were 500 civilian victims in that hospital.

And I can just tell you that his brother pleaded guilty to providing material support to Hezbollah. He had been trained in Iran in every method of explosives, and he was sentenced to 5 years in our prison, along with some of his colleagues, who were also caught as a result of our operations.

Kobach went on to cite a second case involving Farida Ahmed, who was on a terrorist watch list. He was on that watch list because he was suspected of being an al Qaeda operative trying to get into the United States. Ahmed was caught in Texas at McAllen Miller International Airport on July 19, 2004. He was trying to get up to New York City. He produced a South African passport with pages torn out and with no U.S. entry stamps. He later confessed to entering the country illegally by crossing the Rio Grande River.

In 2005, 3,722 individuals from state sponsors of terrorism or countries with terrorist ties were caught trying to illegally enter the United States. I know some of the stories from border guards who have told me. One showed me his injuries that he sustained when he stopped an individual who originally was from Uzbekistan, had been trained, he said, in an Afghan training camp. This was the individual's second attempt to enter illegally into the United States. The first time he had tried to fly in through an airport and he was turned back. This time he came over the border. When he was caught, he was motivated enough, the individual, to bite the shoulder of the Border Patrol agent so severely that the Border Patrol agent had to be hospitalized.

The reality is that we have some very determined foes attempting to get into the United States and our experience with Hezbollah agents frankly should awaken us to the fact that we should take the advice of the Border Patrol when they say to us, give us that double border fence. We have had over 400 attacks in 1 year or instances of violence against our agents. Give us the double border fence we need.

Well, we have got the appropriation. We have got the authorization. The first appropriation for $1.2 billion. We need several billion more to finish the whole project. But we should take their advice. It's past time we strengthen operational control of our borders and ports through additional physical barriers and fencing and greater use of state-of- the-art technology and surveillance across our entire border.

The border fence is needed, it's needed now, so one of my goals, and I am sure the caucus's goals, is to ensure that the fence gets the funding it needs and that the entire 700 miles gets built as the act that was signed into law says it should be built.

I thank you again, Congressman Bilbray; Mr. Speaker, thank you, and I will yield back to Congressman Brian Bilbray of San Diego.

If the gentleman will yield, I was in your fine city and had an opportunity to go down to visit some of the Border Patrol agents that I talk with and work with. One of them showed me a station across from the Border Patrol station on the U.S. side, and he said that in that station, they had actually filmed work on a tunnel, it was actually on Mexico property, that one of the cartels was building, digging a tunnel, and they turned over, he said, to the Mexican government, and the Mexican equivalent of the FBI arrested two Border Patrol agents, customs agents on the Mexican side who were involved with the cartels in actually supervising the digging of that tunnel.

The point I am making is that there is a degree of corruption here in some of the institutions in Mexico which have unfortunately led to a lack of cooperation in enforcement of our borders. And because of that lack of cooperation, I think it is doubly important that not only we go forward with the effort to fill these tunnels, but let's again get the fence that the Border Patrol says it needs built.

It is certainly true that the lack of border security leads to a criminal element controlling that border. In this case, it is the cartels. And it is important to remember again that the erection of the border fence in San Diego led not only to a reduction of crime on the U.S. side by more than 50 percent but again led to a reduction of crime on the Mexican side of the border and in Tijuana by more than 50 percent. Why? Because of the very point you have just made, the cartels lost control once the rule of law was applied to that sector of the border and law enforcement was able to get in control.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the sisters, physicians and staff of St. Jude Medical Center, I rise to congratulate the hospital on its 50th Anniversary.

In 1957, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange opened a new hospital in Fullerton to continue their remarkable ministry of compassion and healing. Since then, St. Jude Medical Center, a nonprofit, faith-based facility, has grown into one of Southern California's most respected and technologically-advanced hospitals. And the same excellence that it strives for within its walls, is apparent in its efforts to touch lives outside its walls.

St. Jude continuously improves the health and quality of life of the people in the communities it serves. One example is the St. Jude Neighborhood Health Center. Located in an underserved area, this new facility offers a full range of outpatient care to uninsured and low- income families.

St. Jude's commitment to improving lives is evident in each of the 14 hospitals within the St. Joseph Health System (SJHS), the Catholic healthcare ministry of the sisters. In Southern California, SJHS is considered the preeminent healthcare network and includes four hospitals, outpatient facilities, hospice and home health care agencies, and physician groups.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate National Peace Corps Week and the 46th anniversary of the Peace Corps.

While much has changed in the world since the Peace Corps was created on this date in 1961, their goals and ideals to promote peace and friendship remain, Volunteers continue to provide invaluable services in 73 countries as educators, technology consultants, environmental specialists, and business advisors. Indeed, they're involved in a broad spectrum of activity, but they share a commonality as some of America's best diplomats.

At a time when extremism is sweeping through much of the globe, more than ever, we need these dedicated individuals.

As the former chairman of the House Subcommittee on Africa, I have had the opportunity to meet with several Peace Corps volunteers around the continent. The commitment these men and women have shown is extremely impressive and is to be commended.

Madam Speaker, I have seen the valuable work the Peace Corps is doing in Africa, and throughout the world. It deserves our recognition and support. Under the new leadership of Director Ron Tschetter, the Peace Corps is well poised to address the rapidly evolving challenges of the developing world.

I will begin my remarks by saying that I hope that these 3 days of debate, Mr. Speaker, are characterized by civility and respect. Without doubt, this is the most difficult issue that we will confront in this Congress.

Iraq is terribly complex. The stakes for our national security are great, and the sacrifice in American lives and the loss of Iraqi lives have been very painful.

This is a war unlike any other we have fought, and it has been vexing. All of us, supporters and opponents of this resolution alike, Republicans and Democrats, all Americans, have a vital interest in our Nation succeeding in helping to build a stable Iraq and defeating Islamist terrorism. That is the challenge of our time.

As we have heard, mistakes have been made. There is no doubt about that. I have been dismayed by some of them: the lethargy in training Iraqi troops, the inability to meter oil and protect civilian infrastructure. But we can't allow this to cloud our strategic judgments.

To my mind, this resolution, indeed our struggle in Iraq, can be boiled down to two questions: Are Iraq and the global struggle against Islamist terrorism separable? And is Iraq hopeless? The answer to both questions is no, which leads me to a ``no'' on this resolution.

The rationale for this war has changed, whether we like it or not. We are now fighting for stability and moderation against the Islamist terrorism that is now host in Iraq.

Our Civil War didn't start out as a battle against slavery. It was a fight to save the Union.

We started out fighting Saddam and to stop what the majority of this House believed was his weapons of mass destruction program. We are now fighting Islamist terrorism. It is a different and more daunting fight, but the consequences of our success or failure are no less critical because the stakes of this battle have changed.

Let there be no doubt about this: Defeat in Iraq will be a terrible blow to our national security. It will psychologically boost the Islamist terrorists who we are fighting there and elsewhere.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reported Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden, has declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda. That declaration is more than words.

While not all fighters in Iraq are jihadists, many are. Some have wrongly denied that here on the House floor today. Jihadists are coming from all over the world. The report reads, ``They will seek to expel the Americans and then spread the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.'' Chaos in Iraq will allow for more terrorist safe havens there.

The 9/11 Commission stated that every policy decision we make needs to be seen through the lens of terrorist sanctuaries. My colleagues, I would ask if we are doing that.

And that report stated that if Iraq becomes a failed state, it will go to the top of the list of places that are breeding grounds for attacks against Americans abroad.

We saw what happened when Afghanistan descended into chaos. Al Qaeda emerged out of the ruin to strike America on 9/11. That is the type of threat we are facing today, which will be supercharged if Iraq fails.

We have to confront the potential disaster scenario in the region that U.S. failure in Iraq could bring, which would be worsening strife which could engulf the entire region, sparking a wider war in this resource-rich area.

Saudis have warned that they are prepared to aid Sunni militias. Jordan could move troops into Iraq's western desert to serve as a buffer. The Turks are increasingly worried about the independent Kurdish movement. Iran could move to secure the oil fields to the south.

In describing the consequences of continued decline in Iraq, the Iraq Study Group wrote, ``Such a broader sectarian conflict could open a Pandora's box of problems, including the radicalization of populations, mass movement of populations, and regime changes that might take decades to play out.''

This is the powder keg that is Iraq today. The status quo is nasty. But the consequences of failure, while unpredictable, is far worse.

So to the second question: Is Iraq hopeless? I can understand why many Americans may feel that way. Every day there are horrific car bombings, the sectarian violence has intensified. We will hear many assessments that Iraq is hopeless in this debate.

No one is going to argue that success is guaranteed. But arguments that we have no chance of bringing stability on the ground in Iraq are also extreme arguments.

Are the forces of chaos so strong, and are the forces of stability and moderation so weak as to doom with certainty our efforts?

But I have spoken with too many people in the field, people with some optimism, that I am not ready to conclude that with certainty. And I don't think this House should reach that conclusion.

And that is my read of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group which, while recognizing the grave challenges, spoke of improving the process for success. The fact that the consequences of our defeat would be so great also leads me to persist.

Let's consider more about the implications of defeat. Look at neighboring Iran. Most Americans remember the 1979 Iranian takeover of our embassy in Tehran. That led to 444 days of captivity for our men and women. Unfortunately, relations with Iran have only worsened since. Iran today is a state sponsor of terrorism. It aids Hezbollah, and it backed this terrorist group's war on Israel this summer. With Iranian backing, Hezbollah is the A Team of terrorism, running highly sophisticated operatives worldwide, including here.

Some terrorism experts consider Hezbollah to be a more challenging foe than al Qaeda. Iran is backing the insurgents fighting our men and women in Iraq. Iran is also storming ahead with a nuclear weapons program.

The embassy takeover was a big morale boost for Islamist terrorists; some trace the beginning of Islamist terrorism to that embassy takeover. The shattering of the Iraqi state in our hands would be that 1979 morale boost magnified. It would also prove the way for tremendous Iranian influence in the region.

We must face our responsibility to the Iraqi people. Yes, we have given them 4 years to come together; it has been beyond frustration that they haven't. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died during this time. What happens if we leave or operate without the manpower our military leadership says it needs? I don't think anyone believes that the carnage won't be several times what we have seen.

We often hear calls to intervene in countries for humanitarian reasons. Some would like our military to go to Darfur in Sudan. Maybe we should take decisive military actions to stop that genocide, but what about trying to finish a job where we have already made a huge military commitment, knowing full well that Iraq's withdrawal would lead to a brutal humanitarian crisis?

We also often hear from some about how unpopular our country is worldwide. This is said to greatly harm our influence and interest. And there is truth to that. Just wait if our withdrawal precipitates a horrific scale of ethnic cleansing. Is that the Iraqi legacy we want? I am not ready to concede the inevitability of this.

It is very important that our Nation be united. Our success depends upon it.

We need to be sowing discord among the enemy, not ourselves. We have had successes against Islamist terrorism worldwide.

This resolution states that Congress disapproves of the January decision of the President to deploy more troops to Iraq. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group panel, but one month earlier, said it could support a short-term redeployment of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad. This resolution goes in the opposite direction.

I have heard the argument about why this resolution isn't a retreat, but it is a nonbinding rebuke of the President's tactics, that it doesn't cut off funding. That may be the case on paper, but the symbolism is far greater. I don't see how opposing our professional military's call for more troops at this pivotal time is anything but a signal of permanent retreat. It is also congressional micromanagement.

The war is horrible. The easy thing would be to just say out. But we can't wish away the Islamist terrorists will take great strength from our defeat. That is what they are saying. These individuals in groups are as persistent as they are brutal. They must be fought and defeated. So let's not give these forces a win on the floor of the U.S. House.

I ask my colleagues to think through these implications and vote down this resolution

Madam Speaker, I rise to condemn the brutal murder of newspaper editor and leading figure in the Armenian genocide debate in Turkey, Hrant Dink.

Last Friday freedom of speech suffered a setback as Dink was shot three times in the head in broad daylight outside of his office. As a Turkish citizen of Armenian descent, he had gained notoriety in Turkish society for the court cases brought against him, in which he faced jail time for simply talking of that genocide. Nationalists see such statements, they say, as insults to the honor of Turks.

Well, Dink was mourned worldwide, and journalists like him and Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk continue to be persecuted by suppressive laws that seek to stifle discussion on matters that are claimed to be insulting to Turkish identity.

It is my sincere hope that the Turkish Government uses this tragedy to revisit its laws and open up to free speech. The laws themselves are a catalyst for this type of intolerance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 6111, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.

The bill contains a package of provisions designed to improve Health Savings Accounts, HSAs. HSAs were enacted by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. An HSA is a tax- exempt account to which tax-deductible contributions may be made by individuals with a high deductible health plan.

HSAs empower Americans to make informed decisions about their health care choices. Instead of being tied into a traditional plan that limits choice, and distances the consumer from the healthcare market, HSAs allow individuals to take an active role in the choosing how to spend their money.

This bill will:

Allow rollovers From Health FSAs and HRAs into HSAs;

Repeal the Annual Plan Deductible Limitation on HSA Contributions;

Modify the Cost-of-Living Adjustment;

Expand the Contribution Limitation for Part-Year Coverage;

Modify employer comparable contribution requirements for contributions made to non-highly compensated employees; and

Allow one-time roll overs from IRAs into HSAs.

Health Savings Accounts help families more easily access quality health care and save for medical costs. This bill will expand HSAs to help provide more Americans with health care coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Henry J. Hyde bill.

I want to address a concern raised earlier by the gentleman from California. I share his concern about A.Q. Khan. But Dr. Khan is in Pakistan, and we would not do this deal for Pakistan, because Pakistan proliferates. India does not. The nuclear fuel and materials we and the world may sell India will be for the civilian sector only, not the military, and will be under strict international safeguards and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

While nuclear energy is controversial to us in the United States, it is not controversial in India. As in several other countries, nuclear energy is viewed as a critical technology, one that is central to uplifting hundreds of millions of impoverished Indians, because they need the electricity for their grid. So India will develop its nuclear energy sector, not as easily or quickly as without this deal, but it will nonetheless, and India will not relinquish its nuclear weapons at this point in time, which is understandable given its security situation.

Right now, because of existing restrictions, many Indians view the U.S. as blocking India's technological and developmental aspirations by opposing their acquiring nuclear material and technology for clean energy. This position does not make for a strong partnership.

With its growing economy, India is consuming more and more oil. It is competing on the world market, competing with American consumers, for limited hydrocarbon resources. This gives Americans an interest in helping India expand its nuclear power industry, which this legislation does. It also encourages India to move away from burning its highly polluting coal.

By passing this conference report, we take a big step towards internationalizing India's nuclear industry, which I believe would make it safer. Young Indian scientists and engineers in the nuclear field are interested in collaborating with their American counterparts. Today they are isolated. I would rather know more about India's nuclear work than less.

We have two options: either continue to try to box in India and hope for the best, and, as I mentioned, India will not relinquish its nuclear weapons now; or we make this move, engage India, and use our influence to move this increasingly important country in our direction, making India a true partner as we enter what will be a decades-long struggle against Islamic terrorism.

This is not an ideal agreement and the administration should be more aggressively pursuing an international fissile material cutoff, but it is a very good agreement, one that works through a very difficult nonproliferation situation to strengthen an important relationship.

So I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. I would also mention that during the course of the committee's five hearings on this agreement, Members closely scrutinized India's relationship with Iran, and I think it is fair to say that our committee helped influence India's thinking on Iran. We got India's support for two IAEA votes, voting twice at the IAEA to find Iran in noncompliance with its safeguard obligations and to report Iran to the Security Council.

Importantly, this bill preserves congressional oversight, and that was not the administration's preferred approach, and gives Congress another bite at the apple, requiring a joint resolution of approval of the nuclear cooperation agreement. So India knows that Congress is continuing to watch.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I again commend Chairman Hyde. We honor him tonight with the title of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 502) to correct the enrollment of the bill H.R. 5682, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I rise in support of the bill. This bill contains many important provisions affecting the State Department. I am going to confine my remarks to one section of the bill. I serve as the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation. One of the issues that the subcommittee has focused on is the threat posed by shoulder-fired missiles known as MANPADS.

These weapons in the hands of terrorists are a deadly threat to civilian aviation. Unfortunately, these weapons, manufactured in China, Bulgaria, North Korea and elsewhere are proliferating, as we heard in the hearing earlier this year. In 2002 a shoulder-fired missile was shot at an Israeli airliner in Kenya which managed to escape unscathed. Unfortunately, the potential exists for many successful attacks.

The downing of a commercial airliner would take a terrible toll in human life and be a big blow to the world economy. That is why I introduced the Shoulder-Fired Missile Threat Reduction Act of 2006, which has bipartisan support.

Key portions of this act are included in this bill that we are considering tonight. It sanctions countries that knowingly transfer these missiles to terrorist organizations or state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran and Iran. MANPADS in the hands of terrorists is a serious threat that warrants a serious response. This bill puts producing and proliferating countries on notice. I urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, I am rising also to honor Henry Hyde. As every Member of the House is aware, Mr. Hyde will be retiring from Congress after the end of this year after 32 years of service, not only to the people of the State of Illinois, but of service to the people of this country.

Chairman Hyde took over the Committee on International Relations when the 107th Congress began; and if we think back to that time, that was January of 2001. Most of us weren't thinking that foreign policy would soon be at the forefront of Congress's agenda.

But, of course, not long after that, on September 11, our Nation was attacked, and our agenda changed. I know that my colleagues had added confidence knowing that Henry Hyde would be leading the Committee on International Relations as we confront the terrorist threat. Their confidence proved to be well placed.

Chairman Hyde has said, you know, you want to be thought of well by the people you work with. You like to earn their respect. I would like that to be my legacy.

Well, Madam Speaker, that will be the legacy of Chairman Hyde. The gentleman from Illinois has earned the respect of his colleagues with his hard work, with his fairness, with his intellectual prowess and good-natured Irish wit.

Madam Speaker, it is often said that politics don't stop at the water's edge. Chairman Hyde has personified that adage. He is a leader for all of us. Other committees in the House, and indeed the Congress as a whole, would do well to take their cue from Chairman Henry Hyde. The issues being dealt with in our committee, issues of war and peace, are just too important to succumb to partisan rancor.

Though he has been tried at times, Henry Hyde understands that we are Americans more than we are Republicans and Democrats. He makes many of us a little prouder to serve in Congress.

Madam Speaker, the House would do well to consider carefully the chairman's words delivered earlier this year. I wish the chairman's speech, titled ``Perils of the Golden Theory,'' had received greater attention than it did. It is profound and poignant, as is usual with Henry Hyde.

Chairman Hyde provided a cautionary note. I am going to quote from him for that speech. ``For some, the promotion of democracy promises an easy solution to the many difficult problems we face, a guiding light on a dimly seen horizon. But I believe the great caution is warranted here.''

The chairman went on, ``But we also have a duty to ourselves and to our own interests, the protection and advancement of which may sometimes necessitate actions focused on more tangible returns than those of altruism. Lashing our interests to the indiscriminate promotion of democracy is a tempting but unwarranted strategy, more a leap of faith than a sober calculation.''

The chairman was reminding us that there is no single solution to solving the world's complex problems, and that we must challenge ourselves to better understand the world, to better understand its millenniums of recorded history and culture, if we are to navigate these very challenging times.

Chairman Hyde's message, I believe, was, yes, try to make the world a better place, but get there by dealing with the world as it is, not as we wish it was to be. It was a speech of a hopeful realist.

Madam Speaker, we should listen to men who have seen as much in their lifetime as Chairman Hyde. While times change, much has remained the same since the days that a young Henry Hyde fought for his Nation in the Pacific theater, for human nature is immutable. But looking to Chairman Hyde for guidance, and I hope we will hear from him in the years to come, and should we look to him for guidance, I am sure our Nation will be more secure.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 3728) to promote nuclear nonproliferation in North Korea, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Yes. Let me explain to the gentleman that, first, our efforts with respect to India is to bring India into the nonproliferation regime.

Mr. Aliberti supports, and the United Nations Security Council resolution supports actions by member States in response to North Korea pulling out of the nonproliferation agreement, to go forward and put these types of prohibitions on the transfer of technologies to North Korea that would allow it to develop these types of weapon systems.

North Korea is a proliferator, India is not.

I am citing the United Nations Security Council resolution adopted on July 15, 2006.

I am pointing out that all member States, in response to the actions by North Korea to develop and to proliferate weapons of mass destruction such as long-range ballistic missiles and atomic weapons, have attempted to curtail the transfer of technologies to this State, since it has adopted a very aggressive posture and thus has become a direct threat to the United States and to our allies in northeast Asia.

We are taking responsibility because North Korea is a direct threat to the United States.

Our attempt with respect to India is to bring India into the MPT regime and lead it to peaceful purposes of nuclear energy and away from producing weapons outside of an MPT regime.

With respect to the strategy to bring India into the MPT, in our considered judgment, and the judgment of the majority of the Members of this House, it is a wiser policy to bring them into the tent, to get their cooperation and to focus on using nuclear energy to produce energy for peaceful purposes in India.

Now, with respect to North Korea, it remains a very real threat with over a million troops, possibly several nuclear weapons, and most importantly, the propensity to export these types of weapons. This is not something we have seen from India in the past.

But North Korea is an exporter of its missiles and of its technology. And for that very reason, the goal of this legislation is to put a prohibition on the transfer to North Korea of the types of technologies that could be used by North Korea in order to further develop its weapons systems. It is that simple.

It is the same with respect to Iran. It is the same with respect to Syria. Now, we are putting in place a provision stating that North Korea shall not have the ability to receive from the United States or any companies in the United States this type of technology. U.S. companies will not be able to be licensed to export this kind of technology. They will be sanctioned if they attempt it.

Yes. In response, I do not think the opposition is to this bill. But I understand the concept, and the argument relating to the nonproliferation regime as you have laid it out.

But I think we have an honest disagreement about the approach to India and whether or not that will strengthen the regime. And that is what is playing itself out in debate here.

From my standpoint, the proliferation issues have been between Pakistan and North Korea, whereas India has shown itself resistant to proliferation, and has shown a willingness to look at a way to be brought into the fold of the MPT. So I saw that earlier initiative to bring India within the framework agreement and with the MPT as a positive step forward.

And with respect to this legislation, basically what it does is to apply exactly the same system of forced compliance on companies that now exist with respect to Iran and Syria.

That is to say, that in terms of getting a licensing agreement or having the ability to ship technologies into North Korea that could be used for the purpose of eventually developing those weapon systems, that will be prohibited. That is the intent of the legislation. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am going to yield back, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 483, 109th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule.

We do have a philosophical disagreement over open borders. Some of us support fencing those borders. We do have a philosophical disagreement over a massive amnesty. Some of us believe that massive amnesty in 1986 made the situation worse. That is why we don't want to go forward with another amnesty of that type.

Let me say I did chair the hearings in San Diego and in Texas. I toured that southern border with local law enforcement and immigration officials. I heard their arguments in favor of putting up that border fence and their arguments about doing something about these tunnels. This was a tunnel that was six ballfields long. I went through this tunnel. Contraband was trafficked illegally over these cement floors, under electric lighting. The tunnel had water pumps, full ventilation, and a system of pulleys through it. There have been other tunnels discovered since. I don't believe in open borders. We are going to criminalize the action of putting up these tunnels.

We are also, with the Immigration Law Enforcement Act, we are going to allow local law enforcement, and there are 700,000 local law enforcement. Wouldn't it be nice to allow them to voluntarily assist the 2,000 ICE agents in this country so when we have a situation in the future like we had on 9/11 where four of those hijackers had been stopped by local police for speeding prior to the attacks, they can call into that hotline and, if there is suspicious activity, can look into the immigration status of those people who are here in this country illegally.

Let me also say that the Community Protection Act is coming up under this rule, and criminal gangs today like MS-13 are no longer just the neighborhood kids who may be up to no good, the kinds of gangs we remember from our youth, because we have transnational criminal gangs active around the country that now resemble organized crime syndicates. They have highly organized leadership and organizational models, and networks that stretch across this Nation. They operate across the border. They will bring, in the words of one sheriff, anything or anybody across that border for a price.

I don't believe post-9/11 that we can have an open borders policy. I think we have to fence the borders. I think we need these commonsense bills to pass without that massive amnesty that our friends would like to attach to it. I urge passage of this measure.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

The border security bill that was passed by the House of Representatives is being criticized by the Democrats. But our hearings were not condemned by the media. Far from it, because at our hearings we heard from the border agents, the sheriffs, the investigators, the men and women whose task it is to enforce border security. They called for the border fence that the Democrats opposed.

Now the Democrats are referring to their motion to recommit our bill, H.R. 4437. Well, their motion would have gutted this critical immigration enforcement bill. If the Democrat motion had passed, there would have been no provision to crack down on violent alien gang members. There would have been no provision to allow for the detention of dangerous aliens. There would be no provision to crack down on employees hiring those here illegally.

Their motion to recommit was meaningless and ineffectual. Only the Appropriations Committee can actually allocate funds. The Democrats know this, and they know that our appropriators over this year and next have increased Border Patrol strength by 2,700 agents. This is the maximum number of new agents who can realistically be recruited and adequately trained in that time span.

But in the meantime we have the question of the broader border security issue of whether you are going to erect that fence, whether you are going to allow State and local law enforcement to assist our ICE agents, whether or not you are going to crack down on criminal gangs. Those are the provisions that we are bringing up today and passing over into the Senate.

Our hope is that the Senate leadership, Republican leadership, can get past the Democratic opposition this time and get past the argument that all we should do is a blanket amnesty. We tried a blanket amnesty in 1986. It didn't work. It did not work. And the concept that the answer to all of this is open borders and another blanket amnesty is simply wrong. It is a wrongheaded notion. I urge passage.