Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I think the question is should we put forward a modicum of effort to keep political machines from stealing elections? Do they? Yes. Yes, they do. Just last year, a judge in the State of Washington ruled that 1,678 fraudulent votes were cast in that election.

As we look at the work of the FBI, we see that their investigation in the city of Milwaukee found 4,500 more votes cast in that election than there were people on the rolls. They found evidence of people voting multiple times, people voting for the deceased, people voting illegally. And we have the example in the State of Georgia where an audit showed that 5,412 votes had been cast by deceased voters. Personally I am tired of constituents of mine telling me that someone else voted for them at the polls. It seems to me that an ID system or showing an identification, a photo ID, will take care of this problem.

How do the American public, how do they react to this? Well, an NBC- Wall Street Journal poll recently found that 81 percent of the American people support requiring a photo ID to vote.

By requiring voters to provide a valid form of identification, we can handicap those trying to undermine the process. We can ensure the sanctity of one person-one vote. And we should not have to deal with a situation where our voters go to the polls and repeatedly tell us, somebody else already voted for me.

Mr. Speaker, let me say, in order to spend the money, you first have to authorize the money. In the Senate, as I rise in support of this rule to consider H.R. 6061, let me say that the Senate has attached to the defense authorization bill language, and this is what is anticipated, that will discuss the building of a border fence. But we want to make certain on the House side as we pass the authorization language and go into conference with the Senate that we disabuse our colleagues in the other House from one concept, and that is the language that would preclude the construction of any border fence without consultation with the Government of Mexico. Let me explain why I think that approach would not be in the interest of the United States.

We in California have dealt for some years now with trying to close one breach in our border fence. It is called Smugglers Gulch, a fence that runs from the foothills to the ocean. Through that small 3-mile breach, it has taken 8\1/2\ years to get the California Coastal Commission to go along with closing that fence in consultation, 8\1/2\ years, and it took an act of Congress that we passed here to do it.

So if the Senate prevails on this issue, it means no border fence. We need this legislation to authorize the border fence before we go into conference with the Senate.

I am a cosponsor of this bill, and I was a cosponsor of the border fence amendment offered by Congressman Duncan Hunter and myself that was added to the House-passed border security bill last September.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, I held field hearings in San Diego on July 5 and Laredo, Texas, on July 7. We heard from the men and women of the Border Patrol whose job it is to secure our border. We heard from the sheriffs whose deputies have been shot in the line of duty. We heard from Federal inspectors who have smuggled across that porous border the materials for a dirty bomb.

And so this hearing that was focused on border vulnerabilities, we heard from these witnesses and we heard them express that the border fence is very effective. The Border Patrol testified as to that effectiveness. Daryl Griffin, who is the chief agent in San Diego, said, ``It is a great force multiplier. It expands our enforcement capacity. It allows us the discretion to redeploy agents to areas of vulnerability or risk. It is one component that certainly has been integral to everything we have accomplished here, raising the level of security.''

A fair question is, how effective has it been in San Diego? Well, apprehensions along the region with a security fence dropped from 202,000 in 1992 to 9,000 in 1994.

With the establishment of the border fence in San Diego, crime rates have fallen off dramatically. Vehicle drive-throughs have fallen. San Diego is no longer one of the most prolific drug-smuggling corridors.

This amendment puts a fence where it is needed most: in areas that have the highest instances of drug smuggling and illegal border crossings. It allows the Border Patrol to focus its resources and better protect our border. It is past time that we strengthen operational control of all the borders and ports through additional physical barriers and fencing.

In this bill is greater use of state-of-the-art technology and surveillance along the Southwest border. Expanding the border fence is needed and it is needed now. The first step is to get the authorization, and the second step is to get the appropriation with the Senate.

This last year, I can tell you, just over this last 12 months, over 450 OTMs were apprehended illegally entering the United States from special-interest countries, also from countries that are state sponsors of terrorism. So we see people coming over the border illegally from Afghanistan, Angola, Jordan, Qatar, Pakistan, Yemen. I will give you one example. Mohammed Karani is the brother of a commander of Hezbollah in south Lebanon. He came over the border in my State in the trunk of a car. He paid a coyote to get him across the border. He was later arrested in Dearborn, Michigan. He is serving 4\1/2\ years. He is a member of Hezbollah. He was in the process of securing funds and resources for Hezbollah in the United States.

Two border Governors have declared states of emergency over illegal immigration. This is something I think we

can all agree upon, and it shouldn't be held hostage to immigration policies. The 9/11 Commission studied the problem. Border security is national security. At some point we have to come to grips with the fact that our Border Patrol agents need a border fence on our southern border in order for them to be able to secure an area where we are now facing infiltration by members of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. We should listen to those agents.

There is one who told me his personal story of stopping a man who had been trained in an Afghan training camp, originally from Uzbekistan. This man injured him, actually bit his arm as he was trying to take him down. He told me one of his concerns was, this was the second time this man tried to get illegally into the United States. Post-9/11, we have to be serious about border security. This bill should pass this House.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

The reason we cannot get the bill through the Senate is because of the opposition of Senator Kennedy and others, and others, to the concept of the border fence.

Now the reason that it would be helpful to have the fence is, when you are stopping cars coming through and checking the trunks, if your Border Patrol agents are spread out all along the Southwest, it is a force multiplier to have that fence. You can then deploy more agents to the points where the smugglers bring people in in the trunks of cars.

Let me just say in this very bill is a study to do just that, and study the northern border as well to look at those areas where people are crossing illegally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution marking the fifth anniversary of the al Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States, and, inevitably, Americans are asking are we safer today. Yes, we are.

But the unfortunate reality is that this threat to our country continues. Last week, my terrorism subcommittee held a hearing on this threat. We heard the point made that to fight terrorism effectively, we must identify the enemy. As reported by the 9/11 Commission, the catastrophic threat of this moment in history, they say, is Islamist terrorism, especially al Qaeda and its organization. This threat, mounted for years, going largely ignored.

Many witnesses observed that al Qaeda, now under attack by the United States and others, has had to reconfigure. But just as the terrorists have evolved, we must evolve too. The desperate need today is to find out who the terrorists are.

To do this, we need powerful tools, and they have included the USA PATRIOT Act and other programs we passed.

With WMD proliferating, such efforts are all the more important. One area where we did receive a good grade from the 9/11 Commission was on our legislation for a REAL ID Act, to make certain that the next Mohammed Atta and his team of 15 couldn't obtain 60 phony driver's licenses. We established those Federal standards for State driver's licenses to make sure that again they couldn't use something like that to plan and attack and then board jetliners to attack the United States.

We made certain also that we passed the PATRIOT Act. Frankly, I believe that most Americans are glad that we have the PATRIOT Act to break down barriers between intelligence and law enforcement officials that hampered their efforts before 9/11.

Before the PATRIOT Act, these same tools were already being used to go after drug traffickers. Now, with the PATRIOT Act, we have applied those approaches to terrorists, and Americans are safer for it.

I believe we need border security, like the House-passed legislation. Frankly, if that legislation were taken up in the Senate, we would get better grades from the 9/11 Commission. Why? Because the 9/11 Commission understood that border security has become national security.

This resolution remembers those who lost their lives on 9/11. That was 3,000 people. Countless more were scarred on that day. But September 11 is also a call to action for our country and a day to recognize those who are in the field taking on Islamist terrorism, including law enforcement officers, Border Patrol officers, and our Armed Forces.

We saw many acts of heroism on September 11. We had acts of heroism on September 11, 2006, also, many in faraway lands, and we will see more acts of terrorism in the days and years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, as summed up recently by a top British official, the threat from Islamist terrorists is real. It is here. It is deadly. And, as he said, it is enduring.

That it is. But it is not as enduring as the spirit of our Nation so evident on 9/11. We will prevail.

Mr. Speaker, recently the subcommittee on international terrorism and nonproliferation that I chair held a hearing on the growing Islamist terrorist threat in Somalia. The country's unsecured borders and proximity to the Arabian Peninsula provide a potential transit point and safe haven for terrorists there. Especially worrying is the powerful presence of the Union of Islamic Courts, which took over Mogadishu last month.

This group is headed by a known associate of al Qaeda and aims to introduce Sharia law throughout Somalia. Mr. Speaker, we are living in an age in which threats in faraway places can hit us at home.

The events unfolding in Somalia mark a critical point in our struggle against Islamist terrorism. Afghanistan is the lesson. I remember those on Afghanistan that said that the Taliban offered stability in that country because the country was deeply divided.

I remember testifying that the Taliban and their support for terror training could lead to more World Trade Center-style attacks on America. That was 11 years ago. Now Somalia demands our focused attention.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, allowing for a nuclear cooperation agreement with India. The last two administrations have forged closer ties with India. And India is a nation now of over 1 billion people. The last two administrations frankly have overcome the chilly relations of the Cold War with India.

And last July's joint statement committed each country to a global partnership which has accelerated our cooperation on many issues, including on counterterrorism. As we saw 2 weeks ago, when a series of commuter train bombings hit Mumbai, killing over 200 Indian people, India is a frontline state in the struggle against Islamist terrorism.

Congress has played a leading role promoting U.S.-India relations. There is an India Caucus which I cochaired in the 107th Congress. In 2001, I led a congressional delegation to India's earthquake-shattered Gujarat region. Other Members have focused on India. But nothing we have done is as significant as the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement that we are debating today.

As our distinguished chairman has noted, the International Relations Committee has given this agreement close and extensive review. We held five hearings, which is certainly warranted given the high stakes.

Supporters and detractors alike recognize the great significance of this policy shift that the Bush administration has engineered. I would like to commend Chairman Hyde. He took a weak administration legislative proposal, one dismissive of congressional prerogative and turned it around. I want to commend Ranking Member Lantos, too, for his detailed work on this challenging issue.

While nuclear energy is controversial in the United States, it is not in India. Like in several other countries, nuclear energy is widely viewed as a critical technology, one central to uplifting hundreds of millions of impoverished Indians. So India will develop its nuclear energy sector, not as easily or as quickly 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.

So right now, many Indians view the United States as blocking India's technological and developmental aspirations by our opposition to their acquiring nuclear material and technology. 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 abundance of highly polluting coal. By passing this legislation, we also take a step toward 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 rather than less about India's nuclear work. Some have raised legitimate concerns about the impact of this agreement upon the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Indian nuclear weapons arsenal. I am not prepared, at this point, to call this agreement a nonproliferation plus, as some do, but neither is it the clear setback some opponents describe.

For one, this agreement forces a separation between India's civilian and military nuclear programs. This is a good step. The agreement also is likely to increase India's cooperation with us in confronting countries seeking to break their NPT commitment by developing nuclear weapons.

In my view, this agreement is more likely a wash in the nonproliferation category, while its broad benefits, primarily cultivating a more influential relationship with India, are big pluses.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I supported the gentlewoman's amendment in committee. And while not necessarily concurring with all the views that she expressed in committee, I supported her amendment; and hers are helpful amendments which I will work to maintain in the final bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina is indeed correct. It is our intent that section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act should apply prospectively to India. Should India conduct a nuclear test in the future, one likely consequence would be the discontinuation of nuclear fuel and technology sharing by the United States with India.

That is our understanding.

Any fuel reserve should be intended to give India protections against short-term fluctuations in the supply of nuclear fuel.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, yes. I supported the gentleman's amendment in committee, and I will work with him to maintain it in the final bill.

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

I think we are all very concerned about the reports on Pakistan's programs that appeared this week. I think it was Monday in the Washington Post, but I think it is important to also note that that report stated that the construction on this facility in Pakistan to make these bombs began sometime in the year 2000. So this is not something that I think can be characterized as a reaction to this new initiative with India.

I do have concerns about a nuclear arms buildup in Asia. Again, this is something that the administration should be doing more on, working towards a fissile material cutoff treaty.

However, I would just respond by pointing out that this agreement gives us a chance to be engaged with India on their program instead of being on the outside as we have been for decades.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Asia Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Chairman, you know, while the United States is, in fact, leading the way on this agreement, it is a multilateral agreement in the sense that the NSG, 45 nations, must concur with this agreement; and Congress must approve a nuclear cooperation agreement that the administration is negotiating with India before technology is actually transferred.

So I also want to make the point here that Congress is going to have a second crack at this agreement when it comes back. But here is the choice that we face: Either we continue to try to box in India and hope for the best, or we make this move, we engage India, and we hope to use our influence to move this increasingly important country in our direction. And this will help make India a true partner, a true partner as we enter what will be a decades-long struggle, I fear, against Islamist terrorism.

This is not an ideal agreement, and the administration should be more aggressively pursuing an international fissile material cutoff. But this agreement is a good one which works through a difficult nonproliferation situation to strengthen an important relationship for us.

That is why I ask my colleagues to approve this legislation. Frankly, it is a chance to strengthen an important relationship for us at a time when we need more strong relationships, especially with regional powers such as India; and, I will remind my colleagues, it strengthens a relationship with a democracy, based on the rule of law, a democracy that has a good record on nonproliferation.

This deal is controversial in India. The coalition government of Prime Minister Singh has come under intense attack from the political extremes and from political opponents. He has been charged with selling out India, opening its nuclear facilities to international inspection, agreeing to check India's nuclear weapons production.

So far the center has held. Let's not deliver India's Marxist and xenophobic forces a victory. They would like us to kill this deal. Let's pass this legislation. As Chairman Hyde argued and as the ranking member explained, let's pass this legislation. Let the administration negotiate a nuclear sharing agreement with India, and then look again and decide whether or not to proceed.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Chairman, I would make several points.

One, in terms of the program that is being laid out in the Washington Post, I think it was this Monday, explaining Pakistan's ambitions with respect to its nuclear buildup, that is clearly not something that can be characterized as a reaction to this new initiative with India. The reason I say that is because a careful reading of that Washington Post report shows that the construction of this very facility site began in the year 2000. The construction of the facility began 6 years ago.

I will also point out that the supposition that it could be used for 40 to 50 nuclear bombs a year, the information we have is that is probably two or three. Yet the very existence of the facility itself shows why a fissile cutoff is, frankly, not practical to enforce, to attempt to enforce on India, except through negotiation.

And I think, lastly, in conclusion, the attempt to equate Pakistan's efforts, now 6 years old, and tie that and say that that is in response to a deal that we are negotiating with India of less than a year old is clearly not germane to the argument that we have before us today.

So I oppose the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Hyde, I offer the Hyde-Lantos amendment which is made in order by the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Hyde-Lantos amendment made in order by the rule be modified in the form which I have caused to be placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the only change in this amendment is to name this bill after our distinguished chairman, Henry Hyde. The underlying amendment contains a series of technical and conforming changes which were needed to ensure the bill was properly drafted.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

It is my understanding that a member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) offered an amendment in committee that was passed on voice vote. However, upon further reflection, I understand the Member has asked that the amendment language be removed. And what is happening here is that the committee is honoring that request. I would note, however, that the heart of the section 4(b)(7), and this is the section that the gentleman is concerned about, which states that the President must determine that the Nuclear Suppliers Group has decided by consensus, that remains intact, and that is the practice at the NSG.

And let me just quote from the bill: ``The NSG has decided by consensus to permit supply to India of nuclear items covered by the guidelines of the NSG.''

So the heart of the determination remains intact. And, again, the removal of that particular language was at the request of a member of the committee, Mr. Sherman of California, who offered the original amendment that was accepted in committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his amendment.

During consideration of this agreement in committee, members expressed some of the same concerns raised by the gentleman from Florida, and we added language to the underlying bill to alleviate those concerns. I offered an amendment, a successful amendment, in committee that explicitly states that nothing in this bill shall violate our article I NPT obligation, not to, in any way, assist, encourage, or induce India to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices.

Now, the gentleman's amendment further clarifies that the aiding of India's strategic program is not Congress's intent. And with that, we are quite prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding; and I just wanted to say I thank her and Mr. Burton for their amendment. I think it is very important that the United States be engaged on the subcontinent, and I think the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from Indiana should be commended for their good work on this amendment. We are prepared to accept that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I will note that the base text of this bill, in section 402, already asks for a classified report on India's domestic uranium usage. But the gentleman's amendment would make such a certification a condition for the deal.

Let me also say that people recognize that India has great demand for expanding its energy grid to create electricity for its people. Let me say that the gentleman has taken a unique approach to this issue for which he should be commended. We sympathize with his concerns.

However, I do not see the amendment as even workable. I do not know that such a determination with a high degree of confidence could even be made. So I am concerned about terminating the agreement with India on such a certification that cannot even be made with any certitude.

Mr. Chairman, for some of these reasons, this amendment was defeated in committee by a vote of 10-32 when it was offered. I urge the House to do the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee (Mr. Hyde).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the International Relations Committee.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in opposition to the Berman amendment. I would like to commend the gentleman from California for bringing this issue before the House today, and I know that he does so having studied this issue very closely.

The gentleman's amendment would prevent the full realization of this agreement until India has put in place a cap, either unilaterally or multilateral, on its fissile material production. That is a highly unlikely or even an implausible scenario given the dynamics in the region in South Asia.

This should, frankly, be a goal, and the administration should be doing more on that front. But it should not be a mandate for this agreement.

This amendment is not without merit. I offered a successful amendment in committee that states that nothing in this bill shall violate our Article I NPT obligation not to in any way assist, encourage, or induce India to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. So I think Congress has made it clear that this is not the intent of the agreement.

The gentleman is right that the language in the underlying bill is not as strenuous as his proposal, but there is also an international component to this agreement. We are opening the door for this cooperation with India not only for the United States but for other countries as well, and I don't see how the gentleman's amendment would prevent the nuclear supplier group from approving such trade for other countries, excluding only the U.S.

Let me also say I do believe that fulfilling this relationship with India is in the interest of the United States. Indeed, and here is my final point, if this amendment were to pass, it could in fact be detrimental to U.S. interests from that perspective

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As we have noted before, the underlying bill in section 402 already asks for a classified report on India's domestic uranium usage. The gentleman from Nebraska's amendment asks for an additional report building on the report in the underlying bill. We are willing to accept that amendment

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of the committee's five hearings on this agreement members closely scrutinized the relationship between India and Iran, and I think it is fair to say that our committee helped influence India's thinking on Iran. And I think we should all remember that we are getting India's cooperation on Iran. We got two IAEA votes out of India, including a critical vote to get the Iran file to New York. That is the fact about cooperation.

We share the gentleman's concern about Iran, but our point is that India is cooperating on Iran. And as we continue to engage India, and this agreement is about India's growing energy needs, as we engage India, we move them away from states like Iran. Rejection of the agreement itself, frankly, could push India, theoretically, back towards countries like Iran.

Also, we have Mr. Markey's theme in the bill itself. The bill itself says to ``secure India's full and active participation in United States efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability, and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction.'' If India breaks this agreement, then we, the United States, will break our agreement with India.

And I think also it is important to remember that India and the administration both say that they are cooperating on Iran quietly behind the scenes. Why? Because this is the most effective way to do it. And we have seen the positive results. But diplomacy cannot be certified. The purpose of this agreement is to help establish broad cooperation, to establish a partnership between India and the United States. You do not compel a partner to cooperate. So this amendment is both unworkable and contrary to the spirit of the new relationship we are trying to establish with India.

How important is that relationship? Well, we have had two administrations, the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, forge closer ties with India and overcoming what we remember only too well, the chilly relations of the Cold War. And last July's joint statement committed each country to a global partnership which has accelerated our cooperation on many issues, including counterterrorism, including Iran.

The International Relations Committee have given this agreement close and extensive review. While nuclear energy is controversial in the United States, it is not in India. Like in several other countries, nuclear energy is widely viewed as a critical technology for their electricity, one central to uplifting hundreds of millions of impoverished Indians. So India will develop its nuclear energy sector, not as easily or as quickly without this deal, but it will nonetheless. So this deal needs to go forward.

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, which is in our interest.

By passing this legislation, we also take a step toward internationalizing India's nuclear industry, which I believe would make it safer. The agreement also is likely to increase India's cooperation with us in confronting countries seeking to break their NPT commitment by developing nuclear weapons, as it already has with Iran.

India must take more steps, including developing a credible plan to separate its civilians and military nuclear facilities under the agreement. Congress must approve a nuclear cooperation agreement that the administration is negotiating with the Indians before the technology is actually transferred. And as I said, should India break the conditions of the agreement, the U.S. breaks off the agreement itself.

So either we continue to try to box in India and hope for the best, or we make this move, we engage India and hope to 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 Islamist terrorism.

That is why I ask my colleagues to please oppose this motion to recommit and please vote for the U.S. and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Let me say that last week the Subcommittee on International Terrorism that I chair held a hearing on Venezuela's link to terrorism. On May 15, the State Department designated Venezuela as not cooperating fully with U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. Mr. Speaker, from what we heard from the Department officials, it is not that Venezuela is not cooperating fully, it is that Venezuela is not cooperating at all.

Disconcerting was the testimony we heard from the State Department that Venezuelan passports can be forged with child-like ease and that the U.S. is detaining at our borders an increasing number of third country aliens carrying false Venezuelan documents. According to a 2003 U.S. news report, thousands of Venezuelan identity documents are being distributed to foreigners from Middle Eastern nations including Syria, Pakistan, Egypt and Lebanon.

It is not just anti-terrorism in which we see no cooperation, as pointed out in this resolution, it is also counternarcotics, and today, Hugo Chavez, President Chavez, is in Moscow signing a multibillion dollar agreement for advanced fighter jets for attack helicopters, for 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles and a license to build a Kalashnikov factory in Venezuela. He is trying to negotiate two or three submarines, and frankly, these are not helpful in terms of regional stability.

It is not helpful that he is traveling to Iran and to North Korea, and it is not helpful when he says he is trying to create a common ideological front against the United States.

Frankly, these weapons are to allow his self-described socialist revolution to become a military force to be reckoned with in Latin America. This resolution is an important one, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Concerning, Mr. Speaker, the relationship between Hugo Chavez and Iran, let me explain why this is actually problematic, and we had an effort to bring pressure at the IAEA. We had the board of governors in an attempt by countries to pressure Iran not to go forward with its nuclear proliferation program. It was Venezuela, along with Cuba and one other country, I think it was Belarus, that voted against that effort.

Why are these points important? In the fall, there will be a seat on the Security Council that will open up. Venezuela is actively lobbying for that seat.

In light of this type of conduct, it is quite important that we point out the facts about the current efforts with Venezuela.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Subcommittee on International Terrorism that I chair held a hearing on Venezuela's link to terrorism. On May 15, the State Department designated Venezuela as not cooperating fully with U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. Mr. Speaker, from what we heard from the Department officials, it is not that Venezuela is not cooperating fully; it is that Venezuela is not cooperating at all.

Disconcerting was the testimony we heard from the State Department that Venezuelan passports can be forged with child-like ease, and that the U.S. is detaining at our borders an increasing number of third- country aliens carrying false Venezuelan documents. According to a 2003 U.S. News report, thousands of Venezuelan identity documents are being distributed to foreigners from Middle Eastern nations, including Syria, Pakistan, Egypt and Lebanon.

We know that travel documents are as important as weapons for terrorists. Mr. Speaker, post-9/11, it is reckless not to view our immigration policy as national security policy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. As mentioned, I chair the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation of the International Relations Committee.

There are several reasons to support this agreement. My comments will be focused on viewing this agreement as a means to advance our struggle against terrorism. Our country is facing deep challenges, deeper than most Americans probably realize.

We are in a deadly serious struggle against Islamist terrorism and against its state sponsors. And in this struggle we need all of the friends that we can get. And Oman has been a friend. The fact is that Oman has been helpful in advancing our strategic interests in the Persian Gulf region. We store military equipment there.

Oman has been helpful in combating terrorism. It has checked the flow of money to terrorist organizations, something we need to do more on and with in terms of other Gulf States. Other major countries use trade to advance their strategic interests. I am going to explain for a minute that China is doing this, and China is certainly doing it also all over Africa. I have been in 22 countries in Africa, and I have watched China do this from North Africa to subSaharan Africa.

Fortunately, there we are competing in trade through AGOA, competing for influence. You know elsewhere around the globe, China is competing for access to oil and other strategic resources. They are gaining political friends.

The difference is that China undermines transparency and the rule of law in many countries. But the U.S.-Oman agreement strengthens transparency and the rule of law, which are longstanding American values.

This agreement is good economics. In that sense it is like the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This agreement will increase access to the Oman market for American exporters of agricultural products, health care and engineering services, among others, but it is good strategy too. The 9/11 Commission recommended that we pursue this type of policy.

It is true that the agreement's economic significance is not that large. U.S. trade with Oman will remain modest. But its rejection would set back an important strategic relationship, one that this and previous administrations have done a very good job advancing.

Let's not go that route. I ask my colleagues to support this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Leach for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, I rise in support of this resolution and to strongly condemn the terrorist attack that took place last week in Mumbai, India.

Last week, eight bombs ripped through crowded commuter trains headed for Mumbai in a well-coordinated terrorist attack which claimed as many as 200 lives and injured hundreds more. Mumbai is, of course, India's commercial capital, teeming with people contributing to India's growing economy. Yesterday, life across that city of over 12 million halted for 2 minutes, 2 minutes of silence to remember those killed a week ago.

The style of the attacks and the targeting of mass transportation share the tactics of al Qaeda and Kashmiri militants, and echo the attacks of London, 7/7, and Madrid, 3/11. The attack in Mumbai took place not long after a series of grenade attacks took eight lives in Kashmir. Tests this week confirmed that the Mumbai bombers used the powerful military explosive, RDX, a weapon that has been favored by the Pakistani-led LeT. LeT has had links to al Qaeda, with a senior al Qaeda leader, Abu Zubaydah, being captured at a LeT safe house in 2002 in Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker, while we commiserate with India, we must also view these attacks as a reminder that terrorism is indeed a global struggle. It is often said that India and America have a natural bond as two of the largest democracies. Today we share a bond of a common enemy: what the 9/11 Commission identified as Islamist terrorism.

Today our thoughts are with the people of India, and I am confident that the aftermath of these attacks and in that aftermath, we will see all the resilience that is embodied in the Indian people.

Madam Speaker, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, I rise in support of this vital resolution in support of democratic Israel, who is facing terrorist attacks on two fronts, from Hamas and Hezbollah.

It is important to have a clear focus on the threat posed by Hezbollah. Former Deputy Secretary of State Armitage testified Hezbollah may be the A team of terrorists, and maybe al Qaeda is actually the B team.

The former Director of Center Intelligence called Hezbollah a notch above al Qaeda organizationally, in part because of its deadly ties to Iran.

Hezbollah receives $100 million annually from Iran, including 13,000 rockets. These rockets, which have rained down on Israeli citizens, are hidden in homes of supporters and in small factories scattered across Lebanon. Hezbollah launches unmanned aerial vehicles.

Hezbollah's TV station, a vehicle for hate which the U.S. has placed on its terrorists exclusion list, has 10 million viewers around the world.

Hezbollah is no ordinary terrorist group. Indeed, Israel is confronting Islamist terrorism's A Team. Before

9/11, Hezbollah was the terrorist group that had killed more Americans than any other. It has support cells in Europe, Africa, South America, Asia and here in North America. Dismantling Hezbollah is critical for U.S. and Israel's security.

Iran no doubt hopes that the current crisis will distract the world's attention away from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Yet today's crisis shows exactly why Iran's ambition must be thwarted, because an Iran with nuclear weapons will be even more aggressive in supporting terrorism in the Middle East and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, Israelis are suffering. Lebanese, some of whom, as this resolution points out, are being used as human shields, are suffering. Too many are suffering at the hands of the Hezbollah terrorists. Hezbollah must be disarmed.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Nonproliferation, I rise today to strongly condemn the terrorist bombing that occurred yesterday in Mumbai, India.

Yesterday, eight bombs ripped through crowded commuter trains headed for Mumbai, in a well coordinated terrorist attack, which claimed as many as 190 lives, and injured hundreds more.

While there has been no immediate claim of responsibility for the bombings, the style of attacks and targeting of mass transportation share the tactics of al Qaeda and Kashmiri militants. While we commiserate with India, we must also view these attacks as a reminder that terrorism is indeed a global struggle. It is often said that India and America have a natural bond as two of the largest democracies. Today we share a bond of a common enemy: what the 9/11 commission identified as Islamist terrorism.

Today our thoughts are with the people of India, and I am confident that the aftermath of these attacks, we will see all the resilience that is embodied in the Indian people.

Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on International Terrorism that I chair held two field hearings last week, one in San Diego and one in Laredo, Texas, on border vulnerabilities and international terrorism.

The unfortunate fact is that we live in a time when terrorists want to hit us as hard as they can. And it is elementary that to defend ourselves against these determined and resourceful enemies, our border must be secure or, as the Border Patrol says, ``We must have operational control of the border.'' We don't have that right now, and we don't have that despite a tenfold increase in what Republicans have done to fund homeland security.

But we need border fencing. And in Laredo, Texas, sheriffs told us of drug cartels and smuggling rings increasingly well equipped and more brazen than ever in attacking law enforcement officials. The Border Patrol warns of potential terrorists employing these networks to enter our country. Last year, it apprehended illegal border crossers from many countries designated state sponsors of terrorism or countries where terrorist organizations are active.

The sheriffs we heard from strongly seconded the Border Patrol's concerns about terrorists crossing our porous borders.

Colleagues, immigration reform must be national security reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional woman from my district, Myldred E. Jones, a resident of Los Alamitos, California, for 38 years, a retired Navy lieutenant commander, and founder of Casa Youth Shelter, and she passed away at the age of 96 on Monday, June 19.

She was a consultant for Youth Affairs for former Governor Ronald Reagan, and during that time, she recognized the desperate need to shelter runaway and throwaway teens who faced danger on the streets. So she cofounded the first adolescent hotline, which quickly spread across the Nation and is now international in scope. She founded We Care and Hotline of Southern California, dedicated to youth in crisis.

At the age of 69, when most people are settled into retirement, Myldred sold her home to finance another nonprofit corporation, Casa Youth Shelter. Her vision and dream of helping children in need became a reality, and the woman who began by sacrificing marriage and children for service to country, dedicated 29 years to accepting and loving and sheltering at-risk youth.

She was born in Philadelphia, the second of four children. She earned her B.A. at Wittenberg College in Springfield, Ohio. She did her graduate studies at UCLA. In 1942, the wartime call to service led her into the Navy as part of the first contingent of California WAVES to be called to active duty. She served with distinction during World War II and the Korean War, rising to the rank of lieutenant commander, and she was the first female faculty member in the Armed Forces Graduate School of Information. She served as assistant director of the Department of Welfare-Navy Relief Society and as the naval liaison to both the United Nations and the American Red Cross. After her military discharge, she was active in the civil rights movement, marching with Martin Luther King from Selma to Montgomery. She also joined with Cesar Chavez on his marches for the United Farm Workers.

Myldred's military and humanitarian accomplishments were recognized by five of our United States Presidents, and I am very honored to stand before you today to remember the life of such a caring and compassionate social-entrepreneur citizen and patriot. She will be remembered and truly missed for her lifelong dedication and service.

In Honor and Remembrance of Colonel Young Oak Kim

Mr. Speaker, this month marks the 56th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War, and I am saddened to report that Colonel Young Oak Kim, an American hero in the Korean struggle, passed away on December 29, 2005.

Colonel Kim served admirably in the United States Army since January of 1941, during World War II. He was assigned to the 100th Infantry Battalion, a segregated unit of Japanese Americans. When asked by his commanding officer if he would like to transfer, knowing the historical conflicts between Koreans and Japanese, Kim stated they were all Americans and they would fight together.

Kim is remembered for the Battle of Anzio, in which he volunteered to capture German soldiers for intelligence information. He crawled over 600 yards under German observation posts with no cover. He captured two prisoners and obtained information that contributed to the fall of Rome. Consequently, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. He reenlisted in the Army in 1950 and entered the Korean conflict with poise and bravery. He took part in the U.N. Forces drive into the north, leading a battalion, and was awarded a second Silver Star and a Bronze Star for his relentless efforts in a series of battles which pushed the final DMZ north.

Colonel Kim's successes on the battlefield came with a price. Both of his legs were seriously injured, but retiring from the Army only energized his continuous dedication to walk on the path of democracy and freedom. He dedicated the rest of his life to founding many Asian American civic organizations and serving on the board of the Go For Broke Educational Foundation which keeps alive the American values of courage, honor, determination, loyalty, and justice for all.

Colonel Kim was the recipient of three Purple Hearts, the National Order of the Legion of Honor, the highest military honor in France, for his efforts in taking French towns, and the Knight Grand Cross Military Order of Italy, the highest military honor there, recognitions that underscore the courage Colonel Kim embodied that eventually contributed to the defeat of fascism in Europe and the containment of communism in East Asia.

There is no doubt that his courage and sacrifice is to be treasured, and sometimes it is through bitter conflicts that the best of our country shine bright amidst the seeming darkness and despair that this 56th anniversary may remind us of. It is through times like these that we reflect on the unity, the unity of our countrymen and the unity between the United States and South Korea, that will lead to better global cooperation and peace in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to join our united country in saluting Colonel Young Oak Kim, a genuine American hero.

It becomes clearer by the day, Mr. Speaker, that we are confronting a brutal, determined, and resourceful enemy: Islamist terrorism, as the 9/11 Commission identified it.

We have seen messianic, violent ideologies before, but al Qaeda and its ilk represent a more severe threat. In today's world, terrorists could acquire weapons of mass destruction. Bin Laden has made clear his intention to do so. It was such a concern that led President Bush to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and Iraqis are better off for it.

We have heard legitimate debate of choices made in Iraq: Disbanding the Iraqi army, troop levels, and we have heard other critiques. Looking back, it is clear that this mission's difficulty and expense were underestimated. Hopefully, we have improved our intelligence. But dwelling on past choices does not get us ahead.

Looking ahead, I don't see how we succeed by immediately withdrawing, as some are calling for. The position that our troops should stay longer in Iraq makes us all uncomfortable. But an alternative, an immediate withdrawal, concedes that Iraq will fall into chaos, because there is no way that the Iraqi security forces could stand alone yet. That is the judgment of our military professionals. So if you are going to argue that the costs of staying are too high, you are obligated to calculate the cost of withdrawing or the cost of what most certainly would be our defeat.

The real world is dangerous, and unpleasant choices must be made. An honest appraisal is that we don't know Iraq's future, but we know with far greater certainty that an American withdrawal would spin Iraq into chaos. Bedlam in the region would likely follow. This outcome would be a stunning boost for jihadists, the forces determined to deliver as big a blow as they can against the American people. We owe our Nation and the Iraqi people our continued effort.

We know Iraq today is a central front in our struggle against terrorism. Al Qaeda has said it, and last week's killing of al Zarqawi in Iraq made it clear that our success there and our success in the high stakes fight against terrorism go hand in hand.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Kolbe, in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, on Tuesday the administration successfully concluded negotiations for the fourth replenishment of the Global Environment Facility, the GEF. These have been long and detailed negotiations that had been scheduled to be concluded last year. The GEF is an important international institution for protection of the global environment, and we should be pleased that negotiations have come, frankly, to a very successful resolution.

The Treasury Department, which conducted the negotiations on behalf of the United States, got, in essence, all of the reforms it demanded. These include the items mentioned on the report language accompanying the bill, including the two major changes proposed by the U.S.: first, plans to apply a resource allocation framework to the entire GEF portfolio of new projects by 2010; second, enhanced fiduciary standards for agents that the GEF works with, including a prohibition of new funding to agencies that do not meet the standards.

The agreement also resolved the other outstanding issues to our satisfaction: removal of language regarding arrears that were objectionable to the United States; a provision regarding expanding the number of agencies the GEF works with; a provision on institutional effectiveness; and a firm target for satisfactory outcome ratings for GEF projects.

Based on this outcome, the United States negotiators pledged a total of $320 million in U.S. contributions to the GEF over the next 4 years, $80 million a year, starting in fiscal year 2007.

I support the administration's new commitment to the GEF, and I urge the chairman to help the administration live up to this promise that has been made to the other donors to provide $80 million for the GEF in the bill that is ultimately sent to the President. The bill before us underfunds this commitment by $23.75 million and, as it stands, represents a 26 percent decrease in U.S. commitment to the GEF.

Mr. Chairman, we engaged, you and I, in a colloquy last year on the GEF, and you committed to work to secure funding at conference for the GEF if it completed reforms associated with the previous replenishment. The GEF did complete those reforms, and I want to thank you right now for your support last year.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona for a response.