Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Southeast Region of the Boys Town Jerusalem for their initiative to honor Alex Halberstein. I am very pleased that on March 28, 2007 we will express our respect and appreciation for the one of the most outstanding members of the Greater Miami Jewish community.

More than 32 years ago, Alex Halberstein immigrated to the United States. He started working for the Pan Amco Finance Cooperation that is involved in transactions on behalf of Florida/Latin American importers and exporters. Following, he became the head of the International Division and Executive Vice President of Capital Bank. Alex is currently an International Bank Consultant.

Throughout his career, Alex has always been active in community service. Alex gives much of his time and energy to enrich the lives of the members of our community. He serves as a member on the boards of the Jewish Community Services, Florida Friends of Hebrew University; Hillel Council and the greater Miami Jewish Federation. He also serves as a member of the National Executive Board and the Miami Dade County Executive board of AIPAC. In addition, Alex is the chairman of the Florida Congressional Committee, co-chair of the North Dade Campaign, chairman of the Latin America Migration Campaign and vice president of the international division of the Israel and Overseas, and Allocation Committee past treasurer and secretary.

In addition to his tremendous service to our community, Alex also demonstrates a passionate commitment to make the lives of economically disadvantaged Israelis better and their futures brighter. By embracing the mission of the Boys Town Jerusalem Foundation, he enables many young Israelis to become leaders in the fields of technology, commerce, education, the military and public service.

As Americans and citizens of humanity, we owe a debt of gratitude for his invaluable contributions to build a better future for our Nation and our world. Alex is leading an example for others in our community. He is a successful banker and a truly remarkable community leader. But above all else, Alex Halberstein is a wonderful human being.

Without reservation, I support the Southeast Region of the Boys Town Jerusalem in recognizing the great honor being bestowed upon Alex Halberstein and wish him continued happiness in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the House is poised to vote on legislation that, if passed, will cripple our foreign policy for many years to come and place our troops and all American citizens in great danger. It is a bill that seeks to abandon the Iraqi people, that seeks to abandon our closest friends and allies in the Middle East, leaving them to fend for themselves against radical Islamic militant jihadists. It is a bill that provides a roadmap for the insurgents, giving them a detailed account of the benchmarks they need to focus on in order to ensure an American withdrawal from Iraq.

Regardless of victory or failure, this bill demands withdrawal from Iraq. It

demonstrates very little confidence in the ability of our troops to get the job done in Iraq and defeat the terrorists there.

My stepson Doug and my daughter-in-law Lindsey have served proudly as marine fighter pilots in Iraq, and Lindsey will soon head back to another tour of duty in Iraq. They do not believe that you can separate the soldier from the mission. They do not believe that we have an option to simply walk away. Doug and Lindsey and many others like them do not want Congress to add to the burdens and the dangers that they face by legislating restrictions, deadlines and arbitrary instructions that only benefit the enemy.

The obvious danger of this legislation has been demonstrated by the desperate measures that the majority has resorted to in order to overcome fierce resistance in their own caucus. An emergency war funding measure should not be used to pay for programs that benefit narrow, favored constituencies.

I doubt that this ambition by the majority to micromanage the war will be their last attempt. Are they envisioning assuming command and control of the positioning and movement of our troops; of setting daily targets for air strikes; of determining our negotiation strategy with allies and opponents?

Perhaps a war room should be set up outside this Chamber so that they can make it easier to offer instructions on the battlefield.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Payne for his words. I am also pleased to support House Resolution 98, highlighting the life and achievements of the late John Garang and reaffirming the commitment of the House to a just and lasting peace in Sudan.

While much attention is currently focused on the crisis in Darfur and that region of western Sudan, it is critical that we do not allow ourselves to become complacent in the south. After all, it was in the south that over 20 years of war between the government in Khartoum and the Sudan People's Liberation Army left over 2 million people dead and 4 million others displaced. It was in the south that the government of Sudan honed its craft in genocide, manipulating ethnic tensions, arming proxy militias, conducting aerial bombardments of civilians and engaging in forced displacement, mass murder, looting, torture and rape. It was also in the south that a generation of boys was lost, having been forcibly conscripted to serve as child soldiers for the Armed Forces of Sudan, associated militias and the Sudan People's Liberation Army.

Any analyst will tell you that war is a terrible business, and the war in Southern Sudan was no exception. There were no saints. That said, it is clear that without the leadership of Dr. Garang, it is likely that the oppressors would have succeeded and that the opportunity for peace presented by the conclusion of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan in 2005 would have been lost.

Dr. Garang envisioned a united democratic Sudan, a country in which all citizens enjoyed the freedom to live, to worship and to prosper without the fear of discrimination or persecution. If realized, this dream would proffer untold benefits, not only for the people of the south, but also for those fighting inequality in eastern Sudan and Darfur. He fought fiercely toward this end and succeeded in overcoming seemingly insurmountable challenges so that the south could negotiate with one voice.

After years of negotiations and countless failed attempts, it appeared that Dr. Garang's efforts would finally pay off in January of 2005 as the historic peace agreement which would end Africa's longest running civil war was signed in Nairobi, Kenya. His tragic death on July 30, 2005 proved to be the first major test of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan. Unfortunately, it would not be the last.

It is critical that the United States Government not lose sight of the challenges that remain in implementation. Too many innocents have died. It is time for all Sudanese to pursue the path toward peace and it is incumbent upon us to help them on their way.

I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for recognizing the great work that both Chairman Lantos as well as Congressman Gillmor of Ohio have done in paying attention to this issue of NATO.

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to support this very timely legislation. This measure is a further step in helping to ensure that NATO, its member states and those aspiring to join this alliance are united in pursuit of European democracy and security.

Since its formation in 1949, NATO's mission has been to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of its members by promoting stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

The measure before us serves to express America's continued support for these important goals.

The NATO Freedom Consolidation Act should help to nurture all those European states that may eventually join that alliance and give it a sense of common strategic peacekeeping goals, by encouraging them to prepare, assume and maintain the responsibilities of membership.

Specifically, the legislation calls for the timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine to NATO and authorizes security assistance for these countries in fiscal year 2008. The standards for joining NATO should not be lowered in any way and each country should be evaluated individually on the merits.

Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia have been making progress on reforms through their participation in the NATO Membership Action Plan since 2002.

Georgia and Ukraine have not yet been granted a Membership Action Plan, but these two nations are making strides in order to qualify for

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I thank Mr. Tanner for his leadership.

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

I thank Ambassador Watson for her eloquent statements and as well as for her leadership in our Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of H. Res. 149, supporting the goals of International Women's Day. International Women's Day has developed into a day of recognition and celebration of the contributions and social advancement of women.

I want to thank the author of this resolution, Representative Schakowsky of Illinois, for accepting the suggested changes that we had to her base text prior to the introduction and committee consideration.

These very modest clarifications emphasize that we are seeking to promote for women and girls the full and equal enjoyment of those fundamental human rights and civil liberties that are the birthright of all people, regardless of gender, race or creed, not some separate of gender-based claims or a problematic agenda related to abortion.

We must all advance the cause of human dignity by ending violence against women and girls, by protecting their fundamental freedoms and civil liberties, and promoting their genuine welfare through robust educational and economic opportunities.

To the extent that International Women's Day serves those purposes, it deserves our recognition.

I ask my colleagues to render their full support to this important measure

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Thank you, Ambassador Watson, and thank you to the gentlewoman from Illinois for introducing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the ranking member on the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) 7 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Fossella, who represents the families of multiple victims of the 9/11 attacks on our Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), with whom I had the opportunity to visit his Pennsylvania troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the ranking member of a subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am so honored to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to my Florida colleague, Mr. Stearns, a senior member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, a prominent feature of this debate has been two sharply contrasting visions of the future. One vision sees no hope for us in Iraq and counsels that we withdraw, just give up. By contrast, the other mission focuses on success. We understand what accepting defeat means for Iraq.

We understand what accepting defeat means for Iraq, the region and our Nation's security interest. We support modifications and strategy to address the enemy's changing tactics, and we are committed to destroying the enemy before the enemy can destroy us. This success policy is rooted in the fabric of the American character, in our belief in the ability of our troops to achieve success in Iraq and Afghanistan and on all the fronts on this global war against Islamic militant jihadists.

The resolution at the center of this debate, Madam Speaker, lacks hope. It accepts defeat. It opposes reinforcements for our troops on the battlefield, reinforcements that strengthens their capacity to confront the enemy and succeed in their mission.

General Petraeus said that he cannot accomplish his mission without the deployment of additional U.S. forces. This resolution, however, announces that Congress will deny the commander in Iraq the means he says he needs to win. This resolution seeks to transform this House into 435 generals.

What is the next step in the strategy, Madam Speaker, after the crippling of our war effort? We know from statements and bills that have been introduced that plans will mandate the nature and the timing of a withdrawal by placing limitations on the funding of our efforts. A vote for this resolution then is a vote to proceed toward defunding of our troops.

Some believe that the impact of these decisions is confined to Iraq, but Iraq is only one front in the global war against radical Islamic jihadists. This is a war without boundaries. This is a war that poses the greatest challenge to our generation.

I will quote al-Zawahiri in his own words. He describes this fight in this way:

`` . . . Afghanistan and Iraq are the two most important fields for confronting the contemporary Crusader war. Therefore, the Muslim nation should support the mujahidin in these two countries with all its power.''

Those are al-Zawahiri's own words. He talks about the war in Iraq as being central. He added that Iraq ``is the gateway to the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate.''

Iran's leader has echoed similar views. He stated, we will soon experience a world without the United States; and he goes on to state, we must prepare ourselves to rule the world.

The enemy understands what is at stake. We must, also.

Once the retreat has started, where will it stop? Afghanistan? The Persian Gulf? The entire Middle East? Once we have abandoned our allies in Iraq, why should anyone in the world believe when we say that we draw a line in the sand and say that we will never abandon them.

Lawrence Haas, a former communications director for Vice President Gore, stated recently, `` . . . our enemies anticipate that Iraq will be the latest chapter in the book of American defeatism. Our withdrawal will embolden them to push ahead, confident that we

lack the stomach for confrontation, that our commitments mean nothing, that they can win simply by outlasting us.''

A withdrawal in this generational fight will ensure that what is to come will be even worse. While urging a withdrawal, some state that they support the troops. But as leaders of the American Legion and the Veterans for Foreign Wars have stated, you cannot separate the warrior from the war.

My stepson, Douglas Lehtinen, and his wife, Lindsay, proudly served as Marine pilots in Iraq. Lindsay will soon leave for a tour in Afghanistan. Far from seeing their mission as hopeless, far from urging withdrawal, they and their fellow service men and women are committed to victory. They are so confident in that success that they are willing to risk their lives to secure it.

They would tell you that victory can never be ensured but that we can make defeat inevitable by giving our consent. The hopelessness from which this resolution springs is alien to our American spirit and it runs contrary to our history. What Thomas Paine said over two centuries ago stands still today: These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of their country. But he that stands by it now deserve the love and the thanks of every man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered. Yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.

If you like the status quo in Iraq, Madam Speaker, then you vote ``yes'' on this resolution. If you favor a mission of success in defeating the Islamic militant jihadists who are our enemies, then please vote ``no'' on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the debate on Iraq yesterday, we heard many times from some of our Democratic colleagues that they had no intention of defunding our troops in Iraq. Some even expressed outrage and indignation when some of our Republican Members made mention of their plans for defunding the troops. However, defunding plans clearly demonstrate their policy is to withdraw from the global war against Islamic militant extremists by surrendering to the enemy in Iraq.

We are faced with two options in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, to move forward or to retreat. Some of my Democrat colleagues appear to be united in opposing any effort to adopt a more vigorous strategy in Iraq and, instead, are ready to retreat. This resolution is but the first step in that direction.

Despite denials, the evidence is that the effort to cut the funding of our troops in Iraq and, in turn, for all of our efforts there are well underway.

Several bills have already been introduced by Democrat Members to compel a withdrawal. Let me read the titles and the provisions.

H.R. 508, to require the United States military disengagement from Iraq, which mandates a withdrawal of U.S. forces within 6 months of the enactment of this act and which cuts off funding for any deployment or continued deployment of forces in Iraq. Let me emphasize that again. It cuts off funding for any deployment, not just an increase, not just sending reinforcements, but for any deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq, including those already there, and it even limits the number of embassy personnel.

Also, H.R. 438, to prohibit an escalation in the number of members of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq, which states that funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense under any provision of law may not be obligated or expended to increase the number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq.

H.R. 746, to provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of United States military forces and Department of Defense contractors from Iraq, which mandates the beginning of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq within 30 days of the enactment of this act and complete the withdrawal no later than 180 days later. It also prohibits

funds to increase the number of Armed Forces serving in Iraq or to extend the deployment of those already there.

Or H.J. Res. 18, to redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq, which states that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq by the direction of Congress is hereby terminated, and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practical date.

When we offered a proposal to prohibit the cutting off of funds for our troops, that is what we wanted to do on our side of the aisle, a proposal to prohibit cutting off of funding of our troops in harm's way, the Democratic leadership blocked it from coming to the floor. Why? Well, based on the bills that I just mentioned, the only explanation I would think is that they fear that their caucus would indeed vote to cut off funding for our troops and leave them to face the enemy without the necessary resources.

So, within this context, they offer this nonbinding resolution which the Democrat leadership claims to support the troops. But how can such a claim be credible? Because in the second paragraph of the resolution, it opposes sending the reinforcements that our troops in Iraq need to confront the enemy.

Our commanders in the field say they need the reinforcements in order to address the security situation in Iraq. My stepson Douglas Lehtinen and my daughter-in-law, Lindsay, served in Iraq as Marine officers. Lindsay will soon serve in just a few weeks in Afghanistan. They understand the difference between saying we support our troops but we don't support your mission. It is the mission that matters.

Some of our colleagues seek to deny our troops that level of support, that level of backup which could be the difference for Dougie, for Lindsay, for so many others between death and survival.

This resolution seeks to substitute the assessment of the military commanders with the views of lawmakers. We claim to know more than the commanders.

Rather than focusing on the strategic policy issue, the Democratic leadership has drafted a resolution that undermines tactical military matters and seeks to override the decisions of our military commanders and the position articulated by General Petraeus. They do not want to discuss the grave consequences of withdrawal and surrender. They do not want to discuss the nature of the enemy, the Islamist militant extremists who seek to destroy us, who like vultures descend on us to prey on our weakness.

Some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seek to focus on the abstract rather than on the reality. They believe that security will come from withdrawal and surrender. On the contrary, retreat guarantees that the Islamic militants will intensify their efforts against us. All we need to do is focus on bin Laden's own words.

In his 1996 Declaration of Jihad and other statements that he made, he repeatedly pointed to America's weakness being its low threshold for pain. As evidence, bin Laden pointed to the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 because of casualties from the attacks of al Qaeda and its allies. Bin Laden said of our retreat from Mogadishu, ``The extent of your impotence and weakness became very clear.''

Bin Laden and the global Islamic militant network continued to test our resolve throughout the 1990s and today. They launched multiple attacks against U.S. targets with little response on our part. Then came the deplorable attacks on 9/11.

But they won't stop there, Mr. Speaker. They won't stop in Iraq, they won't stop in Afghanistan. They have made it abundantly clear that they will not stop until they dominate the world. Just listen to the words of bin Laden.

He said, ``The jihad in Palestine,'' referring to the attacks against Israel, ``and in Iraq is a personal duty incumbent upon the residents of the two countries alone. But if they are unable to carry it out, this duty is incumbent upon the residents of the adjacent countries, and so on and so forth, until the circle includes all the Muslim countries.''

And to focus on what al Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri said in December of last year just a few months ago, ``Iraq, Allah permitting, is the gateway to the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.''

Or those of Iran's Ahmadinejad when he said in January of this year, ``We must prepare ourselves to rule the world.''

This follows statements made in October of 2005 when Ahmadinejad said, ``Undoubtedly, I say that we will soon experience a world without the United States and will breathe in the brilliant time of Islamic sovereignty over today's world.''

It is echoed by other Iranian leaders who have threatened the U.S. and moderate Arab governments who say that, ``Anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations. They will burn in their fury,'' and who have expressed their commitment to bringing America to its knees.

The Islamist militant extremist network have proven time and time again that this is not mere rhetoric. U.S. allies in the Middle East understand this reality. They understand the critical role that Iraq plays in the global war against Islamic militant extremists.

For example, Jordan's King Abdullah, a courageous leader who continues to demonstrate his country's and his people's commitment to peace, to security, and to democratic reform, summarized the situation we are facing in the following way. He said, ``My concern is political, revolving around Iran, around Iran's political involvement inside Iraq, its relation with Syria and Hezbollah, and the strengthening of this political strategic alliance. This would create a scenario where you have these four: Iran, Iraq, influenced by Iraq, Syria, and Hezbollah, who have a strategic objective that would create a major conflict. Our argument to the United States,'' he continues, ``is that a capable, independent, secure Iraq is the best way of containing Iran. The Iranians realize that the way to have success against the West is by them succeeding in Iraq. So Iraq is the battleground of the West against Iran.''

These are the words of our ally King Abdullah of Jordan. Yet some of our colleagues choose to believe that one can reason with our enemies.

Since this resolution provides no concrete alternative, some have expressed support for new diplomatic initiatives. However, I must ask my colleagues: With whom? Do they propose engaging with rogue regimes such as Iran and Syria? These rogue regimes are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Some of our colleagues may say that diplomatic engagement is the key to our success. But I ask them, how are we to engage our allies in the region to help foster security and reconciliation in Iraq if by our withdrawal and surrender we leave them to fend for themselves against enemies in the region who have been strengthened by our retreat? How is diplomacy to be effective in such an abstract context?

We cannot expect to achieve success if we are operating from a position of weakness.

The so-called diplomatic alternative offered by some is no alternative at all. The resolution before us and the bills that have been introduced is a compelling argument, they believe, for a withdrawal from Iraq, but it adds to a policy of surrender.

Some may try to hide that fact by constantly repeating the empty words that they support the troops. But supporting our troops cannot be reconciled by refusing them the reinforcements that they need or with the retreat in the face of the enemy.

The hopelessness with which these measures spring is alien to our American spirit. That spirit has sustained us through many dark times, Mr. Speaker, throughout our history. This hopeful spirit springs directly from the hearts of the American people who have never given up faith in their belief, in their country, in their sons and daughters in uniform facing our enemies overseas.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of our revolution over two centuries ago when our country faced almost impossible odds and many counseled for retreat, Thomas Payne summoned forth the words that apply directly to the debate in this Chamber when he said, ``These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands by it now deserves the love and

the thanks of every man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have this consolation with us: That the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues therefore to reject this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee, for 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a graduate of West Point.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I could ask how the allocation of time is being handled, because our next speaker I would like to recognize for 11 minutes. But we have been told that we need to wait to even out the distribution of time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve the balance of our time to have it for the further allocation of the remainder of the evening.

Mr. Speaker, my next speaker will be allocated 11 minutes of time, so if this is the proper time to have him be recognized for 11 minutes without interruption, I would like to recognize Mr. Franks, a member of the Armed Services Committee for 11 minutes.

If the gentleman would yield. We have been waiting on our side as well for such a long time, and if my good friend from Massachusetts would allow Mr. Franks to give his statement, and then we can continue.

I would like to recognize Mr. Franks, a member of the Armed Services Committee for 11 minutes, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 7 minutes to Dr. Gingrey of Georgia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to consume the remaining 2 minutes. And I would like to say to all Members that although the debate tonight may have seemed uncivil at times, this is the wonderful process that we have here in democracy in this wonderful country, my adopted homeland. And my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and I disagree on so many issues, and yet we understand that this is indeed the greatest country in the world. We want peace and stability to all oppressed people throughout the world.

I happen to believe that the mission of the United States of America and the mission of the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform is a noble one. It is noble to stand up for freedom and for democracy; it is noble to fight against the radical Islamic Jihadists, who I believe do want to destroy our country, who want to destroy our allies like Israel, and want to destroy our way of life. I believe that the mission is just and I think that those who say we cannot stay the course, then how could they be against the decision of the President to send reinforcements? Because the decision of the President says that staying the course is not the right motion for the United States to make. We want to change the course. We want a new way forward. And the way forward is to send reinforcements to those brave men and women who are wearing proudly our Nation's uniform, who are standing in harm's way, and we want to give them everything that they need to succeed in their mission.

I have been to Iraq as have many Members and I have come to understand what their mission has been and they say, ``Don't just say we support our troops. Say you support our mission. Don't leave us out there in the field.''

And as I said in my previous remarks, Mr. Speaker, this is going to be an escalation and we will soon be cutting off funding for our troops and leave them in harm's way. That is a dangerous path.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our Republican leader, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our Republican whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to Mr. Putnam of Florida, the Republican Conference chairman, such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to Mr. Hunter, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. King of New York, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by House leaders that our colleague, Congressman Charlie Norwood, has passed away. I would

ask our colleagues to join me as we rise in a moment of silent prayer for Charlie.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues and visitors.

Congressman Norwood was a proud Vietnam veteran, and his service to our Nation will be sorely missed. Mr. Deal will soon come to the floor to make a statement on behalf of his State's delegation.

With that, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Hoekstra, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we recognize the Members of the Georgia delegation to make the sad commentary on Congressman Norwood's passing.

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

In this debate on Iraq, we must always be aware that the remarks are not to be confined only to the American people. Our words will be heard not just by our friends but by our enemies also. They are watching to see what America will do. No weakness of ours, no internal political struggle will go unnoticed.

The suicide bombers, the leaders of al Qaeda, the rulers of Iran, many others are listening, seeking encouragement for their fellow extremists, listening for signs of our defeat.

We know from many sources that al Qaeda, the terrorists in Iraq, and our enemies planning further attacks on us closely follow what is said and what is done in the United States and use that knowledge to help them calculate their next steps against us. They routinely cite statements by U.S. sources as validation of their strategy to defeat America.

Let me quote Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of the Islamic jihad, who said that talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel ``proud.'' He said: ``As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud, very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance, this success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal.''

They are looking for concessions of defeat, signs of weakness, and it is within this context that we embark on this debate today.

The question before us concerns not the past but the future. Where should our country go from here? We are not merely debating a resolution, but we are deliberating on our Nation's future.

The war in Iraq is but a part of a far larger struggle, a global struggle, the struggle against Islamic extremist militants. As in the Cold War, our current struggle is one of survival. The enemy does not mean merely to chase us away. The goal of the Islamic extremist radicals is to destroy us. If we run, they will pursue. If we cower, they will strike.

The choice before us is this: Do we fight and defeat the enemy, or do we retreat and surrender? We must not fool ourselves into believing that we can accommodate our enemies and thereby secure their cooperation. We should not believe that the enemies' demands are limited and reasonable and thus easily satisfied or that we can find safety by withdrawing from the world. This strategy has been tried in the past with catastrophic consequences.

Neville Chamberlain genuinely believed that he had brought ``peace in our time'' by washing his hands of what he believed to be an isolated dispute in what he termed ``a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.'' That country was Czechoslovakia, and Chamberlain's well-intentioned efforts to withdraw Britain from the problems in that far-away region only ensured that an immensely larger threat was thereby unleashed.

The threat of Hitler did not appear suddenly out of a vacuum. The challenges that we face today thus have been building for many years.

We experienced the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. The destruction of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and then most dramatically the attack on our Nation on 9/11.

As these attacks built over the years, we did little in response. Our enemies came to believe that they could strike us with impunity and that we would shrink from our responsibilities, from defending our interests, that we would not stand up for our very own survival. They felt safe in planning for larger attacks.

Now our fight is truly one of global proportions. Some may not want to believe it. The terrorists, however, are certain to believe it. As stated by senior al Qaeda leader al Zawahiri, `` . . . Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate, over as much territory as you can, to spread its power in Iraq.''

He continues: ``The third stage: extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before, the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.''

These are the words of al Zawahiri, not my words. And this al Qaeda leader went on to say: ``The whole world is an open field for us.''

What then are the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal and surrender? The terrorists, our mortal enemies, will have demonstrated that they have defeated us, the strongest power on Earth. They will have proven that our enemies only have to make the cost too high for us and that we will give up. The result would be an extraordinary boost to their morale and standing in the world, resulting from such a historic and momentous accomplishment on their part. They will become heroes in the minds of millions. They will be inundated with recruits, with financing, with support of all types.

And they will be eager to go after us.

A leader of the terrorist organization Islamic Jihad recently said of an American withdrawal from Iraq, ``There is no chance that the resistance will stop.'' He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would ``prove that resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States.''

These are his words, not mine.

We know that the terrorists would draw these conclusions because they have done so before when we recoiled in the face of terrorist attacks. In bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of Jihad and other statements, bin Laden repeatedly pointed to America's weakness being its low threshold for pain. As evidence, he pointed to the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 because of casualties from attacks by al Qaeda and its allies.

Bin Laden said, ``When tens of your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. The extent of your impotence and your weakness became very clear.''

These are bin Laden's words, not mine.

We witnessed the consequences of Somalia and the ensuing inaction. However, the implications for withdrawal and surrender in Iraq could be even greater. There would be an intensification of the violence.

As the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq recently affirmed, ``If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.''

Iraq would become, as one of my Democratic colleagues said in December of 2005, a ``snakepit for terrorists.''

Sunni Arabs throughout the Middle East would certainly view the resulting situation as a Shiite victory in Iraq and, in turn, as a win for the regime in Iran. Neighboring countries would likely seek to prevent Iranian domination of Iraq and the region by providing financial and other support, including potentially troops, to anti- Iranian factions.

It would be interpreted as a defeat of the U.S. and would thus strengthen rogue regimes in Syria and Iran. Iran would be free to expand its influence throughout the Middle East, including its long- term effort to dominate the Persian Gulf and the world's oil supply.

Iran's sponsorship of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah would likely increase, thereby ensuring the murder of countless civilians and a further destabilization of countries in the region and indeed beyond.

Let us not forget that Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, twice attacked in our own hemisphere, in Argentina, in the mid-1990s. Let us not forget that in 2002 a court case in the United States found that one of two men were convicted of financing Hezbollah of $2 million in illegal activity here in the United States and that last year an individual from Detroit was charged with supporting Hezbollah financially and was described by the United States Attorney in the case as a ``fighter, recruiter and a fundraiser.''

Let us not forget that Iran is a nation believed to be pursuing nuclear weapons, and thus leaving the region vulnerable to Iranian domination, and that would have grave consequences for the U.S. security priorities.

Surrendering Iraq over to the terrorists would erode the trust of the U.S. in that region and affect our critical regional interests in the entire neighborhood. Our allies, such as Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain and Egypt may become reluctant to continue their cooperation with us, which currently includes providing access to their facilities, logistical support that we need to protect our interests in the region.

The damage would not be confined, however, to the Middle East. Our enemies would be encouraged to join forces in a coalition to directly challenge the United States and expand their efforts to undermine us and our allies.

It is already happening. Venezuela's strongman Hugo Chavez is openly forming an alliance with Iran, and recently called on Iran and Venezuela to join forces to ``finish off the U.S. empire,'' quoting him.

Let us consider the consequences of withdrawing and surrendering Iraq to Islamic militant extremists. As James Woolsey, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has emphasized, ``We have to do our damndest to win this thing, in spite of the history of mistakes in tactics and strategy. The stakes are too high to do otherwise. The whirlwind we will reap if we lose means that we owe it to the world and to future generations to do everything humanly possible to avoid giving the Islamists the encouragement they will certainly obtain if they win.''

Mr. Speaker, this is not just an abstract policy discussion for me. This is a subject close to my heart. My stepson Doug and his wife Lindsay are both marine pilots who served in Iraq alongside many other brave Americans. They understand the consequences of defeat. They recognize the deadly enemy that we are facing.

Lindsay will soon be deployed to Afghanistan, in just a few weeks, where, depending on our actions in this Chamber this week, she could face a more deadly enemy. All of us, all of us long for a world in which the mortal challenge of Islamic militant extremism does not exist. But that world is a fantasy, and that is the world that this resolution seems to address.

Many times in our history we have met with great challenges, and many of them seemed insurmountable. And yet every time we rose to face them, and we prevailed. We are faced once again with an overwhelming challenge, that of Islamic militant extremists focused on our destruction and on world domination. There is no path backward, there is no retreat, because that will only bring disaster.

I am saddened that some in this Chamber have felt the need on this floor to characterize the decision of our young men and women to join the military as being motivated by money, by bonuses and by other financial benefits, rather than their patriotism.

My stepson Doug and my daughter-in-law Lindsay are both college graduates. Doug is a graduate of the University of Miami. Lindsay is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and has a master's in English. They have many, many opportunities they could have pursued. They chose to serve their country, because they and many others are patriots. They did not do it for bonuses. They did not do it for money.

Let us not just support our troops. Let us support their mission. And their mission is to defeat the Islamic extremists.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to Mr. Kingston such time as he may consume, a member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Burton of Indiana, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, and a long-time veteran on leading the fight against Islamic jihadists.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Pence, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, whose minority staff director, Greg McCarthy, setting up the posters, is an Iraq war veteran and a marine as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Royce, the ranking member of the International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee, obviously an expert in this field.

Mr. Speaker, I very much agree, and we have been doing that approach. There are some time restraints from some of our Members, and so it necessitated this change, but we have been making sure that the Democrats could get their members in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), the Chair of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to Dr. Weldon of Florida, a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Wolf of Virginia, the ranking member of the State and Foreign Operations appropriations subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield the 5 minutes to Mr. King of Iowa, I would like to yield 15 seconds to Dr. Gingrey of Georgia to make some remarks.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to Mr. King of Iowa for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a member of the Anti-Terrorism Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, before I turn over our segment of the debate to Mr. Hoekstra of the Intelligence Committee, I would like to recognize our last speaker for our segment, Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania, a member of the Anti-Terrorism Caucus, for 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I would like to call your attention to Best buddies, an organization founded the same year I was first elected to Congress, in 1989. If Best Buddies has one message, it can be articulated by its founder, Anthony K. Shriver, who lives in Miami and has stated ``that every person has a gift. And that every person can contribute.'' This message is emblematic of what makes America successful and, in turn, has made Best Buddies a thriving international organization serving thousands of deserving individuals every year.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank my good friend Mr. Meek of Florida for presenting this resolution for us today.

I rise in strong support of this resolution, which honors the life of Rafael Jose Diaz-Balart, a prominent attorney, an elected official in pre-Castro Cuba, who is also the grandfather, as we have heard, of our esteemed South Florida Congressional colleagues, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart, as well as their two other brothers, Jose Diaz- Balart, a very well known television personality and news anchor, and Rafael Diaz-Balart, a prominent South Florida businessman.

Their grandfather, Rafael Jose Diaz-Balart, was a native of Santiago de Cuba, and completed his studies at the University of Havana with a law degree in 1919. While maintaining his law practice, he was also elected city council president and mayor of Banes, and later as a member of the Cuban House of Representatives, similar to our body.

Following the 1959 communist takeover by Fidel Castro, Rafael Jose Diaz-Balart fled to the United States to live in exile with his family. Shortly following, he proudly became a citizen of the United States. Along with his son, Rafael Lincoln, he commenced law school at the University of Madrid, Spain, and in 1965, at the age of 66, earned a second law degree. He sadly passed away in Miami, Florida, in 1985.

He, like my father Enrique Ros and so many others who fled Cuba due to Castro's tyrannical regime in the last 50 years, Rafael dreamt of a free Cuba, a country where human rights are respected, where political prisoners are freed, with a democratic, multi-party political system that flourishes and a free market economy that thrives, thus allowing the Cuban people and their foreign economic partners to own their businesses and to prosper. None of those things are allowed today.

I am so glad that this Saturday, February 10, the Florida International University College of Law will dedicate its new law center as the Rafael Diaz-Balart Hall. We are also proud of the many accomplishments of FIU, Florida International University, my alma mater, and we think this is a positive step forward.

So I ask my colleagues to join us in commemorating the life of a great patriot, Rafael Jose Diaz-Balart, a tremendous mentor, a loving husband, a father and one of the most outstanding members of the South Florida community, a freedom fighter from his first to his last breath.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on House Resolution 131.

I rise in strong support today, Mr. Speaker, of H.R. 512, the commission to study the potential creation of a National Museum of the American Latino Community Act. And I would like to thank my dear friend, Mr. Becerra of California, for his commitment in bringing this important legislation to the floor. We have been working on it for a number of years. It has got strong bipartisan support, and it has been a delight for me to have worked with him and members of my staff to have worked with his staff as well.

As the Republican lead on this legislation, I am so pleased that this bill will take the next step in developing a plan of action for an establishment of a National Museum of the American Latino.

The commission would be comprised of experts in art and museum administration, as well as individuals with experience in the development of similar cultural institutions. The commission would have the responsibility of examining and reporting to Congress and the President a plan to establish a new national museum.

Even as the largest minority group in the United States, Hispanic Americans, are not fully represented by one of the permanent exhibits in Washington's museums, currently there are over 42 million Hispanics in the United States. Furthermore, the Census Bureau estimates that in the year 2050, the Hispanic population in the U.S. will reach over 100 million.

As we can see, Hispanic Americans are our country's largest and fastest growing minority group, and they continue to expand and contribute to the greatness of our wonderful country.

As the first Hispanic American woman elected to Congress, I am so proud to advance the issues affecting all citizens living in our great country. I have been proud to represent my diverse south Florida constituency for many years now in Congress, and I look forward to a future that is, indeed, bright for individuals across our terrific country.

Hispanic Americans are playing an increasing role also in the Nation's economy and in our workforce. For example, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the unemployment rate among the Hispanic community dropped to 4.7, an all-time record low. This statistic demonstrates that the economic policies of lower taxes and less government regulations are working and that all Americans are benefiting from it.

The great diversity of ethnicities and nationalities of the many people of the United States is what makes our Nation strong, is what continues to be a home for many different cultures; and this national museum will signify our strong commitment to proudly exhibit America's rich cultural diversity.

Therefore, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation to ensure that visitors to our Nation's Capital gain a more complete understanding of who we are as Americans.

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

Madam Speaker, I also rise in strong support of House Resolution 24, reestablishing the House Democracy Assistance Commission for this 110th Congress. I was an enthusiastic cosponsor of the legislation creating the commission in the year 2005, and I am proud of what it has accomplished during these years.

Our colleagues, as Mr. Lantos mentioned, Mr. Dreier and Mr. Price, deserve our thanks for their hard work and identifying candidate legislatures in emerging democracies to receive commission assistance. The 12 partner countries selected so far include nations of strategic importance to all of us, such as Afghanistan and Lebanon. They include the largest Muslim majority nation on Earth, Indonesia, which has emerged from authoritarian dictatorship to become the world's third largest democracy.

It includes countries that have overcome Soviet-era communism such as Georgia, Mongolia and Ukraine. They include one of the world's newest nations, East Timor. It also includes important neighbors in the hemisphere such as Colombia and Haiti and friends in Africa, among many others. To these nations, the commission provides not only technical support, but moral support as well.

Many of us have heard of how much democratic reformers and parliamentarians overseas appreciate the formal relationships with the House provided by this commission. All of us here know democracy is more than just about holding an election. It is also about building responsive institutions that can earn the public trust and the public's allegiance.

To be effective in a democratic context, legislatures must have the independent capacity for research, for analysis and for legal drafting. So the expanding programming that the commission plans to undertake during this Congress is vitally important, Madam Speaker.

I have no doubt that the commission will continue to do great things with the limited resources that it shares with our Committee on Foreign Affairs.

It represents a modest investment in sharing with the people of the world one of our most treasured legacies, government of the people, by the people, for the people. For these reasons, Madam Speaker, this resolution before us deserves our unanimous support.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), one of the co-authors and co-creators of this commission.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), one of the founding members of the commission and who is staying on to make sure that we have a successful commission once again this year.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Boozman of Arkansas, our last speaker, who has made incredible contributions to the House Democracy Assistance Commission as a founding member of that body.

Madam Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and yield back the balance of our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a profound honor to be on this floor following the words of our chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Mr. Lantos, the loan survivor in Congress of the Holocaust, and I echo all of his sentiments.

I also wish to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for offering this resolution.

Although we come to the floor and pass resolutions, and sometimes we don't take the time to read them, I hope that all of my colleagues do read this inspirational story of the Sharp family and the way that they helped so many flee the Nazi atrocities, and I rise today in strong support of Mr. McGovern's resolution.

It recognizes Reverend Waitstill Sharp and his wife Martha Sharp as genuine American heroes. Further, it pays tribute to the Reverend Sharp and his wife Martha for having their names added to the Wall of Rescuers in the permanent exhibit of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on September 14 of this year.

It further commends the organization founded to support the Sharps' work, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, for its role in rescuing Jews and opponents of the Nazi regime in Europe from the years 1939 to 1945, as well as carrying on to this day the legacy of the Sharps by working to save the lives of people in places like Darfur, Sudan, and to protect human rights worldwide.

Furthermore, it requests that a copy of this resolution be provided to the direct descendants of these courageous individuals in remembrance of their valiant efforts.

Mr. Speaker, the Sharp family is an example for all to emulate. They demonstrated unparalleled courage in the face of Nazi aggression by providing relief and humanitarian assistance to Jewish refugees, particularly children, and to establish escape routes that were the difference between life and death for many Jews during the Holocaust. They deserve to be honored and they deserve to be remembered today and always.

Elie Wiesel has said that he decided to devote his life to telling the story of the Holocaust because, in his words, ``Having survived, I owe something to the dead, and anyone who does not remember betrays them again.''

We would be betraying the victims as well as the survivors if we did not also remember and honor those who risked their own lives to save the lives of others. For this reason, I ask my colleagues to render their full support to the resolution before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, again I congratulate Mr. McGovern for authoring this important resolution. And that selfless and giving nature of the American spirit as exemplified by this tremendous family is alive and well with so many people trying to stop the genocide in Darfur and in other dark places of the globe.

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

Madam Speaker, on Monday, January 15th, Americans in my Congressional district of South Florida and across the nation will gather to celebrate the birth, the life, and most importantly, the dream of civil rights pioneer Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. While Dr. Kings' dream has yet to be fully realized, he reminds us that ``Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable . . . Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals. ``

In reflecting upon the words of Martin Luther King Jr., I am reminded of the many members of the South Florida African-American community who led the struggle for equal rights, most notably the late Athalie Range--a civil rights advocate and dedicated civil servant.

As the president of the Liberty City Elementary PTA in 1953, Athalie Range launched an unprecedented fight against the dismal conditions and lack of resources available to students attending local segregated schools. Steadfast in her conviction, Athalie went before the all-white school board, demanded immediate improvements--and got them.

In 1966, Athalie became the first African-American to serve in the Miami Commission, where she fought to improve her community's local infrastructure, reduce crime and poverty, and expand local government services for minorities. In the 1970's Athalie continued to break ethnic barriers when she served as the head of the Florida Department of Community Affairs, and then appointed by President Jimmy Carter to serve on the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Athalie also guided the careers of many prominent members of the South Florida African-American community including former Congresswoman Carrie Meek, with whom I had the pleasuring of serving with in the House of Representatives.

Athalie's passing this November was a tremendous loss to our community, a community she loved so much.

During her decades-long career, Athalie brought about tremendous and positive change, while opening doors for our community, and leading an example for others throughout the Nation.

As Americans and citizens of humanity, we owe a debt of gratitude for leaders such as Athalie Range and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for their invaluable contributions to democracy, equality, and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with instructions.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, since its creation by this administration in the year 2002, the Proliferation Security Initiative, known as PSI, has quickly become one of this country's most valuable tools in helping to stop spread the weapons of mass destruction and preventing them falling into the hands of terrorist countries.

Our PSI partners, working at times with others, have stopped the transshipment of materials and equipment that have been bound for Iran's ballistic missiles programs and also has prevented Iran from procuring goods to support its WMD programs, including its nuclear program. Again, it was PSI cooperation between the United States, Britain and other European partners that began the demise of the Dr. A.Q. Khan network, an action that also contributed to the decision of the Libyan Government to stop and abandon its nuclear weapons and longer-range missile program.

However, despite this extraordinary record of success, some of our Democratic colleagues tell us, as noted in the Dear Colleague that they have circulated today, that securing United Nations authorization under international law would persuade countries that are not currently cooperating with us in the United States to prevent this illicit trade in items of proliferation concern to somehow cooperate with us.

They dismissed a coalition of the willing, on which the PSI is based as an ad hoc assembly. But the PSI has been a success precisely because it is a coalition of the willing.

Countries that might wish to slow or limit its activities have no means of doing so. The fact is that no country that genuinely wishes to cooperate with the United States, another PSI participant, is prevented from doing so. The idea that there is a need for the United Nations to provide legitimacy to the PSI under international law to permit countries to cooperate is nonsense.

I do not share the sentiments of my Democratic colleagues who have the surprising faith in the United Nations' desire to advance the interests of the United States. Whether it is Iran, Syria, terrorism, Middle East peace, the U.N. is rarely a help and more often than not a hindrance to the advancement of the goals of the United States. Rather, the desire for consensus, an agreement for agreement's sake, as a result, is a race to the bottom.

We have seen this with the so-called Human Rights Council, Mr. Speaker. If we allow the section cited in the motion to remain in the bill, a similar result is likely to happen with PSI. Some of my Democratic colleagues appear to regard U.N. authorization under international law as something upon which U.S. action must be predicated, that it is a higher authority to which we must turn in order to secure authorization for all our actions, a permission which may be granted or held as the U.N. sees fit.

We must reject that interpretation. I am certain that many of our constituents do reject it. What troubles me most are statements that begin with the phrase ``international law does not allow.''

We on this side of the aisle do not believe that international law controls what the U.S. can and cannot do, what it must do to protect the interests of the American people. That is why I have included language in this motion to recommit stating that simple truth.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the remaining time to Mr. Wolf of Virginia, a man who understands the failures of the United Nations. And I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this restatement of the fundamental principle upon which our Constitution and the foreign policy of our country is based.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.