Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which seeks to impose a strategy of defeat on our Armed Forces and our country. By binding our military and our foreign policy in a straitjacket, this legislation would accomplish what thousands of our enemies have sought: to force the United States to retreat from Iraq without a plan for victory.

Proponents of rapid withdrawal would like us to ignore the reality that Iraq is but one of the critical battlefields in an ongoing war against Islamic jihadists, against global terrorism, a war declared by the jihadists and which saw its beginnings in November 1979, when Iranian radicals stormed our embassy, took Americans hostages, and held them captive for 444 days.

From there Americans, Westerners, innocent human beings were targeted. Where and when were they targeted? In the bombings of the Marine barracks in the U.S. embassy in Beirut in 1983, in the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, in the bombings of the Khobar Towers in 1996, in the attacks of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and in the attacks on the USS Cole in the year 2000.

Proponents of rapid withdrawal want us to look at the bombings in Iraq in a vacuum, disregarding the similarities to the suicide bombers that have killed scores of innocent Israelis, those who planned and carried out the bombings in London, in Madrid, in Bali that claimed so many innocent lives.

These may not be the exact individuals, nor the same groups, but they are part of a global terrorist network working toward the same end, to destroy and to attack us and our allies.

The Islamic jihadists will not stop their agenda of destruction simply because we quickly withdraw from Iraq. They will, perhaps, stop when they see our nations, our cities, our communities burning, just as the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon burned on that terrible day of September 11, 2001.

They have clearly articulated their goals, listen to their words; al Qaeda's second in command, Al Zawahiri, made it clear in May of this year, and I quote him: ``The empire of evil, the United States, is about to end and a new dawn is about to break over mankind, which will be liberated from the caesars of the White House and Europe and from the Zionists.''

Those seeking to impose an immediate withdrawal deadline are so intent on rushing through this legislation that they appear to have failed to consider the consequences of a U.S. national security interest of what euphemistically is being called a ``phased redeployment.''

How is the strategy of quick withdrawal different from the strategy outlined by Al Zawahiri in a letter that he sent to al Qaeda operatives about driving the U.S. out of Iraq? How would we prevent the development of Iraq into a full base of operations for al Qaeda and other terrorist networks? We pretend to be armchair generals, seeking to undermine the strategies called for by our commanders on the field. But we should not.

Some label the current strategy of failure long before this full complement of units had been, in fact, deployed. But those doing the fighting in Iraq know that we have not failed, patriots such as the Parsons brothers from my congressional district.

Huber Parsons was serving his third deployment in Iraq, this time with the Army Stryker Brigade, when his vehicle was struck by a deep buried IED just a few months ago. His driver was killed, and Huber had to undergo a number of surgeries. I had the honor of visiting him often at Walter Reed. He is pictured here saluting his fallen brothers-in- arms at a memorial service in Fort Lewis, Washington. His twin, Bill, and his younger brother, Charlie, are both currently serving in Iraq, also with the Army Stryker Brigade. They, like my stepson, Doug, and my daughter-in-law, Lindsay, and so many others who are currently deployed in Iraq, are disheartened when they hear the references to failure and consider that the talks of this rapid withdrawal shows a lack of confidence in their ability to defeat the enemy.

Many patriots ask me why the Congress would endanger them and their fellow service men and women by having them engage the enemy with an immediately reduced force. Where, in a region of jihadists, are troops to be deployed to? What Middle Eastern government would want to host a retreating and defeated American Army? How does withdrawal to Kuwait or Qatar, as some have proposed, help us fight al Qaeda in Iraq? If al Qaeda strategies worked in Iraq and forced an American retreat, how can we not conclude that they will also pursue them in Kuwait and Qatar and beyond?

Mr. Speaker, George Orwell said that the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. We should be discussing strategies for victory, not how to ensure our own defeat.

And let me close, Mr. Speaker, by reading the words of General Petraeus in an interview just a few days ago word for word. He said, ``I can think of few commanders in history who wouldn't have wanted more troops, more time or more unity among their partners. However, if I could only have one at this point in Iraq, it would be more time. This is an exceedingly tough endeavor that faces countless challenges.'' General Petraeus continues, None of us, Iraqi or American, are anything but impatient and frustrated at where we are. But there are no shortcuts. Success in an endeavor like this is the result of steady, unremittent pressure over the long haul. It is a test of wills, demanding patience, determination and stamina from all involved.

General Petraeus, as we know, was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to be our commander in Iraq, yet somehow we have become better war commanders than General Petraeus.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) who has traveled to Iraq several times, I yield myself a minute to answer some questions posed on the other side of the aisle.

What we have here is a nonspecific, nondetailed, nothing planned for victory. The bill on page 3, since the gentleman refers to the bill, let's look at it. It talks about a reduction, a transition, a limited presence, a limited presence, again, with maximum attention paid to the protection of our Armed Forces. What does that mean? So you want our troops to face the terrorists with even less protection?

It shall be further implemented as part of a comprehensive strategy. What do these phrases mean? What would General Petraeus do if this legislation were to become law, which it will not? This is not a plan. It says nothing. It is making a political statement.

I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) who has been to Iraq and understands the situation well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume because I'd like to comment on a point that was raised by my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton) regarding the intentions of Iran.

The deputy interior minister for security affairs and the former deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran said on April 26 of this year, ``Iran has long-range missiles that can make nowhere safe for America.''

He also said, ``Iran is able to fire tens of thousands of missiles per day at American targets on a daily basis and, with its long-range missiles, can threaten Israel which is acting as America's'' proxy.

So it is clear to us, Mr. Speaker, that Iran seeks not just to wipe Israel off the map, as Ahmadinejad has said time and again, but to destroy the United States. So is the plan to immediately leave Iraq so that Iran can begin its takeover of the region? Is this in the national security interests of the United States? Is that going to make us safer?

I think that we should carefully consider what will happen were we to withdraw immediately as, it has been called for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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

Generals on the ground were consulted on this bill? Seventy percent of Americans support this bill, support immediate withdrawal of our troops?

This bill before us is nothing more than political hyperbole, partisan politics using our troops as cover, because the American people don't have this bill in front of them. We didn't have this bill before us until just a few hours ago.

Let me show you exactly what the Democratic leadership has scheduled for us to debate, and I use the term lightly. For an entire day, rather than do the hard work of our Congress that we need to do to have more serious discussions on Iraq, on this bill, on appropriations, it's six pages long, six pages long.

It was introduced yesterday, so I don't know what commanders on the field we consulted with. I would be interested in doing that, in finding that out. The first page is the title. The second page, it's a ``sense of Congress,'' language, nonbinding. The third page says ``reduce forces to limited presence.'' Who understands what that is? Certainly not the drafters of this bill. The fourth and the fifth page calls for a strategy.

Yet this Congress already has demanded a strategy from the President, and it is due in September, a report. That's what the Democrats say they have asked for. But yet they are not willing to wait for that report.

The last page is definitions. This is what we are debating today, Democratic politics using our troops as pawns. Commanders on the field who were consulted? Give me a break.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank you for keeping such careful order on the floor on such a controversial topic.

I have the pleasure of yielding 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who has been to Iraq several times, has wrestled with his conscience and understands the situation of jihadist terrorism worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Price of Georgia.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution authored by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Hastings of Florida, a resolution that commemorates the first use of the name ``America'' by European map makers.

When Italian photographer and navigator Amerigo Vespucci, the merchant, explorer and cartographer, set sail on his first westward bound voyage across the Atlantic, probably in the year 1497, he did so in search of a faster trading route to China. But in the course of his travels, he set foot instead in what is now the continent of South America.

From widely published letters attributed to him at the time, Europeans first came to know of the vast continents of this new world, lands that would come to play such a dominant role in the history of the Old World during the next four centuries.

From these letters, Amerigo's destiny as a namesake for our home on the world maps that followed was assured.

This resolution of Mr. Hastings reminds us that no matter where we live in the northern or southern hemisphere, we are Americans, united by a common history.

I thank my colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for offering this resolution.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, over the past 20 years, more than 3 million people have been internally displaced in Colombia, and each year 200,000 more are internally displaced.

This massive displacement is a little-known fact about the long and tragic conflict that goes on in Colombia. One of the goals of Plan Colombia was to help end the violence, violence from that conflict and, in turn, stop the ongoing displacement. Plan Colombia has, indeed, reduced the violence, and the numbers of newly displaced people are down.

For example, according to the Colombian Government, from the years 2002 through 2005, incidents of terrorism are down 63 percent; and for the same time frame, homicides are down 37 percent, along with an 80 percent decrease in kidnappings.

In turn, the number of displaced people is down 64 percent from a high of 424,193 in the year 2002 when our aid program of Plan Colombia started to kick in and to help the situation on the ground. Now things are much better. Seventy percent of these displaced people still suffer from food insecurities, from inadequate shelters, and limited health care facilities.

In 1997, the Government of Colombia passed legislation known as Law 387, to guarantee rights and assistance to its internally displaced population. Since then, the Government of Colombia has expanded its ability to assist internally displaced people, but the constitutional court of Colombia has called the government's efforts to meet the basic needs of internally displaced persons insufficient. This resolution commends the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Colombian Catholic Church, and the Coalition for Human Rights and Internal Displacement for their initiatives in declaring the Year of the Rights of the Internally Displaced People in Colombia.

It also encourages the Government of Colombia and international donor communities to prioritize the discussions of humanitarian assistance and internal displacement with the international donor community, especially within the context of the London-Cartagena Process, which set the scene for an international cooperation, in addition to guidelines and a mandate for working on bringing peace and stability finally to Colombia.

House Resolution 426 also calls on the United States to increase emergency humanitarian assistance and to assist Colombia's internally displaced people in rebuilding their lives in a dignified, safe and sustainable manner.

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

Madam Speaker, I recognize Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania for such time as he may consume, the cosponsor of this 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 rise today in strong support of House Resolution 467, which condemns the decision by the leadership of the University and College Union of the United Kingdom to support a boycott of Israeli academia.

This is not the first time, Madam Speaker, that we have faced such a challenge from the fringes of this academic establishment. In fact, on May 29, 2006, the British National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education falsely accused Israel and the Government of Israel of practicing what they said was ``apartheid policies'' and adopted a resolution to boycott the faculty of Israel and its academic institutions that do not denounce these nonexistent policies.

A similar resolution in favor again of an academic boycott of Israel was passed by the British Association of University Teachers, AUT, in April 2005, and then rescinded 1 month later by a special council of the AUT.

Fortunately, Madam Speaker, mainstream academics within the United Kingdom and internationally rejected these tragic and derisive attempts to undermine the principles of academic freedom and the free State of Israel.

Make no mistake, Madam Speaker, Israel is the strongest ally of the United States and a true democratic partner in the Middle East, one which upholds the principles and values of academic freedoms.

The boycotting of Israeli academics only serves to demonize the State of Israel. Moreover, the boycott of academic institutions from democratic countries represents a dangerous assault on the principles of academic freedom and open exchanges.

Representatives of the British Government, as well as many university presidents, academic bodies and leading scholars in the United States and Great Britain, have repeatedly spoken out against such campaigns.

I especially wish to highlight the strong voice of support from Donna Shalala, the President of the University of Miami in my congressional district, in favor of this resolution. Let us aid the efforts of these distinguished scholars and officials by passing this critical resolution before us tonight and demonstrating to the world that the United States Congress believes in free minds and free countries.

Madam Speaker, I commend my distinguished colleagues and friends, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania and Mr. Burton of Indiana, for introducing this important resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I'd like to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania for this very important resolution, and I yield back the balance of our time.

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

I am pleased to take this opportunity to rise in strong support of House Resolution 482, expressing support for the new power-sharing arrangement for the government in Northern Ireland.

Madam Speaker, on May 8, longstanding enemies in the violent conflicts in Northern Ireland came together in a historic agreement to put down violence and instead sit together in Parliament. With the formation of a

new Northern Irish government based upon a power-sharing agreement between the unionists and the nationalists, an important component of the 1998 peace accord known as the Good Friday Agreement has been fulfilled, and a further step forward toward a peaceful political settlement in the region has been taken.

Progress toward peace in Northern Ireland has been dangerously unsteady, and it gives us all hope that perhaps at long last the paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland have lost favor with the public and that people are now looking forward to a legitimate political party process that leads them into the future.

While tensions may not have been completely erased and the differences of opinion will no doubt persist, it is remarkable to contemplate that now, hopefully, such differences will play out in the political arena rather than in the arena of bombs and guns.

Madam Speaker, this legislation rightfully commends the collaboration of former Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, whose patience and perseverance through the years even in the face of great odds has resulted in this step forward in the peace process. Prime Minister Blair eloquently outlined his fondest hopes for Northern Ireland in a 2002 statement regarding the peace process where he stated: `` . . . enemies would become not just partners in progress but sit together in government'' and `` . . . paramilitaries who used to murder each other as a matter of routine would talk to each other and learn to live with each other.''

The commitments of Mr. Blair, Mr. Ahern and others appears to have transformed those noble goals into doable outcomes.

Madam Speaker, we all hope for a Northern Ireland that is a safer place to live and that those benefits turn into a prosperous economy for all. These recent developments are positive steps forward, but there is still much work to be done. We should seek to encourage continuing momentum and goodwill and support the new power-sharing agreement in whatever way is appropriate and possible to do.

I, therefore, ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this measure to show our support for this new government and to express our hope that the people of Northern Ireland will at long last achieve their goal of peace.

Madam Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Gallegly, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Europe.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Tim Murphy, a member of the Friends of Ireland Caucus and a leader on this peace process.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Walsh of New York, a cosponsor of this resolution, and a long-time champion of the peace process in Northern Ireland.

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

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

Madam Speaker, for several decades, the world's supply of petroleum has been held hostage to the whims of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, also known as OPEC.

Over the past decades, OPEC has manipulated production to bring about enormous price increases. It has repeatedly manufactured energy crises and imposed embargoes against individual countries for political purposes, including right here in the United States. As a result of its policies, several of its members, and especially their elites, have grown enormously wealthy at the expense of the global economy, which has suffered severe disruption and slower growth.

Envying the success of this greedy model, many of the world's exporters of natural gas have begun taking steps to create a similar cartel in natural gas which has been termed as a ``gas OPEC.''

There are some in the West who dismiss the feasibility of a new OPEC for natural gas, citing differences in the structure of the oil and gas industries. However, Madam Speaker, the leaders of many of these gas- exporting countries do not share those doubts, and several have been publicly enthusiastic about the prospects of this new project.

In January of this year, the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, proposed that Russia and Iran cooperate to establish a cartel for natural gas, prompting the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, to state his great interest in this project. And Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has announced his eager support for the proposed cartel, which he describes as an expansion of his efforts to establish a similar structure in our own Western Hemisphere.

These are not empty statements. As the gas-exporting countries formed in Doha on April 9, 2007, a committee chaired by the Russian Government was established to study the proposals for greater coordination of policies, including pricing that participants confirmed would be necessary for the creation of such a cartel.

The threat is not only economic, but strategic. Officials from Iran have made clear their interest in using this gas OPEC as an instrument for political purposes. Russia has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to use its role as a supplier of oil and gas to exert political pressure on other countries, such as Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus, among others.

NATO officials have warned of the danger of Europe's increasing dependence on Russian energy. But plans by the Europeans to diversify their sources of supply with countries such as Algeria have been called into question as Moscow has actively courted these to secure greater coordination of policies, including pricing.

Beyond Europe, U.S. allies, such as Japan and South Korea, are heavily dependent on imported natural gas. Countries such as China and India are rapidly increasing their reliance on foreign suppliers.

Currently, the United States is largely self-sufficient in natural gas. However, we are projected to greatly increase our usage over the next decades, which could produce a growing reliance on world supply.

If we are to prevent the rise of this new threat, the United States must make clear to these governments who are contemplating the establishment of this new organization that we will regard the establishment of a natural gas cartel as prejudicial to our Nation's security and global security.

We must also develop a joint strategy with our allies and all countries that are importers of natural gas, including by diversifying sources and access to international markets, such as pipelines.

As we proceed, Madam Speaker, we must keep in mind that several gas- exporting countries, such as Canada, Trinidad and Qatar, are friends of the United States. We must seek to enlist their assistance in stopping this menace before it becomes a reality that, once established, may be with us forever.

The creation of a ``gas OPEC'' world constitutes a major new threat to the security and to the economic well-being of the United States, our allies and the world. We must not stand back and let yet another global extortion racket be established. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a Member from a major oil- and gas-producing district.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), who has been a congressional leader and has been very engaged on the issue of energy independence.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my warmest congratulations to Francisco Ramon Angones on the occasion of his swearing in as the first Hispanic president of the Florida Bar and the first Cuban-American to hold this prestigious position in our State.

Francisco R. Angones was born in Havana, Cuba on July 21, 1950. He was the great grandson of Perucho Figueredo, lawyer and composer of the Cuban National Anthem, El Hymno De Bayamo, and came to the United States on June 13, 1961 as an unaccompanied minor in Operation Peter Pan to seek a better life under democracy and freedom. He attended my alma mater the University of Miami where he received a J.D. degree in June of 1976 and a B.A. degree, magna cum laude, in June of 1972.

Francisco Angones is a founding partner of the law firm of Angones, McClure & Garcia, P.A. that resides in my congressional district in Miami, FL. Frank opened the door for future Hispanic-Americans to succeed in our community by being the first Hispanic to serve as president of the Dade County Bar in 1994 and the youngest president of the Cuban American Bar Association in 1982. Frank Angones has had a long and successful career that has spanned many years of outstanding service, dedication, hard work, devotion, and love for the United States. His leadership throughout the past years has helped our community grow to become one of America's largest growing populations and the ideals that it stands for have become an intrinsic part of this country.

Recognizing the need to continue to provide service to those less fortunate, Francisco Angones gathered a group of lawyers together to represent Cuban refugees who suffered from less adequate legal representation at Guantanamo Bay. For this act, the group received the Florida Bar Pro Bono Service Award.

I have known the Angones family for over 20 years and I stand by his wife Georgie and son Frank, Jr. to celebrate their father's many accomplishments. He has left a legacy that others will continue to follow for years to come and I am proud to recognize Frank Angones for his tireless dedication to the judicial process and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Frank on his wonderful service to the community.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment put forth about by my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), which would overturn a long-standing bipartisan moratorium on new gas drilling.

Under Mr. Peterson's amendment, we could see drilling for natural gas as close as 25 miles from our precious coastlines. Despite claims by its supporters, the Peterson amendment is not a viable short-term nor long-term solution to our energy needs. Instead, this proposal could damage sensitive habitats and undermine the economic future of our coastal towns and cities.

In my own congressional district, I am privileged to represent such underwater treasures as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, the most extensive living coral reef system in the Continental United States.

In addition to its aesthetic value, this marine ecosystem also supports tourism and commercial fishing, the economic livelihood of the Florida Keys. Any offshore oil drilling near this area could place thousands of rare and vulnerable marine plant species in harm's way and could potentially cripple the local economy.

Furthermore, drilling structures along the gulf coast would be located in the middle of hurricane alley. Proponents of this amendment say that current production methods safeguard against any environmental damage resulting from a tropical storm or a hurricane. Mr. Chairman, as many of us know firsthand, sadly, there is no such thing as being hurricane proof. Given the scientific likelihood for stronger and more frequent storms in the gulf and along our Atlantic coast, offshore oil drilling presents a sizable risk of onshore damage and water pollution in the event of the next big one.

I encourage my colleagues' help in making sure that we can protect Florida's coastline as well as our Nation's ecosystem by voting ``no'' on the Peterson amendment.

My Florida colleague, my good friend (Mr. Mica), who, as he states, favors drilling even in the Everglades, says that it is fear versus facts. Well, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the Florida Keys depends on the 4 million tourists who come to the area every year for its economic livelihood. The debate is not about fear. It is about economic reality. Our coastal towns and cities will be devastated financially with the adoption of the Peterson amendment.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Peterson amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I fully support the amendment offered by my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). This amendment gives vital assistance for demining, counterterrorism, rule of law programs, funding for Iraq military training and international human rights. We must remain committed to assisting the development of Iraq into a nation that is capable of governing itself, sustaining itself, defending itself and independently taking all necessary actions to root out terrorists and militias that seek to undermine the transition to a free and sovereign Iraqi Government, continue to promote democracy and the rule of law, continue to provide necessary services to the people of Iraq and maintain the authority of the Government of Iraq in all parts of its national territory.

My colleagues seek to cut integral components of our effort for cooperation and coordination with Iraqi leaders. Mr. Wolf's amendment correctly is aimed at strengthening the Iraqi Government to make sure that that nation can truly become self-reliant and stable, and not count on the U.S. as a blank check any longer.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I want to begin by thanking Chairman Lowey, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Obey, and Mr. Lewis for their great cooperation and working with me to find an acceptable compromise on the important issues in this amendment. I am grateful for their agreement to support the amendment text before us today.

This amendment serves two basic purposes. First, it seeks to restore funding for two initiatives: it restores funding for the U.N. Democracy Fund at the administration's requested $14 million level, which had been zeroed out in the committee report.

The Democracy Fund, an initiative proposed by President Bush in 2004, increases cooperation between democratic countries and supports new and transitional democracies. It has been successful in making grants to programs in more than 100 countries around the world to support civil education, voter registration, access to information, and democratic dialogue.

In recent weeks, I have been working with the chairman of Foreign Affairs, Chairman Lantos, and his staff to ensure that a $14 million authorization for the Democracy Fund stays intact in preconference meetings with the Senate on H.R. 1 and H.R. 982, the Advanced Democracy Act.

I am glad that this amendment provides us with another opportunity to continue our bipartisan support for this critical work. The amendment also would restore $6 million out of the $10 million requested by the administration for the U.N. Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative.

This initiative, modeled on the Democracy Fund, is designed as a voluntarily funded, freestanding trust that will make technical assistance grants to promote positive environments for business and innovation around the world.

Second, in addition to restoring those deleted funds, this amendment will strike $20 million from the proposed U.S. contributions to the U.N. Development Program. The past 6 months have brought a series of very serious revelations and questions about the UNDP activities in North Korea, Mr. Chairman, a rogue regime under sanctions by the U.N. Security Council.

While we appreciate the fact that the program has been terminated in North Korea, there has not been sufficient investigation and cooperation from UNDP in answering questions that bear on the fundamental issues that are of national security interest to the United States.

The $20 million cut proposed in my amendment will send a clear signal about our demands and expectations for greater transparency and accountability from the United Nations Development Program while also continuing to make a substantial contribution to UNDP's core programs.

Again I thank my colleagues for their bipartisan support for this important amendment.

I yield to the chairwoman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend Congressman Smith of New Jersey and Mr. Stupak, which seeks to restore the Mexico City Policy. It is a longstanding guideline for receiving U.S. family planning assistance.

This policy, as we know, prevents U.S. funding for foreign nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. This standard is consistent with our domestic policy, as regulations prohibit taxpayer dollars from programs that support abortion as a method of family planning.

The Mexico City Policy applies the same standard of domestic funding to global family planning, and therefore reinforces the belief that the fundamental goal of family planning programs should be to reduce abortions. By eliminating the Mexico City Policy, we are devaluing the importance of other preventative methods of family planning.

As the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I am seriously concerned about the effect that such a policy change would have on our ability to protect the respect for innocent human life and human rights worldwide.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentlelady from New York, the chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Lowey, and my dear friend from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, for agreeing to accept this amendment and for their support and their leadership on this and other human rights issues.

I also want to recognize my good friends, my esteemed colleagues who joined me in offering this amendment: Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Stearns, Mr. McCaul, and Judge Poe.

This amendment makes clear that the United States will not spend millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to support the travesty of the U.N. Human Rights Council, more appropriately named the Human Wrongs Council. It does not cut off U.S. contributions to the U.N. regular budget, but actually prohibits them from being used to support the Council in any way.

Two days ago the so-called U.N. Human Rights Council celebrated its first birthday by giving gifts to repressive dictators and Islamic radicals, by halting unfinished investigations into human rights conditions in Cuba and Belarus, and creating a permanent agenda item relating to Israel.

The actions against Israel took place as news reports documented the horrific actions by Hamas against innocent Palestinians, including those in Gaza clamoring to enter Israel. The Council has been fatally flawed from its inception in the year 2006, and has proven even more problematic than the already discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission that it was designated to replace.

Instead of becoming part of the solution, Mr. Chairman, the United Nations Human Rights Council continues to perpetuate intolerance, serving as a forum for hateful attacks against Israel by some of the worst violators of human rights.

To cite just one of many examples, the Iranian representative to the Human Rights Council stated on December 12 of last year: ``There is an Israeli holocaust against Palestinian people here on a daily basis for more than 60 years, which was already noted by three special sessions.'' This is a human rights activist?

In contrast, the Council has failed to condemn the genocide in Darfur, has failed to condemn the sprawling gulag in North Korea, has failed to condemn the political and human rights daily abuses in China and the bloody repression in Burma and Zimbabwe.

Simply put, the U.N. Human Rights Council is a failure. We were right to refuse to dignify this poisonous talk-shop with our membership, and we must refuse to support it with our tax dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who has taken for many years a leadership substance on this issue.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my support to the U.S. Coast Guard and our efforts to modernize their fleet. The brave men and women of our Coast Guard deserve the resources they need in order to carry out their mission. We need to support funding for the many programs aimed at strengthening our drug interdiction and refugee recovery efforts, much of which can be accomplished by ensuring that the necessary funds are dedicated towards the Deepwater acquisition program. Nearly a decade ago, the Coast Guard initiated a multi-billion dollar effort to modernize its aging assets. However, due to serious gaps in funding and a lack of program accountability this effort has fallen short of its goals thus far. Many problems have been raised, however reforms have been made, and yet much more needs to be done. Amidst such controversy, let us not forget the crucial role the Coast Guard plays in ensuring both public safety and national security.

The Coast Guard has a critical role in our struggle to eliminate drug trafficking that is frequently used to finance global terrorist organizations in their war against freedom and democracy. Earlier this year our Coast Guard, working in conjunction with the Drug Enforcement Administration, seized in one raid nearly 20 tons of cocaine with an estimated value of $300 million. This was a tremendous victory in our War on Drugs and our battle against terrorists and their financiers, especially considering the deep water cutter used in the seizure was an antiquated, 40-year-old cutter. However, victories of this sort will become increasingly difficult if we are not able to modernize our fleet and aircraft to keep up with the technology used by terrorists and drug lords. We must support increased funding to ensure our Coast Guard has the resources needed to efficiently and effectively perform their mission.

As noted by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Committee report: the Coast Guard is currently operating at a 25- percent deficit of its patrol boat mission hours. This level of insufficient mission hours will be further magnified as our Navy will be reducing the 179-foot patrol boats currently being used by the Coast Guard, from five to three.

With a reduction of two patrol boats, the gap of mission hours will be increased by another 5,000 hours. With a discrepancy this large, we are leaving our waters dangerously unpatrolled; thereby creating an open playground for narcotraffickers. This is not an acceptable option for the rest of the country, but this is especially disturbing to the Citizens of South Florida, who rely on the Coast Guard to protect and their economic viability and security. I commend the men and women who serve in our Coast Guard for their diligence and dedication to continue to secure and protect our ports, inland waterways, coasts, and international waters. In my congressional district, I am privileged to have two Coast Guard Sectors that patrol the waters of South Florida: Sector Key West and Sector Miami. I know the good work these individuals are involved in and I deeply appreciate the dangerous work they do to maintain the safety and security on our waterways. The efforts of these brave men and women have saved countless lives and greatly enhanced our national security. We cannot let them do their jobs without the tools necessary to keep them safe as they work to keep our country safe.

Offered By: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen

Amendment No. 53: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen

Amendment No. 54: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen

Amendment No. 9: Page 72, line 5, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(increased by $24,000,000) (reduced

by $34,700,000)''.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, it's a joy to bring another truly bipartisan bill to the floor, thanks to the very able and skilled leadership of Chairman Lantos of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

This bill, as amended, Mr. Speaker, is a version of the original introduced by our esteemed Chairman Lantos and contains several new and important provisions that I would like to explain today.

The first of these addresses the supposed right of all countries to manufacture their own nuclear fuel through enrichment or repossessing.

The central problem of this assertion, Mr. Speaker, is that there's very little difference, as we know, in the technology that is used for civilian or for military purposes. So countries such as Iran, which are undoubtedly trying to acquire nuclear weapons, can innocently claim to be establishing a legitimate civilian nuclear program, a claim which can be virtually impossible for the outside world to disprove. For this reason, the acquisition of a similar capability by more and more countries, for whatever reason, means that the technology and the infrastructure needed to manufacture nuclear weapons will expand as well.

The continued spread of this deadly capacity poses an existential threat to the United States and, indeed, the entire world. We cannot allow this to continue. Unfortunately, efforts to stop this growing danger are undermined by a common but erroneous interpretation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, specifically article IV, which some assert gives every signatory country an absolute right to enrich and to reprocess.

It is both surprising and disappointing that many of the most ardent opponents of continued proliferation throughout the globe are also strong advocates of this supposed unrestricted right. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the treaty clearly states that the right to nuclear technology is conditioned by articles I and II, which are aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, including the capacity to manufacture them.

As such, it is the responsibility of countries seeking this capability to go beyond mere assertion and adopt measures that will conclusively demonstrate that it can be used only for peaceful purposes. It should not be the responsibility of the rest of the world to prove that the opposite is true. Iran has taught us the deadly foolishness of that approach.

I believe that it is profoundly wrong to hold the security of American people hostage to this flawed interpretation. Therefore, we have a responsibility to the people whom we represent to openly state the truth, that the NPT does not grant to all signatories an absolute right to enrich and reprocess. And the U.S. must work with our allies and others, as Mr. Lantos has pointed out, to ensure that this position becomes an integral element in the global non-proliferation effort.

A second set of changes to the original legislation places conditions on any country seeking to host a nuclear fuel bank, as well as on states that wish to receive fuel from the bank. The most important of these conditions, Mr. Speaker, is that state sponsors of terrorism would be prohibited from hosting a nuclear fuel bank and also from receiving fuel from it. This provision is essential to ensure that terrorist states, such as Iran, especially in their nuclear programs, do not benefit from the establishment of such a bank.

A further provision mandates that both host and recipient states have an effective and enforceable export control program regarding nuclear and dual-use technology comparable to that of the United States.

In addition, there is a stipulation that countries seeking assistance from a fuel bank cannot possess enrichment and reprocessing facilities.

A final set of changes, Mr. Speaker, would ensure that any fuel made available by the bank would be at the current market price, thereby sparing U.S. taxpayers from the open-ended burden of subsidizing the nuclear programs of other countries.

With the inclusion of these measures, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor Mr. Lantos' legislation, and I believe that it will prove to be a significant addition to the global non-proliferation effort.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of our time.