Floor Statements

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to thank very much the chairman to-be of the Financial Services Committee for his cooperation in bringing this forth.

And I might say to the chairman to-be that I understand that you are thinking of a theme of being pro-business with an emphasis on fairness. I think that is a very appropriate theme, and I wish you every success. This Congress has a vested interest in seeing that the next Congress works well, so I wish you well.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I appreciate that very much. Thank you.

I also want to thank Tom Latham. Tom is a wonderful friend, and he has pursued this particular measure for an American citizen that fits all of our definitions of a hero. That is particularly the perspective of all Iowans and I am sure all Americans when we think about Dr. Borlaug's career.

I would only like to make one philosophical contribution to this debate, and that is that Dr. Borlaug has been awarded the Nobel Prize for the green revolution, the notion of pure science being used to expand the production of food crops of various kinds to make it possible for people in the world to have nourishment. But it is the same science that goes into expanding biological crops that allows crops to be used for energy, and so the same science that has produced the green revolution is also producing a black evolution, the idea that food can also be used for petroleum substitutes.

We are today facing a challenge of judgment as well as a challenge of new biology, which Dr. Borlaug is also continuing to work in, that there may not be enough crops that go around for both food and fuel. But, fortunately, it is not exactly an either/or; that is, the same kernels of corn can be used for extracting ethanol as well as producing a food additive for cattle. But we are going to have to continue to develop new techniques to increase yields.

That is what is happening in many great institutions in this country, such as Iowa State University, the University of Missouri, Purdue, Minnesota, et cetera, and we are very proud of that effort.

Dr. Borlaug stands on the shoulders of prior scientists. One from Iowa who we are also very proud of Henry Wallace, actually is the father of the movement which Dr. Borlaug pursued. It was Henry Wallace's idea to establish a research facility in Mexico in the early 1940s. That idea was brought by the then Vice-President to the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation who then chose Dr. Borlaug to head this research effort.

We in Iowa are naturally proud of the role that Iowa scientists have played. That role has been played with the help, to some degree, of government and, to a greater degree, of private charity. So this is a very American initiative and a very American scientific product that this body is honoring today. And it is honoring the leader of it, a gentleman who began his young life as many noble gentlemen begin, as a wrestler. As a wrestler from Cresco, a great Iowa wrestling town, Dr. Borlaug competed in the scientific arena where he has achieved as great merit as any scientist in this country in the 20th century.

We in Iowa are immensely proud, and I would like to thank Tom Latham, the leadership for allowing this bill to come forth, and the bipartisan spirit in which it is brought before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1051) expressing support for democracy in Nepal that will require the full participation of the people of Nepal in the political process to hold elections for a constituent assembly and draft a new constitution and calling upon the Communist Party of Nepal- Maoist to adhere to commitments it has made and to respect human rights, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this timely resolution, which takes note of the recent comprehensive peace agreement between the government of Nepal and the Maoist insurgents and expresses the hope that this process will place Nepal on the path of lasting peace and democracy.

In particular, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his thoughtful assistance in this resolution and to commend my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), for his leadership on the resolution and his long-standing interest in the welfare of the people of Nepal.

As my colleagues know, sandwiched between China and India and home to the soaring Himalayan Mountains, Nepal has long been known as one of the most beautiful countries on the planet. A constitutional monarchy since 1990, Nepal has long enjoyed good relations with the United States at the governmental level, nurtured in part by the many Peace Corps volunteers, such as Mr. Walsh, who have so ably served in the world's only Hindu kingdom.

Tragically, however, each year since the onset of a ruthless Maoist rebellion in 1966 has seen this country of 24 million ever more starkly challenged, not only by the insurgents, but by a panoply of developmental, governance and human rights problems that have converged to potentially jeopardize the viability of the state itself.

Most recently, popular anger at King Gyanendra's autocratic actions since early 2005 boiled over in April of this year, resulting in massive demonstrations across the country, and public support for a nationwide general strike called by Nepal's seven major political parties. Despite harsh reprisals by the security forces, the resolve of the democracy movement ultimately forced the King to restore sovereignty to the people of Nepal.

On April 24, the King bowed to public pressure and announced the reinstatement of Parliament. On April 28, Parliament convened for the first time since 2002 with G.P. Koirala of the Nepali Congress Party at the helm of a national unity government.

The King's seizure of civilian authority and disdain for the political parties led them to seek a rapprochement with Nepal's Maoist insurgents, based on their mutual rejection of the King's royal coup. This rapprochement led to a formalized 12-point understanding between the parties and the Maoists, the key element of which is a commitment by the parties, now the government, to support elections to a constituent assembly charged with drafting a new constitution, a long- standing Maoist demand in exchange for Maoist commitment to support multiparty democracy.

Under the comprehensive agreement reached this November, the Maoist rebels will join a transitional government, while their weapons are to be put under U.N. supervision. The new agreement also establishes an ambitious timetable for democratic reform with the objective of holding elections monitored by the U.N. to the constituent assembly by mid- June, 2007.

The Government of the United States has welcomed the announcement of this agreement. The administration and Congress hope this step will place Nepal on a path to lasting peace and democracy. All of us hope that the Maoist commitment to peace and multiparty democracy is genuine, and that they have irrevocably abandoned their stated goal of establishing a one-party authoritarian state.

While it is always prudent to judge those who take law into their hands by their actions, not their words, the Congress is committed to giving reconciliation approaches as a fair and reasonable chance. America fully supports any peace process that safeguards the aspirations of the Nepali people.

As the resolution suggests, this means that violence and intimidation and criminal acts, such as forced recruitment of cadre and extortion, should cease forthwith. Nepali people who have lived in fear and insecurity for over a decade deserve not only a chance for peace and prosperity, but to choose their own form of government through free and fair elections.

America is committed to helping the Nepali people build a peaceful, prosperous and democratic future. I urge support for this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as we all understand, this body is composed of 435 Members, and one of the unique features of membership is everyone brings a different background. It has been my experience here that the Members that have some of the most helpful backgrounds possible are those that have served in the United States Peace Corps, and this applies both to knowledge of the area of the world that they may have served, but also just in general. Every Peace Corps volunteer that I have known that has served in this body has been of exemplary character and compassion.

Symbolic of it all is the gentleman from New York, Mr. Walsh, one of our most decent, thoughtful Members, who served in Nepal, whose leadership on this issue and whose introduction of this bill is so much appreciated by this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from New York, Jim Walsh.

Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my distinguished friend, and I wish him every great success as he takes on the leadership of this committee in this coming Congress. We all have a vested interest in the Congress doing well and the country moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to note that folded into the SAFE Port Act is the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act which is one of the most important pieces of family legislation this Congress has ever considered.

Internet gambling restraints have been under review for four Congresses. This evening we are finally poised to act decisively on this subject, and I want to extend my personal appreciation to the Speaker; to the majority leader, Mr. Boehner; and to the Senate majority leader, Mr. Frist, for their steadfast support.

Companion legislation to the House product was forthrightly led in the Senate by John Kyl of Arizona. Many Members have played an important part over the years in this legislation, particularly Mike Oxley and Spencer Bachus from the Financial Services Committee and Bob Goodlatte and Chris Cannon from Judiciary.

But I want to stress this is bipartisan legislation. The majority of Democrats voted for it just a few weeks ago. Indeed, all of us can be proud of this legislation. It should be considered a significant accomplishment of this Congress. After all, with each passing day we learn of friends and neighbors touched by devastating losses from Internet gambling. Never has it been so easy to lose so much so quickly at such a young age.

As a professor of business at the University of Illinois has noted, Internet gambling is crack cocaine for gamblers. There are no needle marks; you just click the mouse and lose your house.

The reason the NCAA, the NFL and the NBA, the NHL, and Major League Baseball support this legislation is their concern for the integrity of the games. The reason the religious community from Baptists and Methodists to Muslims has rallied to this cause is because it is concerned for the unity of the American family.

The reason we should adopt this approach is that we must be mindful of our obligations to the American family.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I will submit for the Record at this point its legislative history.

Legislative History for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

Section 801. Short title

This Act may be cited as the `Unlawful Internet Gambling

Enforcement Act of 2006.'

Section 802. Prohibition on acceptance of any payment instrument for

unlawful Internet gambling

Subsection (a) adds a new `Subchapter IV--Prohibition on

Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling' to Chapter 53 of Title

31 (Monetary Transactions). The new subchapter will come

immediately after subchapter III, covering Money Laundering

and Related Financial Crimes.

Section 5361. Congressional findings and purpose

(a) Findings. The Congressional findings note that: (1)

Internet gambling is primarily funded through the personal

use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire

transfers; (2) the National Gambling Impact Study Commission

in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit

wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which

represent such sites; (3) Internet gambling is a growing

cause of debt collection problems for insured depository

institutions and the consumer credit industry; and (4) new

mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are

necessary because traditional law enforcement mechanisms are

often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions on the

Internet, especially where such gambling crosses State or

national borders.

(b) Rule of Construction. No provision is to be construed

as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law

or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting or regulating

gambling within the United States. This is intended to

alleviate fears that this bill could have the effect of

changing the legality of any gambling-related activity in the

United States.

Section 5362. Definitions

This defines the term `bet or wager' as the staking or

risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome

of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject

to chance with the agreement that the winner will receive

something of value in the event of a certain outcome. This

subsection clarifies that `bet or wager' does not include

bona fide business transactions such as securities trading or

buying or selling insurance contracts, or participation in a

simulation sports game or educational game. ``Something of

value'' does not include personal efforts of the participants

in playing the game or contest, or points or credits that the

sponsor of the game or contest provides to participants free

of charge and that can be used or redeemed only for

participation in games or contests offered by the sponsor.

Defines the term `unlawful Internet gambling' as placing,

receiving, or transmitting a bet or wager by any means which

involves the use of the Internet, where such bet or wager is

unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the

State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is

initiated, received, or otherwise made. Clarifies that

purely intrastate transactions conducted in accordance

with state laws with appropriate security controls will

not be considered unlawful internet gambling. Likewise,

transactions solely within Tribal lands complying with

similar security requirements and the Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act will not be considered unlawful. Section

5362(10)(D) addresses transactions complying with

Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) which will not be

considered unlawful, because the IHA only regulates legal

transactions that are lawful in each of the states

involved. Also clarifies that intermediate routing of data

packets does not determine the location in which bets or

wagers are made.

The Internet gambling provisions do not change the legality

of any gambling-related activity in the United States. For

instance, if use of the Internet in connection with dog

racing is approved by state regulatory agencies and does not

violate any Federal law, then it is allowed under the new

section 5362(10)(A) of title 31.

The Internet gambling provisions do not interfere with

intrastate laws. New section 5362(10)(B) creates a safe

harbor from the term ``unlawful Internet gambling'' for

authorized intrastate transactions, if the state law has

adequate security measures to prevent participation by minors

and persons located out of the state. The safe harbor would

leave intact the current interstate gambling prohibitions

such as the Wire Act, federal prohibitions on lotteries, and

the Gambling Ship Act so that casino and lottery games could

not be placed on websites and individuals could not access

these games from their homes or businesses. The safe harbor

is intended to recognize current law which allows states

jurisdiction over wholly intrastate activity, where bets or

wagers, or information assisting in bets or wagers, do not

cross state lines. This would, for example, allow retail

lottery terminals to interact with a processing center within

a state, and linking of terminals between separate casinos

within a state if authorized by the state.

Tribal gaming laws are similarly preserved. Transactions

solely within tribal lands complying with similar security

requirements and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act will not be

considered unlawful, under section 5362(10)(C). Moreover, the

principle of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is that state

governments cannot apply discriminatory laws against gaming

authorized by tribal governments within the state. If a state

authorizes use of the Internet for gambling pursuant to this

section and the tribal government also authorizes this,

gambling businesses located on tribal lands within that state

would be permitted to ``export'' gambling services to persons

in the rest of the state, off of tribal lands, if the

``exported'' game complies with state law, pursuant to

section 5362(10)(B). This does not give the state

jurisdiction over the operation of the tribal gambling

business, including licensing requirements, and does not

allow the state to dictate tribal gaming laws. Only the game

itself--including the method for playing the game--must

comply with state law if a person physically located off of

tribal lands places a bet that is received by a tribal

gambling business. This principle also applies in reverse: if

a person on tribal lands plays a gambling game with a state-

based gambling

business, the game must not violate tribal law.

Section 5362 also defines the terms `business of betting or

wagering,' `designated payment system,' `Internet,' and

`restricted transaction.' Several additional terms are

defined by reference to other sections of the U.S. Code.

Section 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for

unlawful Internet gambling

Prohibits persons engaged in the business of betting or

wagering from knowingly accepting credit, funds, bank

instruments, or proceeds of any other form of financial

transaction in connection with the participation of another

person in unlawful Internet gambling. This is called a

'restricted transaction' according to the definitions

section.

Section 5364. Policies and procedures to identify and prevent

restricted transactions

(a) Regulations and (b) Requirements for Policies and

Procedures. Requires the Secretary of the Treasury and the

Federal Reserve Board, in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney

General, to prescribe regulations within nine months

requiring any payment system to establish policies and

procedures reasonably designed to identify and block

restricted transactions, or otherwise prevent restricted

transactions from entering its system.

(c) Compliance and (d) Liability. Provides persons

operating financial systems with immunity from civil

liability for blocking transactions that they reasonably

believe are restricted transactions, or in reliance on the

regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department and

Federal Reserve. Though a financial institution may block

additional transactions based on reasonable belief, it has no

duty to do so, and may rely solely on the regulations to

fully discharge its obligations.

(e) Enforcement. The Federal functional regulators and the

Federal Trade Commission are given the exclusive authority to

enforce this section.

Section 5365. Civil remedies

Authorizes the U.S. Attorney General and State Attorneys

General to pursue civil remedies, including a preliminary

injunction or injunction against any person to prevent or

restrain a violation of this legislation. It clarifies that

the bill does not alter, supersede or otherwise affect the

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; generally limits responsibility

of an interactive computer service to the removal or

disabling of access to an online site violating this section,

upon proper notice; restricts the ability to bring injunctive

cases against financial transaction provider activities.

Internet gambling operators primarily use the resources of

two types of businesses to conduct their unlawful

enterprises: payment systems and interactive computer

services. The unlawful use of payment systems is addressed by

section 5364, not by injunctions. The legislation addresses

the unlawful use of interactive computer services through

injunctions, but with appropriate limits to avoid imposing

any duty to censor or monitor on these computer services.

Section 5365(c)(2) also extends to interactive computer

services the same immunity from liability that common

carriers are afforded when complying with a notice from law

enforcement pursuant to section 1084(d) of title 18 to

discontinue service to a gambling business.

Section 5366. Criminal penalties

Authorizes criminal penalties for violating section 5363,

including fines or imprisonment for not more than five years

or both. Also authorizes permanently enjoining a person

convicted under this section from engaging in gambling

activities.

Section 5367. Circumventions prohibited

Provides that, notwithstanding the safe harbor provided in

section 5362(2), a financial intermediary or interactive

computer service or telecommunications service that has

actual knowledge and control of bets and wagers, and operates

or is controlled by an entity that operates, an unlawful

Internet gambling site can be held criminally liable under

this subchapter.

Section 803. Internet gambling in or through foreign jurisdictions

Subsection (a) provides that, in deliberations between the

U.S. Government and any other country on money laundering,

corruption, and crime issues, the U.S. Government should

encourage cooperation by foreign governments in identifying

whether Internet gambling operations are being used for money

laundering, corruption, or other crimes, advance policies

that promote the cooperation by foreign governments in the

enforcement of this Act, and encourage the Financial Action

Task Force on Money Laundering to study the extent to which

Internet gambling operations are being used for money

laundering. It also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to

submit an annual report to Congress on the deliberations

between the United States and other countries on issues

relating to Internet gambling.

Subsection (b) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to

submit an annual report to Congress on any deliberations

between the United States and other countries on tissues

relating to Internet Gambling.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, let me stress, this bill has strong bipartisan support. It also has significant bipartisan opposition. And so it should be considered in the category of individual judgment, not politics.

On the plus side of the bill, let me note that it does stress sanctions, not military action, and it quite properly gives the executive discretion to lift these sanctions.

On the minus side, and this is the compelling point, it represents an escalation of tension, policy, and attitudinal friction with Iran.

It is an escalation that is guaranteed to fail. You might ask, Why is it guaranteed to fail? It is because unilateral sanctions don't work, and there is no evidence that the other principal parties that are dealing with Iran will follow this example.

We can pound our chest all we want to suggest that a Russia or a China should follow our lead, but these kinds of suggestions from Congress simply carry no weight.

Secondly, no one should doubt that this complicates problems for our troops in Iraq today. That is an absolute utter circumstance that has to be dealt with, and we have to think it through.

Thirdly, this step implicitly underscores and advances a diplomacy- less strategy. That is, the United States of America has advanced a no- talk-with-Iran strategy for more than this administration, for quite a number of years, and the question is does it work, is it as hapless as our strategy towards certain other countries in the world, including Cuba.

In the backdrop is the issue of force, and also the issue of dominoes, dominoes in the sense of decisionmaking. Often policies that don't work implicitly are followed by other policies that we hope will work. If this particular policy doesn't work, do we then have to go to the force option?

There is a neocon desire, as has been written about extensively, to consider the idea of a preemptive strike. All I would say is there is a ``3-3-100'' set of principles that we have to think through.

The first ``three'' is there are three ways of obtaining nuclear weapons: one is to develop them; another is to steal them; and another is to buy them.

If we bomb Iran, there is no doubt whatsoever we will put back their capacity to develop. But it might also accelerate the capacity to steal or purchase.

The second ``three'' principle is that there are three weapons of mass destruction. We not only have nuclear; we have chemical and biological. And knocking back their nuclear certainly will accelerate the other two.

The third issue is the issue of a ``hundred.'' We have the idea that we can do a preemptive strike quickly and it will be over. But the fact is that the other side will respond. They might respond for 100 years.

I think it is time we talk about from the people's House the issue of developing mutual self-interest, not antagonism, and we ought to move in the direction of realism instead of taking ideological steps that don't fit the times.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I would like to recognize Chairman Hyde and the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, for their leadership in improving the Administration's draft proposal for facilitating civil nuclear cooperation between the United States and India.

In particular, I appreciate their efforts to lessen the nonproliferation risks inherent in this initiative and to ensure that Congress remains a full partner with the Executive Branch as we move forward with this endeavor.

Nonetheless, while the issue at hand is a close call, in my judgment this particular initiative does not strike the right balance between two competing American national security interests: the important goal of improving relations with a rising India and the critical priority of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile material in an era hallmarked by the global threat of terrorism. Let me explain why.

There is nothing more difficult than to attempt to put perspective on events of day because so many issues can only be understood clearly, if at all, with the passage of time. For example, if we ask what is new on the Asian landscape over the last several years there is a tendency to emphasize troubling developments: the scourge of terrorism, North Korea, tensions over Taiwan, and America's growing trade deficit with China. But on the positive side little is more consequential than America's deepening ties with India.

The growing warmth between our two countries has its roots in the common values and the increasingly congruent interests of democratic societies committed to the ideal of liberty, social tolerance, representative government and the fight against terrorism, as well as other transnational threats--such as the spread of weapons of mass destruction, illicit narcotics, and the scourge of HIV/AIDS. In this regard all Americans condemn the recent horrific bomb attacks in Kashmir and Mumbai, and we stand with the people and government of India in their opposition to anarchistic acts of terror.

Our deepening government-to-government relationship is complemented by a rich mosaic of expanding people-to-people ties. In many ways, the more than 2 million Indian-Americans have become a living bridge between our two great democracies, bringing together our two peoples, as well as greatly enlarging our understanding of one another.

From a Congressional perspective, it should be underscored that America's commitment to this robust and multi-faceted relationship is fully bipartisan. As underscored by the debate on this measure, there is virtually no dissent in Washington from the precept that India and the United States should become increasingly close strategic partners with compelling incentives over time to develop convergent perspectives on a host of regional and global policy concerns.

By any objective measure, U.S.-India relations have never been on more solid footing. From new agreements on defense cooperation to expanded high technology trade and space cooperation, the relationship has been moving forward in an impressive fashion. On the economic front, America is India's largest trading partner and largest foreign investor. In many ways, however, what is impressive is how marginal, not how significant, is our trade. Economic and commercial ties between the U.S. and India are at an incipient, not end stage, and arguably deserve priority emphasis at this point in our relationship.

In this context, many in Washington and elsewhere around the world were caught by surprise with the Administration's offer last July to extend full civilian nuclear cooperation to India; a proposal which presented Congress with a fait accompli, notwithstanding the fact that implementation would require legislative action.

By background, when Prime Minister Singh was set to visit Washington last summer, the Administration was weighing two policy options to help ensure maximum success for this important summit with the President.

One option would have been to announce unequivocal U.S. support for India's claim to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council; a stance clearly in the interest of India and also compatible with the interests of the United States. Bizarrely, however, the Administration position then and now has been that Washington is unprepared to take a firm position in support of Indian membership until the U.S. achieves certain goals related to UN administrative and management reform, none of which are as critical as the case for Security Council enlargement to reflect the new balance of power in world affairs.

Frankly, I am flabbergasted by the Administration's ideological rigidity, as well as its lack of preparation to support India on this issue. I regard the U.S. position as awkward philosophically, illogical, and incompatible with sound strategic judgment.

Instead of supporting India's aspirations for Security Council membership, the Administration instead chose to peremptorily re-write the rules of the global nonproliferation that have well-served U.S. interests for over three decades.

To be sure, I acknowledge that there are a number of credible rationales for this agreement: to earn trust and goodwill with policymakers in Delhi, and the Indian public; to help accelerate the development of a strategic partnership between our two countries; to promote the use of nuclear power as an environmentally-friendly alternative to the use of coal and other scarce fossil fuels; and to emulate an Eisenhower-style atoms-for-peace initiative.

Nevertheless, as strong as the case for this initiative may be, I remain deeply concerned that the agreement negotiated by the Administration fundamentally undermines the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the linchpin of U.S.led international efforts to stem the spread of nuclear weapons.

Administration officials assert that the exceptional treatment being accorded to India is unique and un-replicable. Once an exception to treaty law is made, however, the door is opened for a whole spectrum of governments, including close friends and alliance partners, to come forward to make comparable claims for special treatment--whether they be Brazil, Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Pakistan, and even Taiwan.

If India were the only consideration, it would be a no-brainer to support this agreement. Unfortunately, at issue is the rule of law as it applies to us and others as well.

In particular a number of other countries, with whom we currently do not have amicable relations, such as Iran and North Korea, can be expected to similarly press the international community to recognize their legitimacy as nuclear weapons states. And if we unilaterally declare the right to ignore international law, other countries, including nuclear weapon states, can not be expected to go along with an exclusive American right to take exception to treaties.

This agreement thus creates opportunity for countries to use commercial or geopolitical rationales to expand forms of nuclear cooperation otherwise prohibited by existing international norms (such as the NPT) or procedures (such as those developed by the multilateral Nuclear Suppliers Group).

For example, in the immediate wake of the President's announcement of a policy shift, before either the Congress or the multilateral NSG could consider the proposal, Moscow moved to preempt Washington by announcing it would provide New Delhi with uranium reactor fuel in contravention of NSG guidelines.

In other words, the mere announcement of an Executive Branch- initiated proposal has had the effect of undercutting the NPT and precipitated another nation-state to implement key aspects of Washington's initiative.

Similarly, the government of Pakistan announced it would be obligated to match any expansion in India's nuclear weapons program.

The reason we have an NPT is to restrain nuclear weapons development. Based on news reports this past week from Pakistan, it is clear that one of the consequences of breaking international law is the precipitation of an arms race on the Indian Subcontinent. But as unfortunate as this arms race is, the consequence of the U.S.-led unraveling of the NPT is the spiraling of nuclear weapons development elsewhere.

Mr. Chairman, in a philosophical context this agreement is a reflection of an Administration approach to foreign policy rooted in the so-called doctrine of American Exceptionalism, which neo-cons do not define as refining a shining city on a Hill but as the right of a superpower to place itself above the legal and institutional restraints applied to others.

In the neo-con world, values are synonymous with power. The implicit assumption in that American security can be bought and managed alone, in many cases without allies, and without consideration of contrasting international views or the effect of our policies on others. Treaties like a Comprehensive Test Ban, which every President since Eisenhower has propounded, have been rejected, as have negotiations to strengthen the verification provisions of the Biological Weapons Convention.

Now the Administration proposes to weaken the NPT, perhaps fatally, which despite its weaknesses has helped limit the number of nuclear weapon states to a relative handful instead of 20 or 30 or even more.

As much as I support the Administration's desire to more rapidly advance a warming of relations with India, I cannot in good conscience support a weakening of the global nonproliferation regime or the breaching of United States obligations under international law. I therefore cannot support the legislation in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman particularly for bringing a resolution about this son of Iowa.

I might just mention, Bob Feller comes from a small county west of Des Moines called Dallas County. My family was originally from this county. This county produced a series of very fine athletes in a given era. One was our State's great hero, a Heisman trophy winner by the name of Nile Kinnick who lost his life in World War II. Another was a first cousin of Bob Feller's named Hal Manders. Hal also pitched major league baseball.

A number of years ago, Bob and Hal visited me here in Washington, and Hal gave me a small gift that I will treasure for the rest of my life. It was a picture of Bob Feller and Hal as ballplayers at about the age of 12, and they were oversized kids on a small team, and across the uniform was marked, I believe, the Braves. And I asked Bob Feller, what was the background of this little league team? And Bob said, you know, we lived kind of in the country, we didn't have a team, so our two fathers who were brothers-in-law started this team. And I said to Bob, well, what would have happened if your father and your uncle didn't start this team? And he said, well, I never would have pitched ball again.

And it is kind of a beautiful story for all of us, because what he was saying was that Bob Feller would not be Bob Feller if he didn't have a father who dedicated some time to starting a little league baseball team. And that is really the American system, the American dream, the American family. I think we give honor to Bob because we give honor not just to a great athlete, but to the idea of sport and to the idea and the ideals of American competition, which he has always reflected the best of. I thank you, Steve, for this moment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House of the passing of one of lowa's most distinguished leaders of the 20th century, Seeley Lodwick.

Seeley's was a life of public service--a Marine in the greatest war in human history; a farm leader during the greatest era of innovation and change in agriculture; a public servant who served in both our State and national capitols; and a political activist who helped elect presidents and legislators.

Seeley will be remembered as a gentleman of the soil, a son of Iowa, a true friend.

Seeley's passing leaves a gap in all of our lives, for his wife Pat particularly because no marriage could be closer; ours because no friend could be more counted upon for trusted support and sage advice.

He will be much missed because he stood so steadfastly for the values in American politics that seems so forgotten--loyalty, decency, respect.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 911) expressing sympathy for the people of India in the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai on July 11, 2006, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 911.

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

At the outset, let me acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Crowley in sponsoring this important and timely resolution, as well as that of the current cochairs of the India Caucus, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Ackerman, as well as the leadership of Mr. Hyde and, of course, Mr. Lantos, the distinguished ranking member.

I would also like to express appreciation to House leadership for scheduling floor time today for this measure.

On July 11, 2006, more than 200 people were killed and over 700 others injured in seven bomb blasts that targeted several locations on the local railway network in Mumbai, India's commercial capital during evening rush hour. Meanwhile, earlier that same day, grenade attacks in Srinagar, Kashmir targeted tourists, killing eight innocent civilians and wounding over 40 more.

Although the motivations behind this attack are still a bit vague, previous attacks have been designed to provoke communal conflict and to disrupt the Indian economy. However, India's multicultural and multiethnic democracy is enormously resilient, and the warped schemes of those who planned and executed these attacks have so far, thankfully, come to naught.

Mr. Speaker, it is self-evident that these brutal terrorist attacks are an affront to the world community, and they have, appropriately, been thoroughly and unequivocally condemned by leaders and ordinary citizens around the globe.

For example, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, President and Mrs. Bush issued a statement on behalf of the American people expressing their deepest condolences to the friends and families of the victims.

The President spoke for all Americans when he noted that ``The United States stands with the people and the Government of India and condemns in the strongest terms these atrocities which were committed against innocent people as they went about their daily lives. Such acts only strengthen the resolve of the international community to stand united against terrorism and to declare unequivocally that there is no justification for the vicious murder of innocent people,'' said President and Mrs. Bush.

More recently on July 17, representatives at the Group of Eight Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia also condemned these ``barbaric terrorist acts'' and emphasized their unity with India in a common resolve to intensify efforts to combat anarchistic acts of terrorism and uphold the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, tribute must be paid to the people of Mumbai who not only responded with great compassion to families of those who were killed and injured in the attacks, but who demonstrated such courage and resolve in almost immediately restoring normalcy in that great and bustling city. It is astonishing that in the wake of these attacks not only were Mumbai's trains running the next day, but millions of its citizens overcame their fears and returned to those trains in order to keep that extraordinary city thriving.

Likewise, at a time when international events seem to be spinning dangerously out of control, tribute must also be paid to the leadership of Prime Minister Singh, who has responded to the attacks in Mumbai and Srinagar with firm resolve but measured restraint as the investigation of these attacks unfold.

Here, Mr. Speaker, let me stress that the challenge of establishing a balance between the two ``Rs,'' resolve and restraint, involves the most difficult judgment call in international relations today. Senseless, anarchistic acts tempt human nature. It is easy to succumb to the third ``R,'' revenge, but not infrequently that is the response terrorists most desire because it escalates violence and disorder.

In this context, it is impressive how historically Indian democracy stands out, not only for its size, for its success in amalgamating extraordinary diversity, but for its origin in Gandhi-esque principles, revolution premised on nonviolence, the Indian term ``satyagraha.'' The power of principled nonviolence overwhelmed the power of colonialist arms.

Today, there are models in the world of military reaction to terrorist disorder. These models of escalated violence are understandable, but it will be interesting to see if the model of restraint being established in India today to these unpardonable acts of violence proves more effective, as well as more humane, than military responses.

I urge support for this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Middle East Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for such time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Royce, also from California.

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the extraordinary aspects of terrorism is that a few can, with relative ease, disrupt peace negotiations between nation- states. The challenge is to see that a small number of terrorists do not destroy the right to peace of the many.

As rightfully angered and concerned as the Indian Government must be, it would be a mistake of historic proportions to allow the violence of July 11 to end the warming dialogue that has commenced between the Indian and Pakistani Governments. There are few places on the globe where war can more easily break out than on the Indian subcontinent. India and Pakistan have fought three wars over the past 60 years, and both now possess nuclear weapons. The will to pursue peace is thus a social imperative. Revenge may be warranted, but real courage rests with maintaining restraint.

Our heart goes out to the families affected by these acts of violence, and our heads congratulate the care with which the Indian Government has refused, to date, to overreact. This Congress sympathizes with our Indian friends and holds in deepest respect the leaders in Delhi who have such difficult decisions to make in the weeks and months ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, the possibility is real that embryonic stem- cell research represents the greatest breakthrough in the history of science. It is, therefore, important that we understand the medical and moral issues at stake.

In 1998, University of Wisconsin scientists for the first time isolated embryonic stem cells in a laboratory. These cells, 30 to 34 in number, are derived from a blastocyst, which is a

group of 150 to 200 cells smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence. A blastocyst, in turn, is derived from a single cell known as a zygote, which comes into being after a sperm and an egg combine.

Blastocysts have been created outside of the body in cell cultures for decades in fertility clinics. More than 400,000 are known to exist in frozen form. Thousands are discarded as medical waste and millions are eliminated naturally every year.

The reason the scientific community is so excited about embryonic stem cells is that they are pluripotent. Unlike other stem cells, they are capable of continuously dividing and being coaxed into forming virtually any of several hundred types of body cells. Health research is conducted in stages--mice before people. At the moment, scientists are encouraged by the results they have obtained from the animal kingdom. Research on mice, pigs and monkeys is so promising that scientists can envision the possibility of creating ``cellular repair kits'' for the human body. If research is supported the regenerative power of embryonic stem cells may soon be harnessed to treat ailments as diverse as spinal-cord injury, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis and heart disease.

Profound moral questions encompass embryonic stem-cell research. A blastocyst, which is subject to scientific engineering on a Petri dish, could, if implanted in a uterus, cause a life to form. ``Excess'' blastocysts also could be adopted. As the father of adopted children, I confess to personal enthusiasm for this option.

Nevertheless, the ethical question must be addressed: Is it more moral to throw away as medical waste blastocysts that exceed demand for implanting, or to allow them to be used by scientists to extract therapies for saving life?

More precisely, which is more pro-life: throwing a blastocyst away in a dumpster or placing it on a Petri dish to develop a remedy for heart disease?

The question today is about science and its promise. Tomorrow, a different set of questions may have to be addressed. Could a mother deny a child dying of cancer access to embryonic stem-cell therapy? Could a son or daughter deny a parent suffering from Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease access to such therapies? Is it not pro-life to save and prolong life?

On most political issues compromise is possible. On ethics, it is not so easy. Indeed, uncompromising approaches to ethics are generally considered admirable. The problem comes when values, as in this case, are in conflict.

Morality is about means as well as ends. For citizens who believe nothing is more important than to protect life at conception, embryonic stem-cell research may be intolerable. For citizens who believe that the prospect of meaningful life begins in a mother, not a Petri dish, the moral imperative of attending the sick and alleviating illness is compelling.

When one group of Americans considers embryonic stem-cell research immoral and another finds it ethically problematic to refuse to seek credible cures for life-threatening disease, the public goal can never be full agreement. But it can be mutual respect.

One approach which this legislation advances is the notion of authorizing federal support for stem cell research involving only those lines derived from blastocysts that would otherwise be thrown away and that were not initially created for the purpose of research.

I recognized that for some even this restrained approach amounts to hubris, to man tampering with nature. But this is what modern science is about: Care, to be sure, must be taken, particularly at this stage of scientific development, not to attempt to clone human life or toy with human reproduction. But careful, moral exploration into disease control is morally defendable. Indeed, for many of us it would be morally derelect to turn our backs on our ailing parents and sick children.

Hence, I am compelled to vote to override this veto.

Mr. Speaker, I hadn't intended to speak during the rule. I

would comment to begin with on Mr. McGovern's point. I think he has a really quite excellent one on the minimum wage. But I must frankly differ quite profoundly with the comments of my good friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee from Michigan.

The public record is very clear, John, and there is no equivocation, no conceivable other interpretation. A bill was brought to the floor in the year 2000, which was brought by Bob Goodlatte, and a great deal of lobbying went into it to defeat it by Mr. Abramoff. It did not get the requisite two-thirds vote.

Subsequently, in addition, the record is quite clear, on three separate occasions, the House banking committee brought a bill out that was not allowed to come to the floor. And there is every indication that it was a group led by Mr. Abramoff and others that blocked the leadership from allowing the bill to come to the floor.

And so I do not want anyone to think and be sidetracked into any other interpretation. This is an interpretation, by the way, fully shared by all of the outside groups looking at the issue. I know of no group that has a different interpretation than this.

Now, I recognize the gentleman has a long-held view about the appropriateness, and it is a credible approach of legalizing gambling. It is not an approach that I share, but it is credible. And this bill goes in the other direction.

As we go down this path, it is important that we all reflect the issues that we believe in from one perspective or another, but I don't think we should misinterpret history. And I know Mr. Goodlatte from your committee has personal scars on what happened from influence peddlers from the outside world that have come and blocked approaches that he has advocated for long periods of time, and I have advocated also for a fair length of time.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Actually, let me respond to that.

Let me respond directly to that. The horse racing provisions in this bill reflect the Interstate Horse Racing Act. To the degree that there is any change, it is a slight upgrading restriction in horse racing, because the new definitional structures put in this bill apply to the Wire Act. This bill does not touch the dispute between the Justice Department and the horse racing community. But it increases the strength of the Justice Department's position in the sense that these new definitional structures that will apply to the Wire Act will also apply to horse racing itself.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/4\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, for nearly a decade, many in the Congress have sought to deter Internet gambling. But time and again the issue has been stymied, often in ways that reflect imperfectly on this institution. But it cannot be stressed enough that from a macroeconomic perspective, there are no social benefits for Internet gambling, and from a microfamily perspective, enormous harm is frequently inflicted.

John Kindt, a professor of business at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign calls the Internet ``crack cocaine for gamblers. There are no needle marks,'' he says. ``There is no alcohol on the breath. You just click the mouse and lose your house.''

These comments could not be more apropos than for Greg Hogan, Jr., a 19-year old Lehigh University class president and chaplain's assistant from Barberton, Ohio. This pastor's son gambled away $7,500 playing online Texas Hold-'Em, then confessed to robbing a bank to try to recover his losses. His life is ruined.

Never before has it been so easy to lose so much money, so quickly, at such a young age. Internet casinos are proliferating. Soon they will be ubiquitous.

In the next 5 years, if Congress does not act to clarify and enforce the laws banning Internet gambling, and if Internet casinos' business plans come to pass, gamblers will be able to place bets not just from their home computers but also from their cell phones, while they drive from work, or from their BlackBerrys as they wait in line at the movies.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for Congress to finally deal with the subject matter. The measure before us, H.R. 4411, is supported by the NCAA, all the major professional sports organizations, from the NFL and Major League Baseball to the NBA and NHL, as well as the financial services industry, family groups, religious organizations and 48 of the 50 State attorneys general.

The reason the sports groups support the legislation, as our colleague, Tom Osborne, so thoughtfully noted, is that they are concerned with the integrity of the games.

The reason the religious community has come together is that they are concerned for the unity of the American family. Internet gambling is not a subject touched upon in the Old or New Testament or the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita. But the pastoral function is one of dealing with families in difficulty. And religious leaders of all denominations and faiths are seeing gambling difficulties erode family values.

It will be suggested in this debate that there is no call to rein in activities of individual choice. But it should be clear that in the history of the Western world, whenever gambling has been legalized it has been subject to careful regulation. This is simply not the case with the Internet. Nor is it the case that an individual's misjudgment does not affect society as a whole.

There is nothing in Internet gambling that adds to the GDP or makes America more competitive in the world. Indeed, if an individual cannot repay his or her debt, neighbors will be subject to higher interest rates. Everyone loses if this industry continues its remarkable growth.

While Congress has failed to act, the illegal Internet gambling industry has boomed. This year, Americans are projected to send more than $6 billion to unregulated, offshore, online casinos, half of the $12 billion that will be bet worldwide on Internet gambling, FBI and Justice Department experts have warned that Internet gambling sites are vulnerable to be used for money laundering, drug trafficking and even terrorist financing. Further, these sites evade rigorous U.S.-based regulations that control gambling by minors and problem gamblers, and ensure the integrity of the games.

Internet gambling's characteristics are unique: online players can gamble 24 hours a day from home; children may play without sufficient age verification; and betting with a credit card can undercut a player's perception of the value of cash, leading to addiction, bankruptcy and crime. Unlike in brick-and-mortar casinos in the United States where legal protections for bettors exist and where there is some compensatory social benefit in jobs and tax revenues, Internet gambling sites principally yield only liabilities to America and to Americans.

H.R. 4411 was introduced to provide federal and state governments strong tools to enforce existing gambling prohibitions. It would crack down on illegal gambling by clarifying that the Wire Act covers all forms of interstate gambling and would account for new technologies. Designed to cut the money flow from gamblers to Internet gambling sites, the bill would enhance criminal penalties for gambling businesses settling Internet wagers with financial instruments such as credit cards, checks, or fund transfers. It would also require payment systems to establish procedures for blocking these transactions.

Internet gambling has become as much a part of the college experience as late-night study sessions and rooting for the football team. Researchers have called gambling online addictive. Players attest to becoming obsessed with it. The activity is illegal, but the law is not being forced.

According to a study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, nearly 10 percent of college students gambled online last year. They play in their dorm rooms, in library lounges, in class. The number of college males who reported gambling online once a week or more quadrupled in the last year alone.

Finally, a note about horseracing. In 1978, Congress passed the Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) to set forth the rights and responsibilities applicable to interstate wagering on horseracing, to affirm that States have primary responsibility for regulating gambling within their borders, and to prevent States from interfering with the gambling policies of other States. In 2000, Congress amended the IHA to clarify that the statute applied to the transmission of interstate off- track wagers via telephone or other electronic media.

The Executive Branch has taken the position that the 1961 Wire Act overrides the IHA, even though the IHA is a more recent statute, because neither statute expressly exempts IHA transactions from the Wire Act. The horseracing industry vigorously disagrees. H.R. 4411 has been very carefully drafted to maintain the status quo regarding horseracing, preserving the ability of the Executive Branch and the horseracing industry to litigate the proper interpretation of these two statutes. The text of the bill is clear: ``this Act does not change which activates related to horseracing may or may not be allowed under Federal law.'' To the degree this act provides new definitional standards, it bolsters rather than diminishes the Justice Department's latitude.

Bills of this nature are always controversial and subject to intense lobbying by powerful interests. I believe the approach on the table represents the only credible initiative likely to be considered in the foreseeable future. I urge support for this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a great leader of this particular effort, Mr. Bachus from Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), who represents Lehigh University.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has been a phenomenal advocate of this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

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

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would simply like to express a lot of personal appreciation to Chairman Mike Oxley of the Banking Committee, Spencer Bachus and all those who have preceded us on this side, to Chairman Sensenbrenner and, extraordinarily, to Bob Goodlatte who has led this movement for quite a long time.

I also want to express a great deal of respect for points in the opposition, Ron Paul, our distinguished Libertarian leader in the House, and Barney Frank, who from a liberal perspective has taken a Libertarian view, have thoughts that deserve great respect; and I have always admired the work of the ranking member, John Conyers, on this committee.

But I want to just conclude with this observation. This is not a partisan bill. It is not an ideological bill. As Ms. Hooley very thoughtfully reflected, from a Democratic perspective, this is a family bill, and this bill, I am hopeful, will get a lot of support from both sides, and it will get a little opposition from both sides. This is for the good of the American people, and in the development of legislation like this, outside

groups do play a role. Sometimes they are nefarious; that happens around here. Sometimes they are high-minded.

When I think of Marty Gold of the NFL, when I think of Cynthia Abrams from United Methodist Church, I think of really fine Americans who have indicated that we should act in this area, and I am honored to work with them.

I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 409) commemorating the 60th anniversary of the ascension to the throne of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. Speaker, last week the House entertained 10 hours of debate on the Iraq war. The unamendable resolution which formed the basis of the debate was a partisan measure crafted to be a simple endorsement of our troops, a subject upon which all Americans are united. But the resolution also scoffed at the notion of establishing time lines for withdrawal and thus implicitly sanctioned a prolonged engagement, implying that it might be considered a 21st century version of Lyndon Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

During the debate, several of us suggested that the longer we stay in Iraq, the greater the prospect that forces of anarchy will multiply and spread, perhaps across oceans. I would like to amplify on this concern.

From an American perspective, the two central issues in our Iraq policy are how best to advance our long-term national interests and how best to protect our troops. At issue is whether a prolonged engagement makes better sense than a time-lined withdrawal policy.

The case for a prolonged engagement involves a neocon objective of establishing semipermanent bases in Iraq and neighboring emirates from which American military power, or the threat thereof, can be readily projected against Syria or Iran, or potentially Saudi Arabia if it were to become radicalized. It also allows greater flexibility in support of the new Iraqi Government. On the other hand, there is a thin line between being a liberating and an occupying power that many in the Muslim world either do not accept or think has been crossed.

Sometimes it is as hard to determine when to end a war as when to start one. It may have been a mistake to intervene in Iraq in the first place, but clearly a precipitous departure after our initial engagement would have been an error. By the same token, prolonging our involvement runs the risk of causing American forces supporting the Shi'a majority government to be seen by Sunnis as favoring one side in an intrareligious conflict. Worse yet, the longer we stay, the more we will be seen as an occupying force, embarrassing to the Muslim world, causing the prospect of a long-lasting conflict between the Judeo- Christian and Muslim civilizations to increase in likelihood.

It is important to give momentum to and solidify Iraqi democracy, but there are tipping points in all struggles. We are at a point where action/reaction engagements could all too easily and rapidly intensify in asymmetric and multigeographic ways if the struggle to build a new Iraq comes to be perceived as an imperial American imposition on Iraqi sovereignty instead of an effort by Iraqis working to shape their own future.

This is why it is so important that we reframe the discourse away from WMD and 9/11 concerns and define instead the establishment of democracy as our principal reason for intervention, and thus the logical basis for disengagement. Now that a Constitution has been written, elections held, and a government formed, we should forthrightly announce that we are prepared to draw down our troops in a measured, orderly way. A hasty departure would be imprudent, but the sooner the disengagement process begins, the better. Our goal may be to fight anarchistic forces over there rather than here, but we must understand that prolonging our involvement over there could precipitate a gathering storm of resentment which could make violence here more rather than less likely.

With regard to protecting our troops, it is impressive that in polling data reported by the Brookings Institute, 47 percent of Iraqis favor attacking American forces, and 87 percent favor time lines for withdrawal. Occupation is neither the American way, nor is it tolerable for Muslims. While precipitous withdrawal after our intervention might have led to civil war and a breakup of the Iraqi state, the logic of these polling statistics would seem to indicate that Iraqis have become weary of and humiliated by a foreign occupying presence.

The rationale for attacks against American forces would be undercut if Muslims had confidence that we were committed to an orderly and timely withdrawal policy. If we do not begin to leave Iraq now that democratic institutions have been put in place, anarchistic acts will continue, and the other side may be in a position to say when we eventually draw down our forces that they have somehow forced us out. Little would be worse for the American national interest or more demoralizing for all those who have

served so valiantly in combat there than such a preposterous claim.

This is why the implications of slogans like the need to stay the course can be so misleading. There is nothing more disadvantageous for our national security or more dangerous for our troops in the field than overstaying our presence.

The longer this war goes on, the greater the likelihood that anger will intensify in the Muslim world as well as among Muslims in the West, including the United States. The recent arrest of 17 young Muslims in Canada is a case in point. From news accounts it would appear that an accumulation of U.S. actions with which Canada was considered complicit triggered perfectly normal youngsters to consider violent and profoundly anti-democratic actions, including a plot to kidnap Canadian legislators and slit the throat of the Prime Minister.

As long as the conflict in Iraq continues and the Israeli-Palestinian issue remains unresolved it is only a question of time before other 9/ 11 type events or series of violent acts will occur in various parts of the world. Bringing the occupation to an end and resolving other Middle Eastern issues will not ensure against future violence but it could dampen the anger of millions of Muslims and reduce the prospect of a clash of civilizations.

The challenge for the administration is to determine when the new Iraqi Government is strong enough to stand on its own. Our presence is dual edged. We have helped train a new army, perhaps erring along the way in disbanding the Iraqi armed forces after the capture of Baghdad. But we also are the subject of anger and humiliation for many Muslims in and out of Iraq. The opposition continues for an assortment of reasons. Some relate to the centuries-old antagonism between Sunnis and Shi'a, complicated by the nationalist ambitions of the Kurds. Some relate to the millennia-old implication of the Crusades, memories of which hang over the Middle East the way the Civil War did for a century in the American South. And some relate to current events--the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation, the occupation of Iraq and, to a far lesser extent, the more understandable U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, as well as problems attendant to the unforeseen-- Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Haditha.

We are in unprecedented times. But there are parallels from recent history that might provide glimmers of guidance for policy makers today. One from the Reagan era that I have always assumed stemmed as much from the President's wife, Nancy, the closet moderate within that administration, as any geo-strategic planner relates to an attitudinal shift away from confrontation to diplomacy. In Reagan's first term he postured firmly in the anti-multilateralist, anti-arms control camp, objecting to negotiations with the evil empire. At the U.N., he ordered a U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO, one of the more financially bloated but least dangerous international organizations ever created. In reaction to a perceived anti-progressivism in his first term, two movements of educated citizens mushroomed in size. One, the environmental movement, was concerned with the confrontational policies of the Secretary of the Interior, Jim Watt; the other, which paralleled it in foreign policy, was the arms control movement. Thousands of fledgling advocates came to support the concept of a nuclear freeze in the context of SALT-- strategic arms limitation talks. This movement gained so much currency that a poll of delegates to the 1984 Republican National Convention which renominated Reagan found that the majority favored a nuclear freeze rather than the intransigent negotiating policy then in vogue.

But the President, in a remarkable policy shift early in his second term upstaged his opposition by out-radicalizing it. Instead of pushing for a ``status quo'' SALT approach which would halt the arms race, he threw his support behind a more imaginative START initiative--a strategic arms reduction treaty--which would reverse it. The implication was a strategic oxymoron: America had to build up military might in order to reduce it.

An inconsistent geo-strategic policy was adroitly presented as consistency. In part because of the wisdom of the policy reversal, in part because of Reagan's unique personal capacity to persuade, in part because the persuader spoke from the bully pulpit of the Presidency, America began to lead the world as a force both of resolve and restraint.

A progressive might presumptuously hope today that on issues as diverse as North Korea, Iraq and potentially the Israeli-Palestinian challenge the Reagan policy-shift model beckons this President.

Since John Kennedy, all American Presidents have been obsessed with what their place in history may be. In most circumstances I cannot envision a more worthwhile or uplifting motivation. I am concerned, however, that an unnecessarily sticky situation may be developing with this presidency. My sense is that advisors are telling the President that his administration will be judged on the steadfastness of his commitment to a policy of continued military engagement in Iraq and, quite possibly, following through with a military confrontation with Iran. But might not the Reagan ``consistent inconsistency'' model be fortuitously adapted? Instead of following one military action with another, what if the President were to commence drawing down forces as democratic institutions take hold in Iraq? And having proven that he is willing to use force--as Reagan proved his willingness to escalate defense spending--the President could then plausibly point out that he is now prepared to negotiate from a position of strength with Iran and North Korea. But for such a change in emphasis--use of diplomacy instead of force--to take place, the administration cannot continue to fritter away time and opportunity. If it continues to refuse to offer the respectful attention that direct negotiations imply with countries like Iran and North Korea, our adversaries could wait us out, or tempt the administration into a highly dangerous confrontation.

The other historical model that gets little attention, except to serve as an apparent warning not to get too involved in African civil wars, is Somalia. Under this President's father, U.S. Armed Forces were deployed in a unique humanitarian intervention. The logistical capacities of the U.S. military were used to bring food and medical help to a war-torn society. This might have been a model of success rather than failure had events in the field not gotten out of hand. But over time, as one administration folded into the next, American forces in their efforts to provide assistance to starving people found it necessary to try to stabilize internal relations and thus do battle with anarchistic elements of Somali society. For many in Somalia this came to be perceived as siding with one side in an internal conflict. The disastrous consequence of becoming militarily engaged instead of simply humanitarianly involved may have relevance in a very different setting today--Iraq. Good intentions and heroic deeds can backfire.

In this context, one of the most constitutionally awkward pronouncements of the civilian side of this administration deserves review. The President and Secretary of Defense have repeatedly suggested that troop-level determinations in Iraq will be made by the commander in the field. This articulation, which at first blush seems indisputedly prudent, is perhaps related to the hammering the administration has taken, especially from supporters in the press and on Capitol Hill of the intervention, who hold that there would be far fewer problems in Iraq today if more troops had been committed at the outset. According to this reasoning, the mistake for any failure of policy rests not with the judgment call on going to war, but with the implementation of the decision.

It may be, as Colin Powell has implied, that once the decision to intervene had been made, it would have been wiser to follow the overwhelming force doctrine that is derived from military history but in recent times has come to bear the former Secretary's name. In any regard, whether or not the commitment of more troops would have made a significant difference in sealing Iraqi borders or bringing greater stability to Baghdad, both the military and civilian side of government have to think through the issue of who responds to whom on troop-level questions.

There are distinctions between tactical decision-making and strategic judgments. The former should be disproportionately military; the latter require greater and, at some point, total civilian involvement. In a historical sense it is worth remembering, for instance, that Harry Truman stood down the most popular military officer of the 20th century when GEN Douglas MacArthur attempted to widen the war in Korea. Decisions to end as well as begin wars are constitutionally proscribed.

The constitutional dimension of modern war making is not as clear-cut as the Founders might have surmised. This is the case because modem warfare, for a variety of reasons, is conducted without a formal declaration of war from Congress and because the law of the land, despite being unlikely to pass constitutional muster if tested in the courts, is the War Powers Act. Whether one approves or disapproves of the decision to intervene in Iraq, there is no question that because of a congressional vote to authorize the use of force, this war is legal. A strike without a precise Congressional authorization on Iran is more conjectural, but the War Powers Act which gives the President 60 days discretion on use of force as well as other war against terror resolutions, the NPT and possible future Security Council resolutions would presumably be used by the administration to justify executive discretion. Others might suggest that lacking an imminent threat rationale, the Constitution would seem to envision the need for congressional concurrence.

As one who is doubtful of the wisdom of intervention against Iran, I was disappointed

that an effort to amend the DOD appropriations bill this week to require prior congressional consent for a strike against Iran was defeated. In any regard, the executive branch, possibly with congressional advice, has two profound judgment calls to make in the near future: whether and how to end the Iraq war and whether and how to engage Iran. And here--based on public commentary within the civilian side of our government and the private observations of former generals--my sense is that it is quite conceivable that a rift could develop between the military and civilian elements of our government which would be the reverse image of the MacArthur/Truman confrontation. The professional military seems far more skeptical than the White House of the judgment of the neo-cons who drove the decision to intervene in Iraq and far more dubious than many on Capitol Hill about the wisdom of a preemptive strike against Iran.

With regard to Iran, I am impressed how congressional leadership of both parties, at least on the House side, remains confrontational. This is one reason I feel that it is important to emphasize the appropriateness of bipartisan criticism as well as bipartisan support for executive branch foreign policies. Partisanship should stop at the water's edge; but judgmental capitulation must never occur. Closed- mindedness is the enemy. Members are obligated to review decisions made and oversee actions taken by the Executive. It is the question of motivation that must be above partisan reproach. The only motivation consistent with our pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution is to concern ourselves exclusively with the national interest. Neither concerns for political party advantage nor individual ambition should play a role in foreign policy judgments.

Over the years I have become impressed by how within Republican administrations there is a tendency of political appointees, particularly in the White House, to advocate confrontation over diplomacy. My sense is that there is a lot of frustration within high levels of the military with what might be described as an immature, ideological machismo among key political appointees. It would not be surprising to me if in the next couple of years it falls to the professional military and career CIA and foreign service officers to raise cautionary flags about various policy options.

In conclusion, as a representative of a State which has disproportionately provided Reserve and National Guard forces for the Iraqi conflict, I am struck by an extraordinarily impressive aspect of America's involvement in Iraq. In one of the most psychologically and militarily difficult settings ever to confront U.S. Armed Forces, the morale of our troops and their families at home has never ebbed and the patriotism of volunteer soldiers has never been challenged. This reflects well on their character as well as on their dedication to duty. There may be question whether intervention should have occurred, but once our troops were committed there is no question that it is in the national interest that they succeed.

What remains at issue is whether longevity of commitment contributes to or undermines the success of the mission; whether IED attacks and skirmishes at the field level escalate or diminish; and whether diplomacy or lack thereof leads to a more peaceful or violent world.

Mr. Speaker, there are few certitudes in these complicated times. Anyone who was not conflicted in the original decision to invade Iraq or who does not see a downside to all courses of action today is not thinking. But I am hard pressed to believe anything except that the case for a steady, measured drawdown of troops in Iraq is compelling. The neocon desire to establish a semi-permanent presence in a divided Muslim country is foolhardy.

It is true that there are circumstances where it is better to fight over there than here at home. Afghanistan is a case in point. But we should not be so naive as to fail to recognize that there are also circumstances where fighting over there can increase the likelihood that conflict will spread to our shores. A decision to prolong unnecessarily our intervention in Iraq could be a case in point, as could a military confrontation with Iran.

There are tipping points in all struggles. The signs are evident that we are close today to a calamity if we do not recalibrate our policies. The irony is that our troops have lost no battles and shown great heroism, but Western occupation is intolerable for Muslims. It is also not the American way. The longer we stay, the greater the prospect that anarchistic acts will multiply and spread, perhaps to our shores.

The issue is no longer, as is so frequently asserted, the need to stay the course. It is to avoid overstaying our presence.

Sometimes it is harder to know how to end a war than to start one. Just as important to think through the ``why and how''' of committing troops to conflict, we must also think through the ``why and how'' of ending an engagement. Timing is a key element of both considerations.

For many Americans, including me, the war in Iraq has been difficult to justify. But all Americans, except perhaps a few who may be partisanly vindictive, should want as positive a result as possible, given the circumstances we now face. The decision to go to war may have been misguided and strategies involved in conducting it mistake-ridden; nonetheless there should be clarity of purpose in ending the conflict, with the goal neither to ``cut and run,'' nor simply to cut losses. At this junction of involvement we should define cogently our purposes and by so doing create a basis both for a viable future for Iraq and for a U.S. disengagement that respects the sacrifices of those who have served so valiantly in our armed forces and those of our coalition allies.

Americans understand that three rationales were given at successive stages for the war. The first involved Iraq's complicity in 9/11; the second was the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD; and the third was the desire to replace the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein with a free, democratic government. The first two arguments have proven frail. The third has some legitimacy, but to many of us it never seemed compelling, particularly in relation to the costs of the conflict.

In any regard, whether or not democracy provided a compelling rationale for starting the war, it offers the most appropriate rationale for ending it. If we do not prepare to leave Iraq on our terms, stating clearly that now that a Constitution has been adopted, elections held, and a government formed, we are prepared to proceed with a comprehensive and orderly draw-down of our troops, we will be viewed as an occupying power lacking credible motivations. When we eventually leave, the other side will claim they forced us out. That is why it is as critical to define the rationale for our disengagement as the reason for going to war. And democracy is the only rationale I know that can be used as a basis for ending our involvement in this conflict with any hope of suggesting a partial measure of success. The key is that we must control and be seen as controlling our own fate.

All Americans should be respectful of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. They have been placed in an untenable situation. If they had not been so heroic and in many cases so helpful in rebuilding neighborhoods and schools, the U.S. would face a far more difficult dilemma today.

But we have no choice except to assess whether Osama Bin Laden and his movement have not been given added momentum by our intervention in Iraq, and whether the ideologically advocated policy of establishing long-term bases or one of returning our troops home is likely to be the more effective strategy in prevailing in the world-wide war on terror.

Here, it should not be hard to understand that prolonged occupation of a country which encompasses an area of land where one of the world's oldest civilizations prospered is humiliating to a proud people and those elsewhere who share its great religion. It should also not be hard to understand that the neo-con strategy of establishing a long- term military presence in Iraq with semi-permanent bases raises the risk of retaliatory terrorist attacks at home and abroad.

Indeed, according to the University of Chicago scholar, Robert Pape, in his definitive book on suicide bombers, Dying to Win, the principal reason anarchists choose to wrap themselves in explosives and kill innocent civilians is to register martyred objection to the occupation of countries or territories by the armed forces of Western or other Democratic governments. Suicide bombing, by implication, will exist as long as occupations continue.

In this regard, a note about al Qaeda is in order. Just as neither Iraq with its secular leanings nor any Iraqis were responsible for 9/11, so Saddam Hussein apparently considered Osama Bin Laden as much a rival as a soul brother. It is Western military intervention that has precipitated al Qaeda's rapid growth in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a ``cause celebre'' for its singularly malevolent actions. If American withdrawal policy comes to turn on the question of anarchy--i.e., troops can't be drawn down as long as IEA attacks continue--we place ourselves in a catch-22 and, in effect, hand over decision-making discretion to those who wantonly kill. We allow the radical few to use our presence as the reason for their actions and at the same time cause our involvement to be held hostage to their villainy.

On the other hand, if we proceed with a turn-over of responsibilities to the new, freely elected Iraqi government, Sunni dissidents will confront a critical choice: to pursue the insurgency or join the political process. Pursuing the insurgency would be a risky gamble; if it fails, Sunnis may fall under Shiite domination

for years to come, and the demise of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi makes prospects of expanding influence through terrorist tactics less likely. Joining the political process, on the other hand, would guarantee Sunnis a role in governing the country.

Though the prudential and civilized choice may seem obvious to us, a continued American military presence in Iraq gives Sunni radicals a popular cause--ridding the country of the occupier--for rallying popular sentiment in Iraq and elsewhere and justifying continued violence. Announcing the commencement of an orderly drawdown of our troops, and trumpeting it widely, would rob radicals of this powerful cause, allowing moderate Sunnis to join the government and pursue sectarian interests through the constitutional process.

In the realm of policy timing can often be as important as substance. Just as Senator Dirksen once noted that a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon you're talking about real money, in foreign affairs a week here and a week there can soon add up to a policy dilemma.

It is possible, of course that civil strife will ensue when we withdraw, but this is just as likely to be the case in 2026 as 2006. In any regard, civil union is for the Iraqi people to manage. It's not for American troops to sustain. The authorization this Congress gave to the Executive to use force contemplated the clear prospect of military intervention in Iraq. It did not, however, contemplate prolonged occupation. If this is not understood by the Executive branch, the current overwhelming Iraqi polling sentiment favoring American troop withdrawal will be more than matched by shared American sentiment. And in a democracy no one can be a leader without followers.

The older I get, the more central I consider the human factor to be in international relations. Logic is never totally dominant. No one knows the exact origins of the seven deadly sins, but to the degree human nature is the least changed aspect of the human condition, it is relevant to today's debate to contrast two human foibles: avarice and pride. Let me suggest that avarice, the weakness of business classes, is fundamentally more pragmatic than pride, the weakness of politicians, and pride is fundamentally more dangerous than avarice.

For example, if a bookstore owner were to read two books and strongly prefer one to the other, he might inventory half a dozen of the one he prefers and one of the other. But if his customers buy the one he likes least, he will not reorder the one he likes. He will put it on the discount shelf and re-order the public's choice. His pride isn't hurt. In politics, on the other hand, the tendency is to avoid embarrassment, never acknowledge error. Mistakes are often repeated to avoid political inconsistency.

An anecdote comes to mind. In one of my early terms in Congress I was invited to the Library of Congress to a seminar Henry Kissinger was asked to give on the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Before going, I perused one of his autobiographical tomes and was struck by a singular paragraph. In December 1968, Kissinger as the National Security Council Advisor-designate met with Richard Nixon, then the President-elect. They agreed, he wrote, that their policy would be to disengage from Vietnam. After Kissinger had delivered his lecture, I asked him about his pre-Presidency strategy talk with Nixon. Why, I inquired, didn't the Nixon administration immediately do what he said they had decided in December 1968, to do? Kissinger looked at me and responded: ``We meant with honor.'' I asked him if honor required escalation. ``Absolutely,'' he replied.

``Honor'' and ``pride'' do not have the same meaning. But in some circumstances they are clearly first cousins.

I mention this incident as a reflection of human nature and the psychology of decision-making. LBJ was too much of a Texan to reverse gear on his own policies; Nixon was too much a product of the Cold War to risk being perceived as less tough than his Democratic predecessor.

All wars evoke analogies to prior conflicts; Vietnam is on everyone's mind. My sense is that references to our Southeast Asian experience are somewhat oblique, but important to ponder. Of particular relevance is the advice of a former Vermont Senator, George Aiken, who suggested we just declare victory and get out of Vietnam. Aiken's advice was rooted in frustration, but wise as it was, represented more spin than reality. Given the strategies then in play, victory wasn't close at hand. Today, on the other hand, despite the escalation of world-wide violence and the precipitation of widespread mistrust of the United States, particularly in Muslim societies, the Administration can point to positive political change in Iraq. An Aiken approach might not be historically compelling, but it would have more currency now than when originally suggested.

In governance, judgment to be good must be timely. If we maintain a heavy presence much longer our president could find himself in a dilemma of the kind Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon came to know too well. Despite the overwhelming nature of our military capacities and the courageous commitment and sacrifice of our armed forces, well- intentioned policies can fail if they are inadequately justified, poorly executed, or pursued too long. The timing and explication of disengagement can be as consequential as the decision to intervene.

This is why clarity of purpose and flexibility of response are so crucial. Hasty withdrawal is problemsome; orderly, philosophically cogent decisions to wind down the military dimension of our presence in Iraq should, however, be our highest national interest priority.

It would be a mistake of historical proportions if respectful relations not only between America and the Moslem world but between America and its traditional allies were to rupture. We are obligated to see that they don't.

In a broader historical and philosophical context, the American intervention in Iraq underscores the need to probe the question of the limits of power of a superpower and the possible anomaly that there are liabilities of power, particularly for a superpower.

Does, for instance, overwhelming military might alone protect us from terrorism, or if wielded unwisely, does it escalate our vulnerability to terrorism?

Likewise, does overwhelming economic power ensure loyalty and buy friendship even from countries most indebted to the United States, or does it inspire resentment?

With each lED explosion and suicide bomb attack it becomes clearer that America and the world community are in a strategic pickle. In an era of anger, of divisions in the world based on economics, on color of skin, on ethnicity, on religious upbringing, on happenstance of family and place of birth, those who have causes--good and bad--have new globalized techniques of being heard and felt. Great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King appealed to the higher angels of our nature and achieved revolutionary change with non-violence. More mendacious leaders like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden have sought to impose their wills on others through appeals of hate and reliance on increasingly wanton instruments of oppression.

The policy question Americans must think through is whether great powers may be more effective with policies of restraint rather than intervention. Just as Gandhi and King led non-violent revolutions which have proved more lasting than the barbarism of Stalin and Pol Pot, maintenance and embellishment of the American model of governance may itself be more intrusively revolutionary in oppressed societies than interventionist policies.

Caution and restraint are better models for 21st Century statecraft than naive adventurism.

With this admonition in mind, it is critical that Members of the Executive Branch must understand that how and what they say to justify various policies determines how others respond.

Anyone who ever studied physics may recall that Sir Isaac Newton set forth three fundamental laws, the second of which was that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A decade ago when the Congress was led by an extraordinary upstart whose first name was Newt, I suggested, at first as a pun, the existence of a fourth ``Newt- onian'' law, this one of social physics: reaction is greater than action. My thoughts at the time related to the partisan bickering within Congress. But with the passage of time I have come to the conclusion that international slights have graver consequences than domestic.

When, for instance, we use words like ``evil,'' reference events like the Crusades, and employ tactics designed expressly to ``shock and awe,'' should we not expect others to think and respond in like or escalated terms, although the methods employed might in the current vogue be described as asymmetric?

This brings me to several broad precepts, one of which is seemingly trite, and others of which are intended to form a theoretical and practical framework for a recalibrated foreign policy.

First, the trite. Every society has a sage who cautions that wise leaders should put themselves in the shoes of their adversaries before reaching self-centered judgments. The profoundest illustration of this comes from literature rather than Clausewitz or Tsun Tsu.

When speaking to constituents of the rationale for and against the Iraq War, I have over the past couple of years referenced a set of books that provides more geo-political wisdom than balance of power strategists: the Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell.

Set in inter-war Egypt, each of Durrell's four books chronicles the same series of events through the eyes of a different participant. While the events repeat, the stories are profoundly different. The implicit moral is that one set of eyes, one set of interactions, is insufficient to gain a full grasp of what is happening around us. Likewise, in world politics one

country's perspective is not enough. The views of others matter. If we are to manage prudently the affairs of state, we have to use more than just our own eyes, rely on more than just our own experience, and reference more than our own historical circumstance.

The Muslim experience, for instance, gives substantially less weight than the Western experience to the two cataclysmic wars of the 20th century. Despite Lawrence's involvement in Arabia and the battles between Allied forces and Rommel's tanks, the engagements in the Middle East and North Africa were skirmishes compared with the struggles in Europe and the Far East. Not only do Muslims see the 20th century differently from Westerners, but Europeans and Americans have drawn different strategic parallels in the application of common experience to current challenges in the Middle East.

In the immediate aftermath of the First World War, historians and political strategists in Europe rightly concluded that the European alliance system had been too rigid and the assassination of a relatively minor figure, an archduke, should not have precipitated a war of such devastating consequences. Hence European leaders in the 1930's falsely concluded that historical wisdom necessitated initial accommodation with Hitler's adventurism. Too little flexibility caused one war; too little spine led to Munich. In the current context, President Bush sees himself as Churchill rather than Chamberlain, but Europeans see 9/11 as more analogous to the shots fired at Archduke Ferdinand than as a cause for a doctrine of preemption or war with Iraq, a war that could too easily spring into a clash of civilizations.

If we're ever going to have a chance to shape or deter the actions of others, we must understand their reasoning. Failing to understand or respect Muslim culture, for instance, resulted in the greatest intelligence failure of our era. It is, however, not the sole intelligence failure. In one of the greatest judgmental errors of our time, we appear to have attempted to combat the ideological posturing of others by ideologizing our own intelligence. Based on what is known today, policymakers wrongly implied Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attack and not only erred in assessing Saddam Hussein's WMD capacities but put too much faith in a narrow cadre of policymakers who suggested the United States would be welcomed as a liberating rather than conquering or, worse yet, colonizing force in Iraq. Estimates of the costs of war, of the ramifications of our involvement, of the expected reaction of the population and of the likelihood of foreign respect and support were dead wrong.

Now, given the anarchy that has mushroomed in the country, Washington is swept by occupation analogies of World War II. Japan and Germany, it is noted, were occupied for more than five years after hostilities ceased. Hence, many are suggesting, we must be prepared to stay at least this long in Iraq.

I have seldom been more apprehensive about an historical analogy. Japan and Germany were the instigators of war; their citizens understood this. The Muslim population throughout the world does not see it this way. They see the U.S. as the aggressor. Images from Al- Jazeera portray a country under siege. In the Moslem world Iraq looks more like a police-cordoned West Bank than a great and ancient society on the move to a better life. Outsiders are viewed as unwanted intruders acting out of great power self-interest, disrespectful of the culture and values of the country being occupied.

Yet if we take the most difficult geo-strategic issues of the day, it is impressive how we seem to misunderstand the fundamentals of human nature. Publics in many parts of the world are crying out for two aspirations: respect and hope. But our policy response is an entirely parochial one, rooted in the so-called doctrine of American Exceptionalism, which neo-cons do not define as refining a shining City on a Hill but as the right of a superpower to place itself above the legal and institutional restraints applied to others.

In the Neo-con world, values are synonymous with power. The implicit assumption is that American security can be bought and managed alone, without allies, without consideration of contrasting international views or the effect of our policies on others. Treaties like a Comprehensive Test Ban, which every President since Eisenhower has propounded, have been rejected, as have negotiations to strengthen the verification provisions of the Biological Weapons Convention.

Legitimacy is critical for all countries. There may be times and circumstances in which the U.S. national interest requires action without the support of our allies or without United Nations sanction. But the U.N., in particular, is ignored at great risk, especially when the international community is largely at odds with American policies. In this context, recent rhetorical attacks by ideologues in and out of government on the U.N. and other multilateral institutions would appear to particularly ill-serve the American national interest.

The diplomatic issue our government has to come to grips with today is the problem of sequencing. Which comes first--the chicken or the egg--is the most cheerful and abstract philosophical discussion Americans engage in. But which precedes the other--talk or war--is neither cheerful nor abstract. Experience would seem to indicate that while war may not be averted by negotiations, it is less likely to break out if direct dialogue occurs beforehand. In adversarial situations pacific results can seldom be achieved without human interaction. That is why our founders clearly contemplated that the new American Republic would have diplomatic relations with undemocratic states. It is why Prime Minister Rabin, when faulted for talking to Arafat, noted that you don't make peace with friends.

There are few examples in history where empty chair diplomacy has proved effective. Indeed, it is next to impossible to reach mutual accommodation if there is not mutual understanding and a modicum of trust and respect which only personal relationships can provide.

The sequencing dilemma is particularly evident with regard to Iran. Not only should we not fear to negotiate, we must understand that as the stronger party, we can afford to put on the table steps, particularly related to process, that weaker parties are less able to initiate without seeming to capitulate. Unfortunately, we have over a number of Administrations chosen to isolate rather than engage Iran. The question is whether isolationist policies drive a proud people to greater extremes. A stigmatic refusal to interact has characterized our policy toward Iran for a generation and, just as haplessly, Cuba for two.

Some of us have fretted for a long time that a more forthcoming U.S. diplomatic approach might have produced a more stable Persian Gulf. Five years ago Senator Specter and I invited to Capitol Hill the Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. In a long meeting over dinner in a small room on the Senate side of the Capitol, I indicated that while many of us would like to see more direct contact between the U.S. and Iran, normalization of relations was inconceivable unless Iran ceased supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. The ambassador responded with frankness. He chillingly acknowledged Iranian support of Hezbollah but then asserted that such support would cease the moment a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was reached in a framework acceptable to the Palestinians.

The slight hope implicit in this position may or may not have reflected Tehran's real position at the time, but it is apparent that Ahmedinajad is far more radical today than Khatami was yesterday. While neither has nor had the power of the Ayatollahs, the hardening of Iranian public attitudes toward us and Israel makes questions about the effectiveness of our strategic and psychological isolation of Iran important to ponder.

Last week the administration suggested a possible policy shift. We indicated a willingness to join the Europeans in talks with Iran if Iran first agrees to freeze uranium enrichment activities. This approach might presage a nuanced new American flexibility. But much depends on the Iranian response. Our position appears to be that we will proceed with sanctions and contemplate sterner actions if Iran does not capitulate on the uranium issue, but we will not talk to the government unless it first acquiesces. In other words, the goal of negotiations must be achieved before we will negotiate. Conditional approaches like this are needlessly ``high wire''; nevertheless, in contrast with prior diplomatic intransigence they may represent the best hope yet of yielding a conflict-averting break-through on the NPT issue.

Yet policymakers in Washington appear to underestimate a series of strategic phenomena. Hezbollah is far larger, more sophisticated and experienced in terrorist undertakings than Al Qaeda. A preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would unleash a level of anarchy in world affairs that would be unprecedented. It would slow but not stop its ability to develop nuclear weapons. It would have little effect on Iran's ability to obtain such weapons elsewhere. The ``loose nuke'' phenomenon is real. A rich country has as good a chance to purchase or steal weapons of mass destruction as it does to develop them on its own. And if that country is attacked as part of an effort to block nuclear development, it has to be assumed it will have new incentives to seek and use such weapons. This prospect could presumably be heightened if bunker busting bombs tipped with small nuclear warheads are employed.

The U.S. thus faces a double catch-22: embargoing Iran hurts our economy more than theirs and attacking militarily the Iranian infrastructure ensures immediate asymmetric violent responses as well as the greater likelihood that weapons of mass destruction once obtained will be used against us and our allies at a later point.

This brings us to the last underestimation by Washington. We may be considering a conflict

of a few weeks duration--one to three weeks of intensive bombing. The Iranians may be thinking of a multi-decade or multi-century response. Western history has known a 30-year war. Eastern peoples carry in their hearts the burden of centuries of crusades, and many Islamic radicals today would like the 21st century to be a continuation of what they consider to be a struggle against Judeo-Christian intervention. Sequencing is a historical as well as diplomatic term of concern.

The Iranians, too, are in a quandary. They recognize that no American President can take the force option completely off the table. They suspect DOD has made extensive contingency plans and they see a President who has little hesitancy to take difficult, unpopular decisions. They know he is in his last term and does not want to pass on strategic problems to his successor. They may reason that a U.S. decision to attack is irrational because it would solidify a radical reaction in Iran, in other Muslim countries, and perhaps even within the U.S., but the government of Iran cannot be certain that the President will conclude that he would be passing on a bigger mess if he attacked rather than engaged.

The Iranian challenge is stickier than many Americans assume. The President may see himself in a position analogous to that of John Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy was dealing with Khrushchev and a Soviet system that had many despotic dimensions. But while communism was manipulated in such a manner as to become a quasi- state religion, it is fundamentally about political and economic rather than spiritual relationships. Iran, on the other hand, is a theocracy in a region where religion and, too frequently, its perversion are dominant themes. Just as the Iranian government must understand the strong will of the President, Washington has to come to grips with the pride and principles of an adversary which is the inheritor of one of the oldest civilizations on earth. Each side may understand the consequences of individual actions, but that does not mean that decisions in one or the other country will not unfold domino-like in a manner that could be catastrophic for all. That is why human interrelationship--diplomacy--is so key.

Let me suggest a corollary to Lord Acton's maxim that power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. The Leach corollary is that military power tempts and excessive power tends to tempt excessively. America's enormous military strength is critical at this stage in history. But while we are obligated to recognize that its maintenance is imperative, we must also realize that its utilization may not fit, and may indeed be counter-productive, in certain strategic settings.

Analogies between all wars exist, but comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are frail. What must be understood is not that Iraq could be as bad as Vietnam; rather, that it is becoming far worse. Vietnam, after all, involved no WMD issues; and while the North was predominantly Buddhist and the South Catholic, there were no implications of a world- wide religious struggle; nor of a conflict that might last many decades, if not centuries. The issue at the time was Communism and fears that if Vietnam fell, neighboring governments would topple like dominoes. In retrospect, the real domino lesson of Vietnam was about political decision-making. Once the patriotic flag was raised, stands taken, words uttered, one doubtful decision precipitated another, and the pride of politicians did not allow a change of course until the people demanded common-sense reconsideration.

Interestingly, in the 19th century, two obscure Italian political theorists, Vito and Pareto, noted that for all the differences in political systems, one person alone at the top had the power to make critical decisions for a nation. While these decisions might be of a social magnitude, they are personal in the making.

Our Founders were moral as well as political thinkers. They feared kingly powers and wanted shared decision-making, especially when it came to war. But as we all have come to understand, modern times have produced wars without formal declarations approved by Congress. In response to Vietnam, Congress fashioned the War Powers Act to establish new constraints on the Executive. While most Constitutional scholars are convinced the Act would be declared unconstitutional if it were ever tested, it stands today as the law of the land. What is often overlooked, however, is that the Act also empowers the Executive wide- ranging options to commit American forces for a period of several months. Hence, there is little doubt that the administration assumes it has no need to come to Congress if it decides to launch an air assault on Iran, as long as it is only of multi-week duration.

Let me conclude with an observation about priorities, contrasts, and principles.

First, priorities. The Iraqi war has had the unfortunate effect of decreasing American attention on both Afghanistan and the Israeli- Palestinian dilemma, both of which have extraordinary consequences for U.S. national security. In addition, while I have assumed for most of my adult life that war and peace is the biggest issue in the world, the bigger challenge to life itself may be disease control. We have lost nearly 2,500 American troops in Iraq and 20 to 40 times as many Iraqis have been killed. But over the past two decades more than 20 million people have died of AIDS, and this number will double or triple in the next decade or two. Likewise, a new flu epidemic might match or exceed these numbers. Yet we are spending less on these problems than the cost of one month's fighting in Iraq.

Second, contrasts. Educated Americans are well aware of the ideas that Samuel Huntington and Joe Nye of Harvard have propounded about the dangers of a clash of civilizations and of the importance of soft as contrasted with hard power in diplomacy. These are important frameworks of thought for the American public to dwell upon. But I would add to those considerations the elements of individual judgment and the contrasting model of realism vs. pseudo-realism in policymaking. Realists look to effect, not to appearance. But Washington today has come under the sway of the grim neo-con notion that diplomacy, particularly multi-lateral diplomacy, is soft-headed. Is this not pseudo-realism? What is more realistic and more consistent with the American heritage than attempting to advance the rule of law? An earlier excess of pseudo-realism caused the Senate to reject Wilsonian idealism and ignore the League of Nations. Nevertheless, it approved U.S. participation in the World Court. Americans want law and order. Americans also prefer to work in alliances. It is neo-con nonsense, realism inverted, to press a foreign policy rooted in snubbing the concerns of others.

One of the myths of our time is that realism is principally about might. Actually, realism is about the human condition. A great power must maintain a strong military capacity, but it is the human condition that must be improved if national security is truly to be secured. Impoverished nations are breeding grounds for radicalism. Where there is no hope, there is nothing to lose. When life, as Hobbs described, becomes nasty, brutish, and short in a jungle of hopelessness, and humiliation, it becomes easily expendable, sometimes by martyred self- choice.

Finally, a note about principle. Never has it been more important to return to the basics. Whether it be tax policy or foreign policy, the concern must be for justice and the common good, what the 19th century British utilitarians described as concern for the greatest good of the greatest number.

The public wants its leaders to unify and uplift. Elections are about whether political leadership is up to the task. Democracies provide continual verdicts. This fall will be one measure.

Mr. Chairman, at issue in this case are Colombia priorities, but in a different sense than is usually assumed. The priority debate today is not about whether stemming the drug trade is appropriate, but the methodology of going about it.

Quasi-military approaches fit war scenarios. Civil war is more problematic; criminal activities even more so. My concern is that when America becomes intertwined in internal conflicts, we change the nature of the ongoing struggle, as well as the motivation of various combatants. We become implicitly accountable for a panoply of policies of any side we back and, accordingly, answerable to the people for that side's allegiance or lack thereof to social fairness and sometimes the rule of law itself.

In this context, wouldn't it be better to limit our military involvement in this struggling, divided country and focus efforts on replenishing the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance program? This assistance program allows the President to respond quickly to urgent, often unexpected, crises throughout the world. For instance, it is this program that the President tapped last year to provide assistance to the victims of the Pakistani earthquake.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and I respect very much the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for enlightened leadership on a whole host of issues. But I don't support the amendment out of a conviction it is an answer to a real dilemma between both the Colombian and American people, but out of a belief that a military emphasis of this kind carries many counterproductive consequences.

There is no track record that this program has been particularly helpful, and some indications that the results have been disadvantageous to the United States. So I would argue that there are better uses for these very scarce resources.

And I would suggest again that when we think about realism in world affairs, the test is effectiveness. Here the effectiveness that the United States has exhibited in compassion for refugees is far more apparent than the tests that might be applied to this particular program based on any past record.