Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Beth Sholom Ahavas Achim Synagogue in Chicago. On October 25, 2009, the congregation will celebrate its 50th anniversary with a special dinner and ceremony. I commend the entire congregation for its dedicated service to the Hollywood Park neighborhood and the surrounding communities. I would also like to recognize the contributions of Beth Sholom's spiritual leader, Rabbi Moshe Soloveichik. Rabbi Soloveichik is one of the most respected rabbis in the country and has been instrumental in the growth of Beth Sholom.

The Beth Sholom synagogue is a wonderful example of an active faith community whose members work to better themselves and those around them. The Orthodox Jewish faith is rich with tradition and an important part of both our diversity in Chicago and across the country. The congregation of Beth Sholom continues to enrich that tradition and pass it along to future generations.

The 50th anniversary celebration also honors an outstanding member of the congregation who passed away two years ago. Sandor Kirsche, a Holocaust survivor, opened Hungarian Kosher Foods, the first full- service kosher supermarket in the Chicago area, and was a member of Beth Sholom until his death. His service to the congregation and all of Chicago is greatly appreciated. Although he is missed, he will always be remembered.

I am honored to recognize Beth Sholom Ahavas Achim and Rabbi Soloveichik, and I am proud to have such active, thoughtful, and faithful men and women in my district.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 175 and I thank the gentleman from Illinois, Representative Mark Kirk, for bringing this to the floor. This legislation makes it clear that the Congress of the United States of America will continue to stand strong against the religious persecution by the Government of Iran of the Baha'i community.

The ruthless persecution of those of the Baha'i faith by the Iranian Ministry of Information in Shiraz has lead to jailing of Iranian citizens targeted solely on the basis of their religion. This persecution includes the jailing of Ms. Raha Sabet, 33; Mr. Sasan Taqva, 32; and Ms. Haleh Roohi, 29; who are currently serving four-year prison terms for educating underprivileged children.

In accordance with prior Congressional action, the Department of State has since released a statement urging the Iranian Regime

to release these victims along with others imprisoned on the basis of religious discrimination.

The combined effort of the United States Congress and the Department of State is only furthered by today's legislation. Today we reach out to the international community to immediately condemn Iran's continued violation of human rights and to demand the immediate release of prisoners held solely on account of their religion. I strongly believe that the United States and the world should stand together against this continued and blatant violation of the International Covenant on Human Rights.

Madam Speaker, in the past weeks and months, Chicago has made national news, unfortunately not just because of the Olympic decision. It is because school-age children

have been attacked and killed by other school-age children. The last thing our city needs is more guns on our streets and more children fearing for their safety.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case that challenges whether Chicago's local handgun ban is legal. In a time of national concern over senseless and deadly attacks, it is a concern.

Since 1983, it has been illegal to purchase or own a handgun within Chicago city limits. Over the course of that 26 years, Chicago has seen the number of registered handguns drop. Guns have become scarcer, saving lives and creating safer neighborhoods in the process.

As we work to make our cities and communities safer, there are many additional things we could and should fight for. I stand ready to work with the administration to reinstate the assault weapons ban and ready to work with this body to close the gun show loophole.

But in the absence of Federal action, it is critical that we preserve the rights of the people to protect their children and their families at the local level.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Iran Sanction Act.

On September 25, we learned that Iran has been operating a secret uranium-enrichment plant in the city of Qom, capable of producing enriched uranium for bombs.

The work at Qom has gone on for years in secret and despite five UN Security Council resolutions calling for Iran to cease all work on uranium.

The Iranians continue to claim that their nuclear intentions are peaceful, but the recently discovered plant's ``size and configuration'' are ``inconsistent'' with peaceful purposes.

If we had any doubt that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, the discovery at Qom dashed that doubt.

Now the U.S. must do its part to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

The first step toward crippling Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon is to impose the sanctions proposed in the bill before us today.

The Iran Sanctions Act calls on state and local governments to cease investing public funds in companies that support Iran's oil and gas sector.

A nuclear armed Iran is a threat to the entire region, particularly our friends in Israel, and could incite nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and around the world.

We must do everything in our power to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the Iranians, and those efforts start today with this bill and these sanctions.

Eight years ago, the U.S. entered Afghanistan. Now 8 years later, 791 American deaths and billions of dollars later, we must ask, what have we gained? Has our 8 years in Afghanistan made us safer? And will 8 more years make us safer still?

As we speak, the administration is reviewing the best strategy to achieve one primary objective: To protect Americans from another terrorist attack. We agree on the objective. We differ on the strategy.

As we move to define our strategy, the question we must continue to ask ourselves is: how do we keep Americans safe from a terrorist attack? Recent events suggest that we need to broaden our focus and think bigger than Afghanistan. After all, we are battling not simply against terrorists in Afghanistan but against terrorism, which we are learning has many fronts, extending from Afghanistan to Pakistan to Somalia, Yemen, Uzbekistan and even our own backyard.

Over the past 2 weeks, five men have been arrested for plotting terror attacks in our country. One man lived in New York for more than a decade and was planning to detonate a bomb there on the anniversary of September 11.

Thomas Friedman argued in his recent New York Times column that the most active front in this war against terrorism is ``not Afghanistan, but the `virtual Afghanistan,' the loose network of thousands of jihadist Web sites, mosques and prayer groups that recruit, inspire and train young Muslims to kill.''

The young Jordanian who was recently arrested for attempting to blow up a building in Dallas was caught after declaring war on the U.S. on jihadist Web sites.

We must broaden our focus. Jihadist networks are also gaining ground in unstable states such as Somalia and Yemen. Recently, a source at a U.S. defense agency stated, We know that south Asia is no longer al Qaeda's primary base. They are looking for a hideout in other parts of the world and continue to expand their organization.

We must broaden our focus. Two weeks ago, a major Uzbek terrorist with links to the Taliban and al Qaeda was killed in south Pakistan. The man killed was the leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, a group whose goal was to set up an Islamist state there and ultimately throughout central Asia.

We must broaden our focus because the jihad has no borders, and thus our security policy must have no borders. James Traub recently likened jihadism to Communism without Russia, explaining that ``its success or failure is measured in ideological rather than territorial terms.'' That is the threat we face, a threat based not on borders but on beliefs.

Which brings us back to our initial question: how can we best keep Americans safe from an ideological and borderless threat? We have sunk billions of dollars into Afghanistan, but at some point we must prioritize our spending. The reality is we have limited resources, measured both in lives and tax dollars, and we must expend those resources carefully and pragmatically.

``The problems of this world are deeper, more involved, and more stubborn than many of us realize,'' said George Keenan, scholar and diplomat, in a 1949 speech to the Academy of Political Science. ``It is imperative,'' he continued ``that we economize with our limited resources and that we apply them where we feel that we will do the most good.''

If pouring a large portion of our precious resources into Afghanistan will keep Americans safe from another terrorist attack, then it is an unquestionable investment we must make. But the reality that we are battling a worldwide network of jihadists might require us to step back and reassess our priorities.

If we are ever to achieve our objective of keeping America safe, we must, as Mr. Keenan suggests, apply our limited resources where they will do the most good. Where that exactly is, we have yet to determine. But we must be careful of basing our strategy on borders, when the enemy we are fighting is borderless.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the great American and Polish hero Casimir Pulaski and to echo the sentiments of my colleagues in support of honoring him with posthumous citizenship.

Casimir Pulaski fought as a Polish military officer on the side of the American colonists against the British in the American Revolutionary War, writing to General George Washington, ``I came here, where freedom is being defended, to serve it, and to live or die for it.''

Pulaski first fought in 1777 and continued to demonstrate his courage and bravery in battle until his death in 1779. In the Battle of Brandywine, his courageous charge saved the life of our great forefather George Washington.

Additionally, Pulaski is known as the father of the American cavalry. He rose through the ranks to brigadier general, where he used his position to mount assaults, to remove British troops from our lands, and to defend freedom no matter the circumstances or opposition.

So great was Pulaski's dedication to the ideals of liberty and freedom that he made the ultimate sacrifice. He was mortally wounded in 1779 during the Battle of Savannah. In recognition of his service to this great country, in 1929 Congress passed a resolution recognizing October 11 as ``Pulaski Day,'' a day Chicago has long celebrated.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, and many more, I encourage my colleagues to grant posthumous citizenship to Casimir Pulaski, a man who understood that freedom and democracy have no boundaries.

Mr. Speaker, George Will once said, ``Chicago Cub fans are 90 percent scar tissue.''

So as we stand here 4 days after the city of Chicago, and all of the United States, were disappointed by the IOC's decision, I can assure you that there is no city better equipped to handle a little disappointment.

And despite the tremendous efforts of President and Mrs. Obama, Mayor Daley, Pat Ryan, and thousands of volunteers, that is exactly what we felt in my hometown last week: disappointment.

But the city of Chicago has already shaken it off and is waiting with open arms for the world to visit. Because as I have said before, Chicago was a world-class city before the Olympic decision and will be a world-class city tomorrow.

My hometown is often referred to as ``The Second City,'' but most people don't realize that the nickname has nothing to do with our relationship to other cities. The name refers to a city which was rebuilt in the years following the Great Chicago Fire, a city where we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, dust off our shoulders, and get back to work.

So with congratulations to Rio, I would like to offer a list of the top 10 reasons the world should stop by for a slice of deep dish in Chicago, the greatest city in the world.

Number ten: The architecture. One of Chicago's great residents, Daniel Burnham, was known for saying: ``Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood.'' From the Louis Sullivan buildings downtown to Mies van der Rohe's collection at IIT to the neighborhood bungalows to the Sears Tower that scrapes the sky, Chicago's architecture is distinct and historic.

The schools. I am a proud graduate of Roosevelt University, the University of Chicago, and Loyola University, and had the honor of teaching young Chicagoans as well. Chicago is a place that inspires great ideas, but the Windy City is also a destination for the world's greatest minds. Close to 90 Nobel laureates have passed through the halls of the University of Chicago and Northwestern University.

Green space. My district is home to one of the country's largest urban parks, Lincoln Park, which is also home to the oldest public zoo in the country, still free admission. Want to play 16-inch softball? We have 552 parks to choose from. No glove needed. And the forest preserve system is home to 68,000 acres of open space.

The lake. Chicago has one of the most beautiful shorelines in the world, 26 miles of lakefront with 15 miles of beaches. It is a front row seat to one of the largest freshwater sources in the world, and a reminder of our responsibility to conserve it.

The museums. The Art Institute of Chicago, just one of our museums, displays some of the most famous pieces of previous centuries and trains artists to produce the finest works of this century.

The arts. Chicago's music is played all around the world wherever people love the blues, gospel, jazz, or rock. And we are home to the preeminent Chicago Symphony Orchestra and the Lyric Opera. Most of the great comedians on Saturday Night Live and 30 Rock came through Chicago, home of The Second City troupe.

I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that no one in Copenhagen has ever had a proper hot dog or slice of pizza unless they have spent a little time in Chicago. From breakfast at Ann Sather's to chicken dinner at MacArthur's, to a midnight snack at the Wiener's Circle and all the pierogies, tacos, and steaks in between, it is the finest eating on Earth.

Sports. All of our teams are among the oldest in their leagues, and all of them played right in the city. They have all won championships. Some more recently than others, but everyone is entitled to a bad century.

Number two, the neighborhoods. Chicago has a beautiful downtown. Nothing is more majestic than coming northbound or southbound on Lake Shore Drive, but it is the diverse neighborhoods that make us world class. In one sense, the world doesn't need to come to Chicago; it already has. From Bowmanville to Bronzeville, Portage Park to Albany Park, Pilsen to Pullman, take the ``L'' around Chicago, and you have visited dozens of countries without ever leaving the city limits.

Finally, the number one reason the world should come to Chicago is the same reason I never left: the people. The Second City has always been second to none. Why? Because the people of Chicago look not at what we lost last week in Copenhagen but at what we now have the opportunity to accomplish. We know that our organizing efforts were not wasted. We can build better schools on safer streets. We can build better transit with greener technology. And beyond our bid plans lay big plans for our future.

In the words of Superdawg, one of Chicago's iconic hot dog stands, I look forward to welcoming you by saying, ``Hiya, from the bottom of my pure beef heart.''

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to coming back next summer with Chicago's Stanley Cup.

Thank you. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his service as well.

Let me briefly try to put a human face on this. When you don't put a person on it, you can imagine it is hard to really understand the human cost with such a policy. I will give you two.

First of all, Lee Reinhart, 4 years after graduating from high school and after spending time at both public and private universities, Lee Reinhart decided he had simply not found his calling. So in September of 1995, Lee surprised his friends and family by joining the Navy. Lee served on board the USS Cowpens as an operations specialist working his way up to becoming a second class petty officer in the Combat Information Center, tracking both surface and air contacts.

While serving, Lee earned several medals and ribbons, including the Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal. Lee's tour of duty in the Navy was completed in August of 1999. After time in the Reserves and the events of September 11, 2001, Lee wanted to return to active duty, this time to make it a career. This time he chose the Coast Guard. But soon after joining, Lee became a target and was being investigated. Lee was given two choices: he could admit he was gay and be allowed to leave the military peacefully, or he could stay and undergo an investigation with the same end result, discharge.

The point of this story is obvious. Lee had completed a full enlistment in one branch and earned an honorable discharge, but while serving in another branch, the uneven and inequitable implementation of Don't Ask, Don't Tell ended his career.

The implementation of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is uneven and subject to individuals such as Lee to the whims and prejudices of individuals.

Second Lieutenant Sandy Tsao, like the President of the United States, our dear friend Sandy is a fellow former South Sider, this time from the Bridgeport neighborhood. Sunday, February 8, 2009, marked the 1-year service anniversary of her active duty full-time service to her country. Shortly thereafter she received an honorable discharge because of her orientation.

Ms. Tsao wrote a letter to the President of the United States. She writes: ``I am a second lieutenant currently serving in the U.S. Army. In addition to being an officer, I am a Christian, a woman and a Chinese American. I am proud of all these identities. Lastly, I am also a lesbian. On September 21, 2007, I was appointed as an Army officer. In the oath of office, I swore that I would support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, I will not be able to fulfill this oath because the current policy regarding sexual orientation contradicts my values as a moral human being.

Today is the Chinese New Year. I hope it will bring good fortune to you in your newly elect office. Today is also the day I inform my chain of command of who I am. One of the seven Army values is integrity. It means choosing to do the right thing no matter what the consequences may be. As a Christian, this also means living an honest life. I cannot live up to these values unless my workplace `provides an environment free of unlawful discrimination and offensive behavior.' '' That is an excerpt from the U.S. Army's Equal Opportunity Branch.

``We have the best military in the world, and I would like to continue to be part of it. My mother can tell you it is my dream to serve our country. I have fought and overcome many barriers to arrive at the point I am today. This is the only battle I fear I may lose. Even if it is too late for me, I do hope, Mr. President, you will help us win the war against prejudice so that future generations will continue to work together and fight for our freedoms regardless of race, color, gender, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.''

For 24-year-old Sandy Tsao, we are too late. For the many other gay and lesbian servicemembers, our repeal may just be in time.

In my mind, having gone to Iraq, I looked at the brave men and women willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our country, many of them as young as my own children. And I will tell you what I didn't see. I didn't see those as black or white, men or women, straight or gay, Democrats or Republicans. I saw Americans. I saw warriors. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a policy so fundamentally hypocritical that it encourages citizens to put their lives on the line to serve a country built on freedom and democracy as long as they lie about who they are.

Lastly, I'm reminded always at times like this what President Lincoln said at Gettysburg. Now, it has been interpreted many ways, but I would like to think that the essence of what President Lincoln was getting to was, 87 years ago we created a country based on certain principles, the most important of which is that all of us are created equal.

What he was saying in Gettysburg is, Did we really mean it? Did we really mean everyone? And I ask my colleagues to think about that, especially in time of two wars, with storm clouds gathering over North Korea and Iran. Did we really mean it? Do we really mean it today, that all of us are created equal? I think we all are warriors, at least that much. Thank you.

PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. Those personal stories of our heroes that wrote to you are very powerful and very moving. I will tell you since I took over the leadership of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell by enacting the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, I have gotten letters from all over the country and from overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one of those letters that touched my heart and frankly broke my heart was from a soldier in Afghanistan. See, when I served in Iraq 6 years ago, I had 19 of my fellow paratroopers in the 82nd Airborne Division that gave the ultimate sacrifice. But one of them committed suicide. One of those 19 never made it home to see his family again. But this letter broke my heart because, and you will see, this hero was dealing with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

He writes: ``Sir, as you know, military spouses and other family members are important parts of the larger `team' that is essential for our national defense. But such support is fundamentally closed off to the partners of gay servicemembers, even though these partners may be making the exact the same sacrifices as their straight counterparts.

``And it's even worse. Gay servicemembers and their committed partners have to worry that an overheard phone call, an intercepted email, or other type of compromised private communication could lead to a humiliating, career-destroying investigation. This is no way to treat American patriots.

``I write of these matters from personal experience. When the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred, I was in a serious long-term relationship. The extensive active duty I did after 9/11 put a serious strain on this relationship. The relationship fell completely apart during my first deployment to Afghanistan in 2003.

``One of the big risk factors contributing to soldier suicides is the breakup of serious relationships. This is exactly what I experienced, and in the context of a combat zone deployment. I can still vividly remember sitting alone in Afghanistan, cradling my government-issued pistol in my hands and fighting the urge to blow my own brains out.

``What made that personal struggle in Afghanistan particularly difficult was the isolation that was imposed on me as a consequence of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. A straight soldier in a similar state of crisis could go to his commander, his first sergeant, or his `battle buddy' for support. But if I as a gay soldier had gone to my commander with the details of my situation, he would have been obligated to start the process of kicking me out of the Army.

``The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is wrong. I say this not just as an individual soldier, but also as someone with extensive experience as both a platoon leader and company commander. When I have been in such leadership positions, I have had straight soldiers share with me some of the most shockingly intimate details about their personal lives. I was glad that these straight soldiers put their trust in me, because I was able to offer each one the counsel or moral support that he or she needed at that time.

``Gay soldiers should also have that right to go to a commander, a first sergeant, or a battle buddy and not have to the worry about the ramifications of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy shackles the hands of leaders like me. It prevents us from giving all of our troops the supportive leadership they deserve. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy throws up walls between battle buddies. It is an ugly stain on our national honor.''

I now yield to the new freshman, the gentlewoman from the great State of Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Madam Speaker, today I rise in recognition of Anthony P. DeAngelo, a valued member of my staff. Tomorrow, October 2, is Anthony's last day as the Staff Assistant/Press Assistant in my Washington, D.C. office. His dedication to serving the people of the Illinois Fifth District is very much appreciated, and he will be greatly missed.

Anthony joined my staff prior to my election to Congress in April of this year. He then made the trip to our nation's capital and was instrumental in establishing my Washington, DC office. He helped establish our new media programs, press operations and intern program. He always took the time to make constituents feel at home in our office and ensured that their trips to Washington were memorable and worthwhile.

Tomorrow he leaves to take a position as Deputy Communications Director in the Office of Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson. I am pleased he will continue to serve the people of Illinois, and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of The Night Ministry and their Response Ability Pregnant and Parenting Program, a program that is devoted to providing supportive services to pregnant and parenting homeless teens to strengthen family support systems, reduce subsequent pregnancies, keep teens in school, improve parenting skills and increase the safety and stability in their living situations.

The Night Ministry's RAPP Program is this year's recipient of the Healthy Teen Network's National Outstanding Emerging Innovation Program Award. This award is given out annually to a program that has demonstrated commitment to the prevention of teen pregnancy or excellence in teen pregnancy and parenting services. The RAPP Program assists teen parents while focusing on both short- and long- term goals such as medical and mental health care, acquiring stable housing, vocational training, accessing public aid and general assistance by offering services in the community and at the eight-bed, eight-crib Open Door Shelter in Lake View.

The Night Ministry's RAPP Program assists homeless teens while they deal with the stresses and strains of pregnancy and parenting. I am proud to recognize the hard work, ingenuity and charity of The Night Ministry as the RAPP Program continues to improve teenager's lives and the prospects of their futures.

Mr. Speaker, the American people should have serious questions when it comes to the war in Afghanistan, and I believe we need answers before we ever talk about sending additional young men and women into that conflict.

General Stanley McChrystal told us this week that he needs more troops in Afghanistan or else our mission there will likely result in failure, but there seems to be some confusion over what that mission is.

Question one: Are we building nations or hunting terrorists? The administration has stated that its primary goal is preventing al Qaeda from operating, but General McChrystal has stated that his mission is to protect the Afghan civilians and establish good governance. These objects are related, but they are not the same. As the President has stated, we must first define our strategy, and then we will determine how to resource it.

Question two: How many troops will we need? The figure being discussed is an additional 40,000 to 45,000 more troops on top of the 68,000 already in Afghanistan. But experts such as General Charles Krulak put the figure for a successful counterinsurgency at several hundred thousand. The greater our footprint over there, the more it looks like an occupation to a people who have violently resisted occupations for centuries.

Question three: Are we stretching our Army to its breaking point? Many of our troops are on their third or fourth tour. That has an impact on families and communities. Many of our National Guard units have left equipment over there and faced recruitment problems over here.

Question four: How long will these troops be there? It's not enough to decide we can manage it for another year or two with greater deployment. Without a specific end date, a decision to increase deployment today means more troops next year and the year after that.

Question five: Where will we get enough troops with the experience needed in Afghanistan? The military needs more IED experts to diffuse roadside bombs; however, it takes 11 months to train a bomb specialist, and these specialists are already in short supply.

We also need translators, medical officers, and other specialists that could require a great deal of training, yet we continue to kick out such specialists because of the immoral and extraordinarily shortsighted ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy.

Question six: How many NATO forces can we count on, and how will we maintain an effective command structure? We are told that this cannot be a go-it-alone mission, but resources in other NATO countries are limited, and incidents such as the German airstrike show the dangers of coalition warfare.

Question seven: Can we count on the Government of Pakistan to remain with us in this fight? Pakistan has a great deal of trouble controlling the tribal areas, and our continued presence is causing more unrest in the cities.

Question eight: Is it worth American lives to prop up the Government of Afghanistan? The Government faces serious charges of election fraud and corruption, and it appears to be losing control over much of the country as the Taliban moves in.

Question nine: Is this a winnable war? In General McChrystal's recent report he states that although the situation is serious, success is still achievable, but we still don't have a definition of success.

Final question: Is the war in Afghanistan really the best approach to protect the American people from terrorism? Our focus needs to be on protecting the people of the United States and stopping the international spread of terrorism. If this war is not the best way to do that, we need to leave. We cannot send more troops to fight for an undefined amount of time in an undefined mission and for an undefined success.

Madam Speaker, last week marked the 70th anniversary of the attack on Poland, helping to launch the Second World War.

Last week was also marked by an announcement that the administration plans to scrap a planned missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and refocus its missile defense program on protecting against short-range Iranian missiles.

This realignment of priorities reflects the new threats we face. However, as we shift our focus, we must not forget the vital role played by our European ally, Poland. Poland has always stood by the United States with support dating back to the Revolutionary War where Polish heroes like Casimir Pulaski fought to help America achieve independence.

Poland unilaterally repealed the visa requirement for United States citizens traveling to Poland. Indeed, Poland has always stood by us. Though I would like to say we have returned that favor, unfortunately, we have not.

Madam Speaker, it's time to extend and ultimately make permanent the visa waiver program. Our friends in Poland have proven their steadfast dedication to the cause of freedom and friendship with the United States. We must do the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Terrence (Terry) Barnich and the sacrifice he made for his country. Terrence was serving as the Deputy Director of the Iraq Transition Office in Baghdad when his motorcade was attacked by an improvised explosive device on May 25, 2009. He had dedicated his life to his country, leaving a comfortable life in Chicago and signing on for multiple tours in Iraq where he worked for more than two years.

Terrence was an exemplary and valiant U.S. citizen. Volunteering to serve in Iraq in a time of war attests to his loyalty and dedication to our country. As the Deputy Director of the Iraq Transition Group, he lent his skills to rebuilding and improving Iraq's energy infrastructure in an effort to help build a better future for the people of Iraq. His leadership in Iraq's transition has benefited thousands and will continue to affect generations to come. This is a great loss not only to the Illinois 5th District, but also to the United States and Iraq.

Terry will be remembered by the American people as a selfless public servant whose memory will live on through his great accomplishments both here and in Iraq. On behalf of my family and the people of the 5th Congressional District of Illinois, I extend my deep condolences to his family. I hope that time and memories will help lessen the burden of their grief.

Mr. Speaker, today the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, told Congress that he needed more troops to succeed in Afghanistan. He's probably right, just like Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki was right when he said we needed more troops in Iraq.

But just as we failed to ask the tough strategic questions about Iraq, it is my sincere belief that we are now failing to ask the tough strategic questions about Afghanistan.

Colin Powell said, ``When we go to war, we should have a purpose our people understand and support.''

Do we have that today in Afghanistan? Every time we send a young American over for a tour of duty, we are deciding to go to war over and over again. The question is, Does the American public understand and support that decision? Do we as a body understand and support the long- term strategy behind the war in Afghanistan? Or has the people's House gone on autopilot, deciding to debate only numbers and not the bigger questions of why, how, and when this Nation should go to war?

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished history of the Irving Park Baptist Church community on the occasion of its 120th Anniversary. Over the past 120 years, Irving Park Baptist Church has provided spiritual guidance to generations of families throughout the Irving Park Community on the northwest side of the City of Chicago.

The Irving Park Baptist Church was originally established in 1889. The church's multiethnic and multigenerational character has brought together a community of people to unite in one faith. Irving Park Baptist Church is actively involved with other churches and non-profits in the community. As an active and caring institution, the church is also a founding member of Hands to Help Ministries, which helps to provide housing and services for persons in distress.

Irving Park Baptist Church is a community of people from different cultures and backgrounds who are united in their belief. The community's mission is to faithfully serve God by ministering to each other, to their neighbors, and to the world.

On September 13, 2009 parishioners and friends of the community came together to celebrate this momentous anniversary. The Anniversary Luncheon took place at La Villa Banquets.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of the Fifth Congressional District of Illinois, I wish to recognize Irving Park Baptist Church and its 120 Years of Community Service. I wish all the best for its clergy, for its families, and for its success in the future.