Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Lewis J. Bazakos, a constituent of mine and the outgoing chairman of the American Chiropractic Association (ACA)--the Nation's largest professional association for doctors of chiropractic medicine.

Dr. Bazakos, a 1978 graduate of the New York Chiropractic College has practiced chiropractics for more than 25 years. He was elected chairman of the Board of Governors during the ACA's 43rd Annual Business Meeting on September 22, 2005. In addition, Dr. Bazakos serves as chairman of the New York Chiropractic College Board of Trustees.

Dr. Bazakos has been elected or appointed to numerous leadership positions within the chiropractic profession. Prior to his election as chairman, Dr. Bazakos served on the ACA Board of Governors since 2000 and on its executive committee since 2003. In addition, Dr. Bazakos has served as the ACA's New York-Metro Delegate and was chairman of the Finance Committee.

On the state level, Dr. Bazakos has a long-time affiliation with the New York State Chiropractic Association (NYSCA). He is past president of the NYSCA and served as its legislative chairman for 15 years.

Throughout his career, Dr. Bazakos has been recognized for his commitment and service to the chiropractic profession. In 1991, he was named as Chiropractor of the Year by the NYSCA and also received the NYSCA's prestigious ``Ernest G. Napolitano Award,'' an honor presented to a doctor in recognition of his selfless contributions to the NYSCA and the chiropractic profession.

In addition to his doctor of chiropractics degree, Dr. Bazakos holds a master's degree in clinical nutrition from the University of Bridgeport. Currently, he is involved in clinical private practice at Nassau County Pain Management & Rehabilitation and Medical Offices located in Valley Stream, NY.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to have Dr. Bazakos as a constituent and even prouder of his more than 25 years of service to patients throughout the Empire State.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the employees of the Transportation Security Administration.

When Congress created the TSA, we intended to form a security force that could quickly adapt and respond to crises in order to protect our nation's transportation system.

On August 10, 2006, TSA demonstrated that it can perform its mission admirably.

As we now know, 21 terrorists from London were conspiring to detonate liquid explosives aboard transatlantic flights bound for the United States. They wanted to create a catastrophe that could have rivaled the horror of September 11th. Though their plot was foiled, the event should serve to remind us that we must remain vigilant in the ongoing war against terror.

The TSA's response to this imminent threat helped guide our nation through that crisis. In the evening hours of August 9, 2006, TSA quickly responded. As British authorities began arresting the terrorist suspects, TSA altered its screening to ensure that the plot would be foiled.

Within four hours--before the first flight took off on August 10th-- TSA implemented new security procedures, trained and deployed more than 43,000 Transportation Security Officers to execute these new procedures, and deployed Federal Air Marshals to multiple locations overseas. The dedication that the employees of TSA demonstrated in response to this terrorist plot should not be forgotten.

Notably, the work attendance for Transportation Security Officers on August l0th was an all-time high in the history of TSA. As one Federal Security Director recalled, ``All our security officers came in; every single one of them. Anytime something happens . . . you have to fight them off. Mission is never our problem.''

On this anniversary of that failed attempt of terror, I want to thank the employees of the Transportation Security Administration. We owe them great gratitude.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me commend all the members of the Homeland Security Committee, especially Chairman Thompson, for the spirit of bipartisanship which did bring the floor to this moment right now, this conference report.

Having said that, I must take exception to a number of the statements that have been made here today, especially by the gentleman from Florida and his statements implying somehow that there has not been a significant amount of accomplishments since September 11, 2001.

Let me just recount some of them that were done prior to this. The enactment of the PATRIOT Act; the reauthorizing of the PATRIOT Act; the Intelligence Reform Act, which created the Director of National Intelligence; just last year, the adoption of the first-ever port security act; chemical plant security; restructuring FEMA; $1 billion for interoperability.

I really don't think it serves a purpose to somehow be suggesting that the Republicans, or any Member of this body for that matter, is holding back or in any way not doing all that is possible to protect our Nation against the threat of Islamic terrorism. For instance, the National Intelligence Estimate, when it was released last week, made a point of stressing that the greatly increased counterterrorism efforts over the past 5 years have constrained the ability of al Qaeda to attack the United States' homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.

So, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it does any purpose at all to downgrade the efforts made by this Congress and this administration. This should be a bipartisan effort, and I think a lot of the rhetoric today undermines that.

Having said that, I will be supporting this bill because, on balance, I believe there have been significant improvements made. I hope that next year and the year after and the year after that we continue to make improvements.

Now, there have been some failures. One of the main requirements, main recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was that jurisdiction be consolidated in one committee. That was not done. In fact, anyone who went to the first meeting of the conference committee, it was like the Tower of Babel. We had subcommittees and committees, and ranking members and committee chairmen. I think there were about over 60 people at a conference committee when there should have been four.

Having said that, I believe that this is something to work toward in the future. And I would hope that the Democrats, during the time that they still retain the majority, will work to consolidate that jurisdiction.

But some of the positive steps, on grant reform, I certainly agree with the gentleman from Mississippi on this, and I commend him for this. We did have long, involved preconferencing negotiations. And he worked with me and Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins to come up with a grant formula which is far more based on risk than it was before. It's still not perfect, it was still a minimum that's going to be in there, but having said that, it's a significant advance over what we've had in the past, and I applaud him for that. I applaud the other members of the conference committee, and the bipartisan membership of our committee which passed similar legislation in 2005 and 2006, and now it has been brought to fruition. And I give Chairman Thompson credit for that.

Also, on another issue, which I'm very pleased is in this bill, and that's upon the issue of giving immunity to those who come forward and report suspicious activity. I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Pearce, the gentleman from New Mexico who is here today, who was the first to initiate this legislation. Then we passed it here on the House floor in March. And so long as we're in a partisan mood today, I point out that a majority of Democrats voted against that. And last week, a majority of Democrats voted against it in the Senate. And to me it was unfortunate that we had to have 5 or 6 days of intense negotiations before the Democratic leadership finally intervened and brought about the insertion of that language into the conference report. But it is there; it gives immunity to those people who come forward and report what they see on good faith. And we learned on September 11, if you see something, say something.

We know that you cannot have enough FBI agents, you cannot have enough police officers to monitor the actions of Islamic terrorists. We need the eyes and the ears of millions of good Americans, and that's what this language protects.

Before I slow myself down, let me just say that at the conference committee from the other side, I want to commend Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins. This was a true bicameral effort. And again, Chairman Thompson, we went through a number of, over a period of weeks, preconference negotiations, all of which were conducted in good faith. And I think the product today, again, while not perfect, is another step in the right direction, building on the steps of the previous 5\1/ 2\ years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, the former Attorney General of California, a man who came back to Congress to combat terrorism, Mr. Lungren.

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

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the bipartisan nature of the majority leader's remarks. I thank him personally.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker of the House for her bipartisan comments, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) who is the initial author of the John Doe immunity legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) a former member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a member of the committee and an outstanding spokesman on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Staten Island, Brooklyn, who lost more residents than any other Member in Congress on September 11.

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

And let me thank, again, Chairman Thompson for his bipartisan effort, thank Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins. Let me thank the Republican staff members, Matt McCabe, Kerry Kinirons, Sterling Marchand, Heather Hogg, Mike Power. A special thanks to Mark Klaassen who unfortunately is

going to be leaving the committee, but he has been a tremendous asset. Chad Scarborough, Joe Vealencis, Deron McElroy, Adam Paulson and Lauren Wenger of my staff.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report. I urge its adoption. And, again, I thank the chairman for his cooperation and assistance.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Senate's revision of what was a solid, balanced bill, H.R. 556, the ``Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007.'' This bill fails to make a number of very much needed reforms to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (``CFIUS''). I am disappointed that the legislation, passed by the Senate and considered today, makes changes to the bill originally passed by the House, that significantly weaken the legislation.

As originally passed by the House, H.R. 556 ensured that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is given adequate time to conduct a thorough analysis of proposed transactions. If the DNI identified complex issues that could not be resolved within that initial 30-day review, the transaction would be sent to a 45-day investigation. These intelligence reviews were missing during the Dubai Ports debacle last year and are absolutely vital to our

homeland security. The Senate version short-shrifts these intelligence reviews and requires the DNI to complete his work within 20 days. It fails to consider more complicated cases that may require additional scrutiny.

In addition, the bill passed by the House both last year and this year would have elevated the Secretary of Homeland Security to a position as Vice-Chair of CFIUS and required both the Departments of Treasury and Homeland Security to approve all CFIUS findings. This was a sensible approach that balanced foreign investment with national security. In the post-9/11 world, homeland security considerations must be our first consideration, not our last. Elevating the Secretary of Homeland Security to the Vice-Chair position would have ensured that while we encourage foreign investment, we would never again side-step the security of our homeland. The legislation we are considering today does not include this important provision.

The Senate's revision would allow a simple majority to overrule the Secretary of Homeland Security or Defense with respect to whether or not a transaction should receive a more thorough vetting through a National Security Investigation. The House bill had required an investigation if any Committee member thought it necessary to protect our national security. Further, the mechanism for approving the Committee's findings is conspicuously absent from the Senate language, whereas the House allowed for any dissenting Committee member to push the transaction to the President for his consideration.

Each of these provisions was included to prevent a future Dubai Ports scenario. Elevating the Secretary of Homeland Security as Vice-Chair would have ensured that the DHS's concerns were seriously addressed by the Department of Treasury. Giving the DNI adequate time to conduct a thorough review would have guaranteed that Members would get more than a shrug of the shoulders when asking pointed questions about Dubai's reported ties to the Taliban. Rollcall votes would have demanded accountability for what was an ill-informed decision.

I cannot in good faith support this legislation because it fails to make the vital changes noted above to improve the current CFIUS process. We are missing an opportunity to enact reforms that will ensure that a debacle like the Dubai Ports World transaction does not happen again.

I will therefore vote against H.R. 556.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and thank him for the service he has rendered to this body in the 6 brief months he's been here. He is certainly following well in the tradition of his father, who is a long-time friend of mine.

Let me also say how gratifying it is to be on the floor and have the manager of this bill which pertains to Tony Blair being managed by the distinguished Ambassador Watson, who does such an outstanding job as cochair of the United States-United Kingdom Congressional Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of this resolution. I was especially privileged to introduce it because as Tony Blair exits from the Office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, he takes with him the admiration and the best wishes of all freedom-loving people throughout the world.

No one certainly has been a closer ally to the United States than Prime Minister Tony Blair. No one personifies the close links between the United States and Great Britain than Tony Blair; certainly follows in the tradition of Winston Churchill, who did more than anyone until his time to cement that relationship, and Tony Blair has even advanced it more. Whether it was President Clinton or President Bush, Tony Blair always stood as our strongest ally in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the international war against terrorism, and standing up for democratic principles and values.

And certainly as a New Yorker, I will always remember the fact that he was the first foreign leader to come to New York, to come to Ground Zero to meet with the firefighters and meet with the police officers and express the solidarity of the British people toward the people of New York, and of course, to the people of the United States, and to all peoples who were opposed to international terrorism. And then, as Ambassador Watson mentioned, the fact that he was here in the House Chamber on September 20, 2001 when President Bush addressed the American people also showed his absolute commitment to the United States and to the war against terrorism.

As an Irish American, I have been involved for many years in the quest for a peaceful solution to the struggle in Northern Ireland. And depending on which historian you're talking to or which analyst you're talking to, this is a struggle that went back 800 years, 300 years, 80 years, 35 years. It really doesn't matter what timeline we're using, the reality is it was a seemingly unending struggle which was going to go on and on and on. And then the stars were properly aligned and Tony Blair became the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Bertie Ahern became the Prime Minister of Ireland, and President Clinton committed himself to using the good offices of the United States as an honest broker to try to bring about a peaceful resolution in the north of Ireland. And through incredible hard work and perseverance and dedication, it worked. And not only did Tony Blair deal with Prime Minister Ahern and President Clinton, what he did even took more courage, and that was to reach out to historic enemies, if you will, of the British Government. He reached out to people such as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness and Sinn

Fein, and he brought them to the negotiating table and sat down with them and worked with them. And he had them to 10 Downing Street and he broke down centuries of division and hatred. And at the same time, he worked with those on the other side, strongly on the other side, not just David Trimble of the Ulster Unionist Party, but also Ian Paisley of the Democratic Unionist Party.

And the Good Friday Agreement would not have been possible in April of 1998 without Tony Blair, but also the Good Friday Agreement went on for almost 9 years afterwards until it was finally brought to its ultimate fruition earlier this month. And it was done because Tony Blair never yielded. There were so many times between April of 1998 and May or June of this year that that agreement could have fallen apart, that it could have splintered, that it could have shattered if Tony Blair was not willing to take that extra step, and he did that.

And during this entire time that he was bringing peace to Northern Ireland and standing with us as our strongest ally, also Britain itself was under attack. And as Mr. Bilirakis and Ambassador Watson mentioned, on July 7, 2005, when the London underground was attacked by terrorists causing large scale carnage and loss of life, and Tony Blair again stood strong and stood firm.

So, this is a moment where it's seldom that we see giants in history, and it's important, I think, that we not wait 50 years or 100 years or several centuries to acknowledge them, but to acknowledge them in their own time as being prophets with honor.

So I, again, say I've had the privilege a number of times of being with Tony Blair. I was with him with President Clinton in Washington and in Belfast and Armagh City in Northern Ireland, and just last month, again, at the British Embassy. He certainly is a man of stature, he's a man of achievement and he's a man of courage.

I am proud to support this resolution, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me commend Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for the outstanding job, I believe, and the effort they put into putting this legislation together. And I commend them on an issue which is so vital to our Nation, homeland security.

My amendment would restore $40 million to the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, DNDO, specifically relating to the Securing the Cities Initiative and the Radiation Portal Monitor program.

Mr. McCaul, as the cosponsor of the amendment, will address himself in a few moments to the Radiation Portal Monitor program. I'm going to stress the STC.

Mr. Chairman, intelligence and recent terrorist attacks overseas have led to the conclusion that the next attack against our cities may very well come from outside the city, from suburban areas. And certainly, in New York City, it's been concluded that the STC is the only program which is dedicated to protecting cities against this threat.

Specifically, the STC program involves a ring of radiological detectors on highways, bridges, tunnels and waterways leading into cities. Indeed, the police commissioner of New York, Commissioner Kelly, has said that this program is our best last defense to keep a nuclear or dirty bomb from being detonated within cities.

So this should be a bipartisan matter. While it directly affects New York at this moment, this is a pilot program which will affect the entire Nation.

There's already been two full exercises run. I was present at one of them last week, seeing how effective it was. It involves 90 counties, three States, numerous cities and many agencies. And it, to me, serves no purpose at all to be taking, in effect, $20 million out of a valuable program, a program which very well could end up saving thousands and thousands of lives. And I say that as someone who came from a district that lost well over 100 people on September 11 and certainly doesn't want to go through that again.

This is a very effective, meaningful program, and I would, again, implore the House to restore this money, $40 million, to the DNDO.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman stated that no agreement has been reached and would not be reached until the summer of 2007. We are talking about several weeks from now. The summer of 2007 is coming upon us. And also as far as the agreement's being reached, I have a letter which I would like to introduce into the Record, signed by officials from New York State, New Jersey, and Connecticut, all of whom say all that is

delaying the agreement is the finalizing of this appropriation. They are ready to go. They have an agreement in place ready to go, just subject to this appropriation.

But it will be. Again, this is a letter signed by all the ranking officials in New York State, New Jersey, and Connecticut. All that is holding it up is this appropriation. Once the amount is known, they will go ahead. But other than that, they cannot go ahead.

Yes, that is true.

It was done in concert with DNDO and with the three States.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Yes. I will absolutely assure him that I will work with the city of New York and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that this money is allocated and used for this purpose and that the agreement be expedited as quickly as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the coauthor of the amendment, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Staten Island, Brooklyn, (Mr. Fossella), who lost more than 300 people on September 11.

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

Let me again at the outset commend the gentleman from North Carolina for his good faith and effort. We have an honest disagreement on this, but I certainly commend him for the time and concern he has shown on this issue, and I certainly appreciate his offer to work with me.

I would just ask to introduce into the Record this letter from virtually every law enforcement official from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, State police, local police, fire commissioners in New York City, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Westchester County, and all of the State officials of New Jersey and Connecticut.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

New York Regional Joint Working Group on Securing the

Cities,

June 12, 2007.

Subject: FY08 Appropriation for Securing the Cities

Initiative.

Hon. Peter T. King,

Ranking Member, House Homeland Security Committee,

Washington, DC.

Dear Ranking Member King: We are writing to urge you to

fully fund the President's FY08 request for the Securing the

Cities (STC) initiative: $30 million for procurement and $10

million for R&D.

We are profoundly concerned by the prospect of a terrorist

attack against New York

involving a radiological weapon or improvised nuclear weapon.

We know al-Qaeda and its affiliates are interested in

perpetrating such an attack and will do so if they can. The

STC initiative is the only federal initiative dedicated to

defending New York from this catastrophic possibility. A

Congressional decision to provide less than the full amount

requested by the President for this new and important program

will significantly impair our region's ability to defend

against, and prepare for, the most terrible threat

imaginable.

The STC initiative is an extraordinary example of

interagency and intergovernmental collaboration. Together, we

represent three layers of government, three states, over

ninety counties, numerous cities, and many different

agencies. In partnership with the Domestic Nuclear Detection

Office (DNDO) of the Department of Homeland Security, we are

working together in a truly unprecedented fashion. In the

short time since STC began, for instance, we have conducted

two full-scale exercises (with a third planned for this week)

in which a radiological substance was surreptitiously

transported in a vehicle on a highway and then intercepted by

our agencies; we have coordinated our procurement of

radiological detection equipment and have designed a concept

of operations for the larger regional system envisioned in

the STC initiative. A regional deployment plan for FY08 is

nearing completion and has been delayed mainly by uncertainty

over the total amount of funding that will be available from

the Federal Government.

We appreciate your full consideration of this request. We

welcome the opportunity to brief Members of Congress or their

staffs on the progress of this initiative either in the New

York region or in Washington, DC. We believe the Securing the

Cities initiative in the New York region should be a model

for the nation which was indeed one of its intended purposes.

Sincerely,

Raymond W. Kelly, Commissioner, New York City Police

Department.

Nicholas Scoppetta, Commissioner, New York City Fire

Department.

Preston L. Felton, Acting Superintendent, New York State

Police.

Colonel Joseph R. Fuentes, Superintendent, New Jersey State

Police.

Colonel Thomas Davoren, Connecticut State Police.

James H. Lawrence, Commissioner of Police, Nassau County

Police Department.

Richard Dormer, Commissioner, Suffolk County Police

Department.

William A. Morange, Deputy Executive Director, Metropolitan

Transportation Authority Police Department.

Michael Balboni, Deputy Secretary for Public Safety, New

York State.

F. David Sheppard, Director, New York State Office of

Homeland Security.

James F. Kralik, Sheriff, Rockland Couty Sheriffs Office.

Thomas Belfiore, Commissioner, Westchester County Police

Department.

Richard Canas, Director, New Jersey Office of Homeland

Security and Preparedness.

James M. Thomas, Commissioner, Connecticut Office of

Emergency Management and Homeland Security.

Samuel J. Plumeri, Jr., Superintendent of Police, Port

Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Emily Lloyd, Commissioner, New York City Department of

Environmental Protection.

Thomas R. Frieden, Commissioner, New York City Department

of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Joseph Bruno, Commissioner, New York City Office of

Emergency Management.

Janette Sadik-Khan, Commissioner, New York City Department

of Transportation.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. King of New York

Amendment No. 132: Page 2, line 16, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $35,000,000)''.

Page 31, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

Page 51, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $40,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. King of New York

Amendment No. 136: Page 2, line 16, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $35,000,000)''.

Page 31, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

Page 51, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $40,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. King of New York

Amendment No. 132: Page 2, line 16, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $35,000,000)''.

Page 31, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

Page 51, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $40,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. King of New York

Amendment No. 136: Page 2, line 16, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $35,000,000)''.

Page 31, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

Page 51, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $40,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. King of New York

Amendment No. 118: At the end of Title IV insert the

following new section:

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 295, a resolution recognizing the strong alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States and expressing appreciation to the Republic of Korea for its efforts in the Global War on Terror. As the sponsor of this resolution, I join with over 35 of my colleagues in urging the House to pass this resolution today.

For almost six decades, the United States and the Republic of Korea have maintained a strong alliance that rests on a shared commitment to peace, democracy, and freedom not only on the Korean peninsula but throughout Asia and the rest of the world. The nearly 30,000 American soldiers who remain stationed in the Republic of Korea are a testament to this relationship.

Since September 11, 2001 we have seen this bond further strengthened as Korea has joined with the United States and other coalition nations in supporting the Global War on Terror both militarily and financially. Korean President Roh truly understands this grave threat and the need for it to be confronted. Presently, the Republic of Korea has the third largest coalition contingent of forces in Iraq. Korea also has troops deployed in Afghanistan and has generously pledged $460,000,000 toward reconstruction and stabilization efforts in post-war Iraq.

The U.S. and Korea also both remain deeply committed to the Six Party Talks and have

a mutual interest in keeping the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons.

Finally, the U.S. and Korea have been working diligently on a free trade agreement between our two countries that will deepen economic ties and boost trade and investment for both countries. I am pleased that these negotiations concluded on April 1, 2007 and it is my hope that the agreement will soon be signed and Congress passes the required enacting legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass this resolution today.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge one of our key allies--the Republic of Azerbaijan--as it celebrates its 89th Annual Republic Day on May 28. After the fall of the Russian Empire, Azerbaijan proclaimed its independence on May 28, 1918. Unfortunately, the Red Army invaded Azerbaijan on April 28, 1920 preempting its reach for liberty for seventy years.

Azerbaijan's second opportunity for freedom came at a heavy price following the 1990 invasion of Baku by Soviet troops resulting in the death of more than one hundred thirty civilians. Moscow's rule, however, grew weaker and by 1991 popular pressure led the country to declare its independence. On August 30, 1991, Azerbaijan's Parliament adopted the Declaration on the Restoration of the State of Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan and on October 18, 1991 the Constitution was approved.

Given past Soviet rule and the difficult geopolitical environment, Azerbaijan's determination to look westward for its political and economic allies should be applauded.

Azerbaijan was among the first nations to offer the United States support in the Global War on Terror, providing airspace and airport use for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Azerbaijan was also the first Muslim nation to send troops to Iraq. Though bilateral cooperation on terrorism issues between the United States and Azerbaijan predates September 11, 2001, our relations were strengthened following Azerbaijan's immediate and unwavering support in the Global War on Terror.

Azerbaijan cooperates with the United States within international and regional institutions including the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and NATO's Partnership for Peace Program. Azerbaijan also works together with the United States within the framework of the Organization for Democracy and Development--GUAM which is comprised of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. The group was created as a political, economic, and strategic alliance aimed at overcoming common risks and threats and strengthening the independence and sovereignty of its member states.

During the last decade, Azerbaijan has implemented structural reforms and adopted numerous legislative changes to pave the way for further integration within the global economy. It has also been moving toward a more diversified economy that would achieve sustainable growth and meet the social and developmental needs of its population.

Since signing the ``Contract of the Century'' in 1994, Azerbaijan has developed its energy sources within the Caspian region to help diversify western energy supplies. On July 13, 2006 the Baku-Tbilisi- Ceyhan main oil export pipeline was inaugurated while the Baku-Tbilisi- Erzurum natural gas pipeline is expected to be completed at the end of this month. In addition, in March 2007 Azerbaijan and the United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Energy Security in the Caspian region aimed at strengthening our already strong cooperation with respect to the supply and transport of Caspian energy resources and bolstering energy security in the West.

Let us today congratulate the Republic of Azerbaijan on its forthcoming 89th Anniversary celebrations and continue to develop this important friendship between our two countries.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the defeat of this supplemental appropriation. It is wrong in so many ways. And I say that as someone who strongly believes that the war in Iraq is the central front in the war against terrorism. I say that, and I see my colleague here, Mr. Fossella, someone who lost hundreds of friends and neighbors and constituents on September 11. And I also say that as someone who says this supplemental is sending all the wrong possible signals. It is sending the wrong signal to General Petraeus. It is sending the wrong signal to our troops. And probably most importantly of all, it is sending the wrong signal to the enemy. It is telling them that we in the Congress think there should be 535 commanders in chief, 535 commanders in the field; telling the enemy that they have 60 days to create whatever chaos and carnage and confusion they can to influence the media, to influence those here in the House who are looking for an excuse to cut off funding for the troops.

If we have a Commander in Chief, a commander in the field, they should be given the ultimate power and authority to prosecute the war. If the Democrats want to make this their war, that is one thing, but this should be above politics. It is not a political issue. It is not something that should be gauged on public opinion polls. It should be based on what is right for America. And whether it is a Democrat President or a Republican President, the President is the Commander in Chief.

The United States Senate approved General Petraeus by a unanimous vote. To send him over there and then to undercut him, to cut off his legs when he is trying to carry out a policy which is showing signs of work. I am not a general. I am not the commander, but if you look at what is happening in Anbar province, what is happening in Ramadi, what is happening in parts of Baghdad, give General Petraeus the opportunity. Give our troops the opportunity. Don't be grandstanding. Don't be playing to the crowd. Don't be caving into your left wing base which is right now driving you. You have gotten yourselves into a hole, and you cannot get out of it. Our troops should be above that.

Have concerns for our troops, but most importantly, respect the Constitution. Allow the President and his commanders to prosecute the war. He was elected; General Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate. Everyone knew that he had to plan for a surge. To undercut him now is wrong. It is morally wrong. It is politically wrong, and it is going to bring shame on the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for yielding. I thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui) for her kind remarks. And particularly I want to thank Ranking Member Thompson, excuse me, former Ranking Member, current Chairman Thompson for the outstanding job I believe he is doing as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and certainly for the level of bipartisanship which he has demonstrated.

Having said that, I have to reluctantly but strongly urge defeat of the rule today. The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill which did pass through the Homeland Security Committee under Chairman Thompson's leadership, passed by a vote of 26-0, was a truly bipartisan effort. There was cooperation from all sides, and we came together to fashion what I believe was a very constructive and significant piece of legislation in an area which obviously is of vital importance to our Nation.

The Department of Homeland Security has been in existence now only several years. It is in its fourth year. We are talking about 22 different Departments and agencies, 180,000 employees. And it is making progress, but much more has to be done. And to address it, we have to do it in a bipartisan way.

Unfortunately, the bill that comes to the floor today has been either stripped or dramatically modified up to 50 percent of the original provisions. And some of these are very significant provisions, probably none more significant than just the sense of Congress, which was so strongly recommended by the 9/11 Commission, saying that the Committee on Homeland Security should be the focal point of legislative activity regarding the Department of Homeland Security, rather than having offices and officials of the Department having to testify before 84 or 86 or 88 various committees and subcommittees of the House.

Also, a number of significant provisions in addition to that that were taken out, for instance, an increase in funding for the Secret Service; prohibiting grants to universities that bar Coast Guard recruiters; and, as Mr. Diaz-Balart pointed out, a very significant legislation which, by the way, came from Congressman DeFazio, which would codify the existing lobbying ban on Department of Homeland Security officials to ensure accountability. And we can go down the list of so many, I believe, significant provisions that were taken out.

Now, the reason for this, I understand where Chairman Thompson is coming from. There was resistance from other committees. But I believe we should have withstood that resistance.

For instance, in the prior Congress when we did pass port security legislation, when we did pass legislation restructuring FEMA, when we did pass legislation involving chemical plant security, we met that same resistance from other committees.

But we stood up to it, and we were largely successful. And we did it by working through the leadership to not just back away from these confrontations, but I believe that when we do it so quickly and we do back away, we really weaken the status of the committee. Not that we are looking to build turf, not that it is a power grab, but, again, following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, if there is one committee which should have primary jurisdiction on homeland security matters, it is the Committee on Homeland Security.

Also, there were amendments proposed that were rejected by the Rules Committee: Congressman Dent's amendment on the Automated Targeting System, which was strongly supported by the 9/11 Commission; Congressman Shays' proposed amendment involving cooperation with Interpol, very important, that was also disallowed; Congressman Dave Davis, his amendment to expand the 287(g) program, which would provide funding for local law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws; and Congressman Poe's amendment regarding appropriate procedures for Customs and Border Protection agents.

So these are a number of very solid amendments that were disallowed. We come here today with a bill which is really barely half of what it was when it left the committee. So I am strongly urging a ``no'' vote on the rule.

In no way is this a reflection on my good friend Chairman Thompson. And after we go through today and maybe even tomorrow, I pledge to him we will continue to work in a bipartisan way. But I really hope that the leadership of the other side would realize the significance of the Committee on Homeland Security and not just give in to various barons throughout the House who are trying to just hold on to their own turf and their own power.