Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, amidst these tumultuous times, it is often difficult to make sense of the stakes and the situations which confront us. But let us be clear: America in Iraq faces the prospect of a defeat, with consequences not only for this present generation of Americans but for future generations of Americans as well. Unlike Vietnam, the enemy will follow us home; and this is an enemy that is bent upon our destruction and the death not only of ourselves but of everything we hold dear.

In similar times, as my colleague Phil English, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, earlier read, it was the moral clarity of individuals like President Roosevelt, who helped guide the greatest generation to their triumph over abject evil.

This generation of Americans must retain their moral clarity to understand what needs to be done in the perilous present to get us to a better tomorrow. First, we need to step back and assess the situation in Iraq. The reality in Iraq is that we have one thing left to do as a Nation, and that job has been entrusted to our troops, who have done everything and more that has been asked of them.

To date, Iraq is free, Iraq is sovereign, Iraq has a democratically elected government. The people of Iraq within the government are fighting side by side with United States forces to kill and capture al Qaeda and other terrorists and insurgents.

And today we find ourselves struggling to attain the last goal before our troops accomplish the mission, and that is to give the new democracy a chance to survive in our absence. I say a chance to survive in our absence, because no free people, including ourselves, can ever be guaranteed that their liberty will last in perpetuity.

Did not Benjamin Franklin tell us this when he said to his fellow patriots at the founding of our Nation, we will give you a republic, if you can keep it.

The price of keeping that republic, or of any free nation, is eternal vigilance, to make sure that your rights are not eroded and you are not enslaved.

At another time in our Nation's history, when we were sorely tried through the conflagration of war, it was President Lincoln who understood that a war for secession had become a war for the emancipation of an entire race so that our Nation could have a new birth of freedom.

What we find in the Middle East today as we struggle to accomplish the last task in this mission is that our war for terror has been transformed into the war for the emancipation of millions of Muslims, so that the Middle East and our world can have a new birth of freedom.

If we, as a nation conceived in liberty, who have seen the sorrowful sacrifice of so many of our sons and daughters throughout our history to retain that liberty, determine to turn our backs upon people we have given a cruel sip of freedom to before we abandon them, we must ask ourselves two questions: What do we as a nation believe anymore about ourselves and the inalienable truths upon which we were founded; and what manner of dedication can we portray to the world and to ourselves as to its preservation?

And then we must ask ourselves a very cruel question: What other nascent democracies under terrorist attack will the United States abandon? Because that is the question that the enemy wants us to confront in what they are doing in Iraq.

If the United States is defeated in Iraq, and make no mistake, with the euphemisms that are bandied about, if we leave we lose, and the terrorists will remind us of this. The gutter snipe, Osama bin Laden, will be more than happy to proclaim it through every Internet site and every broadcast media available to him and his ilk for domestic American consumption.

If we leave and are defeated in Iraq, everything that the enemy has done in Iraq will be transferred to Afghanistan. Already, as we found out earlier today, we have seen the hand of the Iranians in putting exploding devices and other material to support the Taliban insurgents against the NATO forces and our own U.S. troops who are part of that coalition.

Let us not forget that it was in Afghanistan that al Qaeda, and especially bin Laden and others, learned to kill as they chased the Soviets out through

measures that they are now applying in Iraq and Afghanistan. And let us not forget that an emboldened enemy will then, on much more familiar ground where the al Qaeda was housed before the attacks of September 11, it will prove a much more fertile ground for their incipient brand of insurgency, which we will have already been unable to quell in Iraq, which will now devolve into chaos and prove a safe haven for those who wish to kill us.

But let us not forget, we have one thing left to do in Iraq. That is why it is so bloody, that is why it is so bitter, and that is why it is so frustrating to the vast majority of Americans. But if we maintain our prudence and perseverance and clarity, we can see this through until the mission is accomplished. We can see that the United States, which is a revolutionary experiment in human freedom, can remember the lesson that Lincoln taught us: When we extend liberty to the enslaved, we ensure liberty for ourselves. President Lincoln understood that liberty is not static. It does not remain in a perpetual stasis where we can enjoy our liberty while others have it denied unto them.

If freedom is advancing or eroding in the course of human events, let us rededicate ourselves not only to accomplishing the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan so that our world can experience a new birth of freedom, let us rededicate ourselves to the proposition that we who are born into freedom also bear the responsibility where we can to extend liberty to those who also yearn to breathe free, as do all of God's creatures.

My amendment that I've offered is very simple and straightforward. It requests that the Secretary of Defense, in concurrence with the Secretary of State, issue to Congress a review of declassification procedures that are in place to guarantee that materiel does not fall into the hands of terrorists, does not fall into the hands of state sponsors of terrorists, does not fall into the hands of groups hostile to the United States, or any similar reprobates in general. By classification procedures I mean Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service procedures to classify something as excess and also as eligible for sale. We believe this should not engender any opposition. We have worked very well with the majority staff of both the committee in question, and the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend the sovereignty and national dignity of our friend and ally, Estonia; condemn Russia's unwarranted intrusions against these free people; and affirm our commitment to America and Estonia's common cause of human freedom.

After a long, illegal and unjust Soviet occupation, Estonia now rightly and proudly stands by our side in the ranks of free nations. Nobly and selflessly, Estonia is steadfast in its defense of civilization from our barbaric enemies, and has championed the cause of human freedom throughout our world. Disturbingly, last week, this free people's very national sovereignty was threatened.

In what should come as no surprise to Americans, whose own founding generation gained their independence from an imperial power, Estonia relocated an aging statue of a Soviet-era soldier from a central location in Tallinn to the city's Garrison Cemetery. Obstinately refusing to recognize Estonia's patent right to do so, or the obvious irony in the statue's new location, Russia used this routine act of municipal administration by the City of Tallinn to engage in a coordinated attempt to interfere in Estonia's internal affairs.

Using state-controlled TV broadcasts into Estonia, the former Soviet Union used its state-controlled television broadcasts to spew propaganda into Estonia. This provocative Russian propaganda falsely claimed Estonia's relocation of the insulting Soviet statue constituted an international crisis. Russia did so to agitate and, thereby, incite the vandalism and violence which occurred in Tallinn from April 26 through 29.

Prior to these outbreaks of violence, Russian embassy officials were observed meeting with the organizers of radical pro-Russia fringe groups; and, while Russian-speaking mobs roamed Tallinn's streets, Estonia's government Web servers came under cyber attack, the cause of which was later traced to IP addresses located in Moscow and owned by the Russian presidential administration.

So, too, there is a new report Russia has conveniently discovered a need to repair its rail links entering Estonia and, as a result, is suspending oil shipments to Estonia.

Further, Russia continues to flout the Vienna Convention by allowing Russian nationalist extremists to surround and vandalize Estonia's embassy in Moscow.

Mr. Speaker, when one weighs this inexcusable incident along with Russia's recent refusal to adhere to the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, its recent arrest of Russian democracy advocates and its refusal to honor past agreements to withdraw its military forces from countries such as Moldova, one is compelled to question a former KGB lieutenant colonel's commitment to democracy; and whether the red bear is awakening from its hibernation to once again feast upon the free peoples of Eastern Europe and the world.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in a righteous defense of Estonia's sovereignty; a condemnation of Russia's belligerent intrusions into this democratic nation's internal affairs; and affirm, in the tradition of American Presidents from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, we will stand united against tyranny with our Estonian brothers and sisters as one free people.

Madam Speaker, I am here today with my colleague Mike Rogers to extend our sincerest gratitude to Cpl Mark Kidd--a son, grandson, brother, Marine and American--for his service to our nation, and to extend our deepest condolences to his family and friends. As a friend of the family it is very difficult for us to try to serve the dual roles that, in many ways, you helped give us on this sorrowful day.

Mark, as we all know, grew up cradled in the arms of his loved ones and strengthened here in the cradle of liberty. When he was called to serve he served in the defense of his nation, not by oppressing his fellow human beings in foreign lands, but by bringing emancipation to them so that they, too, could yearn to breathe free. It is in such a way of service to our fellow human beings that we honor not only our nation, but more importantly, we honor the universal spirit of a loving God who created us all. Thus, it is important that we remember, even as we grieve today, how we are all frail ephemeral human beings, groping through this veil of tears toward the infinite eternal perfection of the loving God, who created and awaits us all. It is a daunting calling, then, that we must answer; to strive, suffer and serve on behalf of our fellow human beings,

But Mark was not daunted, Mark accepted this challenge and he devotedly, courageously, and honorably strove to help free an entire people. Now he is cradled in the arms of our loving God and, no doubt, having not slumbered through this earthly life he may truly say with joyous rapture; now God be thanked, who has matched us with his hour and caught our youth and wakened us from sleeping.

Thank you and may God continue to bless you, Cpl Mark Kidd--beloved son, grandson, brother, Marine, American.

Very quickly. Through the Chairman, I would like to remind my friends that all spending bills originate in the House, not in the executive branch of Congress; and that a lot of those appropriation bills looked certainly bipartisan at the time.

What we have here in front of us is a clear choice, a choice to move America forward, as we have tried to do, or a choice to move America in a new direction, backwards.

We are going back to the 1970s. As a child of the 1970s in the Carter administration, I remember how we gutted defense, I remember how our Nation had no intelligence worth anything. And I look back to the Clinton era and I see how the budget deficit that we now have accumulated in a time of war was necessitated by the reduction in our military, the gutting of our intelligence network, the inability to defend America's basic needs. The rush to free trade, which was signed by the Clinton administration, and now the bill came home to roost on the watch of George Bush and the American people on September 11, 2001. It is a history lesson that I hope was not lost upon the America people.

Finally, to quote Lewis Carroll, as one of his admirers, ``Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.''

It is time for America to be wide awake to the choice in front of them, and let us come back and move America forward.

Mr. Chairman, in addressing my issues with this budget, I prepared some elaborate charts. I know that you are pretty worn out of charts by now, but I think these will try to encapsulate some of the problems that I believe my party and myself in particular have with this budget.

Some of the problems I think have to be dealt with right off the top. We have a budget that promises to balance by 2012. It does so with many promises for future spending, and it promises to hit American taxpayers with the largest tax increase in American history.

Now, we are told not to be concerned about that. As someone with young children who would like to be out of the poorhouse when I retire, I worry about that greatly. I worry about that greatly, the economic opportunities that they will have in the future.

So when I see that it is being defended, the largest tax increase in human history is being defended because there are promises contained within the budget that, no, we do not mean this, we will only raise certain of your taxes, that still provides me very cold comfort indeed.

When I hear there are promises for billions upon billions in future spending in things called reserve funds, which means there is no money in it, it constitutes an IOU account, which to its name you have signed the American taxpayer, I also take very cold comfort in that.

When I hear that we talk about trying to find tax gap money to pay for new spending, I am reminded of the fact that tax gap funding is the difference between taxes levied and taxes collected. In short, tax gap money has to go for deficit reduction or debt reduction, because you are going to collect money for which services have already been purchased. If you allow new spending based upon that money, you will continue to perpetuate a deficit.

Now, I have come to this also as a father with young children and as a member of Generation X. I know I don't look it, because I am bald, but I am far younger than my service here has rendered me to look.

In the final analysis, there is no true entitlement reform here. My generation is the one that thinks it is never going to see Social Security, that the babyboomers will break the social safety net. We are concerned about Medicare, we are concerned about Medicaid, and yet we are told that we will deal with that later.

We are told by the Democratic majority that, when they were in the minority, somehow we impaired their ability to think and devise plans to save the social safety net of the United States, and let us wait. I tell you, I am not getting any younger, and I prefer not to wait.

Now, one of my particular concerns I have to address. I have much respect for the Blue Dogs in the Democratic Party. My father was a Blue Dog Democrat. He wound up being a Reagan Democrat, which I think is pretty good.

The Blue Dog Democrats looked like this before in the past when they were in the minority, trying to show that they were fiscally conservative. Now, I don't know that I would let this dog watch my wallet, but I wouldn't think he would bite me. So I might take a chance on him or not.

But today's budget, for the Blue Dogs who support it, I want you to see what America is going to think of you. There you are. There you are, with a fine new hairdo. There are you are with silk and threads, purchased with the largest tax increase in American history.

Now, that dog might not bite you, but I certainly wouldn't trust it to guard my wallet either.

Madam Speaker, on March 14, 2007, I would have voted ``yea'' on Rollcall No. 153, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R. 985).

Madam Speaker, President Lincoln warned, ``A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. It will become all one thing or all the other.''

Today, our House is divided; tomorrow, it will become all one thing or all the other. What are the possibilities?

In our divided House, one side believes we must win in Iraq to avoid a catastrophe; another side assumes we can lose in Iraq without consequence.

One side believes we must support our troops in harm's way and continue their funding; another side claims we can support our troops in harm's way and cut their funding.

One side assumes we must defeat al Qaeda in Iraq; another side asserts we can retreat from al Qaeda in Iraq.

And one side believes the American people voted to change course in Iraq to win; another side feels the American people voted to change course in Iraq to lose.

Shortly, we will see how divided we are. One side will vote to support the President's plan to win in Iraq by reinforcing our troops, and then pray to God we are right; one side will vote against the President's plan. And in this question rests the answer to the future of our divided House.

My friends, many of you are about to put yourselves in a precarious position, for no one knows what the future holds. While we may feel sure of our decisions in the evanescent present, the unfathomable vagaries of fate have yet to fully play upon the stage of human history. As a result, many supporters of this resolution made an ominous omission while urging its adoption: In denouncing the President's plan, too few of you have openly hoped our troops' new mission would win the day and prove you wrong.

Being your colleague, I know you share this hope in your hearts. But your fellow Americans in fields abroad and constituencies at home must now wonder, will you cut our troops funding to prove yourselves right?

Sooner than you imagine, this nonbinding resolution will instigate binding legislation to commence a ``slow bleed'' of funding cuts while our troops battle against the enemy. Again, because I serve beside you every day, I know you abhor the thought of American soldiers being harmed by such an abject betrayal of their trust during combat, but it is upon this crucible of conscience you will be judged by all. And when the time comes to confront the consequences of today's expediency, I pray you make the right decision. If, however, you make the wrong decision, you will not only betray our citizen soldiers' trust, you will disastrously unite this House in a callow contentment with our own liberty and a calloused apathy to others' enslavement.

Could there be any more dishonorable epitaph for our free Republic's revolutionary experiment in democracy? True, some allege I exaggerate the danger, but they have turned a blind eye to the epitaphs of liberty etched above the ruins of nations once gloried, now dead: the Athenian city-state, the Roman Republic, the Weimar Republic.

Thus, even as we today divide in our own House, we remain compelled to unite behind the cause of our free Republic in this dangerous age of globalization, wherein humanity's destiny is daily entwined across the disparate reaches of Earth.

Our cause is this: Our world cannot permanently endure half slave and half free. It will become all one thing or all the other, as it has before in the darkest ages of human existence.

My friends, at this crossroads of our Republic, we must heed the better angels of our nature. We must unite our divided House behind the self-evident truth that all human beings are endowed by their Creator, with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We must extend freedom to the Iraqis and, in so doing, enhance the liberty of ourselves and all free peoples and inspire our fellow human beings caged in

tyranny's embrace. And emulating our nation's greatest generations, we must let hope to flow from God's heart to our humble hands so we may, where He allows, emancipate humanity into a new birth of freedom for ourselves and generations unborn.

Madam Speaker, we must reject this resolution, unite behind our heroic troops and, God willing, win our country and humanity's mortal struggle to be free.

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

Mr. Speaker, he was conscientious, committed to peace and momentarily praised. His laurels burned in the bombings. His valorous and vain efforts had but hastened upon his people.

Yet, in eulogizing this ``English worthy,'' Sir Winston Churchill, an ardent opponent of the deceased's policy of appeasement, unexpectedly struck a conciliatory chord toward the late Neville Chamberlain:

``It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase, men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later when the perspective of time is lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History, with its flickering lamp, stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all this? The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor.''

Mr. Speaker, while not serving in this Chamber during the debates on the resolution authorizing the President of the United States to use martial force to remove Iraq's Baathist regime for numerous just causes, including its refusal to honor its Gulf War cease-fire and United Nations' resolutions, during my time as a temporary custodian of my constituents' office, I have striven to ensure our Nation's victory in the battles for Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overarching war on terror. In doing so for 3 years, I have four times traveled to Iraq and once to Afghanistan to meet with our troops; visited wounded citizen soldiers, eulogized our fallen, and consoled their grieving families. As a witness to their courage, sacrifice and suffering, I have been morally compelled to support every appropriation for our military and civilian personnel in harm's way, oppose every policy injurious to our country's common cause of victory; advance my own ideas on how to secure our victory, including the introduction of bipartisan, though ultimately unaccepted, legislation to establish concerted congressional oversight over the course of this conflict; and refused to condone a resolution by my Republican peers which failed to meet its duty; and, immediately afterwards, introduced a resolution of my own in order to fulfill my duty to our soldiers, my constituents, and our country.

As a staunch supporter of our Nation's mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world, I did so in the belief that it is morally imperative for every sovereign American citizen and their congressional servants to ensure our valiant troops victoriously come home to their loved ones' arms. Were I to do otherwise and lapse in my moral duty, I would not only be violating our troops and my constituents' trust, I would be violating the dictates of my conscience.

It is equally true, of course, how within this House other Members' dictates of conscience have led them to a decidedly different, though equally constant course of action. To these Members and their fellow citizens who have done so to date, I share the sentiments Sir Winston held for Neville Chamberlain: You are ``An American Worthy,'' who ``however the fates may play, will ``march always in the ranks of honor.'' Yet, because the resolution thrust before us is a craven exposition of political expediency in a time of national crisis, today many may stray from the ranks of honor.

This resolution is ``nonbinding,'' which means the resolution has no force of law to compel future legislative acts in compliance with its dictates. In sum, then, this resolution legally changes nothing. Americans' money will still unabatedly facilitate our troops' continued deployment into harm's way, despite the United States Congress collectively condemning the President's announced troop reinforcement plan. This impotent resolution is injurious in the eyes of its opponents because it will undermine the morale

of our troops, their families, and our fellow citizens even as it heartens and emboldens our enemies; and this impotent resolution is injurious because it will not stop what many of its supporters purport will be a loss of life in a lost cause. By neither stopping the war nor speeding our victory and by calculatedly doing nothing in this time of national crisis, this resolution is immoral.

This immorality is manifest in how the resolution guilefully attempts to insinuate the United States Congress can simultaneously support our troops and oppose their mission. During a time of war, if an act is not i our national interest, such as the President's plan is deemed to be in this resolution, the act is injurious to the national interest. At best, the act will expend resources, most tragically claim lives without furthering the cause of victory. Better than anyone, our troops understand this. Therefore, this Congress does not support our troops when it proclaims they are risking their lives in a doomed mission injurious to America.

Yet, if Congress persists in this insanity, the Members must meet their responsibility to enumerate the reasons they disapprove of the President's plan and, in point of fact, the mission upon which our troops have already embarked. But this resolution does not provide any rationale for its conclusion. Thus, rather than deserving our collective concurrence, this resolution deserves our universal condemnation.

To this, some supporters will object and allege two defenses for this resolution's fatal omission. Do not these supporters' floor remarks provide the rationales sufficient to sustain this resolution? No. If floor remarks alone are sufficient to sustain the resolution's conclusions, then floor remarks alone would be sufficient to derogate the President's plan and, ergo, vitiate any necessity for a written resolution. Conversely, if it is imperative for the plan's detractors to express their opposition in a written resolution, it is also imperative to express their reasons in writing. Alas, such logic pales before some Members' impulsive muse of the moment.

Let us, then, move to some of the resolution's supporters' second, far more distressing defense: ``A vote of disapproval on the President's plan will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation which will be coming to the House floor.'' As no one who participated in the crafting of this covert legislative agenda has deigned to inform the American people as to its aims, one wonders if it will cut off funding for our troops in harm's way or cut off critical reconstruction funding in the supplemental appropriations bill, thus toppling an unheralded but essential pillar of the President's new victory strategy and proving the perspicacity of the present resolution. While we wonder and worry, according to newspaper reports there is a strategy to make this rumored legislative plan palatable to the public. This strategy's tactics, which its instigators are more than happy to relate to the media, are reputed to include a coordinated multimillion-dollar TV campaign by leftist special-interest pressure groups. No doubt somewhere beyond this ephemeral stream of time there lurks a jealous Clement Vallandigham. But, in fairness, let us disdain a priori speculation, and instead examine a previous resolution to glean the potentialities of the present resolution's supporters' secret legislative plan. The following passages are excerpted from a previous resolution which, albeit more forthrightly, also opposes the Commander in Chief's decisions:

``Resolved, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after 4 years of failure . . . by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for cessation of hostilities . . . to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace be restored.''

This previous resolution too expresses its support for our troops in harm's way:

``Resolved, That the sympathy of the Democratic Party is heartily and earnestly extended to the soldiery of our Army and sailors of our Navy who are and have been in the field and on the sea under the flag of our country, and in the events of its attaining power, they will receive all the care, protection, and regard that brave soldiers and sailors of the Republic have so nobly earned.''

This previous resolution is the Democratic Party platform of 1864.

If the past is prologue, let us be firm in a fair request: If the resolution's supporters possess a victory strategy, or otherwise, for Iraq, these public servants must immediately reveal it to the sovereign citizens of the United States. If these stealth strategists refuse, they will incur the American people's inference this legislative plan assumes and will hasten our Nation's defeat in Iraq. How else could one explain these individuals' already having a legislative plan and an accompanying media plan premised upon our troop reinforcement failure, and doing so regardless of potential American victories on the ground or the advice of our military commanders? Perhaps while they demur from revealing it, these anonymous commander in chiefs will dubiously coin their legislative plan an ``exit strategy.''

It is an irrelevant distinction. Right now the enemy is actively seeking to murder more American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians. So right now and for the immediate future, an exit from Iraq is a defeat in Iraq. Whatever one pretends to the contrary, one will never convince our enemies otherwise.

Yes, it is all too human to wish the world were different; all too human to rationalize away one's misguided actions. Being composed of frail, fallible human beings, even great assemblies such as this have succumbed to the temptation. We must not.

Writing well before Churchill's magnanimous eulogy of Chamberlain and, to the contrary, warning the British people's representatives how history was pitiless, George Dangerfield coldly assessed his national leaders' mismanagement of state affairs during the pre-Great War years of 1910 to 1914: ``Along that row of distinguished and original faces there would pass from time to time, as lightly as a shadow upon the waters, an alarming, an alien spirit, a spirit dangerous and indefinite, the Spirit of Whimsy . . . In the hush of crisis, in the tumult of abuse, or when the stuffy air of the Commons seemed almost to glitter with the shining, salt ripples of sarcasm, there it played, airy, remote, and irresponsible.''

Is an inchoate angst over history's final verdict the reason some supporters of this resolution have taken to this floor, though not in this resolution itself, and verbally professed three key defenses of their decision? One defense is they were misled into supporting an Iraqi regime change because of the false claim it did or might possess weapons of mass destruction. Mercifully, let us stipulate these elected officials performed their due diligence on the matter and, especially for our Democratic colleagues so situated, they did not overly trust the some many of them had accused of stealing a Presidential election.

Again, there were numerous justifiable reasons for authorizing the President of the United States to militarily execute a regime change in Iraq. As those reasons are written in that resolution, I will not dwell upon them, for they do not constitute the crux of the matter, which is this: the war aim of regime change was a success. It is the post-war failure of Iraqi reconstruction breeding our present perils.

Thus even if a Member of Congress can be excused for authorizing force on the basis of being ``misled,'' the Member of Congress cannot be excused for failing to demand adequate post-war reconstruction planning, nor for a 3-year failure to demand constructive changes to an inadequate post-war reconstruction plan.

Dovetailing with this defense, some of the resolution's supporters now claim their initial ardor for the regime change was a mistake because this administration has botched Iraqi reconstruction beyond salvaging and the fledgling democracy is now in a state of civil war. This argument has the

merit of being partially correct, for despite the hard-learned lessons of our Nation's former successes in doing so, this administration utterly failed to comprehend and implement the fundamental principles of reconstructing a defeated, belligerent nation. Importantly, this does not preclude reconstructing Iraq now.

While rife with sectarian violence, much of it instigated and perpetuated from external elements, Iraq is not in a civil war. Relative calm exists in most of the beleaguered nation's provinces, and if one dares to look, there are the agonizingly slow but significant signs of incremental progress in the establishment of order. This progression will be expedited by the administration's new plan, which finally incorporates the two fundamental principles of Iraqi or any reconstruction plan, one, a liberal democratic society evolves upward from its traditional roots of order, not from a centralized bureaucratic government downward; and, two, a nation's transformational evolution into a liberal democracy must contemporaneously provide transactional benefits to its citizens. These fundamental principles will be implemented through critical initiatives, such as provincial reconstruction teams, an accord on oil revenue allocations, and a national reconciliation process, amongst others.

But to earn the support of terrorized Iraqis, security must first be established so they may commence securing the blessings of liberty. This is why the troop reinforcement is required and why the twin pillars of troop reinforcement and grass-roots reconstruction can achieve a joint American and Iraqi victory over the enemies of liberty.

The ineluctable fact of our victory is it must be won with the help of Iraqis, which is disconcerting to many of this resolution's supporters who believe the Iraqis are unwilling to fight for their freedom and are incapable of perpetuating once it is secured. This argument often intersects with the charge our mission in Iraq has been untenably shifted from effectuating a regime change to erecting a model democracy; and for the above reasons, they think this is impossible. This deplorable argument is antithetical to the self-evident truths written into our own Declaration of Independence, though, sadly, it is not without precedent. Once more, let us reference another resolution, this one opposing a military mission creeping toward a decidedly different goal:

``Resolved: that the emancipation proclamation of the President of the United States is as unwarranted in military as in civil law; a gigantic usurpation, at once converting the war, professedly commenced by the administration for the vindication of the authority of the Constitution, into a crusade for the sudden, unconditional and violent liberation of 3 million Negro slaves; a result which would not only be a total subversion of the Federal Union, but a revolution in the social organization of the Southern States, the immediate and remote, the present and far-reaching consequences of which to both races cannot be contemplated without the most dismal foreboding of horror and dismay. The proclamation invites servile insurrection as an element in this emancipation crusade, a means of warfare, th inhumanity and diabolism of which are without example in civilized warfare, and which we denounce, and which the civilized world will denounce as an uneffaceable disgrace to the American people.''

So much for the prognostications of the ``Peace Democrat'' controlled Illinois legislature's 1863 resolution. Thankfully, by the grace of God and the sanguine sacrifice of the American people, it was this Illinois legislature, not our African American brothers and sisters and our Nation's great emancipator, who are to be denounced by the civilized world for all eternity.

What of our legislative body? Now resurrects the specter of our own judgment, which hovers above and shadows us as we seek to ensure we are not forever weighed in the balance and found wonting. It is as it should be, as it must be, for notwithstanding its nonbinding nature, even after this resolution's disposition, our duty demands we make moral decisions affecting our Nation's victory or defeat, and our fellow citizens' lives or deaths. Is this not why, even while bearing malice towards none of them, in defending his own war plan, our own maligned President warned his opponents history is a harsh mistress:

``Is it doubted, then, that the plan I propose, if adopted, would shorten the war and thus lessen its expenditure of money and of blood? Is it doubted that it would restore the national authority and national prosperity and perpetuate both indefinitely? Is it doubted that we here, Congress and Executive, can secure its adoption? Will not the good people respond to a united and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly or so speedily, assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not `Can any of us imagine better?' but `Can we all do better?' Objection whatsoever is possible. Still the question recurs `Can we do better?' The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country.

``Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free, honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of Earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just, a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.''

My friends, history harkens your honorable hearts to reconsider supporting this immoral resolution. If one believes all human beings are equally God's children, whether they be free or yearning to breathe free, one cannot, after a cruel sip of hope, condemn 20 million of God's equally beloved children to a saturnalia of slaughter. If one supports our troops, one cannot deride their cause as injurious to our country. If one seeks our victory in the war on terror, one cannot advocate a retreat and defeat in the face of our enemy.

My friends, through the fog of war, our fiery trial illumes and creeps ever nearer along the trail. Rather than curse the darkness and dread the echoes of history's verdict, let us acquit ourselves with lasting honor by leading our searching Nation through these trying, transformational times and into a transcendent, triumphal tomorrow. Let us earn the esteem of the latest and later generations of all free people by reaffirming our revolutionary Republic cherishes the self- evident truth that all human beings yearn to breathe free. Let us, in our Nation's finest traditions and truest character, remove the Iraqi people's bonds of oppression and replace them with bonds of brotherhood amongst our free, sovereign, and secure peoples.

Let us, in the face of terror, march always in the ranks of honor and courageously and selflessly secure the Iraqi people's blessings of liberty and, in so doing, secure our own blessings of liberty for unnamed generations of American children.

Mr. Speaker, fully cognizant of my moral duty to our troops, my constituents, my country, and my Creator, I cannot in good conscience support this resolution, which is injurious to the cause of our Nation's victory and in consequence is patiently immoral. Therefore, I urge this resolution's rejection and pray God graces, guards, and guides the steps of all who bear the burden of our decisions made on behalf of the majestic American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to go on record with the reminiscence of late President Ford.

As a young person growing up in Michigan, I remember Watergate. It is a very early political memory. And it would have been so easy at the time for that indelible memory to remain with a young person and sour them and make them cynical toward the public process and toward government in general.

But I was very lucky because the man who took the place of the disgraced Richard Nixon was a man from Michigan by the name of Gerald Ford. Living in Michigan at the time being a young person, to see someone from my home State filled me with pride and a sense of inspiration that one person could rise above it and help to heal the wounds of a Nation.

So in many ways today in paying respect to Gerald Ford, it is not my ability to thank him for his service to our country in general, but to thank him personally for the inspiration that he provided me, to see what one good and decent man could do for his fellow Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Taiwan's democratic practices and respect for human rights.

For 20 years, Taiwan's promotion of liberty, the rule of law, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary, and associative rights have contributed to the creation and continuation of a mature democracy. Through electoral competition which expanded their rights and innovative legislation which improved the lives of the Taiwanese citizenry, over time democratic practices, institutionalized democracy, and fostered the Nation's emancipation from authoritarian rule; and ensured the Nation's allegiance to liberty and justice.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, Taiwan has been a staunch ally of the United States and a responsible member of the community of nations. Thus, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the people of Taiwan for establishing a flourishing, multi-party democracy and for their dedication to democratic ideals and human rights.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the extraordinary life of Austin Malcolm ``Mike'' Allen, former Mayor of Northville, Michigan, and mourn his passing at the age of 91.

For more than nine decades, Mike served the people of the City of Northville, where we served as its Mayor from 1958-1978. Born on October 3, 1914, he left his world on September 9, 2006. In his magnificent life, Mike embodied the virtues of honesty and duty--and good old fashioned common sense--for which he was widely admired and never equaled. (Though, admittedly, few tried to emulate his love of suspenders!)

Mike is survived by his wife, Betty; his children, Jim, Sharon, and Patricia; and his siblings, Doris, Naomi, Jerome, Flora, and Hoy. He will be remembered for his witty sense of humor, unfaltering dependability, and endearing concern for others. Mike touched everyone he met; and, by his absence, we are all diminished.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Austin Malcolm ``Mike'' Allen for his lifetime of dedication and service to his fellow human beings.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Lyle Van Houten, former mayor of Dearborn Heights, MI, and to mourn him upon his passing at age 77.

For over seven decades, Lyle dedicated his life to public service and bettering the lives of others. As an integral member of the community, Lyle was first elected to the Dearborn Heights City Council in 1967, where he served until he was elected Mayor in 1986. Upon completion of his mayorship in 1993, he continued to strengthen the Michigan Republican Party, serving as Republican Committee chairman of the 16th and 15th congressional districts.

Moreover, during his distinguished career, he was appointed to the Michigan Judges Retirement Board of Directors by past Governor John Engler, and also served as a member of the Dearborn Heights Kiwanis Club and the Divine Child Men's Club, among other community organizations. Throughout his years, Lyle established a legacy of benevolence, compassion, and unwavering commitment to the community.

On September 7, 2006, after a 4-year battle with cancer, Lyle passed away. He will be remembered as a confident and patriotic American, who served his country with honor and dedication. To his wife, Mary; his children Julie Panetta and her husband Mark, L. Carter, Jr. and his wife Pamela, John, and Margaret; his grandchildren Ellen, Susan, and Nicolas; his sister Jean Linderman; and to everyone who knew and loved him, he was a noble statesman who will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, during his lifetime, Lyle Van Houten enriched the lives of everyone around him. As we bid farewell to this extraordinary individual, I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning his passing and honoring his legendary service to our community and country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. For a moment there I thought you were introducing someone else. But I appreciate the compliment, however misguided it may be. We in America are so seemingly secure in our rights, our liberties, our

God-given constitutionally recognized rights, that we too often cursorily scan our Nation's foundational truths which secure those liberties.

We also as a young Nation far too often have a disdain for history, because since our inception, our eyes always have been fixed forward, towards the progression of our Nation and the expansion of liberty to our fellow Americans. We also, because of the size of our country and its vast beauty, tend to overlook world geography and the relative situation of other nations to each other.

We cannot do that any longer. We cannot ignore the mistakes of past history. We cannot ignore the realities of geography. And we cannot ever endeavor to forget our own history. As the gentleman pointed out, we call each other in this house ``honorable,'' and rightly so. For we are all people who have been elected to serve our fellow Americans.

And he rightly pointed out the remarks of the gentleman, the distinguished and honorable gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). He could not have pointed to a finer example. Because Mr. Rangel not only serves his Nation in this Chamber; Mr. Rangel also is a decorated veteran who served his Nation in a foreign war.

I bring up history to Mr. Rangel because like the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentlewoman from North Carolina, to Mr. Rangel history has a way of revealing the elemental truths of a Nation to itself however unwilling we may be at the time to recognize them, for the very same Mr. Rangel who defended our Nation abroad, had ancestors in this country who were enslaved by the government and the people of this Nation.

The gentleman from Tennessee and the gentlewoman from North Carolina and myself doubtless had relatives in the United States at the time of the Civil War who were sworn enemies who endeavored to kill each other.

Yet because of the foundational truth of this Nation, we stand here today recognizing each other as honorable and joined in the peaceful resolution of our political disputes, because where there is liberty, there is a chance to transcend history to a better tomorrow. In our Nation's history, we have always done so.

When we look abroad, we can go back to the past of that great conflagration that emancipated a race and forged a more perfect Union, to what we are trying to do today. For it is by remembering that in the age of industrialization America could not endure half slave and half free that we realize in an age of globalization our world cannot endure half slave and half free.

When we face the grim contest, the unsought struggle in which we find ourselves against Jihadist fascism, which is more akin to a death cult than any governing political philosophy, we can trace the strain of our own trials and tribulations to ensure more perfect liberty to ourselves and to the efforts that young men and women of our military and our State Department and others are trying to expand throughout the globe, because we know that America's security rests in the promotion of liberty.

We face an enemy that seeks to enslave the globe under its warped worship of death. If we fail in the task before us in the Middle East, if we allow the newly emancipated people of Iraq, the newly emancipated people of Afghanistan, to be thrown to the wolves at their door, and allow Iraq to evolve back into a state sponsor of terror, if we allow the Taliban and its bloodthirsty ilk to again rule Afghanistan and turn female parliamentarians back into property, slavery will have consumed them, and our liberty will be imperiled.

When we look at the efforts of Ahmadinejad and Chavez, we see a common union between oppressors. We see that the Iranian President would seek to impose the oppression that he puts upon his own people, and his common link with the Venezuelan oppressor of his own people. It would be easy at this point in time to see Mr. Chavez is nothing but a third-rate Castro clone, but he is not, because while Mr. Chavez may seem to us to be a bit of a caricature, he is actually a very cunning individual, as is the President of Iran.

The President of Iran, I believe, has a very good grasp of geography. The President of Iran understands that while we have helped to expand liberty on the frontiers of Iran in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, which have put nascent democracies on his doorstep, he needs only to look to South America to see the conditions of poverty and oppression that are rife within that continent and seek to prey upon them by joining league not with duly elected democratic governments that are out to better the quality of lives of their people, but he joins hands with Hugo Chavez to attack the President of the United States, to attack the United States of America, to distract both their citizens, citizens of both countries, from the reality that it is they who are oppressing them, not the United States, who is emancipating them.

If we look at our southern border and the absence of security, the comity between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Chavez is clear, and the danger to our security becomes clear. If we have, as some reports lead us to believe, indications of Jihadist fascism in South America, in Mexico, in other places, that are willing to cross the border, or joining with gangs to cross the border, it is painfully obvious to see that what the President of Iran will do is export his version of worldwide slavery, through the person of Mr. Chavez, with the assistance of the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, and try to utilize our lax and porous southern border to help these individuals infiltrate the United States.

You see, we may not know geography, we may not learn the lessons of history of how dictators band together to attack free people, and we may be devoid of our own knowledge of our own responsibilities to each other and to our fellow citizens, but our enemies are not. Our enemies believe our strengths are our weaknesses. It is up to us to prove them wrong.

For as every generation of Americans before us, when faced with a challenge to their own liberty and security, have met that challenge directly, they have defeated it, and they have expanded liberty to their fellow human beings abroad.

I have no doubt we will continue to do the same, because as Americans it has been our tradition, and it is our duty, and we have never shirked from our duty as a free people.

Mr. Speaker, I know our time is short. I thank the gentleman.

I wish to emphasize why, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, our border security efforts to date have been a good step, but they must be increased.

History shows us that once before an enemy of the United States, the communist Soviet Union and its Bolshevik dictators, joined league with the communist Castro on the island of Cuba to plant nuclear weapons 70 miles off the United States shores.

What a sad irony in history it would be for the United States today to see a dictator in Tehran join league with the oppressive dictator Mr. Chavez in Venezuela to potentially place nuclear devises within America's borders.

I think we should look back to what President Kennedy talked about when he addressed the Cuban missile crisis in order to steel ourselves for the struggles ahead. President Kennedy pointed out that America does not keep its word only when it is easy. America does not keep its word only when it is easy. And while the price of freedom is always high, Americans have always paid it.

I am convinced that if we learn from the lessons of histories and from the successes of individuals like President Kennedy, from his commitment to defending this Nation, to the expansion of liberty, we ourselves will see the day where both Cuba and Venezuela and the people of Iran are free.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman. It was my hope to emphasize a point which you raised in your rather enlightening remarks today, and I thought I would best be able to do that through illustration with a map.

We often hear people wonder what the United States policy is currently in the Middle East in terms of our military and in turn how it affects our national security. Why does Iraq matter?

I will not use this occasion to dwell upon the past, because, as you have quoted Churchill, if I may myself, Winston Churchill pointed out that if we seek to open a quarrel between the past and the present, we will lose the future. We are where we are.

So let me explain. When you look at a map, you see Iraq right here in the heart of the Middle East. Surrounding Iraq are Syria and Iran, two state sponsors of terror.

If we allow what happened in the 1930s to happen here, you will see Syria continue to assist the insurgency in Iraq, Iran continue to assist the insurgency in Iraq, al Qaeda continue to infiltrate Iraq, and should Iraq's efforts towards democracy fail, you will see all three countries linked.

The crushing weight of putting Iraq back into the terrorist and the jihadist-fascist camp will have enormous ramifications, because the sheer combined weight will immediately press upon the Kingdom of Jordan. It will lead to the destruction finally with a counterattack by Hezbollah in the south to the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. It will have enormous adverse effects in Egypt through the Muslim Brotherhood. It will also lead to the destabilization of Saudi Arabia, and, eventually, what Iran has professed, the destruction of the State of Israel itself.

Again, a historical parallel with Iraq at the present time can be drawn between the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact of the 1930s, which ultimately sparked the war, where they had Germany on one side, the Soviets on the other and Poland sat in between, and in their non- aggression pact they carved that country to pieces.

Iran and Syria now have a mutual defense pact. We have seen its ramifications within Lebanon and we are experiencing its ramifications within Iraq itself.

The alternative to seeing the unholy alliance between Syria, Iraq and Iran that are run by terrorist sponsoring states, that are run and shielded by a nuclear powered Iran, is quite simple to grasp.

Over here you have Afghanistan, which is struggling for democracy. Here you have Iraq, which is struggling for democracy. You have the moderate Kingdom of Jordan, you have Egypt, you have Saudi Arabia, which is trying to strive toward reform, and you have Turkey, which is a moderate, a relative concept, but a moderate democracy, Muslim democracy.

If Iraq becomes democratic and Afghanistan becomes democratic, the pressure then is no longer on the people who seek their own liberty within these countries. It becomes a pressure point for Iran and a pressure point for Syria to explain, to have these despots explain within their own nations how they can oppress their citizens and why they do not deserve the type of better life that they have in hopefully a democratic Iraq and a democratic Afghanistan, as they do in Turkey and elsewhere.

This is not going to be easy to achieve, for what we see in Iraq basically is a counterattack. After the initial removal of the Hussein regime, you had infiltrations of insurgent support from Syria, infiltrations of insurgent support from Iran. You had al Qaeda come into Iraq, because they know that if Iraq goes democratic, history could very well, and I believe will, repeat itself.

One of the things we face in the Middle East today is the threat of World War II, of an inherently invidious ideology, jihadist fascism, which in many ways more closely resembles a death cult than any governing philosophy, combined with the approach that won the cold war. I repeat that, we face the threat of World War II, and we are addressing it with the solution of the cold war.

As you recall, what ultimately ended the cold war was when the Berlin Wall fell and Eastern Europe was freed. And it was after freedom swept through the satellite states of Eastern Europe that eventually the Soviet Union collapsed, not from a nuclear exchange or other military exchange with the United States and the West, but from the aspirations of the Russian people themselves for a better life and a life of liberty.

When we look at this map, when you can see an Afghanistan that is democratic and free, when you can see an Iraq that is democratic and free, when you can add that with Turkey, with the Kingdom of Jordan, with the reforms in Egypt, with the reforms in Saudi Arabia, with the successful resolution and triumph of the peaceful Cedar Revolution, what you will then see is serious people demanding to share the lifestyle and the freedoms that are enjoyed by their fellow Muslims in the world.

You will see Iranians, many of whom are under the age of 30, many of whom are not opposed to westernized ideas, or at least pluralism and tolerance, and you will see the Iranian people demanding their freedom. This will never happen if this goes back to being a terrorist state sponsor.

And for those who are rightly concerned that in this period in our Nation's history we could face war without end, I ask you this question: If you disagree with my scenario, with my analysis that a democratic Iraq combined with a democratic Afghanistan will eventually put pressure on Syria and Iran whereby they will collapse from within, if you disagree with that, find me a better solution. Because I assure you that if Iraq goes back to being a state sponsor of terror and Iran gets a nuclear weapon, that scenario is far more likely to produce the war without end than will be the liberation and emancipation of people throughout that region and the demands of Syrians and Iranians for the freedom that we here so often take for granted.

I yield back to the distinguished gentlewoman.