Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1003, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, most of my adult life has been related to children's issues. Before I came to Congress, I had the privilege of serving in the Arizona House of Representatives as chairman of the Subcommittee on Child Protection and Family Preservation.

Later, I was director of the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, which had oversight of all of the State's programs for children in Arizona.

I was also chairman of both the Arizona State Children's Cabinet and the Interagency Study Committee on Children and AIDS.

And for another 4\1/2\ years, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being the executive director of the Arizona Family Research Institute.

I later wrote the Arizona scholarship tax credit legislation, a version of which has now gone through five States and serves to scholarship more than 100,000 low-income children who go to a school of their parents' choice.

I also wrote Arizona's child obscenity and pornography bill, which became a national precedent and protects children from the insidious harm of both adult and child pornography.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I say those things is that there is one critical component of protecting innocent children I have learned over and over again; and that is if you desire to protect children, you must protect the family. Because either families, or government bureaucrats, will ultimately make the decisions about nearly all aspects of our children's lives.

The proposed SCHIP legislation funds and empowers government bureaucracies and not families. It is a quintessential example of a misguided and overreaching program that is an entitlement program and affixes itself to a funding mechanism that is a declining revenue source. Not only does it place this generation of children into a Hillary-care, government-run health care system, but it also places the burden of cost on the next generation of children, Mr. Speaker, and those many times who will be forced to pay for it will be those making less money than those benefiting from the program.

Mr. Speaker, Americans care desperately about their children. And, unfortunately, in this SCHIP debate, liberal Democrats are exploiting America's love for children for temporary political gain. The majority has cast this entire debate in terms of Republicans being against children and Democrats being for them. For a Republican like myself who has spent their entire life dedicated to children's issues, it is an equation that I have to reject in the strongest possible terms. And it is especially difficult for me, Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the same party who says they advocate for poor children leaves the very poorest children of all out of the equation.

It is the Democrat Party, Mr. Speaker, that has for decades fought for an abortion-on-demand policy that has allowed thousands of unborn children to be killed in America every day.

At the beginning of this Congress, newly elected Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, ``We are here for the children.'' And she called the House to order for ``all of America's children.''

But she didn't mean all of them, Mr. Speaker. In fact, most Democrat Members of this body, including Speaker Pelosi, voted against, in the last Congress, allowing unborn children to even receive anesthetic when undergoing abortion procedures so torturous that they would be a felony if performed on an animal.

Mr. Speaker, behind me this picture is a little baby who deserves to be protected like every other child in this country, and yet before the sun sets in America today, 4,000 unborn children will be killed through abortion on demand, and, Mr. Speaker, their mothers will never be the same.

The Democrat Speaker and the majority of this Congress have to somehow understand that there are better ways to help mothers than killing their children for them. And they must also realize that they can never have credibility as advocates for children while they still support an abortion-on-demand policy that has killed nearly 50 million innocent children.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Members of this body to come together and to truly do the right thing for all of America's children, even those yet unborn.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the bill here at issue, the so-called RESTORE Act, undermines the existing structure that we put in place to reform FISA only 3 months ago.

In the midst of a war, any changes to the way that our intelligence community operates should be understood as a somber and delicate undertaking that requires great care. Our national security hangs in the balance. We cannot afford to get this wrong, Mr. Speaker.

My amendment aimed to deal with the seriously flawed provision of the RESTORE Act that will do great damage to the civil liberties of the protections of Americans.

My amendment would have stricken section 11 of the bill that directs the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to jointly maintain a recordkeeping system of U.S. persons whose communications are intercepted.

Mr. Speaker, this would amount to a big government database that would have individuals' identity attached in every practical way. There is simply no way to have a database like this that does not attach individual identities to verify the process. The Democrats maintain that the identity is not attached. But this is an impractical rebuttal.

Mr. Speaker, the proposal's not only misguided, it attempts ostensibly to protect Americans' civil liberties and only undermines them further. And we have to understand that these identities would be attached, even if they have no connection to spying or terrorism.

And the bottom line is this, Mr. Speaker, this war on terrorism is ultimately fought in the area of intelligence. If we knew where every terrorist was tonight, in 60 days this war would be over. And if we tie those people's hands who are fighting to protect this country with this RESTORE Act by the majority, I believe that we will some day revisit this issue, Mr. Speaker, because when a terrible tragedy comes on this country, it will transform this debate in the most profound way, and we need to be very, very careful. We need to understand that what we're doing here is of vital importance to future generations.

Mr. Speaker, this last Sunday one of America's grandest ladies turned 97 years old. And tonight it is a sincere privilege for me to stand here in this well to speak a few words of heartfelt tribute to a woman whose impact on three generations of children will be felt in the human family I believe even after this Chamber is dust.

I knew this special lady as Mrs. Freeman. Four decades have passed since I gathered my belongings as a fourth grader and left the warmth and safety of her classroom for the very last time. As we all reflect on our childhood, I suppose each of us has that one teacher in our memory who affected our lives more than any other. My memory of her is always that of a truly warm and elegant lady who completely personified class, dignity, and grace.

Mrs. Freeman was the model teacher that I believe every teacher truly aspires to be. She made books come alive in class. She made every lesson exciting, every life was important. She made us realize that each of us had an important part to play that only we could play. This gracious lady encouraged us to pursue a standard of integrity simply by the way she lived. And in those times when we disappointed her, Mr. Speaker, she never failed to correct us truthfully but gently, and she was always willing to forgive us and to affirm that we were fully restored in her eyes.

While there were so many ways that the guidance of Mrs. Freeman prepared me for life, perhaps the greatest gift I ever received from her and have carried with me through all these years was that of her words of encouragement. I may never have come to this Chamber at all, Mr. Speaker, without some of the soul-lifting things that she said to me. And I am convinced that not a day goes by that I am not affected by those words.

And I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that not a day ever went by in her class that did not include a moment when Mrs. Freeman looked into the eyes of one of her students and, with a warm smile and a loving wink, she would utter those simple words ``You can do it.'' I know without a doubt that mine was only one of hundreds of lives that were changed forever by those magnificent words, not only because they empowered and encouraged but because we each knew that she meant those words from the depth and core of her soul.

There were many other lessons she left us with that I have greatly cherished on this road to the United States Congress. When one of us would be left out, she would come along beside us and encourage us with that authentically gracious and generous spirit that characterized her life. When my home burned down, Mr. Speaker, taking nearly every material belonging I had, including my school books, and leaving me feeling a little lost, it was Mrs. Freeman that reminded me that God had spared all of my family and that the rest really didn't matter. And I knew then and I know now more than ever that she was so very right.

She also taught me through school plays just to speak my lines sincerely from my heart, and I seek to do that even tonight, Mr. Speaker. Few gifts could have served me better over these many years.

When I first ran for the United States Congress, this sweet lady made the trip to attend one of the major events supporting my candidacy. She made a campaign contribution and included a note that ended with those words, ``You can do it.''

But a narrow loss in that election, Mr. Speaker, was a deep disappointment. And still I received a letter from her shortly afterward, and once again she offered hope and encouragement that I will cherish as long as I live. But it was her last five words that I remember most. They were the hallmark phrase of Marguerite Freeman, teacher of truth and loving encourager to children. Her letter closed with those words, ``You can still do it.''

Mother Theresa once said, ``Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are endless.'' Mr. Speaker, if Mrs. Freeman could be here in this Chamber tonight, I would say to her something like this: that words fail me to express the loving impact that you have had on my life and so many others. And I truly believe that this generation and many generations to come will inherit the beauty and legacy of those endless echoes of your encouragement that you cast into the hearts of so many of those children whose priceless gift it was to call you teacher. Beloved and gallant lady, may God bless you forever.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 942 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, nearly 100 years ago the Department of War made a contract with two all-American men who would revolutionize human life as we know it. Those Ohio-born Wright brothers had a starry-eyed vision, tenacity, and brilliance that transformed their vision from theory to reality when they contracted with the United States Army to build a flying machine for the use of the United States Armed Forces.

Since then the United States Air Force has proven that mortals can

break the sound barrier many times over in heavier-than-air, high- powered aircraft defying, it seems, the very forces of gravity and transcending the previously incontrovertible dimensions of human capacity. Even at this very moment, the Air Force is working to defend our assets in a new frontier of national security: space itself.

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 60th anniversary of the year in which the United States Air Force became an official separate military service within the Department of Defense. Since then, the ability to protect the forces of freedom all over the world through flight in air, space, and cyberspace has transformed warfare in a way that perhaps only can be truly appreciated by the enemies of liberty.

Air power was born through the courage and resilience with which our noble men and women in the Air Force overcame in the crucibles of World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. And today the courageous airmen and women of this generation are shaping history still as the enemies of liberty feel the just fury of the Air Force in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The U.S. Air Force has risen to meet the challenge of international terrorism by attaining a new level of technological capability to surveil a battle space virtually encompassing the entire planet.

Mr. Speaker, I have the precious honor of representing the Second Congressional District of Arizona, which includes Luke Air Force Base, a vital strategic asset to our national security and the largest fighter wing in the United States Air Force. Luke Air Force Base trains over 95 percent of all U.S. Air Force F-16 pilots and over 50 percent of all U.S. fighter pilots. The commanders at Luke are entrusted with the solemn mission of effectively equipping the Nation's greatest F-16 pilots and maintainers to be deployed as mission-ready war fighters. It is a center and symbol of excellence to the Air Force and a beacon of courage, honor, military strategy, and effectiveness for our armed services throughout America.

As the Nation commends 60 years of noble and selfless service in the cause of the freedom and security of these United States, it is an honor for me to stand here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives and thank Luke Air Force Base and the entire United States Air Force for their selfless dedication and their commitment to the cause of human freedom. None of us can ever fully convey the gratitude that we owe to these warriors who have answered liberty's call to service and sacrifice.

So, Mr. Speaker, may I pause this moment and offer my deepest and heartfelt gratitude, and that of the entire Nation, to the gallant men and women of the United States Air Force who have now, for these 60 years, borne upon their noble wings of freedom the cause of America and the hope of humanity.

God bless them all, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 220th anniversary of the ratification of one of the greatest documents written in the history of man.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is safe to say that other than the Bible and our Declaration of Independence, no other document has so impacted the course of human history and freedom throughout the world.

That is because 220 years ago, the Framers of our Constitution did something singular in the long account of tyrannies, governments, and institutions invented whereby man sought to govern his fellow man.

A small courageous set of soldiers, farmers, aristocrats and tradesmen banded together and forever threw off the yoke of the crown of England to ``secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.''

Their resolve was ratified with the Declaration of Independence that was in fact a promise to future generations to never again subject our children to the unchecked tyranny of arbitrary human government.

In those tumultuous days, there was perhaps no better or more justifiable case for establishing a permanent monarchy than under the noble and flint-like leadership of General George Washington. Many urged the general to do just that. But, Mr. Speaker, instead those first Americans took it upon themselves to do something completely revolutionary. Those men, who had seized for themselves potentially unlimited power over a nascent state completely vulnerable to the dictates of tyranny, chose instead to place immovable checks and limitations upon their own power and upon all those in government who would follow them.

The European model of life said that God gave authority to kings and a government of kings who would hold the rights of men in their hands. The American model encapsulated the divine message of human dignity: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created, that they are all equal, and that they are all endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and that government exists to secure those rights.

Mr. Speaker, those first Americans understood that all men were individually accountable to God and that he first gave each of them the right to live. Without this first right of life firmly secured and clearly understood, they knew that all other rights would become meaningless; but with it, all other rights would follow.

They were right, Mr. Speaker. The Constitution of the United States built upon the Declaration of Independence and its proclamation of a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and laid upon that foundation the rights of freedom of all kinds, of speech and religion, the right to own property, the right of individuals to bear arms, and the right to choose a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States is a statement of eternal truths as much as it is a statement of principles that govern a nation. Now more than ever as we take this day to commemorate the framing and establishment of that Constitution that for 220 years has served as the archetype of free democratic nations and governments all over the world, it is absolutely incumbent upon all of us to desperately remember the meaning of those words and to renew our commitment to guard against every erosion of that document and the liberties it embodies. But most importantly, the protection of the right to live.

Daniel Webster's admonition to all of us is so appropriate. He said: ``Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. If the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world.''

Mr. Speaker, Senator Webster's voice no longer sounds in these Chambers, but I pray that we hear his message anew in our hearts, and I hope we can renew our own oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, that miraculous document that has so valiantly and nobly served the cause of humanity for 220 years.

Mr. Speaker, 9/11 is the ultimate reminder of the countless innocent American lives at stake when we miss critical or e-mail communications between foreign terrorists in foreign countries. If our national intelligence community is to effectively anticipate future threats, it must be allowed to keep up with the rapidly evolving world of telecommunications technology.

Mr. Speaker, last night in this House, Democrats chose to blatantly disregard the appeals of both the Director of National Intelligence as well as those of the FISA courts who have pleaded for a modernization of the system in order to reduce the needless burden of FISA court orders for foreign terrorist surveillance.

Instead, Democrat Members passed a bill that only further immobilizes our outdated foreign intelligence system.

Mr. Speaker, whether or not liberal Democrats acknowledge the threat that we face, that threat is very real, as terrorists themselves continue to remind us. Al-Manar recently said on BBC: ``Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the great Satan [America] is absolute . . . Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America.''

Mr. Speaker, tonight is the last opportunity before leaving Washington for Members of this House to address the imminent possibility of a terrorist attack by effectively modernizing our FISA regulations to provide for the defense of the American people.

One thing is absolutely clear, Mr. Speaker: Al Qaeda will not rest when this body adjourns for the August recess. If we do not address the critical loopholes in our foreign surveillance system tonight, our children may some day face nuclear jihad, perhaps even in this generation. And what we will tell them, Mr. Speaker, when they look back on this day and condemn this generation for unspeakable irresponsibility in the face of such an obvious threat to human peace. We must pass this critical bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, praise is due to certain Members on the Appropriations Committee on both sides of this aisle who had the foresight and the wisdom to fund key missile defense systems in the President's budget.

We must remind ourselves that in 2006 alone there were close to 100 foreign ballistic missiles launched around the world. In an age of terrorism, when rogue states and non-State entities can acquire these dangerous missiles, we must prepare a defense for our homeland, for our deployed war fighters and for our friends and allies.

The Appropriations Committee preserved the Airborne Laser, which is a system often deemed futuristic or far-term, but as many of us know, ABL is a magnificent ballistic missile defense system that has now been built and continues to successfully meet its knowledge points. And thanks to the ingenuity and hard work of dedicated Americans, Airborne Laser will soon play a critical role in helping us to meet the evolving threat of ballistic missiles.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, are you saying that the cuts would be restored?

Mr. Chairman, you may be confused here. We're not talking about ABL here. I was just getting to the next. I was thanking you for restoring ABL.

Mr. Chairman, if the distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee is saying that the cuts would be restored, then I'm willing to withdraw the amendment. If that's not what he's saying, then I need to go ahead and offer the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, that may be. Let me go ahead and finish here with my comments, and then I'll ask the Appropriations chairman what he feels like would be appropriate at that time.

I'm also grateful, Mr. Chairman, that we've taken vital steps for greater cooperation with Israeli ballistic missile defense because I believe that will play a critical role in future pieces of the human family.

Having said that, I'm incredibly concerned tonight that the $97.2 million that was cut from the only existing active defense system this Nation has against intercontinental ballistic missiles is a dangerous cut. This is not a far-term system. In fact, this is not a near-term system. It is a current system and the only one we have to defend this Nation against intercontinental ballistic missiles. This $97.2 million cut is inconsistent with even the Democrats' view on the House Armed Services Committee for their support for short-term programs and near- term programs, and it directly conflicts with the legislation passed in last year's National Defense Authorization advocating Department of Defense focus on near-term capabilities.

This amendment would restore the $97.2 million for ground-based, mid- course defense without increasing any dollars to the Defense bill. The offset is from research and development defense-wide, which has over $20 billion in the account.

Mr. Chairman, this country must plan on being surprised by our enemies. In 1998, intelligence experts indicated that North Korea was years away from fielding multistage rockets. That very next month they demonstrated that capability when, on July 4 of the American Independence Day, North Korea brazenly launched a long-range ballistic missile.

Americans witnessed for the first time that day their country activate a missile defense system to protect our

homeland against intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is clear that North Korea was using these missiles for coercion and intimidation, and I would ask that we neutralize their ability to do that and bring critical protection to Americans and our homeland by fully supporting the GMB system we currently have.

Now, I would yield to the chairman if he has any thoughts.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, in sincere and due respect, if the concern were as great as mine, this $97.2 million would not have been cut.

I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, over the past three decades, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has become increasingly archaic, and our intelligence community has been inhibited from acting with speed and agility to conduct necessary surveillance of foreign targets. The consequence of missing terrorist communications materialized before our eyes on the morning of 9/11; and, Madam Speaker, in the eyes of our enemy, 9/11 is only the beginning.

Madam Speaker, if we knew exactly where every terrorist in the world was at this moment, the war on jihad would be, in practical terms, over in about 6 weeks. However, in this 21st century, it is intelligence that is our most critical challenge. Without intelligence, our entire national defense structure is rendered ineffective and the lives of millions of Americans are placed at the mercy of an enemy possessed with a merciless ideology and a relentless vision of the Western World in nuclear flames.

Just this week, Madam Speaker, a new al Qaeda propaganda ad appeared on the Internet entitled, ``Wait for the Big Surprise.'' And it closed with these words: ``Soon, God willing.''

Just today, Madam Speaker, the Director of National Intelligence issued an unequivocal statement that the bill we are now considering is an unacceptable solution and one that would keep him from fulfilling his duty to anticipate threats and to protect our Nation.

Madam Speaker, al Qaeda will not adjourn when we do. Today, this night, is our opportunity to address this vital issue. If we let partisan bickering cause us to fail, we should start now to write our apology to the children of the next generation who may see nuclear jihad and the generation beyond that that may see dangers beyond our imagination.

Madam Speaker, we must not fail.

Madam Speaker, three years after the U.S. Congress passed a resolution officially recognizing the genocide in Darfur, the crisis continues today unabated. We continue to hear credible reports of armed attacks on aid workers, food convoys, and civilians by the government-supported Janjaweed militia. While assistance from UN troops is critical given the limited African Union resources, President Bashir has prevented such assistance from taking place. Madam Speaker, with 2.5 million people murdered in Southern Sudan, 450,000 killed in the Darfur region, 35,000 women and children

enslaved, more than 270,000 refugees, and four million people internally displaced as a result of the policy of genocide, the regime of President Bashir must be held accountable.

As we commemorate the third anniversary of this resolution, let us not forget that this crisis is only part of a larger policy of the government led by Omar al Bashir that has been ongoing for over twenty years. This policy of arabization and islamization began with the Bashir government's war against the people of the South, which spread into Darfur, and is now moving into the Nuba Mountains.

Madam Speaker, the Bashir government has shown blatant disregard for implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) which ended their civil war against the South, providing only more evidence that they do not take peace seriously and cannot be negotiated with. If the CPA fails, I have no doubt that the Bashir government will not only completely wipe out the people of Darfur, but every other part of Sudan that does not fit into their racist and inhuman agenda for the country. Madam Speaker, this corrupt and merciless regime has absolutely no regard for the intrinsic value of innocent human life, and it must be held to account if there is to be any hope for lasting peace in Sudan.

Madam Speaker, the U.S. Government has taken the leading role in resolving the conflict in Sudan, from negotiating the end of the civil war to providing more humanitarian aid than any other country, and calling the international community to seriously address the genocide in Darfur. However, without support from China which now has significant oil interests in Sudan, and from other UN and Arab League member states that refuse to hold Bashir responsible for his policies of genocide, the crisis cannot be resolved.

Today, Madam Speaker, as we once again commemorate the resolution declaring the horrific atrocities continuing to occur in Sudan, may we resolve to do everything in our ability to hasten the day when the sunlight of freedom shines on every one of those precious human souls.

Madam Chairman, abortion on demand in America is the greatest single cause of death in our Nation's history. We have killed nearly 50 million of our own unborn children since the criminal Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. That is 15,000 times the number of lives lost in the 9/11 terrorist attack.

Planned Parenthood is the foremost promoter and provider of abortion on demand for any reason or no reason. In the last fiscal year, this government appropriated more than $300 million to this death dealing organization.

Madam Chairman, it has been said that a government is what it spends. For this government to appropriate one penny of the taxpayers' money to an organization that kills unborn children and emotionally impoverishes their mothers is a disgrace that undermines the core essence of the United States of America and betrays everything that our soldiers lying out in Arlington National Cemetery died to preserve.

And Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to find the courage to vote for the Pence amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, just today, while debating this new Iraq withdrawal bill, reports continue to surface that al Qaeda is now restructuring its power.

Like several other recent actions on the part of Democrats recently, this bill communicates to jihadist enemies that we are weakening and confirms their belief that they have a critical advantage over free people in the world because their will is far stronger than ours and they need only to persevere to break our resolve.

Osama bin Laden himself has stated, ``The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.''

Mr. Speaker, if Democrats continue to insist that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, then I wish they would explain that to the terrorists because they still don't understand, and they are continuing to be fundamentally committed to the destruction of the Western world and to killing us wherever they find us.

Mr. Speaker, the premise behind this bill is that we can have peace tomorrow so long as we are willing to surrender today. Unfortunately, with jihadist terrorism, just the opposite is true. If we surrender to terrorism today, it will only bring greater horror and suffering to all of humanity tomorrow.

So vital questions arise to those who would continue to demand that we surrender Iraq to terrorists. Are they also willing to allow the citizens and families of this Nation to face jihad and what may become a nuclear jihad here at home? And what will we tell our children when that day comes?

Mr. Speaker, defeating radical jihad in Iraq and throughout the world will require the support, perseverance, patience, wisdom and prayers of the American people. But for the sake of those people and for our children, for our future generation and for people across the world who still hope for freedom, I pray that the Members of this body would heed that warning echoing down through history.

There is no substitute for victory.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to see a subject touched on here and would hope that Chairman Obey would be aware that under the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill for 2008, $200 million of the $1.3 billion military assistance for Egypt will be withheld until the Secretary of State certifies that the Government of Egypt has taken concrete steps to reform its judiciary, to curb police abuses and address concerns about the smuggling of weapons from Egypt to Gaza.

I strongly support this provision, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to request that an additional provision, if the chairman would consider it at some

point, be added to ensure that the Government of Egypt also increase protections for human rights according to Egypt's own international human rights commitments, including the religious freedom of members of religious minorities, such as the Coptic Christians and Baha'is, among others.

I just hope, Mr. Chairman, that the chairman of the committee would be so inclined at some point, if we could work with him in any way.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in an age of sophisticated missile development and rampant nuclear proliferation, the United States must continue to invest its attention and resources in developing and fielding defenses to stay ahead of the ominous threat of ballistic missiles.

It is critical that the United States continue to work with our friends and allies who wish to cooperate in our mission to develop a robust ballistic missile defense against our common enemies.

The United States is currently working with NATO and negotiating with European countries about the possibility of placing a ballistic missile interceptor site in Europe. This is an example of a missile defense opportunity that could offer protection for the U.S. homeland and our European friends from a perilous threat that we share, ballistic missiles potentially carrying nuclear warheads, being launched from rogue nations such as Iran.

Mr. Chairman, incidentally, Iran is projected to have missiles capable of reaching the United States homeland within 7 years.

As it currently stands, this bill prohibits funds made available under the NATO Security Investment Program from being obligated or expended to conduct studies on missile defense. My amendment would strike this section. Mr. Chairman, in the midst of the current debate regarding the need for greater international support of missile defense, we must not arbitrarily prevent our allies from joining with us to pursue these vital and common goals.

For the sake of defending our cities and our freedom, I encourage our colleagues to support our Nation's policy to build a robust, layered ballistic missile defense; to support our allies against common threats; and to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

I would only add that it is vitally important from our perspective that NATO countries be encouraged to cooperate with the things that we're doing there and some of the countries that we're working with for the European missile site. We understand that everything you said is correct. We also believe that it doesn't make sense to single out missile defense as the only study that would be prohibited under this section.

And there may come a day when we will have to apologize to the American public for putting so much emphasis on building expensive missile defense capabilities, and if that happens, I will be willing to stand here and do that, but it would be far harder for me to apologize to the American people for failing to do everything that we could on every front to protect the homeland and our European allies and our soldiers and warfighters abroad from the most dangerous offensive weapons that have ever come upon humanity.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.