Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and to speak in favor of the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Fred Bastiat said in the dawn of this Republic that government is that great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else. I am not sure if there are too many subjects other than earmark transparency being debated here today that hold more relevance to such a comment, and I am afraid that Members of both parties are unwilling to admit that.

It is critically important that we do because it comes down to the very core of who we are as Americans and whether or not we are still capable of self-governance, and whether or not we will allow the fabric of liberty that has been so carefully woven throughout the years to be torn asunder while we all stand by and watch.

So to that end, Mr. Chairman, let me remind Members of this body of some of the promises made by those in the majority only a few short months ago.

One prominent Member said explicitly, ``We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks.'' Another said, ``We are going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of night. We need to have earmarks subject to more debate. That's what debate and public awareness is all about. Democracy works if people know what's going on.'' Of course this was after campaigning on the pledge to, quote, ``make this House the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.''

But, Mr. Chairman, these promises, though unequivocally made, have been unequivocally broken. Reforms designed to ensure openness, transparency and accountability have been trampled underfoot by the very Members who so vocally called for their enactment. We saw this most egregiously in March of this year with the emergency supplemental legislation, when funds were desperately needed to provide for our men and women in uniform and instead they were laden with $21 billion in irrelevant pork-barrel spending.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we are seeing it again today in this capricious decision to blatantly shut the American public out of one of the most important and necessary duties of this House and our representative form of government, that of allocating taxpayer funds for the general good of the American people.

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has arbitrarily decided that a few select Members of Congress are more capable of ascertaining the public good than the public is itself. Their actions imply that these Members should be allowed, behind closed doors, to decide where tax dollars are spent without being indebted in any way to the collective intelligence and scrutiny of the general public, the press, the media, the blogosphere, and the American people themselves, of course, who are given the charge to keep their elected Representatives accountable.

Mr. Chairman, in any other case, this would be called an oligarchy, the bureaucratic rule of the few over the many. It was this very arbitrary confiscation of power that once caused our Nation's founders to throw off the yoke of the Crown of England. A single glance at the footnotes of history demonstrates clearly that breaching that dam sets up a dangerous and degenerative historical precedent.

James Madison in the Federalist Papers presaged this misappropriation of power that we are witnessing today when he said it this way: ``The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality. Yet there is no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.''

Mr. Chairman, I urge every Member of this body to recall our commitment to God and the people we serve, to preserve the rules of justice. Hidden slush funds, overseen by a very few people in the dark of night, that is not justice, Mr. Chairman. Camouflaged tax increases that could be the largest in history, that is not justice.

We come here in a moment of contention, but we can turn that moment of contention into a time to restore the transparency and accountability to this appropriations process, and I hope we do that, Mr. Chairman. I hope we vote for the gentlelady's amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Franks of Arizona

Amendment No. 8: Page 19, beginning on line 15, strike

section 125.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, according to Secretary of Defense Gates, Iranian weapons have begun to flow into Afghanistan in recent months. We know this much for certain. What we do not know is if indeed this is an official sanction of the Iranian government.

However, some in the intelligence community believe that this effort is on the part of a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which are responsible for shipping these deadly weapons to the Taliban. If this is true, Mr. Chairman, the implications must be realized by this Congress, because it means that Shiite Iran is disregarding sectarian differences with Sunni Taliban in order to unite with them in an effort to undermine U.S. efforts for peace in the nascent democratic Afghanistan.

Mr. Chairman, this means that the nation of Iran is determined to back non-state Muslim militants to terrorize countries who desire peace, tolerance and stability. We saw them do this last year in Lebanon through their proxy Hezbollah against the nation of Israel. We now see this happening in Iraq as well.

There are two major elements, Mr. Chairman, when we consider the danger of an enemy to this Nation. We first have to assess their intention or the will of an enemy to harm the U.S. or our allies. It is clear that the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and groups like them hate governments like ours that uphold the rule of law and uphold the effort to protect freedom of action, thought and religion. They hate the United States because of this, Mr. Chairman. They hate a tolerant Europe, they hate the new democratic Afghanistan, they hate pluralistic Israel and they hate Lebanon. They have an insidious and determined will to tyrannize. They need only the means or the capacity to bring that hate to fruition.

Mr. Chairman, this is the second element. A true threat exists to this Nation's freedom when those who are committed to tyranny and to disrupt peace are met with the means and the capacity to do so. Iran is providing the means to non-state terrorist actors who possess the will to use them.

We must not let this continue. My amendment requires that the Secretary of Defense provide Congress with a semiannual report that informs us of the Iranian-made weapons being provided to the Taliban, and any evidence that the sale is endorsed by the government of Iran.

Mr. Chairman, it is vital that this body understands the intention of Iran

because they may some day very soon possess a very frightening capacity that threatens the potential future of the world and the peace of free people across the world.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I would now like to yield to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As usual, he's always more kind than he should be.

Mr. Speaker, today, as we embrace the grave responsibility of discussing an issue that will have a profound impact on future American generations, it seems very appropriate to remind ourselves of the ideal that gave birth to the United States in the very first place. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It puts us all on even ground, Mr. Speaker, but, whether we realize it or not, most of the important discussions in this Chamber, including the one in this moment, center around whether we still believe those words.

In these hours, America finds herself at war with an inexpressibly dangerous ideology that is the antithesis of those words and everything that is the American ideal. What concerns me most, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a war between an ideology that is committed to the death and destruction of freedom and the subjugation of the entire world and is one waged against the world's free people who still remain primarily asleep.

Mr. Speaker, this ideological war did not begin on 9/11. It began many years ago when certain Muslim extremists embraced a divergent Islamist dogma that dictates that all infidels must die. It was called then, as it should be now, Jihad.

This is the same Jihadist ideology that murdered Israeli athletes in 1972; that took American hostages in Iran; that murdered Marines in their barracks in 1983; that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, Riyadh in 1995, the Khobar towers in 1996, the embassy in 1998, the U.S.S. Cole in 2000; and that brutally murdered scores of little children on their opening day of school in Beslan, Russia. And then, Mr. Speaker, this same dark ideology massacred nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11.

The ideology of Islamist Jihad leads to the practice of decapitating humanitarians with hacksaws on television while the victims scream for mercy. Just last month, one of those most recent videos on the Internet showed a member of the Taliban beheading a man accused of spying. That member of the Taliban was 12 years old.

Mr. Speaker, that is a wake-up call to this planet if we will only listen. This same hatred causes Islamic Jihadists to cowardly hide behind women and children while launching rockets deliberately targeting innocent civilians, and continually breaking treaties of peace, and forcing children to blow themselves to pieces to effect the murder of other innocents, and all this while their mothers scream for joy.

As we anticipate future actions of the Jihadists, we should consider, as Mr. Wamp has so eloquently said earlier today, the words of the terrorists themselves. And at the risk of repeating some of the things that Congressman Wamp said, I believe that these kinds of words are so important for America and for the people in this body to hear.

Al Qaeda's Al-Zawahiri said this. He said, ``The Jihad movement is growing and rising. It reached its peak with the two blessed raids on New York and Washington. And now it is waging a great heroic battle in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and even within the Crusaders' own homes.''

Al-Manar 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.''

Al-Zarqawi said this of America's leaders, ``They are aware that if the Islamic giant wakes up it will not be satisfied with less than the gates of Rome, Washington, Paris, and London.''

Al-Muhajir, Osama bin Laden's latest lieutenant in Iraq, said this. He said, ``The fire has not and will not be put out and our swords, which have been colored with your blood, are thirsty for more of your rotting heads.''

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, said this, ``We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are the most vulnerable. The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death.''

Mr. Speaker, then we hear Democrats in this body say things like, ``The savagery of the terrorists is not relevant,'' or even the most senior Democrat in this House is quoted as saying, ``I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah, or for or against Israel.'' The senior Democrat in the other body said, ``This war is lost.''

Mr. Speaker, that kind of blind relativism that deliberately ignores all truth and equates merciless terrorism with free nations defending themselves and their innocent citizens is more dangerous to humanity than terrorism itself, and it is proof that liberals completely misunderstand the enemy that we face.

Osama bin Laden's deputy, Al-Zawahiri, said this. He made it clear in his book, Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, al Qaeda's most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world. He wrote, ``Confronting the enemies of Islam and launching Jihad against them require a Muslim authority, established on Muslim land. Without achieving this goal, our actions will mean nothing.''

For God's sake, I hope we're listening to people like that. Mr. Speaker, such a Jihadist state would be the ideal launching pad for future attacks on the West.

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, the terrorists regard Iraq as their central front in their war against humanity; and if we're to understand our enemy and this war, we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against Jihad. Our courageous and noble soldiers understand that, and our enemy certainly understands that.

Osama bin Laden himself said, ``The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War. It is raging in the land of the two rivers, Iraq. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.''

Mr. Speaker, if Democrats are correct that this struggle in Iraq is not crucial to winning the war against Islamist Jihad, then for God's sake I wish they would explain that to the terrorists, because they don't understand it.

Brink Lindsey put this all succinctly. He said, ``Here is the grim truth: We are only one act of madness away from a social cataclysm unlike anything our country has ever known. After a handful of such acts, who knows what kind of civilizational breakdown might be in store?''

Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot deny that we are fighting a war against an insidiously dangerous and evil ideology that is bent on the destruction of the Western World, and they would like nothing better than to decapitate this country by detonating a nuclear blast 100 yards from here. To allow Jihadists to declare victory in Iraq will serve only to hasten such a day.

The free nations of the world once had opportunity to address the insidious rise of the Nazi ideology in its formative years when it could have been dispatched without great cost. But they delayed, and the result was atomic bombs falling on cities in the world, 50 million people dead worldwide, and the swastika's shadow nearly plunging the planet into Cimmerian night.

Mr. Speaker, Jihadists believe they have a critical advantage over the free world. They believe their will is stronger than ours and that they need only to persevere; and, Mr. Speaker, the words of neutrality and retreat have only encouraged them in that belief.

We must realize that this is a war that is fundamentally a battle between good and evil, between light and darkness, between individual freedom and totalitarian repression; and we must realize that our enemy is absolutely blinded with an absolute hate for all the Western World.

They also recognize that America is the flagship of human freedom, and if America allows terrorists to conquer us both on the battlefield and in our will to fight the result will be that humanity will be left to face a future that is dark beyond expression.

Mr. Speaker, I think that probably Ronald Reagan could close this in the best way. He said to our soldiers who nobly fought in Vietnam, ``Let us tell those who fought in that war that we will never again ask young men to fight and possibly die in a war our government is afraid to win.''

And I'm afraid sometimes that we forget the heroism of the past. So let me just close with a prayer that one of our great Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, said many years ago, as today we mark the 63rd anniversary of the D-Day invasion to liberate Europe from Hitler's fascism. U.S. forces alone sustained over 6,500 casualties in that 1 day, twice what we've endured in 5 years in Iraq. Knowing the gravity of the operation, Franklin Roosevelt, one of the Nation's most liberal Presidents, said and allow me to close in those words:

``Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home. Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom. And for us at home, fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice. And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.''

Mr. Speaker, in the very earliest days of this Nation, Edmund Burke said, ``All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.''

That belief became the personal creed and call to action of Officer Rob Targosz. Mr. Speaker, this man was a hero and a model human being determined to utilize every ounce of his mind, soul, and body to protect the lives of thousands of his fellow Americans so that we could all live in a safer, more peaceful Nation. Rob Targosz was a second lieutenant in the 12th Airborne Special Forces. He was a member

of the SWAT team, and he was a police officer of the Gilbert Police Department in Gilbert, Arizona, for 12 years. He served there on the DUI Task Force because Rob felt that one of the greatest purposes of his life was to combat and prevent drunk driving.

The license plate on the back of his police motorcycle displayed the title ``Agent of Justice.'' He defended our citizens and our laws, and he sought justice with a determination so real that it led him face to face with the very tragedy he had dedicated his life to protect others from. In one of life's great paradoxical mysteries, while on duty, Rob Targosz was killed by a drunk driver.

Mr. Speaker, drunk driving is the embodiment of apathy, callousness, and selfishness, which is the very opposite of everything that personified Officer Rob Targosz. The enemy that took Rob's life was the very thing that broke his heart and fueled his desire to battle against it. But it did not defeat him, because Rob Targosz was a man of abiding faith in Jesus Christ, whom he held as his eternal Savior. And Rob left behind him in this life a legacy of heroism, love for America, and countless Americans whose lives are preserved because he protected them with his own.

Therefore, his battle continues and his search for justice pulsates in the hearts of other Americans, who, like him, continue to defend and protect us all. Rob's life also continues in the lion heart of his beloved wife, who walked by his slain body, picked up his armor and weapons, and continues his fight by educating the public about the unspeakable destruction caused by drunk driving.

Mr. Speaker, one of the many reasons that human life is so precious is because it allows the world to see when a single man can live and do and live his life, however short it might be, so that others may be the better for it. Americans are alive and families are whole because of the life and work of Officer Rob Targosz. And the world is better because he showed us an example of a truly noble and excellent soul. May his example fire the souls of us all to continue his enduring quest to protect the innocent.

God bless Rob Targosz and his family.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes when a man affects the world as much as Jerry Falwell does, there are all kinds of things that are said, both by those who remember him in different ways, and I, today, would like to just point out some basics about Jerry Falwell. I had the privilege of knowing him many years ago, and sometimes I wonder how many of us are in this place because Jerry Falwell lived and did what he did.

But just to recap some of the basics, Mr. Speaker, Jerry Falwell was born in Lynchburg, Virginia, to Helen and Carey Hezekiah Falwell. He married the former Macel Pate on April 12, 1958. He had two sons, Jerry, Jr., Jonathan, and one daughter, Jeannie.

The church that Jerry Falwell first started was in an abandoned bottling plant in 1956, and it grew into a ministry giant that includes the 22,000-member Thomas Road Baptist Church, the Old Time Gospel Hour carried on television stations across the Nation, and the nearly 8,000- student Liberty University founded in Lynchburg in 1971.

He built Christian elementary schools. He built homes for unwed mothers and a home for alcoholics. Through these venues, Jerry's legacy lives on in the lives of thousands of young adults whom he called champions for Christ. And they were American patriots in his heart as well.

Jerry Falwell launched the Moral Majority in 1979, and its purpose was to transform a politically sleeping Christian evangelical universe into a force to transform and preserve the very soul of America. It grew into a 6.5-million-member organization and raised nearly $70 million, as it supported conservative candidates and campaigned to protect innocent human life, to work against the debasing of life and pornography and to fight for the religious freedom of students to pray in schools.

After a decade of catalyzing a wave of conservatism that culminated in the election and the reelection of one Ronald Reagan, Jerry disbanded the Moral Majority, saying, ``Our mission is accomplished.''

Today, Mr. Speaker, approximately one of every four American voters is a Christian evangelical; and one in four American citizens, those that were the ones that Jerry helped awaken.

Not so long ago he said, what we've worked on for nearly 30 years ago, to mobilize people of faith and value in this country, and what we've done in those years is coming to a culmination.

The Pew Research Institute, a senior fellow there, John Green, to paraphrase him, he said, Falwell changed the way that evangelicals think about their political responsibility.

But it was one of Jerry's friends and colleagues, I think, Mr. Speaker, that put it the very best. His name was Chuck Baldwin. He spoke the following words in tribute, which I think sum up the legacy of Jerry Falwell. He said, ``America has lost a seasoned patriot. Thomas Road Baptist Church has lost a faithful and dedicated pastor. Liberty University has lost a visionary chancellor. The Church of Christ, collectively, has lost a dynamic preacher of the gospel. The Falwell family has lost a loving husband and father. And thousands of people, such as me, have lost a hero, mentor and friend. No matter what his enemies say, America is a better place because of Jerry Falwell. And those of us who were privileged to personally know him will never forget him.''

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to add to those words. But just in the way that I could, I would simply say this, that Jerry Falwell was a man who loved God, who loved his country, who loved his family and who loved humanity. And more than we all realize, we are very blessed that he came our way. And now that he has stepped over the threshold of eternity, he has found a welcome place. He has looked into the eyes of his Saviour and heard those eternal words of victory, ``Well done, thou good and faithful servant.''

Madam Speaker, since mankind took up arms against his fellow human beings, every offensive weapon has been countered by a defensive weapon. The spear brought the shield. The sword spawned the suit of armor. Bullets brought heavier armor, and each succeeding advancement in offensive weapons has brought a defensive response wherein mankind hopes to buy a little more time.

Yet, today, when we are 60 years into the nuclear age and mankind faces the most dangerous weapons in the history of humanity, there is in this moment a debate in the United States Congress as to whether or not the United States of America should fully pursue defending its citizens against nuclear missiles.

Madam Speaker, the Rumsfeld Commission report stated that North Korea has developed a missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers, ``placing at risk western U.S. territory in an arc extending northwest from Phoenix, Arizona, to Madison, Wisconsin.''

In this Defense authorization bill, the Democrats cut nearly $800 million from missile defense. This prompted me to offer six amendments before the Rules Committee last night, but under this rule, Madam Speaker, only one has been made in order; and whether or not it will be adopted still remains to be seen. However, under the rule, one Democrat amendment that was made in order was one to cut missile defense another $1 billion.

Madam Speaker, if we truly build a layered missile defense system that may one day call on us to apologize to the American people for building a defensive system that proved unnecessary, that I can go home and live with. But God save us from the day when we will have to apologize to the American people for failing to build a system that could have protected them from the unspeakable nightmare of missiles turning American cities into nuclear flames.

Madam Speaker, if we build it, maybe they will not come.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, we currently only have a limited missile defense capability against limited threats. China is utilizing space for weapons testing, Iran is expected to have missiles capable of reaching the U.S. in less than 8 years, and now nuclear North Korea continues to defiantly test long-range missiles. Proliferation throughout the Middle East is rampant, and Osama bin Laden has stated, ``It is our religious duty to gain nuclear weapons.''

Madam Chair, the first job of Congress is to protect this Nation, and because of the day in which we live, that includes an obligation on our part to ensure that the Department of Defense develops and deploys defensive capabilities that protect the American people and our warfighters against nuclear missiles, which remain the most dangerous weapons humanity has ever faced.

This bill cuts almost $800 million in funding that would help close the critical gaps in our missile defense system.

One of the programs the majority believes is not worthy of the investment is the Airborne Laser. Madam Chair, the Airborne Laser is our primary and most mature boost-phase missile defense system. ABL is a speed-of-light technology that defends against enemy missiles in their earliest phase of flight, before they can initiate sophisticated countermeasures, before they can release multiple warheads, and while they are still on enemy territory.

The bill also takes $160 million from the Missile Defense Agency's $310 million request for the European site, which would defend United States homeland and our European allies and deployed warfighters against ballistic missile attacks from Iran.

Madam Chair, they completely eliminate even the small $10 million budget for conceptual studies of a space test

bed, which would give the United States the technology to defend space assets and defend against enemy missiles in their critical boost phase of flight.

We must, Madam Chairman, have access to space, and we must be able to defend our space assets. It is astonishing to me that this has become a partisan issue.

Madam Chair, if we build a truly robust, layered missile defense system in this country, the day may come when we will have to apologize to the American people for building a defensive system that proved to be unnecessary. But God save us from the day, Madam Chair, when we have to apologize to the American people for failing to build a system that could have protected them from the unspeakable nightmare of missiles turning American cities into nuclear flames.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Madam Chair, could I inquire as to the remaining time?

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Madam Chairman, might I inquire as to the remainder of the time?

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

I urge my colleagues for this and future generations' sake to pass this amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I introduced a resolution calling for the United States to address the ongoing problem of untouchability in India. Last December Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recognized the similarities between untouchability in his country and Apartheid in South Africa. It is now time for this Congress, Mr. Speaker, to speak out about this ancient and particularly abhorrent form of persecution and segregation, even if it is occurring in a country many consider to be one of America's closest allies. This Congress must urge an end to the social discrimination and injustice faced by the nearly 250 million people known as Dalits and Tribals in India.

Although the Indian constitution guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms for all Indians, the untouchables continue to face widespread social and caste injustices. Article 17 of the Constitution outlaws untouchability. However, despite numerous laws enacted for the protection and betterment of the Dalits and Tribals, they are still considered outcasts in Indian society and are treated as such.

At best, untouchability involves social segregation, including separate educational facilities and drinking water and restaurants. This is a sad and familiar tune to many of us familiar with the history of our own country. At worst, untouchability entails widespread violence against untouchable women, especially in the form of rape with impunity, being targeted for abortions, and comprises the majority of temple prostitute and women trafficked from India.

The untouchables are poor, Mr. Speaker. Their most basic needs are not fulfilled, and they face great difficulties in accessing employment, education, food, and health care. Most are among the poorest people on the face of the Earth, living on less than $1 per day. Moreover, Dalit women are often sold into bondage, prostitution, and there is an increasing religious persecution against the Dalits and untouchables who change their faith. In 2005, USAID stopped funding an organization after it was revealed that they were preventing many of these women from leaving prostitution. In a recent instance, a whole Dalit village was forced to leave their tribal land because they had converted to Christianity in a state that had laws against conversion.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a direct statement by the United States Congress that untouchability is an unacceptable practice on the part of America's largest trading partner and close ally. We appreciate that Prime Minister Singh and many others have recognized that this is a serious social problem that needs to be confronted, and we urge the rest of Indian society and American diplomats, aid workers, and businesses working in India to do the same and to work toward the eradication of casted discrimination in India.

This resolution encourages our government to work with India to find new approaches to an age-old problem. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this resolution will ensure that we as a government and we as an American people in no way encourage or enforce caste discrimination and untouchability through our policies with India or through foreign aid or direct aid in any way.

And I urge my colleagues to join me in calling on the Indian government and the world community to look with compassion upon India's untouchables and reach out to one of the poorest and most oppressed peoples on the face of the Earth.

Mr. Speaker, today was a very important day. Today, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision upholding the Federal law protecting unborn children from partial-birth abortion.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is important for those of us in this Chamber to first remind ourselves again of why we were really all put here. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is the chief and only object of good government.''

Mr. Speaker, protecting the lives of our innocent citizens and their constitutional rights is indeed why we are all here. The phrase in the 14th amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution. It says, ``No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'' The bedrock foundation of this Republic is the belief that all human beings are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Every conflict and battle our Nation has ever faced can be traced to this core foundational belief on our part that every life, from the smallest child to the elderly widow, from the strongest and bravest soldiers on our front lines, to the weakest and most frail in our society, every human soul is of infinite worth and entitled by God to pursue liberty, prosperity and happiness.

But, Mr. Speaker, for 34 years, Roe v. Wade has been a desecration of that bedrock foundation upon which America stands, and Roe v. Wade sets itself apart from all of the other egregious decisions made by our courts in that its result is 45 million dead American children.

Mr. Speaker, that is 15,000 times the number of lives that were lost to terrorism on September 11; and the land of the free and the home of the brave now stands awash in the blood of 45 million of its own children. And it will never cease to totally astound me how we, as Americans, fail to grasp the enormous and terrifying threat to our Nation's survival economically, militarily, morally and spiritually that this tragedy represents.

We have made it illegal to throw away polystyrene diapers, while it remains for the last 34 years legal to throw away babies. How can we be so blind to such a cataclysmic, soul-crushing tragedy?

G.K. Chesterton said once that ``Men can always be blind to a thing as long as it is big enough.'' And, Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, this cataclysmic heartbreak continues.

Arthur Cohen, who is perhaps the world's leading scholar on the European Holocaust, used a Latin term to describe abortion in America. He called it ``mysterium tremendum,'' which means an utter mystery to the rational human mind, a mystery that carries with it not only the aspect of vastness, but the resonance of complete terror, something so unutterably diabolical as to be literally unknowable to us.

Mr. Speaker, following the invasion of Germany into Poland in 1939, a Jewish man named Yitzhak Katzenelson was trapped by the Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto. He was later transported to the Auschwitz concentration camp, where he and his son were brutally murdered.

Before his death, he buried under a tree a song that encapsulated the entire Nazi regime in one verse. He stated that, ``The first to perish were the children. From these a new dawn might have arisen.'' What a profound lesson for the rest of the world to hearken unto. A new dawn might have arisen from those children that perished in the Holocaust.

No matter the rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, we must not ever be so blind to the fact that each time an abortion takes place, a nameless little baby dies a lonely death; a mother is never quite the same, whether she realizes it or not; and all of the gifts that that child might have brought to humanity are lost forever.

It is often said, Mr. Speaker, that a society is measured by how it treats those in the dawn of life, those in the shadows of life, and those in the twilight of life. Because unborn children are hidden both in the dawn and in the shadows of life, we kill thousands of them every day in America, using sometimes methods like partial-birth abortion that cause so much agonizing pain that the child that is being killed, if they were an animal, it would be illegal under Federal law to do it the way we do it.

If we, as a human family in America, cannot find enough humanity within ourselves to change that, if this human rights atrocity of dismembering our own children alive is truly who we are, then the ``invincible ignorance'' Henry Hyde spoke of in this Chamber so long ago will indeed finally prevail, the patriots' dream will be lost, and those lying out in Arlington National Cemetery will have died in vain and twilight will have fallen upon us all.

Mr. Speaker, that day may come in America indeed. But, sir, that day has not come yet. It is not this day, because today, Mr. Speaker, the world changed. Today the United States Supreme Court upheld a law protecting unborn children from the barbaric, nightmarish procedure of partial-birth abortion. And with this ruling comes a brilliant, piercing ray of hope, because even though this ruling only upholds a law that protects a small number of

late-term babies from this horrifying procedure called partial-birth abortion, it represents the day that America changed direction and turned her heart toward home.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this decision is part of a growing awareness on the part of all Americans of the simple truth that abortion takes the life of a child, and the United States of America is bigger than abortion on demand. We are beginning to look within ourselves and we are beginning to understand that the foundation of this Nation is within our own hearts.

Our Nation is beginning to understand that whether it is flying airplanes into buildings or blowing up buildings in Oklahoma City, or whether it is raping and pillaging in Bosnia, or whether it is violence in our streets or kidnapping little girls in broad daylight or murdering innocent unborn children, all of these have one inescapable common denominator, and that is the lack of respect for innocent human life.

Americans are beginning to understand and realize that the reason crime is so rampant in this country is because we have taught our young people that it is all right to kill helpless unborn children. Should we then wonder why they kill each other on the school playground?

Americans are beginning to understand that the same mentality that allows a father to forsake his unborn child to an abortionist also allows him to forsake his born children to the welfare state.

Americans are beginning to understand that the abortion mentality is destroying families all over this country, and that if this epidemic of family disintegration continues, that we in this family will bankrupt this Nation in trying to deal with the results.

Americans are also trying to understand that there are better ways to help young mothers than killing their children for them.

And Americans are beginning to understand that if we, as a society, do not find or possess the courage and the will to protect innocent unborn children, that, in the final analysis, we may never find the will or the courage or the commitment to protect any kind of liberty for anyone of any kind.

Mr. Speaker, the pro-life movement often compares the Roe v. Wade decision with the Dred Scott decision that upheld slavery in this Nation. I would remind each one of us that enslaving fellow human beings was once a practice that was perpetuated throughout the world for thousands of years. But when slavery came to America it finally stopped. We had a conscience on that day that changed the world.

Mr. Speaker, that part of our history should give us great hope, because even though we face challenges today, when we look back on how America has somehow come through each one of them, I believe that by the grace of God, America will one day lead all nations to restore protection to unborn children throughout the world.

Hope is a powerful thing, Mr. Speaker. One of the most powerful messages of hope I ever saw in my life was captured in a picture I saw a few years ago, and I cite the commentary that accompanied it. It should be the picture of the year, or perhaps the picture of the decade. But it won't be because unless you obtained a copy through the Internet or the paper it was published in, you probably never saw it. Somehow the media missed it.

The picture is that of a 21-week unborn child by the name of Samuel Alexander Armas who is being operated on by a surgeon by the name of Dr. Joseph Bruner. The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not have survived if removed from his mother's womb. But little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta. She knew of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical skills. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.

During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and he makes a small incision to operate on the child. As Dr. Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel Armas, this amazing little baby reached out with his tiny but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. Dr. Bruner was reported as saying that when this little baby grasped his finger, that it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure, he was completely frozen, totally immobile.

The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture ``Hand of Hope.'' They said this tiny little hand seemed to emerge to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner as if thanking him for the gift of life that he was receiving. Little Samuel's mother said they wept for days when they saw the picture. She said, ``The photo reminds us that pregnancy isn't about a disability or an illness; it's about a little person.'' The operation was 100 percent successful and Samuel was born in perfect health.

Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill said once that Americans always do the right thing after they have exhausted every other possibility. And today, for the first time since the evil disgrace of Roe v. Wade, we have restored the legal protection of a very small number of those little children who are already partially born and only moments away from taking their first breath. It beggars human imagination that such basic compassion and humanity was ever debatable in the first place.

But now, today, the tiny hand of hope reaches out a little closer to us than it ever has in the past and only asks for mercy, and I hope and pray that all of us will hear that little voice in our own hearts.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I thank the gentleman very much.

You know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes the reason that we elect to the chairmanship of the RSC someone like Jeb Hensarling is because we can easily see from the inside and out what people in America can see on the outside, that Jeb Hensarling is a man of great humility, with great competence and just a quiet sincerity that gives us all tremendous confidence in him.

With that, I would like to yield to Congressman Sali, one of our freshman Members and a great statesman.

I thank the gentleman very much. And now I am very pleased to be able to recognize the gentleman, Gresham Barrett from South Carolina.

I certainly thank the gentleman. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, a person doesn't know whether it wouldn't be better just to all go home at this point, because this man has certainly touched my heart. And he reminds us all that every little baby comes with a message that God has not yet despaired of mankind. And I thank the gentleman with all my heart.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Congressman Todd Akin for such time as he may consume.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Akin has been committed for his entire life to these kinds of causes, which brought him to this place. And so many of us are thankful for his example for the way he has mentored so many of us in this place.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) for such time as he may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio. And I hope the gentleman stays in public life and leadership for as long as he can stand up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my precious friend Phil Gingrey from Georgia. It is a wonderful thing to have a man here that has the expertise of a doctor and an obstetrician, to be able to speak to an issue like this, and yet one who has maintained his commitment always to being a help to someone, that would always protect human life rather than to ever try to take it from someone. I just think he is a credit to his profession and certainly a credit to this body.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose that tonight I would just kind of recap here for a moment. A lot of people have mentioned their family members, and I certainly love every one of mine, but I will bring to mind and to voice one special little boy by the name of Landon Trent Franks. Now, the fact that his name is the same as mine is strictly a coincidence, but I am thankful that his daddy and his mother loved him enough to give him a chance at life, and I think at some point, probably the time he is 21, he will be President of the United States which is a great encouragement to me as well.

I understand that we are all proud of our families, but whether a child reaches the great heights in this life or whether they just have a chance to breathe in the breath of freedom and to be able to walk on the free soil of the United States of America or just to have a chance to pursue this thing called happiness in life, it is incumbent upon all of us to recognize that we are all mortal and that this gift of life is the profoundest kind of miracle and that America itself was founded on the basic premise that every life was important, that it was a gift of God, and that each one of us should work to try to protect life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all of our fellow human beings.

The tragedy of Roe v. Wade when it came along, it just kind of took us all by surprise, because you see, this was not something that the country voted on. This was not something that the United States people as a whole decided to bring about themselves.

This was something that erudite, and might I say, Mr. Speaker, very arrogant and unjust members of the United States Supreme Court took upon themselves to arrogate this thing, to take away the constitutional rights of the unborn child. It is the not the first time that things like that have happened.

Back in 1857, in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court said that the black man was not a person under the Constitution, and it took a civil war to reverse that tragedy. Today, we all look back on that and we say how could they have ever done that, and yet we have killed 50 million of our own children.

In the rise of the Nazi Holocaust, we saw the German high tribunal say that the Jews were subhuman and not persons under the German Constitution, and it precipitated a great tragedy.

Then in 1973 we saw the Supreme Court take away the right to live of the unborn child.

In all three cases, Mr. Speaker, not only was there a great human tragedy that followed, but there was a greater one that followed as a result. The civil war took more lives than any war in our history. The world war that changed the Nazi Holocaust took 50 million lives worldwide and it saw atomic bombs fall on cities across the world.

I have to say to you that I do not know where America will finally end up here. I do not know what the future holds, but I am so encouraged today that we have made a turn and that we have come to ourselves to some degree and said, you know, there is a time when we can protect these little babies in the womb, and I think if we come to that conclusion, that something even greater will happen. We will begin to understand that these little miracles of life in the womb are the beginning of us all and that there is a way that America can come up with a better solution than abortion on demand, that we are bigger than that as a people.

I am convinced that the day will come some day, Mr. Speaker, when the warm sunlight of life will break through the clouds and once again shine on the face of unborn children in America. When that day comes it will be people like Phil Gingrey, it will be people like Chris Smith, it will be people like Bill Sali, it will be people like Gresham Barrett, it will be people like Jim Jordan, people like Todd Akin, people like Jeb Hensarling, people like Steve Chabot, people like George W. Bush the history will be most aware of. They will remember that these were individuals that, through all the storm, held tightly to the hand of a little baby until the storm was gone.

Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong about that, if somehow America never finds its way back home on this issue, I am still convinced of one thing more than any other, and that is, that the Lord of the universe hears the cries of absolutely every one of his children, no matter who or where they are. And if time turns every star in heaven to ashes, I know in my soul that eternal moment of His deliverance will come to each of them. And I hope that we do the part He has given us to that end.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 19, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, on March 21, 2007, I was unavoidably detained during a vote on H.R. 327, the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, before we vote on this bill, we need to remind ourselves one more time, the jihadist terrorism is what this debate is all about.

Brink Lindsey put it in such succinct terms when he said, ``Here is the grim truth: We are only one act of madness away from a social cataclysm unlike anything our country has ever known. After a handful of such acts, who knows what kind of civilization breakdown might be in store?''

Mr. Speaker, as we anticipate future actions of jihadists and our place in Iraq, we would do well to consider their words very carefully. Al Qaeda's al-Zawahiri said this: ``The jihad movement is growing and rising. It reached its peak with the two blessed raids on New York and Washington. And now it is waging a great heroic battle in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and even within the crusaders' own homes.''

Osama bin Laden himself said: ``The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war. It is raging in the land of the two rivers,'' Iraq. ``The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.''

Mr. Speaker, if Democrats are correct that the struggle in Iraq is not crucial to winning the war against jihadism, then for God's sake, I wish they would explain that to the terrorists. Instead, we hear the most senior Democrat in this House quoted as saying, ``I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah, or for or against Israel.''

Mr. Speaker, a blind relativism that deliberatively ignores all truth and equates merciless terrorism with free nations defending themselves and their innocent citizens is more dangerous to humanity than terrorism itself, and it is proof that liberals completely misunderstand the enemy that we face.

Because of this kind of relativist neutrality, jihadists now believe they have a crucial advantage over the free world and its people. They believe their will is far stronger than ours, and that they need only to persevere to prevail.

Mr. Speaker, the passage of this bill will only encourage them in that belief. And if liberals in this body are willing to see freedom defeated in Iraq, they must also be willing to take responsibility for almost certainly what will follow.

Mr. Speaker, finally, we can have peace with jihadists tomorrow if we are willing to surrender today. And that kind of surrender will be on their terms, and it will ultimately bring a nuclear jihad to our children. Future American generations will despise this one.

Mr. Speaker, there is still time to defeat this bill. Let us not take this ominous step in this direction.

Mr. Speaker, today, as we embrace the grave responsibility of debating an issue that will have profound impact on future American generations, it seems very appropriate to remind ourselves of the ideal that gave birth to this Nation in the first place. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator

with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Whether we realize it or not, most of the important discussions in this Chamber, including the one in this moment, center around whether we still believe those words.

In these hours, America finds herself at war with an expressively dangerous ideology that is the antithesis of those words and everything that is the American ideal. What concerns me most is that this war between an ideology committed to the absolute death to destroy freedom and subjugate the entire world, and the world's free people who still remain primarily asleep.

Mr. Speaker, this ideological war did not begin on 9/11. It began many years ago when certain Muslim extremists embraced a divergent Islamist dogma that dictates that all infidels must die. It was called then as it should be called now, jihad.

Thomas Jefferson was the first American President to send U.S. military force to war against Islamist jihad. The Marine hymn begins, ``From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli,'' the latter being a reference to Jefferson's war against the Islamist Barbary pirates based in Tripoli, in present day Libya.

This is the same jihadist ideology that murdered Israeli athletes in 1972, that took American hostages in Iran, that murdered Marines in their barracks in 1983, that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, Riyadh in 1995, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the embassy in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, and that brutally murdered scores of little schoolchildren on opening day in Beslan, Russia.

And then, Mr. Speaker, this same dark ideology massacred nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11.

The ideology and practice of Islamist jihad is decapitating humanitarians with hacksaws on television while the victims scream for mercy, cowardly hiding behind women and children while launching rockets deliberately targeting innocent civilians, continually breaking treaties of peace, and forcing children to blow themselves to pieces to affect the murder of other innocents, and this, as their own mothers leap for joy as they do.

As we anticipate future actions of jihadists, we should all consider very carefully. Al Qaeda's al-Zawahiri said: ``The jihad movement is growing and rising. It reached its peak with the two blessed raids on New York and Washington. And now it is waging a great heroic battle in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and even the crusaders' own homes.''

Al-Manar 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 September 11, death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America.''

Al-Zarqawi said of America's leaders: ``They are aware that if the Islamic giant wakes up, it will not be satisfied with less than the gates of Rome, Washington, Paris, and London.''

Al-Muhajir, Osama bin Laden's latest lieutenant in Iraq, said: ``The fire has not and will not be put out and our swords, which have been colored with your blood, are thirsty for more of your rotting heads.''

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, said, ``We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are most vulnerable. The Jews love life; so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death.''

And then, Mr. Speaker, we hear a Democrat Member of this body say, ``The savagery of terrorists is not relevant.'' Even the most senior Democrat in this House is quoted as saying ``I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.''

Mr. Speaker, a blind relativism that deliberately ignores all truth and equates merciless terrorism with free nations defending themselves and their innocent citizens is more dangerous to humanity than terrorism itself, and it is proof that liberals completely misunderstand the enemy that we face.

Osama bin Laden's deputy, al-Zawahiri, made clear shortly after 9/11 in his book ``Knights Under the Prophet's Banner,'' al Qaeda's most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world. He wrote, quote, ``Confronting the enemies of Islam and launching jihad against them require a Muslim authority established on Muslim land. Without achieving this, our actions will mean nothing.''

Mr. Speaker, such a jihadist state would be the ideal launching pad for future attacks on the West.

Bin Laden himself once again has stated: ``The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.''

Mr. Speaker, the terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And if we are to understand our enemy and this war, we must understand that Iraq is the central front in our war against jihad. Our courageous and noble soldiers understand that very well and our enemy definitely understands that.

Osama bin Laden himself has said, ``The most important and serious issue today for the world is this Third World War . . . It is raging in the land of the two rivers, Iraq. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.''

Mr. Speaker, if Democrats are correct that the struggle in Iraq is not crucial to the winning of the war against Islamist jihad, then for God's sake I wish they would explain that to the terrorists.

Brink Lindsey has put it all so succinctly. He said, ``Here is the grim truth: We are only one act of madness away from a social cataclysm unlike anything our country has ever known. After a handful of such acts, who knows what kind of civilization breakdown might be in store?''

Mr. Speaker, we simply can no longer deny that we are fighting a war against an insidiously dangerous and evil ideology that is bent on the destruction of the Western world, and they would like nothing better than to decapitate this country by detonating a nuclear blast 100 yards from here. And to allow jihadists to declare victory in Iraq will only serve to hasten such a day.

Mr. Speaker, the free nations of the world once had opportunity to address the insidious rise of the Nazi ideology in its formative years when it could have been dispatched without great cost. But they delayed, and the result was atomic bombs falling on cities, 50 million people dead worldwide, and the swastika's shadow nearly plunging this planet into Cimmerian night.

Winston Churchill's words of warning far preceded such tragic events. He said, ``If you will not fight when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse moment. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory because it is still better to perish than to live as slaves.''

If so-called enlightened Germans fell prey to the Nazi ideology, why do we not believe Third World Muslims can also fall prey in large numbers to this jihadist ideology? History does indeed repeat itself, Mr. Speaker, and each time the price goes up.

Jihadists believe they have a critical advantage over free people in the world. They believe their will is far stronger than ours and that they need only to persevere to break our resolve. Mr. Speaker, the message of this resolution has only encouraged them in that belief.

So today in this Chamber, we each have some grave questions to ask ourselves, and the answers will profoundly affect future American generations. We need to ask ourselves first, not whether the Nation should have gone to war but whether the Nation should lose this war.

Will jihadists break the will of the world's free people or not? Will they be able to hide long enough to gain access to nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction? If we do allow nations like Iran to gain nuclear weapons, what will we tell our children when they face nuclear jihad, perhaps even in this generation? If liberals in this body are willing to see freedom defeated in Iraq, are they willing to take responsibility for what will almost certainly follow? If this entire Nation was riveted and heartbroken when two airplanes hit two buildings in New York, how will we

feel when an entire American city is in nuclear flames?

If Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats are willing to vote against monitoring terrorist conversations on the telephone, or tracking their financial transactions, or protecting our border from terrorist insurgency, or effectively interrogating terrorists in custody, or sending reinforcements to our troops on the battlefield, then the question that cries for an answer is what are they willing to do to defeat Islamic terrorism? What is their plan?

Mr. Speaker, there is no substitute for victory. If we surrender Iraq to Islamist jihadists, we will supercharge their recruitment efforts in the Middle East and all over the planet, and our children will pay an unspeakable price, and history will condemn this generation for unspeakable irresponsibility in the face of such an obvious threat to human peace.

So, Mr. Speaker, before we vote on this resolution, may we consider carefully the words of Abraham Lincoln as he sought to steel the resolve of Americans in another great and historic struggle. He said, ``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 last generation.

Thank you, Mr. Hunter. I certainly add my own feelings toward the words that you just spoke on behalf of Charlie Norwood. None of us know when we have to step from this floor for the last time. This man, while he was here, maintained a sense of honor. He was always committed to doing those things that would bring better hope to future generations. He was honorable among us, and we can certainly salute that kind of brotherhood that he represented to all of us.

I certainly pass along my own condolences and also congratulations to his family, because in a sense Charlie Norwood's dreams were fulfilled in that he dreamed to be a statesman, and he certainly rose to that occasion in every way.

I suppose it is in a sense a little bit of a statement to all of us that the brief moments that we have here should be spent debating those things that would truly make a difference, not only for this generation, but for whatever generations remain to America.

Madam Speaker, tonight I think that is what I would like to talk about. There is an old Indian Iroquois quote that says that the secret to the universe is in the true naming of things, and as we debate tonight, it is easy for us to see each other as the opposition or as the enemy.

I think tonight, if all else should fail us, we must consider who the real enemy here is. This one is a little different than those that we faced in the past, because even though there are parallels, this is an ideology. This is not just a group of people that we face in Islamic jihadism. It is an ideology that I believe has the seeds of danger in it for the entire human family.

I think it becomes very, very important for us all to understand that one thing, because in a sense right now the battle that goes on across the world related to terrorism is a battle between those who are deeply committed with their lives to the destruction of the Western World on one side of the equation, and on the other side of the equation the opposition is largely asleep, and I think that nothing represents a greater danger to us than not only knowing what we face, but being completely oblivious to its potential.

I believe that the ideology of jihad has the ability and even the propensity to germinate and one day threaten the entire human family. And even though America is engaged in some type of fight against terrorism and jihadism in nearly 70 countries across the world, whether we realize it or not, in the eyes of the leaders of jihad, Iraq is the frontline of that conflict, and it becomes profoundly important that we recognize it from their perspective, because in any ideology, one must understand that to grow, it must somehow take root and resonate in the hearts of the potential recruits.

One of the things that causes this ideology to grow is a sense of victory on the battlefield, and leader after leader in the jihadist movement have said that Iraq is critical to the survival of their ultimate goal.

I know that we have faced dangerous ideologies before. There are a lot of people who have parents and family members that faced the Nazis down in World War II, and yet just a cursory glance at history helps us understand that the parallel here is real.

There was a time when the Nazis were just a bunch of lunatics riding bicycles across France, and nobody paid much attention to them. They spewed a hate and a sense of superiority over their fellow human beings and even a sense of being willing to subordinate the innocent life of others for their own ideology. We did not pay much attention to them until it began to grow and the fires of this ideology began to spread across Europe.

In the final analysis, the Western world and people of freedom did not wake up until this thing had become a monster, and when we finally did engage it, the ensuing war was so difficult and so horrible that at the end of the day, 50 million people had died.

I will just say this, Madam Speaker, Winston Churchill warned us in a way that I think is pretty profound. He said, If you will not fight, then you can easily win without bloodshed. If you will not fight, then your victory will be sure and not too costly. You may come to the moment when you will have to fight and all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse moment. You may have to fight when there is no hope for victory because it is still better to perish than to live as slaves.

I submit in the ideology that we face tonight that is the equation that is before us.