Gary Ackerman

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I would like to extend thanks and appreciation for the effort and hard work of Mr. Bachus and Mr. Baker, as well as Mr. Kanjorski, Mrs. Maloney, the extraordinary efforts of my friend from New York, Pete King, and of course to Chairman Frank for his extraordinary leadership, as well as the entire New York legislative delegation, including our friends from New Jersey and Connecticut, who all know firsthand the anguish and the pain of regions suffering from a terrorist attack. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act, with Senate amendments, is not the outcome that most of us in the House on both sides of the aisle had wanted. In September, after a series of subcommittee and full committee hearings, a field hearing, and following both subcommittee and full committee markups, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2761 by a strong bipartisan margin of 3-1. H.R. 2761 would have extended TRIA for 15 years. It would have eliminated the distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terrorism. It would have included coverage for human beings by adding group life, and for nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological, the so-called NCBR attacks. Most importantly, H.R. 2761 included a reset mechanism, which would have addressed the types of increased capacity shortages that we have already seen following major terrorism attacks against our country. I want to be clear about this. The reset mechanism is not a New York provision. In negotiations with Mr. Baker of the minority, we worked out the reset mechanism that would be triggered for any future catastrophic attack anyplace in America. Under the reset, if, heaven forbid, our country does suffer another catastrophic attack, the nationwide trigger would be reset and the nationwide deductible for any insurer that pays out losses related to that attack would be set at lower levels. God willing, New York will never suffer a second time, and, God willing, your State will never suffer a catastrophic attack such as 9/ 11. But if it does, then you too would enjoy the so-called ``benefit'' of being attacked a second time by virtue of the existence of the reset mechanism. Let's take, for example, Alabama; Alabama, that fought so hard and received $130.5 million in Homeland Security grants because it is at risk of an attack by terrorists. We know that for a fact because its Senators and others told us so. God forbid, terrorists blow up the Medical Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Under this legislation, you will be covered. Without a reset, however, after a catastrophic attack, the supply of terrorism insurance could be so scarce that you would not be able rebuild the medical center, which had been in Birmingham, and rebuild it in Birmingham, Alabama. I only pick Alabama, I think, because I went in alphabetical order. Sometimes bad things happen in alphabetical order. I don't read the obituaries because people die in alphabetical order. In short, the House bill, which included the reset, would have met the needs of our country and prepared the Nation to better cope with some of the grave financial issues that would have arisen if there were another terrorist attack on our Nation. Mr. Speaker, when the House passed H.R. 2761 in September, we presented the Senate with an historic opportunity to protect our homeland from some of the economic consequences of terrorism, and specifically to safeguard the developers and the insurers and the re- insurers, who will bear the highest financial burden if our Nation is attacked again. The financial stability of these industries is the cornerstone of our economy, and they are absolutely essential to our capacity to recover from an attack. Sadly, the U.S. Senate didn't seize the opportunity to protect our Nation and our markets. Instead, our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol operated to amend our bill to extend the TRIA program by only 7 years, less than half of the extension period, and to strip out every beneficial provision in our bill, save one. The Senate did accept the House position that the distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terror, in today's world, so often impossible to discern, would be included. Having passed the hollow shell of the bill and having done so only after the House had adjourned for Thanksgiving, our Senate counterparts abandoned the legislative process and they have refused to go to conference. Now, faced with the choice between accepting a bad bill and disrupting the U.S. financial markets, the House went to work yet again, Democrats and Republicans, working together, to try to find a compromise with the Senate, and last week we passed a limited but still much-improved TRIA reauthorization over what they had done in the Senate. The compromise legislation the House overwhelmingly passed last week by a vote of 303-116 acquiesced to the Senate's position on duration as well as coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological coverage. That compromise bill accepted the Senate's extension of TRIA, which was for only 7 years, and eliminated NCBR coverage. The House held firm, however, to the provisions we felt were absolutely necessary to allow for large-scale development to continue all across our country; the extension of a reset mechanism, group life insurance coverage, and lower program triggers. Mr. Speaker, the House overwhelmingly passed the compromise TRIA reauthorization last week, and the Senate, as has been so often the case this year, did nothing. And so, today, we are faced with a very difficult reality: We can either accept the Senate's shell of a bill and ensure that our Nation's economy is somewhat protected against terrorist attacks, or we can let the program expire altogether in less than 2 weeks from today. Maybe that is considered good government in some parts of the country, but entrusting our Nation's economy to the terrorist roulette wheel would not be acceptable to the American people and it is not acceptable to the House, and we must do the responsible thing. The Senate amendments to H.R. 2761 are unhelpful, shortsighted, and represent an unrealistic pre-9/11 outlook. The Senate amendments come from a naive world where there is no risk of terrorism and another attack like 9/11 is impossible. In the Senate's mythical world, developers build stadiums and malls and national landmarks without funding, banks lend money without insurance, insurers underwrite policies regardless of risk, and reinsurers do the same thing on an even larger scale. In the Senate's fantasy world, the $30 billion in insured losses from 9/11 can be easily underwritten and capitalized because unimaginable losses such as those that would come from an attack with weapons of mass destruction just can't happen, and the reason they can't happen is because the U.S. Senate said so. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Santa Claus is not going to give America terrorism risk insurance for Christmas, and we don't live with the Easter Bunny in the Senate's Candyland, where catastrophic risk can be comfortably ignored. Saying ``the market will provide'' just doesn't make it true. In the real world, it is critical to both our national security and to our economy that there is no gap in terrorism risk insurance. This House will not leave our Nation's developers, insurers and reinsurers out in the cold when we adjourn for the year. I therefore urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation out of the necessity to extend the TRIA program past its expiration date, with the understanding that this fight is not over. We will continue to advocate for those provisions we know are critical to securing our homeland against terrorist attacks; namely, the reset mechanism, group life coverage, lower program triggers and NCBR coverage. To that extent, I have just introduced legislation entitled the Terrorism Risk Insurance Improvement Act that will add the reset mechanism to the TRIA program we are about to authorize here today, and I invite all of our colleagues to join me as cosponsors. We will continue to fight for a fully effective TRIA program until the Senate and the White House get the memo that the war on terror is not only fought on the other side of the world, but on the homefront as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the chairman of the full committee 5 minutes, Mr. Frank, whose extraordinary leadership has kept this issue alive.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2761) to extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the chairman of the subcommittee in whose jurisdiction this legislation originated.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who has worked long, hard, and well on this issue. (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to redistribute the wealth and attribute no social meaning to that, but those of us who are in need of the time are deeply appreciative, and we thank you for your cooperation. May I inquire of the Speaker how much time indeed is left.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished vice chair of the majority caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for 1 minute.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the vice chairman. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the distinguished county leader of Queen's County who has fought so long and passionately on this issue.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank Mr. Bachus for the extraordinary cooperation between the majority and the minority on this particular issue. He led his caucus, along with Mr. Baker, in crafting what was a very open process led by the distinguished chairman, Mr. Frank, of the full committee, where everybody's voice was heard; everybody's opinion was allowed to be aired. We fought it out. Not everybody won every fight, but it was an extraordinary effort in goodwill. And the efforts of the Financial Services Committee should be something that set an example for the rest of the committees in the Congress, especially on this particular issue, everybody exercising goodwill and good judgment. Let me thank my staff especially Steve Boms, who, unfortunately, became one of our Nation's leading experts on terrorism risk insurance. Much has been said about the New York delegation, because, I think, of our high profile on this issue. But allow me to thank our colleagues and offer this: do not feel sorry for us. We do not make this case for your pity, because we think that our city, we think that our communities, we think that our State and our neighbors acted in an exemplary fashion at a moment of extraordinary terror and pressure, not just to us but to the entire Nation and to the world. What we faced was absolutely extraordinary, and we are so proud to be New Yorkers, and we make this fight not because of what we suffered as a city and a State, but because we already know the pain and the problems that each and every one of our colleagues and other communities across this country might face in the event of a terrorist attack. Much has been said of the courage of New York. We do not end this fight here because this fight is not for us. First, to those who have expressed concern about the cost of money as taxpayer money, let me say that the way this has been added up by CBO, the taxpayers would actually gain $200 million if there were a terrorist attack because of the scoring. Do this because it's the right thing.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the gentleman. Do this because it's the right thing to do, not because of New York. Because your community could be next, and it could be next yet again. That's what the reset is for. We pass this today to provide our country with ongoing insurance so that major development can continue to take place, not to allow the terrorists to dictate when and where and how construction might take place in America. Pass this, vote for this stripped-down version, provide this protection at least as a minimum for the next 7 years; and I guarantee we will all be back here next year to fight more and again and harder to include those provisions that will protect us all. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York. I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4299, which would extend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or TRIA, for 7 years. TRIA is a vital program that has made effective terrorism insurance coverage available across this Nation by creating a Federal backstop to share with the insurance industry the burdens of losses caused by catastrophic acts of terrorism upon our country. The certainty and stability that TRIA has provided over the past 6 years has allowed large-scale developers to plan, to secure financing and insurance and, ultimately, to build the types of multimillion- or multibillion-dollar real estate development projects in our capitalistic system, projects that shape our cities and invigorate the American economy. With TRIA set to expire at the end of the month, I am particularly grateful that our leadership and Chairman Frank and our friends on the minority side are insisting that Congress renew this vital program before we run out of time and insurers are forced, in an act of self- preservation, to abandon our Nation's largest projects. This rule will allow the House to consider legislation to reauthorize TRIA for the second time in 3 months. My colleagues may recall passing H.R. 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act. H.R. 2761 was a triumph for bipartisanship, regular order, good-faith bargaining and effective government. It sought to extend TRIA for another 15 years, added group life insurance to the program, lowered the program trigger, provided for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological, the so-called NBCR coverage. And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2761 included the so-called ``reset mechanism,'' which, in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack, lowered the nationwide program trigger and decreased the deductibles for any insurer that paid out losses after an attack on our country. This provision was and is absolutely critical to meeting the demand for terrorism insurance across our Nation, and especially in our high-risk areas. On September 19, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2761 with a bipartisan vote of 312-110. And with the clock ticking toward the program's expiration date, we waited for the Senate to act. And we kept waiting and we kept waiting, and we waited some more. Then, once the House had adjourned for Thanksgiving, and only once the House had adjourned for Thanksgiving, the Senate quickly passed, by unanimous consent, a shell of a bill that simply extended the program to 7 years, stripping out the key provisions that were vital and put in there on a bipartisan House-passed bill. We believed that we would have had the opportunity to negotiate on many of the issues in a conference with the Senate, but the Senate unacceptably and irresponsibly has refused again and again to conference with the House on the Senate bill, leaving us with few, but not zero, options. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider a compromised bill that accepts the Senate's position on the extension period, as well as the Senate's opposition to protecting us with NBCR coverage. This compromised bill, however, does stand firm on the House's key priorities, the reset mechanism, group life insurance, and lower program triggers. Passage of this rule will allow the House to reaffirm its equality in the legislative process and reject the Senate's take-it-or-leave-it attitude. I urge all of our colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it has been almost a year since the Committee on Financial Services began the process of reauthorizing the terrorism risk insurance program. It has been 9 months since our committee held a field hearing in New York at which we heard experts, insurers, developers and reinsurers testify about the private market for terrorism insurance which has not grown enough since 9/11 to sufficiently meet the demand in many of our Nation's so-called high- risk areas. It has been over 4 months since we held a subcommittee and a full committee markup and almost 3 months since the House overwhelmingly approved H.R. 2761, a strong reauthorization that would have extended TRIA for 15 years, provided group life insurance as well as nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological coverage, and significantly lowered the program's trigger level. Most importantly of all, and after constructive negotiations and compromise with the minority, the House bill included a reset mechanism to address increased capacity shortages following major terrorist attacks such as those that may occur anywhere in our country. And yet despite a proactive bipartisan effort in the House spearheaded by Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus, we find ourselves in the 11th hour with TRIA set to expire at the end of the month, and we are faced with a weak Senate bill that was deliberately sent to us only after we had recessed for Thanksgiving, effectively stalling the negotiation process between the two Chambers. The Senate bill, a 7-year reauthorization that only amends the TRIA program by eliminating the distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terrorism simply does not provide developers, insurers, and reinsurers with enough of the stability they need in our free-market economy to plan, finance, insure and build our Nation's major development projects. Mr. Speaker, for TRIA to be truly effective in addressing the shortages in the terrorism insurance market, we must recognize that the market is dynamic. The terrorism insurance market behaves much differently in the wake of a terrorist attack than it does before an attack. The reset contained in this compromise bill is identical to the reset provision that was included in the House-passed TRIA extension in September, on which I and Mr. Baker of the minority came to a mutually acceptable agreement. Under those terms, which are in this compromise bill, in the event of a terrorist attack with losses of a billion dollars or greater, the deductibles for any insurance company that pays out losses due to the event immediately lower to 5 percent while the nationwide trigger for any insurer for future events drops to $5 million. Mr. Baker and I also reached agreement on my proposal to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to aggregate the total losses of two or more attacks that occur in the same geographic area in the same year so if the total insured losses of those events are over a billion dollars, the reset mechanism would be triggered. The inclusion of this language is absolutely vital to every high-risk area across the country, and many of us consider this to be the most essential, must-be-included aspect of the legislation. My colleagues may recall that the TRIA extension passed by the House in September was subject to PAYGO concerns because the CBO had assessed its cost at roughly $10 billion over 10 years. With this CBO score, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle argued that even though no funds would have been appropriated unless the country was attacked, our bill would have been too much of a burden on the American taxpayer. Not knowing who else to bill for an attack on America, I disagreed with that view and with the CBO scoring; but I, too, am committed to a fiscally responsible bill. I am pleased to say that my fiscally conservative friends on both sides of the aisle can now vote for this bill without any hesitation thanks to the inclusion of language from the Senate bill, and more significantly, because the reset language, this compromise legislation has been assessed to a positive CBO score of $200 million. Let me say that again. This compromise bill that we are debating today will result in a net gain of $200 million. Legislation that protects developers and the insurance industry from terrorist attacks and provides taxpayers with a return on their dime is something that I believe we should all support. Mr. Speaker, the next terrorist attack against the United States, like the one on 9/11, is going to damage more than just buildings. We must acknowledge that the structural losses associated with a terrorist incident will be accompanied by the loss of human life. The legislation before the House today recognizes this fact and includes group life insurance coverage because this Congress is concerned not only with the value of buildings but the people inside of them as well. Our bill lowers the program trigger in the Senate bill from $100 million to $50 million. Our lower trigger would prevent smaller insurance companies from being priced out of the terrorism insurance market. And, with a greater supply of insurance, we can expect a higher degree of stability for large-scale developers all over America. Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a formal conference which most of us in this body would have preferred, we have taken it upon ourselves to consider this legislation in which we have compromised with the Senate on many of their issues but hold firm on those provisions that we believe must be included in TRIA: the reset mechanism, group life coverage, and lower triggers. I urge all of our colleagues to support this important compromise legislation and, as the clock strikes 11:59, to place the burden of responsibility back on the broad shoulders of the United States Senate.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to James Klurfeld, vice president and editorial page editor of Newsday, who last week retired after nearly 40 years of outstanding and tireless work at the paper. James Klurfeld was born in 1945 in New York City and is a 1963 graduate of Syosset High School. His illustrious career at Newsday began in 1968, just one year after he graduated from Syracuse University. Klurfeld's first job at Newsday was as a local reporter, where he covered various news stories on Long Island. But he quickly rose through the ranks at the paper, where his extraordinary reporting propelled him into several key positions. He led Newsday's Albany bureau, and he served as the newspaper's Washington bureau chief between 1980 and 1986. After his exceptional leadership during these stints, Klurfeld was appointed editor of the editorial pages in December 1987. James Klurfeld's constant pursuit of journalistic excellence has earned him numerous honors and recognitions. He was a member of the Newsday investigative team that won the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, as well as the New York State Publisher's Association and Deadline Club award in the same category. The awards were for a 3-year effort that disclosed political corruption in several townships on Long Island. He also won the Sigma Delta Chi National Reporting Award with other members of the Washington bureau in 1982, and he was the recipient of the 1988 American Society of Newspaper Editors Distinguished Writing Award for editorials on the Iran-Contra hearings. In addition, the staff of Newsday's editorial and viewpoints pages won several major awards under his leadership. These included everything from brilliantly written editorials to exceptionally creative cartoons. Over the years, Klurfeld has become incredibly knowledgeable about local and national issues and is an expert on foreign affairs matters, most notably through his extensive travels around the globe and from his work with the Council on Foreign Relations. To this extent, he has provided Newsday readers with extraordinary insights into politics, national security and international policy through the informative and lively column he has written in the paper each week. Klurfeld's achievements in the news business have also extended beyond print journalism. For the past 12 years, he has asked the tough questions on The Cutting Edge, a weekly television program on WLNY/TV55 that focuses on Newsday's Sunday editorials, a show in which I have been honored to appear. I was also privileged to be part of some of his many appearances on Long Island's public broadcasting station, WLIW/ Channel 21. In addition, he has provided exceptional analysis and commentary on other broadcast outlets including the CW11 in New York City. James Klurfeld's exit from Newsday is the end of an era for journalism on Long Island, in New York City and across the Nation. We will miss his leadership, his quest for the truth and his shaping of local and national policy debates. But fortunately, Klurfeld will not be going far. He will remain on Long Island, where he will pass on the craft he has mastered to the next generation of journalists as the interim director of the Center for News Literacy at Stony Brook University's School of Journalism. He will also continue to write his weekly column. Although we are sad to see him retire as Newsday's editorial page editor, we are comforted to know that many students of journalism will learn the press trade from one of the best to have ever worked in the news business. I know that Newsday's staff and readers will be forever grateful for all of James Klurfeld's exceptional and memorable contributions, which have made Newsday a stronger newspaper and have helped the Long Island- New York City area become a better place to live and work. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me now in congratulating James Klurfeld for nearly 40 years of outstanding service to Newsday. I am confident that he will prevail in his new endeavor and continue to enjoy success for many more years to come.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 624) congratulating the State of Israel on chairing a United Nations committee for the first time in history, as amended.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to thank Mr. Hastings and Mr. Green for their work on this important resolution congratulating the democratic State of Israel for achieving a significant victory in its long and tedious campaign to gain fair treatment at the U.N. In June, an Israeli diplomat, Mr. Ron Adam, was chosen to chair a critical U.N. committee, the Committee on Policy and Coordination, which is responsible for approving the work plan for all U.N. agencies and bodies. Incredibly, in the entire history of the U.N., this is the first time an Israeli has been granted such a role. For almost 60 years, since it became a member of the United Nations, Israel has been treated as a second-class citizen among the nations at the U.N. The greatest barrier to fair treatment for Israel has been its inability to achieve normal standing in one of the U.N.'s regional groupings. These groupings control committee assignments and leadership positions throughout the U.N. system. Though geographically Israel should be a member of the Asia group, a cabal of anti-democratic and anti-Semitic states in that region, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, has conspired to exclude Israel from its rightful membership in that group. Only recently has Israel been granted qualified membership in another U.N. group known as the Western European and Others regional group. This new status has allowed Israel to begin to obtain U.N. leadership positions. We must build on this momentum. H. Res. 624 does so by demanding that the Western European and Others Group, with which Israel now caucuses at the U.N., remove all remaining restrictions and qualifications on Israel's status as a member of that group. The resolution also expresses support for Israel's campaign to gain a rotational seat on U.N. Security Council. Once again, Madam Speaker, I congratulate Israel for its election to serve as Chair of the Committee on Policy and Coordination. I also urge our good friend, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to use this positive step towards further increasing normalization of Israel's status at the United Nations. We must continue to work with the U.N. Secretary General who has made pressing normalization an important goal of his tenure. The unfair treatment of Israel at the U.N. undermines the very principles the United Nations is meant to embody. The spectacle of repressive regimes conspiring to deny Israel, the only democratic state in the Middle East, normal status at the U.N. undermines the broader fight on behalf of the human rights and democracy. Madam Speaker, I would urge all of our colleagues to support this very important resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida, the very distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee on Legislative and Budget Process and a leader for human rights and dignity around the world, author of the resolution before us, Alcee Hastings, such time as he may consume.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize the gentlewoman from the First District of Nevada, a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and Ways and Means Committee, Shelley Berkley, for such time as she may consume.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, urging all of our colleagues to vote for the resolution.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 738) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the Government of Syria's continued interference in the internal affairs of Lebanon.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, when the House last discussed Lebanon on September 25, I said that Lebanon was being bullied. That statement, though true, is insufficient. Lebanon is not being harassed by invisible unworldly forces. Lebanon is not a victim of fate or destiny or bad luck. Lebanese politicians and public figures, beginning with Rafiq Hariri and continuing to this day, are not being assassinated and blown away by falling meteors or volcanic eruptions. Arms do not appear in Lebanon by magic. Hezbollah's billions do not fall from the sky like rain. Palestinian terrorist groups don't find rifles falling out of trees or by the side of the road. The Fatah al-Islam and its war against the Lebanese state were not the product of spontaneous auto-genesis. Like maggots, their origin can escape the casual observer, but their birth was no accident or mystery. Madam Speaker, Syria and Iran are responsible for these crimes. Syria and Iran are responsible for the chaos. Syria and Iran are to blame for the shadow of civil war that hangs over Lebanon. Lebanese politics are complex, and the interaction within and among confessions is daunting for the outside observer to contemplate. Where interest and principle merge and depart is hard to judge. But we know some things about Lebanon for certain, and they are spelled out clearly in the resolution at hand. Despite Lebanon's Constitution, Syria demanded the extension of President Emile Lahoud's term in 2004, and Damascus got its way. The principal opponent of this grotesque intrusion into Lebanon's affairs was Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. There is credible evidence uncovered by U.N. investigators showing that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad first threatened and then ordered the assassination of Rafiq Hariri for his defiance of Syrian diktat. Madam Speaker, in response to the murder of Hariri, and, let us remember, 22 other civilians, the Lebanese rose up against their Syrian overlords and demanded, with the full support of the international community, the expulsion of Syria's occupational forces. A new government was formed through a free and fair election led by Lebanese not in the service of Syria and not in the debt of Iran. This development, both surprising and hopeful, of a Lebanon free to chart its own course, was one that Syria and Iran couldn't tolerate. In their minds, Lebanon is a fiefdom, a toy. Lebanon is a playground for their ambitions and a canvas on which to splash their rage and hatred for the United States and Israel in the modern world. Madam Speaker, Lebanon, in the minds of Syria's overlords and Iran's ayatollahs, is not for the Lebanese. This intolerance, this greedy self-interest, this bitter contempt for the rights of others is why we are speaking of Lebanon in the U.S. House of Representatives again today. Lebanon is in grave peril. Lebanon's independence and sovereignty are under attack by Syria and Iran and their bootlicking Lebanese proxies, Hezbollah, Amal and the Aounist bloc. Extralegally demanding control of the presidency, and threatening civil war, this coalition of the wicked and the selfish have again brought chaos, violence and terror to Lebanon. It need not be so. It should not be so. Syria and Lebanon are responsible for the crisis in Lebanon. Syria and Iran are responsible for the crisis in Lebanon. They have trampled on Lebanon's sovereignty and clearly violated U.N. Security Council resolutions protective of Lebanon. They are the puppet masters pulling on the strings of Hezbollah, Amal and Aoun. The assassinations of Lebanese members of Parliament are their work. The bombings are their work. The threats to establish an extra-legal second government are their work. Madam Speaker, there is no mystery here. There is evil, there is greed, there is indecency, and, were I Lebanese, I might say treason as well. But there is no mystery. Syria and Iran are attacking Lebanon's sovereignty no less than if they sent a fleet of bombers, or a wave of tanks, or a swarm of infantry. That this aggression, this naked aggression is being done by proxies, and by terrorists, by car bombs, by telephone threats does not make it any less aggression, or any less a crime. Many vital interests of the United States are at stake. If we want every nation to be secure in its own borders, we cannot tolerate cross- border aggression. If we want to see the Middle East at peace, we cannot tolerate the resumption of Syrian and Iranian control of Lebanon. If we want to encourage self-governance around the world, we cannot tolerate Lebanon's democracy being subverted by thugs and fanatics. If we want to see people rising up against tyranny, as they are today in Burma, we cannot tolerate the reversal of Lebanon's glorious Cedar Revolution. If we want to see the United Nations become a true guardian of peace, we cannot tolerate the will of the international community being scorned by rogue states. Madam Speaker, America must lead. Even today, even with Iraq, there is still no other state that can mobilize the international community as can the United States, and the hour is desperate. Only if they are convinced that the world will not tolerate their aggression against Lebanon, will Syria and Iran back down. This outcome is not impossible. The stakes are exceedingly high. It is my hope that the Lebanese Government and the Bush administration will see this debate in the House as proof that Congress is watching closely and that we stand ready to help secure Lebanon's future as an independent and sovereign state. If we want to end the bloodshed in Lebanon and foreclose the prospect of still greater violence, we must act now and in concert with the community of nations. There is wide support for Lebanon both in Europe and the Arab and Muslim world, just waiting for a catalyst to give it expression. America must be that catalyst. We are here today to sound the wake-up call. A brighter future for Lebanon, for the Middle East, and for ourselves awaits our clarion call. Madam Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I too want to thank Speaker Pelosi for her leadership, for taking her time during her trip to the Middle East to visit Lebanon, and also to try to talk sense to the people in Syria as well.