Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the leadership is insistent on the moving forward with this divisive bill, which I might add ain't going to pass the Senate, let's at least allow the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction to offer her amendment to try and address some of the more egregious provisions in the bill. The Millender-McDonald amendment would establish uniform standards for the treatment of provisional balance and clarify criminal penalties for voter fraud under the Help America Vote Act. It would codify a Federal court decision that HAVA matching requirements are intended as an administrative safeguard, not as a restriction on voter eligibility. And it would recommend to the States additional fraud-prevention methods. Finally, it would exempt senior citizens, the disabled, and the military and their families from onerous photo ID requirements in the bill. Mr. Speaker, nonparticipation in the election process is more of a problem in this country than noncitizens trying to vote. This bill will do more to keep eligible American citizens away from the polls than it will do to fix the nonexistent problems of ineligible immigrants sneaking in to vote in our Federal elections. If we must take up this problem in search of a solution, let's at least allow the Millender-McDonald amendment to be included. I ask that we vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider this important amendment. [From AU News, Sept. 19, 2005] Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform Stresses Urgency of Reform Washington, DC.--Former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III will conduct meetings with President Bush and Congressional leaders today to discuss recommendations in the final report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, which they co-chaired. The 21-member Commission, which conducted public hearings in Washington and Houston, offers 87 recommendations to strengthen the country's electoral system and build confidence among voters in the political process. The Commissioners met with political leaders Monday in order to stress the need for change before the 2008 presidential election. ``Elections are the heart of our democracy,'' Carter said. ``The Help America Vote Act of 2002 made an historic contribution, but one law is not enough. The American people are losing confidence in the system, and they want electoral reform. We have forged a comprehensive package of reforms that represent the best path toward modernizing our electoral system, and we hope that the President, the Congress, and the states will consider them seriously.'' ``We hope that this report will help transform the sterile debate between Democrats and Republicans on election reform issues and provide the impetus for our federal and state leaders to take action now, when we still have plenty of time before our next presidential election,'' Baker said. The 21-member private commission is organized by American University. Comprised of former Members of Congress, scholars and nonpartisan leaders, the group identified ``five pillars'' of election reform--voter registration, voter identification, voting technology, increased access to voting and nonpartisan election administration--and recommended ways to strengthen them. Highlights include: To address the most serious problem of inaccurate registration lists, the Commission recommends that states, not local jurisdictions, organize and update their lists, and that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) take the lead in making the lists interoperable so as to eliminate duplicates when people move between states. To enhance ballot integrity, states should require voters to present a REAL ID card at the polls and provide non- drivers with a free photo ID card for voting, but during a transition, citizens without a card should be permitted to vote with a provisional ballot. States should make voter registration and IDs accessible to all eligible citizens by using mobile offices and other means to register more voters and issue photo ID cards. Congress should pass a law to require voter-verifiable paper audit trails on all electronic voting machines, and the EAC needs to take additional steps to ensure those machines are secure and accessible for people with disabilities. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission and state election management institutions should be strengthened and reconstituted on a nonpartisan basis. The presidential primary schedule should be reorganized into four regional primaries. The full report is available on the Commission Web site at http://www.american.edu/Carter-Baker. The Commission's Co-Chairs will have a press conference on Capitol Hill at 1:30 pm in the Hall of Columns. President Carter will also be speaking at American University at 4 pm, and that will be open to the media. American University's Center for Democracy and Election Management (CDEM) organized the work of the Commission in association with the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, The Carter Center and electionline.org, sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts. General sponsors include Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Omidyar Network. CDEM Director Robert A. Pastor is executive director of the Commission and serves as a Commission member. In addition to Carter, Baker and Pastor, Commission Members include: Betty Castor, the 2004 Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Florida. Tom Daschle, former U.S. Senate Minority Leader from South Dakota. Rita DiMartino, former vice president of congressional relations for AT&T. Lee Hamilton, president and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a former Member of Congress from Indiana. Kay Coles James, former director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Benjamin Ladner, president and professor of philosophy and religion at American University. David Leebron, president of Rice University in Houston, TX. Nelson Lund, professor of constitutional law at George Mason University in Arlington, VA. Shirley Malcom, head of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources Programs of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Bob Michel, former U.S. House Whip and House Minority Leader from Illinois. Susan Molinari, president and CEO of the Washington Group, a government relations and lobbying firm, and former Member of Congress from New York. Robert Mosbacher, chairman of Mosbacher Energy Company and past chairman of the Republican National Committee. Ralph Munro, former Washington secretary of state and board member for various voting and Internet technology comparues. Jack Nelson, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and former Washington bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times. Spencer Overton, professor specializing in voting rights and campaign finance law at The George Washington University Law School in Washington, DC. Tom Phillips, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. Sharon Priest, former Arkansas secretary of state and current chair of the Arkansas State Election Improvement Study Commission and the State Board of Election Commissioners. Raul Yzaguirre, presidential professor of practice in community development and civil rights at Arizona State University and former president of the National Council of La Raza.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am prepared to close at this time, and I yield myself the remainder of the time. Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform Report that appeared in the American University. In addition thereto, I will submit for the Record an Atlanta Journal article referring to the Georgia Supreme Court's denial of this same measure. Mr. Speaker, you know where some fraud is occurring, as much as this seems to be ringing alarm bells in the majority? There is a lot of fraud in Medicare in the United States of America, there is a lot of fraud in Medicaid. We could drive right across 14th Street Bridge and go over there and find all that fraud at the Pentagon if we wanted to hunt up some real fraud. And we could really go to Iraq and trace the money that has been wasted in Iraq's reconstruction if we want to find some fraud. I mean, those are some urgent things. To buy beer, you don't need to be a citizen if you have photo ID. To cash a check, you don't have to be a citizen. To get on a plane, you don't have to be a citizen. To buy cigarettes, you don't have to be a citizen. And now you come up with the precursor to a national ID card. And that is really what this is, after we get past all the mumbling, fumbling, and words that we are saying. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend this rule to allow the House to consider the Millender-McDonald amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee late last night, but was rejected. I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my colleague for yielding. I wish specifically to address the statement made by Chairman Ehlers, for whom I have the greatest respect. And he is my friend. I disagree where you say, Mr. Chairman, that this is not an unfunded mandate. Although H.R. 4844 authorizes, as you correctly say and from the language of the bill, such sums as necessary to fund the program, it does not guarantee any funding to States to pay for the requirements of this bill. The Help America Vote Act was authorized for $3.9 billion, and to date only $3.1 billion has been appropriated, leaving an $800 million shortfall. The sponsors of H.R. 4844 simply cannot guarantee that States won't be stuck with the bill for the costs imposed by this legislation. The unfunded mandates law was the very first bill considered on the House floor when the Republicans took control of the Congress in January of 1995. I was here when it passed. They were highly critical of previous mandates imposed by Democratic Congresses and adamant about not allowing legislation to impose unfunded mandates on State and local governments as well as the private sector. Yet here we are today ready to impose enormous costs on these entities and on private citizens as well. I support the point of order and ask that it prevail.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Florida and colleague in the House of Representatives that the people that stole the election in 2000, in mine and your State, were not illegal immigrants. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this place never ceases to amaze me. Our friend from Michigan talks about the southern border. I gather that there is no illegal immigration on the northern border which she lives close to. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee and author of the substitute that was not allowed under this closed rule, that would handle the problems of comprehensive border control as well as immigration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield an additional 1 minute to my colleague from Texas, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Silvestre Reyes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I close, Mr. Speaker, I say what I said earlier, and that is the measure that we are discussing today sounds good, is needed, in part, along with comprehensive immigration reform, but does nothing. Mr. Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee I misquoted the song, but the intent was the same: There ain't no mountain high enough and there ain't no river wide enough to stop people from seeking a better opportunity for themselves. Some years ago outside Boynton Beach in Florida, I was among the first people to arrive at the scene of Haitian immigrants who were seeking to enter our country illegally. They all had died, and I stepped over the body of a nude pregnant woman. That hurt me an awful lot, that in seeking freedom and opportunity she and her unborn child were in that posture. I have seen many a situation where Cubans have lost their lives seeking to come to this country. We need to get a grip and understand that we cannot become neoisolationists in a society as diverse as our own and that the most brilliant people that I know serve here in the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle and those persons are very capable of advancing comprehensive immigration reform that will address all of our needs, including border security. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this House to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule and make in order the substitute offered by Homeland Security Ranking Member Thompson and Representative Reyes. This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee last night but was rejected. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous materials be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Reyes-Thompson substitute provides for a comprehensive approach to our border security, not simply the inadequate piecemeal approach called for in the underlying bill. The substitute requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive border security strategy with increased Border Patrol agent deployment as well as increased surveillance using advanced technology. It provides long-term financial support for significant increases in personnel to help the Border Patrol meet its mission, including Border Patrol agents, Immigration and Customs agents, United States marshals, Coast Guard personnel, port of entry inspectors, canine enforcement teams, and other vital personnel necessary to guard and protect our borders more effectively. It will provide needed equipment such as helicopters, power boats, radio communications, night vision equipment, body armor, and other crucial tools in the war against terror. The substitute also reestablishes the 9/11 Commission to allow them to fulfill their mission and to provide oversight and accountability. I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up this comprehensive and responsible alternative that will actually do something to help make this Nation less vulnerable to those from outside who would do us harm.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), if the gentleman you described was in the back of a car, in the trunk, then he came through a port of entry. He didn't ride across no mountain, and you could have built every fence on Earth and he still could have been in the back of the car. Now let me straighten you out on something else. We already, with the Hunter amendment to the border security measure, passed the identical language that is in here. This is nothing but political gamesmanship when all is said and done. And for you to say that we have to do this before we can authorize puts the lie to you being in the majority. You have the power to authorize. You could authorize. Don't tell the American people that we have to wait for some mish-mash language that has no money in it to build a fence, that that is the only way that we can do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Royce to respond.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, my friend, Mr. Sessions, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation, which is nothing more than political gamesmanship in the run-up to the mid-term election. Sounds good, does nothing. To paraphrase the Vice President, it seems to me that the majority is in the last throes of keeping control of the House and is throwing vacuous public policy at us in a vain attempt to fool the American public. Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people are much smarter than that. They can see through these charades to see that this country needs a new direction. This bill is a case in point. If you were to believe my colleague, my friend from Texas, Mr. Sessions, and the other proponents of this legislation, this bill would lead to the construction of a fence along some parts of the United States-Mexican border. But guess what? This bill does not authorize a single nickel or dime for construction. I asked the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, our colleague, and my friend, Peter King of New York, yesterday, point-blank, in the Rules Committee, ``Does this bill fund construction of a fence along our border?'' The transcript of the Rules Committee hearing will back me up when I say that Chairman King answered with, ``No, but.'' And Members of the majority party always seem to have an excuse at the ready when they pretend to legislate but simply pontificate. If Americans want to see results instead of rhetoric, if taxpayers would like solutions instead of sound bites, and hard work instead of horse trading, I suggest you take a short look, and it won't take much longer, at the accomplishments of this Congress. I don't intend to waste too much of our time on this lazy attempt at legislating. I will let others do that. However, there are a few other things to consider when thinking about this bill. This so-called border security bill not only doesn't spend a nickel, a penny, or a dime of money to construct a fence, it also does not increase the number of Border Patrol agents, customs, and immigration enforcement authorities. It doesn't help law enforcement. It doesn't provide accountability, and it won't stop illegal immigration into this country. I said in last night's meeting, there ain't no mountain high enough and there ain't no river valley wide enough to stop the tide of what is happening on our border unless we do it comprehensively. Get real, folks. If the Congress had any real intent in making this country safer and more secure, they would have allowed the ranking Democratic member of the Homeland Security Committee to offer a substitute bill. If our colleague and my very good friend, Mr. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, had an opportunity to offer his legislation, then we could have had a serious debate. But, of course, the majority has no interest in allowing the House to work its will; thus, closed this rule. That only happens in a democracy. But had Mr. Thompson been allowed to offer his substitute, we would have seen what a real homeland security bill looks like. The Thompson legislation would have provided the technology, personnel and equipment needed to monitor and secure every mile of the border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And there is no one in this body or in America that is concerned about this issue that does not understand the need to secure our borders. Everybody knows that. The Thompson legislation authorized 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents. It would have allowed for the creation of 2,000 more immigration officials and hundreds more detention officials. It would have enlisted 250 more Federal marshals and more than 70 new judgeships to deal strictly with immigration issues. Yes, all of this could have been considered today on the House floor. It would have been considered if the majority party was truly interested in protecting the American people instead of their own positions as the majority. Sounds good, does nothing. I invite my colleague, Mr. Sessions, to point out in this legislation where any money is spent to put a border along the United States-Mexico border. I urge a ``no'' vote on this closed rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Royce, I am tired of studying and the American people are tired of studying. The Thompson substitute that was not allowed because of this closed rule does, in fact, do what is necessary for secure borders. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am more than pleased to yield 5 minutes to a colleague that I served with on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and who, for 26 years, was in charge of border security, the chief of two major regions of border security and who happened to be at the hearings that you were at, Mr. Royce, my distinguished colleague, Silvestre Reyes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before yielding again to Mr. Reyes, I would say to Mr. Souder, there is nobody here that has opposition. We have already passed a measure that has 370 miles of fencing. Why don't the people over here just fess up? Their argument is against the Senate plan that has a guest worker program in it. It already has fence in it, so that is not even the issue. What I continue to ask, and I invite Mr. Sessions again to answer, is whether or not the measure we are discussing today has one penny, one nickel or one dime in it to build a fence. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to Mr. Reyes to respond to some of the matters that were brought to our attention earlier.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. So you also favor a fence along the Canadian border because terrorists have come through from that area as well?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, just to say to the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, last night in the Rules Committee I asked him a simple question. He said he can't for the life of him understand what our opposition is, just because we can't do everything, we do nothing. This measure that we are discussing today does nothing other than provide midterm yacking before the election. There are no dollars, not a penny, not a nickel, not a dime in this measure to build any fence. We have already passed legislation that has 370 miles of fences in it. So why are we here? We have got an election coming up. That is why we are here. So you have to do things to put on a bumper sticker. The American public can see through this charade. There isn't opposition to protecting the border. But we are saying that you cannot come forward with something that does nothing, and that is what this is. Nothing. Talk. We need action. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has attended a lot of these hearings that we are talking about and is a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would my colleague answer one question for me. In the measure that is before us today, is there any money in this measure to build any kind of fence?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank Mr. Gingrey for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. In 1934, Congress had established Federal Prison Industries, or FPI, a government corporation that employs inmates in Federal prisons to produce goods and services for the Federal Government. FPI employs nearly 20,000 inmates in more than 100 prison factories to manufacture a number of products for the United States Government. Prisoners manufacture such items as clothing, textiles, fleet management of the vehicle components, graphics and industrial products in return for cheap labor. Inmates receive valuable job training opportunities that teach them the necessary skills that may help them become productive, hardworking citizens once they reenter society. Under current Federal law, FPI is a mandatory source of goods and services for Federal agencies. That means, Mr. Speaker, that any agency that wants to buy at least $2,500 worth of goods and services must first seek to do so through FPI. If FPI cannot process an order, the agency is then given a waiver to make the purchase from another source. Mr. Speaker, this legislation seeks to phase out the preference given to Federal Prison Industries in contracts with Federal agencies. Supporters claim that it is unfair to exclusively employ prisoners when small businesses and private firms want to secure contracts with the Federal Government. However, I claim if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I claim that it is unfair to spend more than half a billion tax dollars to dissolve an effective and self-sustaining program. I claim that it is unfair to obligate an additional $75 million a year for the next 5 years to implement an educational and vocational program to replace an already successful educational and vocational program. This seems to me to be an extraordinarily wasteful way to spend American taxpayers' dollars. As a former judge, I know the importance of prison employment training programs. I personally witnessed the benefits of giving prisoners constructive work while they are incarcerated. While the Federal Prison Industries may need reform, I propose we seek other options. I propose we first ask the Bureau of Prisons what they think about reforming Federal Prison Industries. I propose we ask the Federal agencies that receive FPI products and services what improvements can be made. I am not convinced that this particular bill is necessary or that it is the best solution in reforming Federal Prison Industries. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why this bill could not have been considered under an open rule. It was in the last Congress, and this same measure passed in the last Congress, 350-65, was not taken up by the U.S. Senate, is not going to be taken up by the United States Senate in the next 2 weeks and probably not even in a lame duck session. There weren't very many of our colleagues who offered amendments at the Rules Committee last night, and of the Members who were not permitted to offer their amendments, Mr. Scott from the Judiciary Committee and Mr. Rohrabacher, a Democrat and a Republican, each had thoughtful amendments, which the full House should have been given the opportunity to debate. We didn't vote yesterday until 6:30 in the evening, and there isn't anything at least firm on the schedule on the floor Friday. So why not let the House work its will? Why continue to stamp out democracy here in the people's House while feigning to advocate democracy around the globe. It really kind of makes you go hmm, and it makes me wonder, Mr. Speaker. For all of the above reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying bill Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Most quickly, have we done the appropriations measures, and can the gentleman assure me that between now and September 29 we will pass the rest of the appropriations measures in the House of Representatives

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume only to respond to my good friend from Georgia that I am prepared, as I am sure all Members in this body are, to stipulate that this is an important matter. The question that I would ask and answer rhetorically is, is this the most important thing that we could be doing here? If it is, I am missing something, because I did not see the minimum wage, I did not see port security, I did not see the appropriations bills. All we have done is two of the 13 up to now. So if this is the most important thing, which has already passed in a previous session of Congress 350-65, and ain't going to pass the other body this week or next or before September 29, when the majority leader has said that we will go sine die during that particular weekend, I am here to tell you that this is a woeful response, and it is more than credible that it will make the suggestion that people make come to fruition that this is a do-nothing Congress, when in fact we are taking up something that may very well be important, but it sure ain't the most important thing to Jane and Joe Lunch Bucket in America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a resolution calling on Iran to immediately fulfill its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. On August 31, 2006, Iran rejected United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696 requesting that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, including research and development within 1 month or face economic and diplomatic sanctions. In a report the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, released that same day, the agency discussed proof of Iran's continued pursuit of its nuclear program, as well as evidence that Iran might be pursuing alternative nuclear activities in secret. For decades, Iran has been deceiving the IAEA and the international community about the extent and the purpose of its nuclear program. Iran has consistently failed to provide sufficient information about its nuclear capabilities and has failed to fully cooperate with international nuclear nonproliferation laws. Time and time again, Iran has scorned diplomatic and economic propositions offered by the global community. The United States cannot afford to stand aside now and allow Iran to continue with their pattern of nuclear defiance. This is why I am calling for this resolution, which calls for the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 1696; asking the Security Council members to move forward quickly and apply appropriate multilateral sanctions against Iran. This resolution also calls upon President Bush to implement and exhaust every diplomatic and economic sanction at his disposal to prevent a nuclear Iran. Iran's strategic plan is blatantly obvious: With one hand it is stringing along diplomatic negotiations with the world's powers, while the hand behind its back continues to pursue nuclear activities. In doing so, Iran is successfully driving a wedge between the international communities. Iran remains defiant banking on the assumption that the United Nations Security Council will be unwilling to agree on imposing sanctions on their country. Iran's pattern of insubordination is extremely troubling to me. Even more troubling to me is the reluctance of the international community to unite together and take immediate action against the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. This past weekend, European Union, EU, leaders met with an Iranian negotiator in an attempt to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment. And just last week, top diplomats from the EU-3: Britain, France, and Germany, as well as the United States, met in Berlin for the first time since Iran refused to accept the United Nations deadline to halt its uranium production. But while these meetings signal progress, they will accomplish nothing if all of the Security Council members do not completely implement resolution 1696. Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, and the United States voted for this resolution; now they must champion what it calls for. The need to implement multilateral sanctions and for the United States to apply all diplomatic and economic sanctions at its disposal against Iran is growing steadily. Over the years we have seen how Iran's defiance against the international community has galvanized extremist groups in Iraq, Gaza and Lebanon. In the most recent example of the cross-border attack by the terrorist group Hezbollah against Israel--largely financed and supported by the Iranian Government--we saw the devastating impact that Iranian assistance to militia groups can generate. On the day following the 5-year commemoration of 9/11, our Nation is still vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Allowing a primary sponsor of international terror to advance their nuclear capabilities, burgeons the terrorist threat posed to our Nation. Iran poses a huge and existential danger to our democratic ally Israel as well. For years, President Ahmadinejad has spewed anti- Semitic rhetoric and has denied the Holocaust's existence. Iran's nuclear intentions are no secret. President Ahmadinejad is on a national crusade of hatred and ultimate destruction against Israel and the United States. Moreover, in one of the most unstable regions in the world, Iran continues to remain a highly destabilizing force. A nuclear Iran only intensifies the threat Iran currently poses to the security of the entire global community. Mr. Speaker, let us take a moment to consider the consequences of allowing a repressive anti-Semitic regime with ideological goals, extensive oil production capabilities, and an active sponsor of global terrorism, to possess nuclear powers. The possibilities are endless and progressively more dangerous. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East could break out, or Iran could garner support elsewhere in the Muslim world and successfully advance their radical ideological movement against the West. Many in the international community had hoped that Iran would realize that advancing their nuclear program makes their country less safe, not more. But Iran made its choice. It has not only failed to meet the demands of the United Nations Resolution 1696, it has defied the resolution and the international community. And now it must pay the price of sanctions. I ask all of my distinguished colleagues to join me and co-sponsor this resolution to request that the Security Council members and the United States reply with an immediate and meaningful response to Iran's longstanding pattern of nuclear noncompliance.