Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I think as you listen to the discussion, the question almost answers itself because the primary question hasn't been answered: Exactly what are we going to task our spy satellites to do? Exactly what are we going to task our human collectors to do? The statistics are very, very obvious in terms of climate change, and there's lots of different, competing ones. Exactly what secrets, with limited resources, are we going to task the intelligence community to go out and collect? And precious analysts that are taking a look at northern Africa and trying to determine exactly what the footprint is of al Qaeda in Algeria and Morocco, Nigeria, other parts of Africa, are we going to ask the CIA stations in those areas to take their time and dedicate it to studying climate change for the next 6 months? It's a totally new task. We have a community that at this point is not even a global community. So we are going to dedicate precious resources instead of expanding the reach of our intelligence community into places where we are not at today, the bigger emphasis is going to be giving them a totally new and different assignment? Instead of tasking our satellites to take a look at exactly what the proliferation capabilities are in China or North Korea, we are going to task them to look somewhere else even though that same kind of capabilities may be available from commercial imagery? Exactly what information does the intelligence community, I mean, it's our business to steal secrets, to find out what the plans and intentions are of those who want to attack the United States. This is information. There are hundreds and probably thousands of people that are very skilled at investigating climate change, predicting what may happen in certain regions of the country and certain regions of the planet, and they are not in the intelligence community. These people have their plate full. The threats are real. We should not diminish the threats. The information is in the public. These are two missions that do not come together. Studying climate change can be done by other government agencies. Stealing the secrets of al Qaeda and North Korea, Iran, other parts of the world, that is the job of the intelligence community. Let them focus on the job that we need them to do. Support this amendment and strike this National Intelligence Estimate.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from the State of Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank my colleague Ms. Lee for working over the last couple of years to get to the point where we have got an amendment that I still have a little bit of unease with, but I will not oppose the amendment, and look forward to continuing to work with her and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as we do the oversight necessary of what goes on in the intelligence community. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, but I believe last year, and she can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe she voted against the bill on the floor. And to characterize our disagreement with this bill as partisan, and to, I assume perhaps in another way, characterize her vote against our base bill last year as something else, her vote as something else, is disappointing. We had a good partnership when I was chairman and you were ranking member. I am disappointed by that. I believe this is a well-founded difference of opinion on the content of this bill. There are clear differences in priorities. As the gentlelady said and others have said, we are a Nation that faces a great threat. We saw earlier this week that threat may have evolved and found its way once again to our shores, in New Jersey. We believe we need to strengthen HUMINT and face the threats that are out there. We believe that we can't be working in the politically correct environment. The message that people are looking for in the field is, what direction is this new majority going to take our Intelligence Community? They are seeing cuts in key activities that support the war, the effort against the threat that we face from radical jihadists, and not applying the resources that we need against targets that we don't know enough about. I think we would all agree on a bipartisan basis, we don't know enough about al Qaeda and how it works and where it is and what its resources are and what its plans and intentions are. We don't know enough about Iran, Syria, North Korea and the people that are proliferating and making this world a much more dangerous place. We will see amendments later on from both sides of the aisle that acknowledge that we are not where we want to be with the reorganization of the Intelligence Community. We have lots of questions about where the DNI, the office of the DNI is headed and whether this structure is going to work the way that some of us worked in a very bipartisan way to reform it with a certain expectation and hope, and what we would get as a result of that: An enhanced Intelligence Community that would be quicker, more nimble and more effective than the threats that we face today. And we need to rebuild HUMINT. And at the same time, we see in this bill a commitment that says we are going to task the Intelligence Community, and the question that has not been answered is what specific skills does the Intelligence Community add to the study of climate change when we are already spending $7 billion projected for the next fiscal year on climate change? What secrets are we going to steal? What are we going to task our HUMINT folks for? What are we going to task our limited resources with spy satellites to do? To assess the political, social, agricultural and economic risk during the 30-year period beginning on date of enactment? And don't say it is not going to take resources. This is a massive undertaking. It is not a throw-away. This is Congress coming and saying the most important national intelligence assessment that the community can complete next year, and you need to do it in 180 days; 180 days with no input from the community on whether they have the resources, the capabilities to carry out this task. We are saying that it needs to be done in 180 days. You need to do it on a global basis, and you need to do it over 30 years, and you need to cover all of these different areas. And by the way, we are not going to give you a benchmark from where to start. Are you going to take the U.N.'s assessment of what may be happening with climate change? Are you going to take a university's assessment on climate change? Where do you start? This is a massive undertaking. It will shift resources because when you tell the Director of National Intelligence Congress wants this done, and Congress we know has been dissatisfied with the national intelligence estimates that we have been given on Iraq and Iran and on a number of other issues, they know they need to get this one right or it better be a very, very good piece of work. They will take this very, very seriously. They will divert resources to get this done, and they will divert resources from the things that we need them to be doing. This bill sends the wrong message to our men and women in the field. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague and classmate from the State of Maryland, Mr. Roscoe Bartlett.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a senior member of the committee, Mr. Everett.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to yield myself 4 minutes. I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, Chairman Reyes, for the cooperative working relationship that we have had as we have gone through this process and as we have developed and built this bill. There are a number of things in this piece of legislation that I do support, so I appreciate the cooperative working relationship we have had. I appreciate the hard work by the committee on both staffs. You know, it is absolutely important that we provide the Intelligence Community with the information or with the resources, the commitment and the framework with which they can be the tip of the spear to keep us free. We all owe the men and women of the community a deep sense of gratitude for the work that they do each and every day, as they risk their lives to keep us safe. As they well know, let me quote, ``we are in a state of war. And if we have not yet realized that we are in a state of war, when will we realize that''? Some folks may say, well, Pete, what's new? You have been saying that for a long period of time. Actually, I don't believe that, and I don't like to use the term ``war.'' We shouldn't elevate the people that pose this threat to the United States as being soldiers or representing a nation-state. They are thugs. They are murderers, and they are terrorists. These are the words of Ayman al-Zawahiri from an interview that he just gave last week, a video. Those are the words that he says. He says that they are at war. We need to recognize that that is how they view the U.S. and how they view the West. We have continued a number of initiatives that were begun in the last Congress. I feel good about that. Building global collection capabilities, rebuilding HUMINT capabilities, working on the overhaul of the Intelligence Community. But I think we do need to affect and address the weaknesses in this bill. This bill significantly cuts from the President's budget request in a very important area, human intelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency, and cuts that directly affect our efforts in Iraq. I agree with the chairman. Passing the wrong bill sends exactly the wrong message to our troops. Just like saying we are going to pull out of Iraq on a definite date sends the wrong message, sending a bill that cuts the funding for our Intelligence Community in Iraq sends exactly the wrong message. And telling the community that we want to move their priorities from radical Islam, North Korea, Syria, Iran, restructuring the community, rebuilding HUMINT to focusing on a national intelligence estimate on climate change sends exactly the wrong message. As a matter of fact, what the community will tell you is this hearkens back to the exact things that they experienced in the 1990s, a very depressing decade for the Intelligence Community, a dark decade, a decade where budgets were cut, where human intelligence was cut, where we changed rules for human intelligence and said, we are only going to have good-guy spies. It was known as the ``Deutsch doctrine.'' It said, if we have people on the payroll or we are working with people who have human rights records, criminal violations, we are not going to work with them anymore. And the other thing that we did is we did the politically correct thing, is we moved resources to spy on the environment. George Tenet mentions it in his book. He refers to it as those were the days that the community said we were focused on bugs and bunnies. And we are going right back to that. We are doing the politically correct priorities. We are cutting HUMINT, and we are cutting the resources that are directly supporting our efforts in Iraq against a very deadly and a very dangerous enemy. That is the message that we are sending to the agency that says, we are going back to the 1990s. The community doesn't want to go back to the 1990s. They recognize what had happened at that time. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I will yield.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, no, that does not follow. The measure that we had, you and I sat in a conference room; we went through the list with staff discussing specifically each and every earmark. And that earmark was not part of that process. When we got the report that accompanied this bill to the Rules Committee, all of a sudden there was a new earmark that you and I had not gone through. You can talk to staff and those types of things. I was never aware and neither were they that it was an earmark.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I offer this motion to recommit with instructions. My motion to recommit addresses a glaring inconsistency in this bill with all other Federal education laws by removing a provision that moves us in the direction of national standards and curriculum and puts those decisions back in the hands where they belong, in the hands of our State and local education leaders and, most importantly, parents. Education in this country has always been predominantly a State and local issue, and within that context parents had a protected right to direct their children's education. Even in the years after the passage of No Child Left Behind, the Federal contribution towards educating our children continues to be less than 10 percent, with States, counties, cities, and towns, actually parents and their local communities, providing over 90 percent of their funding to educate the next generation. It is not only appropriate but imperative that the Federal law prevents the Federal Government from telling States and districts and schools what and how they should teach. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act prohibits the Federal Government from mandating, directing, reviewing, or controlling a State, district, or school's choice of instructional content or curriculum. In addition, No Child Left Behind strictly prohibits the Department of Education from endorsing, approving, or sanctioning any curriculum for an elementary or secondary school. The rationale behind these provisions is important. As a Nation, we believe that the people closest to our children should make the decision as to what works best. Children learn differently. Some are visual learners. Some learn best from listening. Others need hands-on opportunities. While there are some things that work well for some groups of children, determining definitively what works at the national level for all children is absurd. Therefore, when the Federal Government says that these five, 10 or 15 specific science curricula are most effective, it is implicitly telling States, districts and schools that they should use these identified options, irrespective of whether that is what is best for their students or their area. Case in point is the current debate regarding the implementation of Reading First. There are allegations that some States and districts took information from technical assistance center employees and, to be fair, some department employees, to be implied endorsements of specific programs, believing that those were the only programs that would be funded under Reading First. No one seems happy about the outcome, yet this underlying bill would create another panel to provide ``recommendations'' that it then requires the Director of NSF and the Secretary of Education to disseminate. Take a look at this motion to recommit. Very simple. Nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall be construed to limit the authority of State governments or local school boards to determine the curricula of their students. It very clearly states and adds the clarifying language that it is the State and local school districts' responsibility and accountability for developing and approving the most appropriate, the most effective teaching methods and the most effective content. This Congress has long taken the position that we do not want to develop national curriculum and national standards. This Congress has consistently taken the position that we need and want local control of our schools. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit, to once again say that parents and local school districts, the ones who know the needs and the names of our children in their schools, are the ones in the best position to make the decisions as to what will happen in the classrooms in their local schools. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. In its present form, yes.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam 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. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding and I am thankful for his support and help on this amendment. I would also like to thank my colleague from Michigan for bringing this amendment together. I think we both recognize the importance of this amendment. My congressional district, I think we kind of represent God's country. I represent about 200 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline. I don't think I want to get into an argument with my colleague from Michigan as to how much shoreline he represents from the Great Lakes, but it is well in excess of that number. But we both have recognized that the current Corps guidelines present a distinct hardship to our communities, many of the communities along the Great Lakes. We don't meet the newest guidelines that establish the roughly 1 million tons or whatever of cargo that need to flow through a harbor. And this is a change in the Corps' position. For the last 14 years that my colleague and I have been in Congress, the Corps has done a very, very good job and recognized its responsibility for taking care of these small and medium-sized harbors which they classify as recreational harbors. But they are much more than recreational harbors. For many of our communities they do, we do transfer cargo through these ports, but the harbors form the economic development zone for these communities. And if the harbors and the channels are not dredged, this economic lifeline goes away. And when the economic lifeline goes away, eventually these communities go away. This is a policy that Congress needs to address because, from a disappointing standpoint, the administration has made an administrative decision that these harbors will not be taken care of. Congress needs to speak on this issue. I am glad that we can move this forward in a bipartisan basis and send a piece of legislation to the administration that no longer provides them with the latitude as to whether these harbors will be dredged or not. These harbors need to be dredged. They will be dredged. This is exactly the appropriate message to send. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for taking the initiative in bringing this legislation forward.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today our Nation is engaged in a struggle with a brutal and cold-blooded enemy, cold-blooded killers. These are the kinds of folks who will kill people on an airplane and fly it into buildings. They will drive a car through a checkpoint, step out of the car, leave the kids in the back seat, and blow it up. They will attack civilians rather than military targets. It is utter folly to believe that by establishing timelines and saying we are going to pull out today or at some specified date in the future, to believe that by doing that they will evaporate and they will leave us alone. Maybe it is another good cop-bad cop type of ploy being employed by individuals on the other side of the aisle when the majority leader in the other body today declares the war is lost, conceding that al Qaeda has won. Is the other side willing to concede that al Qaeda has won in Iraq, that they have won in Algeria, that they have won in Morocco, that they have won in Afghanistan and that they have won in Pakistan? When do they believe is the most appropriate time to confront the enemy that we face today, if we are not willing to confront them in Iraq, if we are not willing to confront them in northern Africa and the other parts of the Middle East or Asia? Are we going to once again wait until they come to the United States? This is hard and it is tough, but these are cold-blooded, ruthless killers. It is probably inappropriate to call this a war, because the people that we're fighting don't deserve the term of ``soldier'' or ``warriors.'' They are outlaws, they are criminals, and we cannot concede this to them, like the majority leader in the other body did today. Today, he sent a powerful signal to the rest of the world and to our allies that al Qaeda has won and we have lost. How will our allies respond to that message? This motion to recommit is at least a little bit better in that it says we haven't lost, but we're willing to soon surrender and give up this fight. It is a fight that we can't afford to lose. It is a fight that we need to win. Take a look at what they said. This is in their playbook. Defeat this motion to recommit.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, a bill that burdens our troops with conditions and dangerous timetables while simultaneously rewarding politicians with heaping helpings of pork. Providing full funding to our troops standing in the breach in the war against militant radical Islamists should be easy, and it should come without strings attached. The bill before us today sends a terrible message to our brave men and women in the Armed Forces, those who are serving our Nation in harm's way, and gives radical jihadists vital intelligence on potential future troop plans and intentions of the U.S. rather than offering a clean bill with emergency funding for our troops in combat, or allowing an up-or-down vote on the Sam Johnson bill that pledges Congress will not cut off funds for our troops on the front lines. We are being forced to consider a muddled supplemental, replete with pork-barrel spending, risky timetables and other items that do nothing to ensure America's success in the long-term war against radical militant Islam. Rather than the House debating how to win the war against radical militant Islam, with a focus on the current fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are engaged in political theater and not debating national security. The bill before us ties the hands of our military commanders with timetables and measurements that supposedly force troop withdrawal, yet the bill before us contains provisions for targeting al Qaeda and training Iraqi security forces that could leave thousands of troops behind without the authority or the funding to take the fight to enemy insurgents. This is not a good plan. It is not a good place to be. Let's be committed to defeating radical militant Islam, and let's do it today. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts to enhance protection for whistleblowers in the intelligence community, a goal that I wholeheartedly endorse. It is important that personnel within the intelligence community have appropriate opportunities to bring matters to Congress so long as the mechanisms to do so safeguard highly sensitive classified information and programs. The bill before us raises significant issues in doing so that need more considered review. As chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during the last Congress, I learned firsthand from whistleblowers about intelligence programs that the administration had not reported to the Intelligence Committees, despite its statutory duty to keep us fully and currently informed. I communicated my strong concerns directly to the President. I would vigorously defend the individuals who provided me with this important information from even the slightest reprisal. So I strongly support the underlying intention of the provisions of the bill intended to protect the intelligence community. Unfortunately, however, that part of the bill was not coordinated with HPSCI, and it suffers from a number of problems that I believe need to be fixed. First, the bill would conflict with the provisions of the existing Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, which has already provided specific mechanisms to permit whistleblowers to come to Congress, while simultaneously protecting sensitive national security information from unauthorized disclosure to persons not entitled to receive it. Second, the bill violates the rules of the House by encouraging intelligence community personnel to report highly sensitive intelligence matters to committees other than the Intelligence Committees, which were created to solely and appropriately deal with and safeguard information regarding sensitive intelligence programs. This is simply not a jurisdictional issue. The real issue is one of protecting highly classified intelligence programs and ensuring that any oversight is conducted by Members and staff with the appropriate experiences, expertise, and clearances. Our intelligence oversight should be conducted to determine how best to enhance our national security, protect civil liberties, and not to get press coverage. Third, this bill would make every claim of a self-described whistleblower, whether meritorious or not, subject to extended and protracted litigation. It would also substantially alter the application of the judicially established state secrets privilege in those cases, forcing the government to choose between revealing sensitive national security information to defend itself or losing in court. Judges recognized the privilege precisely because they understood that such a Hobson's choice is fundamentally improper and unfair and could harm national security interests. The current law works to screen frivolous whistleblower claims and recognizes that our national security interest should not be managed by lawsuit. Those considerations must continue to be protected. I agree very strongly with the principle that intelligence community whistleblowers should be protected from reprisal, and would look forward to working with the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to accomplish this goal. However, until those changes are made, and those issues are addressed, I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 89, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that a day should be established as Dutch American Friendship Day. On April 19, 2007, the United States and the Netherlands will mark 225 years of unbroken diplomatic relations. It is the United States' longest existing diplomatic relationship. My parents emigrated to the United States from the Netherlands when I was 3 years old. I am deeply proud of my Dutch heritage and feel that I have a special connection to both countries. As Russell Shorto notes in ``The Island at the Center of the World,'' Americans are indebted to the culture of tolerance that was present in 17th-century Dutch Manhattan, where men and women of diverse races and religions lived in relative peace for the first time in the New World. Dutch ideals such as individuality, freedom, hard work, and human rights have flourished in the United States; and our two countries can and have worked together to confront common challenges to our very similar societies. Last year, my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Chris Van Hollen, and I created a bipartisan Congressional Caucus on the Netherlands, a group that I hope will deepen our understanding of the ways in which we can continue to keep working together as allies for the mutual benefit of our countries. The United States and the Dutch have proven to be outstanding allies, allies for over 200 years. The Netherlands was the first country to salute the American flag after the Revolutionary War. It was one of the first to assist the United States and recognize the threat from radical militant Islamists and has graciously provided Members of Congress and others with critical access to their unique and innovative perspective on water management and flood protection in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Put simply, the value of the relationship between our two countries and the opportunities that exist to learn from each other should be deeply appreciated and recognized. I encourage all Members to support H. Res. 89 to honor Dutch and American friendship and celebrate the historic ties between our countries

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, this debate is about whether or not America is a great Nation that will lead in the face of difficulty. We have come up short. This resolution falls short. It is small and not worthy of this House. Why small? Let me begin with a threat that some either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge. This resolution does not address the fact that the current threat is not just the single front in Iraq, but rather the larger threat of militant Islamic jihadists who hate us enough to want to kill. These militant Islamic jihadists are a fringe element of Islam who have very specific ideas and goals about how to revive Islam, return Muslims to world power, and how to deal with their enemies. They are committed to a violent overthrow of existing international systems and to their replacement by an all-encompassing Islamic state called the caliphate. In explaining his approach to creating the caliphate, centered in Iraq, al-Qaeda's number two leader, Zawahari, outlined a four-stage plan: Stage 1, expel the Americans from Iraq in defeat. Stage 2, create an Islamic religious government in Iraq, developing and supporting it until it achieves a level of a caliphate. Stage 3, extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq. Stage 4, clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity. I think you get the picture. Let me also be clear. This jihad is about them, their God, and their religion, it is not about us. These militant jihadists believe that the modern world has forsaken the pure religious life and that only with a caliphate can they return to ``pure life.'' It is this narrow ideology that poses the direct and real threat to us. It is this ideology that threatens not only us, but also includes the belief that killing other Muslims is justified to achieve their radical goals. Here is the true threat to America and the world, this militant Islamic jihad, a jihad that attacks around the globe, including the United States and Iraq. The resolution we debate today does not address this global problem, this threat to peace and stability. Iraq is not the problem, it is only one front in this larger war. The second point. This resolution omits specifically all of the men and women of the Armed forces who are defending our freedoms in other theaters such as Kuwait, Afghanistan and Bosnia. It says, by not saying, that this Congress may not support troops who will be sent to Iraq. Is this intentional? Is this part of the plan to choke off funding for our troops? I also take great umbrage that this resolution omits and completely slights the incredible contributions to this Nation's security of our dedicated men and women in the Intelligence Community, many serving in Iraq, who provide our combat troops with the information vital to their security. Is this the first step in cutting off their funding, too, returning to the Clinton administration's policies of the 1990s that decimated our intelligence capabilities? Finally, Madam Speaker, I need to address the issue of the consequences of failure. What happens if Iraq collapses due to a sudden withdrawal of U.S. troops? Our enemies have made it clear that they will fill the void. Surely America is wary of the conflict in Iraq, but the difficulty of this conflict does not justify giving into their strategy; yes, their strategy. They believe that they are winning by wearing America down. Will we quit? Do we understand the consequences? Make no mistake, this resolution is a dangerous and naive first step to cutting funding to our troops in an unwise withdrawal from the region. Iraq is not a faraway place where the United States has no interest and where we can pull our troops out of without paying a price in the global war against militant Islam. This debate is not about Iraq, it is about us, us as a Nation of people who will do the right thing. The fundamental question is, Do we have the resolve that will be necessary to defeat radical militant Islamic jihadists that contain bad actors such as Iran, and will we stand and fight for the future of our kids and their kids? We have faced similar threats before. In 1945 my parents were liberated by Canadians and American troops in the Netherlands. They never forgot the sacrifices that were made by brave soldiers and by a great Nation, a Nation on a great mission. America did it for them, but it also did it for itself. America recognized that the threat was a direct threat to America and the world. We then led a global effort to victory. Today we face a very different but, again, a very real threat: radical militant Islam. The challenge to this Congress is to rise to the occasion, to help lead America and to help lead the world to victory. This petty resolution falls far short of that noble and worthy calling. Vote ``no.'' We can and we must do better.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, Mr. Saxton.