Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I will tell the gentleman my sense is that substitutes will be allowed.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's observations. I understand his concern. Although I do observe that there was no motion made to either add or subtract from the bill that we just considered in a motion to recommit. But I do expect substitutes will be made in order.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the views. Although, as the gentleman knows, that bill was reported out of the Government Reform Committee chaired by a Republican, with a Republican majority, with a majority of Republicans voting for the bill to report it out of the committee in the last session. So while I understand your view, it is not as if we were taking up a bill that hadn't already been processed by your committee in the last Congress, reported out of that committee, and because obviously there is opposition to it on your side of the aisle, not brought to the floor. I understand the gentleman's point; but very frankly, the only reason it has not passed, because it has the majority of votes on this floor, was because the motion that was made was not the traditional motion of adopting a proposition, in this case the gun control issue, and reporting it immediately back out with that amendment attached. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, but I can't feel too guilty about bringing to the floor a bill that was reported out of a Republican-chaired committee with a Republican majority.

Mr. HOYER. I don't know that we will see it next week, although I would like to see it next week. As the gentleman knows, I was very concerned and remain concerned about the interpretation of germaneness. And, frankly, that wouldn't have been a problem either had the minority been willing to offer the traditional motion, which was to recommit and have it immediately reported back to the floor. I will tell my friend we would have had a vote on that. I think you would have probably prevailed on the motion itself, and we would have prevailed on the bill. It would have carried that rider with it, of course. But the minority, frankly, from our perspective, chose to try to defeat the bill by not just making the motion to recommit to adopt the proposition that you offered, but sending it back to committee for that purpose, which was obviously not necessary, which leads me to believe, I want to tell you honestly, my friend, that this was a procedural device to kill the bill rather than let it come to a vote on its merits. As the gentleman knows, I feel very strongly personally, others do as well, but I feel very strongly personally that we ought to extend a full voting franchise to the Representative who sits on this floor and represents 600,000 of our fellow Americans. The answer to your question is, I hope to bring that to the floor as soon as possible under conditions where we will protect ourselves from procedurally losing a bill which has the majority of votes on this floor.

Mr. HOYER. As soon as possible.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Having been in the gentleman's position for too long, I honestly empathize with his position. It is my expectation that the appropriation bills, as they have historically, will come to this floor starting mid-May and continuing through June, and we hope to complete our appropriations bills by the end of June. My expectation is they will be, as they are traditionally, on the floor with open rules, or at least structured rules. Obviously, open rules, if you have 500 or 600 amendments from all the folks, we may not get finished, which is why we have structured rules. But certainly the gentleman is correct that that is the tradition. I would expect us to follow that tradition. On supplementals, over the last 15 supplementals, I was looking around to see if I had it immediately in front of me, I don't, but on the last 15 supplementals there have been a variety. Seven of them were open, eight of them were less than open, some more structured than others. I understand the gentleman's representation, and I certainly look forward to working with the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this important legislation, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, is designed to do one thing, enfranchise Americans fully with a voting representative in the House of Representatives. I have the great honor of representing the great State of Maryland. Maryland, at the request of the Federal Government, gave some square miles of its State to our Federal Government and to the people of America. At that time there were Marylanders living, just a few, but Marylanders living within the confines of what was to become the District of Columbia. Now, this was post-1787, so that the miracle in Philadelphia did not contemplate disenfranchising those voters in the various States, as my friend from Texas mentioned, because the residents that then became, because of the generosity of the State of Maryland, residents of that Federal district, were then residents of the several States. Washington, D.C. is the only capital in a democracy in the world, in the entire world, that does not have a voting representative in its parliament, in the world. Clearly, the successor residents of the District of Columbia succeed residents of the several States. The continued disenfranchisement of more than half a million Americans is unconscionable, is indefensible and wrong. Since 1801, when Washington, D.C. became this Nation's capital, the citizens of the District of Columbia have not had representation in the Congress, not in the House of Representatives and not in the Senate. It is wrong, as a matter of principle, because District citizens pay Federal taxes, sit on juries and serve on our Armed Forces, like all other Americans who enjoy full representation in this body do. If they move tomorrow to Maryland or to Virginia or to Texas or to California, they will be fully enfranchised. They are not second-class citizens, but the area in which they live is being treated as a second- class area, this, the Nation's capital. You cannot cite another capital in the world that does that if they allow any of their voters to be represented in a true democratic institution. It is wrong politically, because District citizens since 1801 have effectively been a ward of Congress without the opportunity to make their voice felt on the legislation that affects only them. Ironically on this bill, we are going to again have a motion to recommit, which affects only the residents of the District of Columbia. It is wrong, I suggest to you, morally as well, because the United States professes to have the truest form of representative government in human history. We are proud of that, rightfully so. Yet we deprive the citizens of this Nation's capital of their voice in their national legislature. Let me add, the United States is the only representative democracy, as I have said, that does that. The absence of representation in Congress for District citizens underscores the failure of the Congress to use the authority vested in it, by the Constitution, to correct an injustice. I want to say to my friends in this body, so many of you have voted ``aye'' on propositions that only recently the Supreme Court of the United States has said are unconstitutional. You put in language to say, oh, well, it's constitutional because of X, Y and Z, to try to substitute our judgment for the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, but repeatedly you have voted for legislation which the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional, and you know it. We have spent $379 billion, 3,200 lives. We will vote tomorrow on a bill that seeks to spend $100 billion more so that the citizens of Baghdad, the citizens of Baghdad can have a parliament in which the citizens of Baghdad have a vote; but too many will vote not to give the same right to our sisters and brothers who live in the District of Columbia. The authority I refer to for the constitutionality of this is, of course, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, is the so-called seat of government clause, under which ``The Congress shall have power . . . to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever,'' exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, for as I remind you, those residents of the several States or their successors, who are now residents of the District of Columbia. Plain and simple, this sweeping language gives Congress ``extraordinary and plenary'' powers over our Nation's capital city, including the authority to adopt legislation to enfranchise the District's 550,000 Americans with a full vote in this House. I am far from alone in my view of Article I, section 8. Twenty-five legal scholars, which have just been entered into the Record, make that assertion. As the chairman of the committee, I am not used to quoting Kenneth Starr, and I quote Kenneth Starr, not as the supreme expert, but certainly as not a partisan of my party. In fact, I would remind every Member of this House, this bill was reported out of the Republican-chaired, Republican-majority Government Reform Committee just last Congress. Mr. Davis is a cosponsor, not only a Republican leader, but the former chairman of a committee and former chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, not just a back-bencher, but a leader in the party, who said this is constitutional, but in any event, it is the right thing to do. Mr. Starr's tightly reasoned testimony before the House Government Reform Committee in 2004 in favor of the substance of today's measure should be required reading for every Member of the body who believes that somehow this may be a partisan vote. In fact, as we mentioned, we give to Utah as well, as has been historical practice, to usually do two at a time, as we did Alaska and Hawaii. That doesn't unusually enfranchise, I would suggest, Utah's voters. I come from a State that had an at-large Representative for most of the 1960s. His name was Carlton Sickles. He lived in the county in which I grew up. He was an at-large Representative, yes, before Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr, but that was for the State legislature purposes. He was an at-large Representative in the State of Maryland. I am not sure that anybody here served with him. We, the Members of this House, must never be seduced into thinking there is such a thing as settled injustice. Here me, settled injustice. The author of the Dred Scott decision was a Marylander. There is a statue of him, a bust of him, as you enter the old Supreme Court Chamber. That was the constitutional law. It was wrong. It was wrong legally, it was wrong ethically, and it was certainly wrong morally. It is time, my friends, in this body, today, to stand up, speak out for democracy and justice for our fellow Americans. If we can fight for democracy in Baghdad, we can vote for democracy in Washington, D.C.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I'd like to take a moment today to recognize Rachel Klay, a devoted friend and dedicated public servant who retired from the United States Secret Service on January 19 of this year. I had the pleasure of getting to know Rachel over the course of her 24-year career with the Secret Service--and I can say, with the utmost confidence, that she served our country with dignity and integrity every step of the way. Whenever I or another Member of Congress would visit the White House, we could always count on Rachel to greet us with a smile or funny story. And whenever foreign dignitaries visited Capitol Hill, we could always count on Rachel to be right there with them, ensuring that foreign officials had a safe and comfortable experience while visiting our Nation's capital. Rachel always fulfilled her duties with all of the dependability, professionalism and love of country that one would expect from a Secret Service agent. But she also brought a kind and lighthearted nature to the job that I, for one, will never forget. And let me add that I have had the pleasure of employing Secret Service agents in my office through Congressional fellowship programs and, like Rachel, each and every one of them has represented the best our Nation has to offer. From her upbringing in Orange City, Iowa, to her studies at Northwestern and Sangamon State Universities, to the U.S. Secret Service, Rachel has always excelled and stood out as a leader and as someone people can count on. As she moves on to bigger and better things, I'd like to congratulate Rachel Klay on a proud career of service to our country and wish her the best of luck in whatever the future holds.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, 4 years ago tonight, our Commander in Chief, President Bush, gave the orders that instigated Operation Iraqi Freedom. Whether they supported the President's decision or not, all, and I emphasize ``all'' patriotic Americans prayed for our success as well as the safe return of our brave service men and women. And 4 years later, we still do. However, today our success in Iraq is as elusive as it ever was and has ever been over the past 1,460 days. More than 3,200 American soldiers have given the ultimate measure of sacrifice, and more than 24,000 have been injured. The American taxpayers have spent more than $400 billion on this war, and the President asked for an additional $245 billion, including a $100 billion wartime supplemental spending bill that will be considered on the floor later this week. And thousands of Iraqis have been killed, while literally millions have fled to neighboring countries, triggering a refugee crisis. Yet despite the sacrifice and hardship, how much progress has been made? Just last week, the Department of Defense reported record levels of violence and hardening sectarian violence in the fourth quarter of 2006, stating, ``Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a civil war.'' Administration officials themselves admitted last week that political goals that were to have been met by the Iraqi government this month will take significantly longer to achieve, said the administration. The National Intelligence Estimate tells us the war has increased the global terror threat rather than reduce it. And General Schoomaker, the Army Chief of Staff, has issued strong warnings about the effect of this war on America's overall military readiness and our ability to respond to emerging strategic threats. Indeed, Ike Skelton of Missouri, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that the situation with respect to America's readiness of its Armed Forces is grave and troubling. Meanwhile, the American people have wearied of administration claims that are divorced from reality. ``Mission accomplished'' and ``the insurgency is in its last throes'' are just two of the assertions that have proved, sadly, very badly mistaken. From the outset, the administration refused to commit a force commensurate with the threat it articulated, and now it asks for patience while a fourth troop escalation seeks to accomplish what three others could not. It profoundly miscalculated the cost of this war. It went to war without a plan for postwar stabilization and security. And perhaps most egregiously, the administration sent our troops into battle without proper equipment. Madam Speaker, given the repeated miscalculations by the administration over the last 4 years, and given the situation on the ground in Iraq, today it is past time, way past time for the United States Congress, the people's representatives, to insist on accountability and a new direction in Iraq. As one who supported the authority of the President of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein, and in listening to the President's State of the Union when he said not one of us who voted voted for failure, that was accurate. I certainly did not vote for failure. And I want success and seek success, but the administration's policies have not garnered success. Therefore, more blank checks and questioning obeisance by this Congress would constitute, in my opinion, a dereliction of our responsibility and our constitutional duty. Thus, this Congress, for the first time in 4 years, will have the opportunity this week to change America's course in Iraq and to insist that the Iraqis take control of their own destiny. The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act offers the best way forward in Iraq. I urge Members of both sides of the aisle to support it. And I would call the attention to many of our Members to a vote in June of 1997, where so many Members on the Republican side of the aisle voted to set a timetable, set a date certain for withdrawal or exit strategy in amendments sponsored by Mr. Buyer of Indiana in which all the present leaders of the Republican Party who were in the Congress at that time voted for. In short, the legislation that will come before us is saying much the same, but after 4 years of a lack of success, why do I say a lack of success? Secretary Gates in his confirmation hearing said that we are not winning in Iraq. That was just a few months ago, and he was right. Again, I would reiterate in my opinion because we have never, not at the outset, not over the last 4 years has this administration deployed assets sufficient to meet the challenge. This legislation is designed to protect our troops, requiring troop deployment to adhere to the Defense Department's current standards for training, not new standards, not new timelines, not new requirements, but the Department of Defense currently articulated standards to keep our troops safe, trained and well equipped, standards for equipment and armor, with the President required to certify if he believes the Nation's security requires DoD standards be waived. None of us want to stand in the way if a crisis is imminent and deployment must be accomplished. However, all of us want to see our troops safe, equipped and trained. The bill also holds the Iraqi government accountable, measuring its performance by the benchmarks President Bush outlined in his January 10 speech, again, the President's benchmarks, not those imposed by Congress, but the administration's own benchmarks for the Iraqis. In addition, the legislation provides a responsible strategy for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces, provides greater protections for our troops and veterans, and refocuses our efforts on fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. There are those of course who will claim that this legislation attempts to micromanage the war. They are wrong. There is nothing in this legislation that will be considered this week that micromanages this war. Neither General Petraeus nor any of his commanders on the ground or at CENTCOM will in any way be constrained from the tactics or the strategies that they deem best to employ on the ground in Iraq. The only strings attached are those benchmarks and standards endorsed by the President himself, our Commander in Chief. And let me add, is there anyone who believes that Congress would be strongly asserting itself today if the President's policy was succeeding. The answer, I think, is clear. This legislation is the justified response of the people's representatives to a policy that is failing and a President who insists that we must continue to stay the course. There is not a new policy here. As I said before, we have increased troops on three different occasions. Unfortunately, lamentably, it did not bring the stability and security that it was planned to bring. There are others who will argue that this bill will compromise our position in the war on terror. To them I say that this legislation goes above and beyond the President's funding request, supporting our troops deployed at the tip of the spear, and reaffirming our commitment to fighting and defeating al Qaeda. And there certainly are those who will argue that this bill doesn't go far enough, that even one more day of fighting is one too many. To them I say respectfully that this legislation for the first time sets a date for the responsible redeployment of American troops from Iraq. It is not tomorrow, it is not the day after, but it is a date, a date that provides the Iraqis with the time they need to ready themselves for the responsibility they must assume. Madam Speaker, the Iraq war is already longer than our participation in World War I, World War II and the Korean War. The specter of 5\1/2\ years in Iraq, if our troops remain deployed until August 31, 2008, can hardly be called a precipitous cut and run. As we enter the fifth year of this war, let us insist on a policy designed to achieve success. As we enter the fifth year of this war, let us respond to the plea of the American people for a new direction in Iraq. And as we enter the fifth year of this war, let us demonstrate to the world that American strength and American wisdom are not set in opposition. I urge my colleagues, vote for a new direction in Iraq, support the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. Mr. President, I did not vote for failure. I pray for the safety of our troops and for their success, but I also strongly believe that the legislation we will bring to this floor on Thursday is a reasoned, thoughtful way forward, a way forward that was initially suggested by the Iraq Study Group, five Republicans and five Democrats, headed up by former Secretary of State and adviser to this administration and previous administrations, James Baker. It is time that the Congress of the United States does not simply rubber-stamp the President's request, but on behalf of the American people exercises its best judgment to make policy for a change, to make policy for success, and make policy to ensure victory against those who would terrorize Americans, terrorize our Nation, and terrorize the rest of the world through the employment of their terrorist acts.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I want to say that I spoke a lot about accountability and the lack of accountability in the last Congress, and in my opinion, the two Congresses before that. The chairman of the Government Reform Committee was one of the few chairmen, in my opinion, in the last Congress who undertook some oversight responsibility, and I commend him for that. I think we need to go further; we are going further; but I commend him for his recognition that oversight is a critical responsibility of this Congress, just as the referee is a critically important component of any football game or basketball game. So I thank him for what he has done in the past. I thank him for his cooperation in working with our chairman on the three bills that we passed this week so far, and I would hope that we can pass this bill. If we make it better in conference, that's fine; but this is a good bill and an important bill, and I thank the gentleman for his efforts.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank Mr. Davis for his work on this legislation. And I rise in strong support. I want to commend the chairman on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Congressman Waxman of California, for his hard work and leadership on the five, not just this bill, but on the five government accountability and transparency bills considered on the House floor this week. This has been a very significant week for transparency, openness, and accountability in government, and I commend the chairman for his actions and the committee for its. It is no mere coincidence that the four bipartisan bills we have considered so far have passed with an average of 340 votes, including on average 112 Republican votes for every one of these four and now fifth reform bills. So there is not a narrow partisan agenda here. What the committee has been bringing to the floor are bills broadly supported because we know that transparency and accountability in government have not been the norm. We need to restore the public's faith in its government. In fact, there is a clear demonstration of the new Democratic majority's commitment to change the way business is done in Washington, to restore accountability for government practices and congressional oversight and to reach bipartisan consensus when possible. The four bills included measures to increase public access to government information by strengthening the Freedom of Information Act. After all, this information is gathered by taxpayer dollars. To provide whistleblower protection to Federal workers who specialize in national security issues. To nullify an executive order issued by President Bush giving former Presidents and Vice Presidents broad authority to withhold presidential records or to delay their release indefinitely. The public has a right to know, and this legislation facilitates the redress of that right. Lastly, to require the disclosure of donors to presidential libraries so there cannot be secret, very large contributions to Presidents before they leave office. It should be noted that the first three measures passed overwhelmingly despite veto threats from the White House that apparently does not want openness or accountability or transparency. All four bills are reasonable, prudent, and consistent with our Nation's democratic values and openness and accountability. The legislation before us today, the Accountability in Contracting Act, is equally important. In short, this legislation would instruct Federal agencies to minimize the use of no-bid contracts. Why? Because we want lowest prices. How do we get lowest prices? By competition. That is the free enterprise system. This bill says let us pursue the free enterprise system. It would promote the use of cost-effective, fixed-price contracts and limit the duration of no-bid contracts awarded in emergencies to 1 year. This bill also would require the public disclosure of the rationale for using no-bid contracts and require agencies to report to Congress on contracts on overcharges. Madam Chairman, it is unfortunate, but true, that problems in government contracting have arisen again and again during the last 6 years, and indeed before that, from the $2.4 billion, however, in no- bid contracts for Halliburton, that soon-to-be Dubai company based in Dubai, to the failed contracting in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Furthermore, Madam Chairman, it should be noted that spending on no- bid contracts has more than doubled under the Bush administration, even as hearings have exposed a pattern of reckless spending, poor planning and ineffective oversight by Federal contract officials. This legislation, like the other four bills brought to the floor by Mr. Waxman considered this week, will help us begin to restore accountability and transparency to government. The American people expect and deserve no less. This is a new day in this new Congress. The days of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil are over. This Congress embraces its constitutional responsibility to conduct real, meaningful oversight, as well as our value of openness and transparency. Two days from now is St. Patrick's Day. The Taoiseach, the Prime Minister of Ireland, will be at lunch just a few feet from here any minute. Honor St. Patrick; vote green on this accountability legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. That is my anticipation.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished Republican whip for yielding; and I would tell him on Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour business and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, as we usually do; but there will be no votes until 6:30 p.m. on Monday. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour business and noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be available by the end of the week. We also expect to consider H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act, which has been reported out of the Financial Services Committee. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. We will consider the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act; the Caller ID/ spoofing bill; and the D.C. vote bill.

Mr. HOYER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOYER. Because the bills, not the D.C. bill, but the supplemental was just reported out, I have not had, nor do I believe the Speaker has had an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Obey his recommendation on a rule, so I unfortunately don't have an answer for you on the supplemental. On the D.C. bill, they are marking up right now, so I am in the same position, because they haven't finished their markup. They are marking up as we speak on that bill. So I have not had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Waxman about his advice or desire, or Mr. Conyers. It's a joint referral, they are considering it together, the D.C. bill. So I cannot give you an answer. I apologize at this point in time.

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate your yielding and appreciate your observation. Although I am not now on the Appropriations Committee, you are correct, I served there for 25 years. I am on leave. I have no expectation of going back soon, I hope. In any event, the gentleman is correct. As you know, the bill we are talking about is probably, as we discussed on the floor, one of, if not the most important bill that we might consider this year on funding our troops, supporting our troops in Iraq, and dealing with the policy that we are pursuing in Iraq. Obviously there is a broad spectrum of views on that. Just as obviously, if you had some bills that in many instances come with an open rule, very frankly, I don't know about your experience, but our experience has been that there are a wide range of views. It may well be that we will solicit a request for possible amendments and make decisions on them, because this is, to some degree, as you know, not a straight appropriations bill in the sense that this is where the money is, in or out, up or down. This is a consideration of policy and authorizing bills. Usually the tradition is to have amendments offered in the Rules Committee and the Rules Committee determines which amendments they want to make in order. I cannot anticipate what we are going to do at this point in time. The gentleman's point is well taken, but we will have to see how we want to bring to this floor to try to reflect in the final product, as best we can, the views of the American people, which are divided, and I think will be reflected in the floor vote on that bill.

Mr. HOYER. We expect the budget to be marked up in the latter part of next week, the middle or latter part of next week, and we expect the budget to be on the floor the following week. As I indicated last week, we are still on that path, that schedule.

Mr. HOYER. I do.

Mr. HOYER. The committee has favorably reported that bill, and we expect it to be on the floor next week.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday, March 19, for morning hour debate; and further, when the House adjourns on Thursday, March 22, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Friday, March 23.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 107--a bill calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers being held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah. On July 12, 2006, Sergeant Udi Goldwasser and fellow soldier Eldad Regev were on patrol inside the Israeli border when their armored humvee was bombarded by Hezbollah rockets. Udi and Eldad were captured during this attack and have been held by Hezbollah militants for more than 8 months. I tell this story because just over one month ago, I had the pleasure of welcoming Udi Goldwasser's wife, Karnit, to the United States Capitol. She told me about how hard it has been to live without ``the love of her life'' and how her dreams of raising a peaceful and loving family with Udi are now in jeopardy due to the cowardly acts of a terrorist organization that has said it will not rest until her country is destroyed. Terrorist acts are not military actions between warring nations. They are despicable crimes that rob wives of husbands, husbands of wives and children of their parents. And as the leader of the free and democratic world, it is America's solemn duty to condemn such attacks whenever they occur and to support the justifiable actions of our ally Israel when it comes under heinous, premeditated attacks. Today, I join Karnit Goldwasser in seeking to further the pursuit of liberty, democracy and peace throughout the world. And it is my sincere hope that Udi, Eldad and every other Israeli captive of Hamas and Hezbollah will be united with their families as soon as is humanly possible.