Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 861) declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on June 13, 2006, I was absent for several votes for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted: Vote No. 263, LaTourette Amendment to H.R. 5576--``no''; Vote No. 264, Bean Amendment to H.R. 5576--``no''; Vote No. 265, Israel Amendment to H.R. 5576--``no''; Vote No. 266, Miller, Gary Amendment to H.R. 5576--``no''; Vote No. 267, Nadler Amendment to H.R. 5576--``no''; Vote No. 268. Davis (AL) Amendment to H.R. 5576--``no''; Vote No. 269, Jackson-Lee Amendment to H.R. 5576--``no''; Vote No. 270, Harris Amendment to H.R. 5576--``no''; Vote No. 271, Slaughter Amendment to H.R. 5576--``no''; Vote No. 272, Waters Amendment to H.R. 5576--``no''; Vote No. 273, Hooley Amendment to H.R. 5576--``no''.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of the bill, H.R. 4963.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, the election of Hamas to a majority within the Palestinian Legislative Council and to the formation of a terrorist organization-led government in the Palestinian Authority poses a serious challenge to the United States and its allies. The Committee on International Relations has crafted an excellent response to that challenge. The bill which is before the House today is based on a proposal by our colleagues, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Tom Lantos. The fact that the Palestinians voted, albeit by a plurality and not a majority, to put Hamas in power in the Palestinian Authority does not mean that the United States has to support that government. The Palestinian people must live with their own decisions; the United States need not, and should not, deal with, let alone support, terrorists--whether elected or not. The legislation we have before us today provides a series of firewalls to prevent funding under the Foreign Assistance Act from flowing to the Palestinian Authority, from which it could support, or be seen to be supporting, the Hamas' terrorist leadership of the Palestinian Authority. It also provides for ways, subject to appropriate findings and consultation with the Congress, to get funding to the Palestinian people through the funding of non-governmental organizations. We have provided exceptions, subject to certain certification and consultation requirements, for--among other things--assistance to the President of the Palestinian Authority. Mahmoud Abbas, the current Palestine President, is clearly not a terrorist, and having worked with him, we must make it possible for him to be protected, if required, and to be an effective negotiator. He still has a lot of institutional power under the Palestinian constitution, and he should be encouraged and enabled in exercising that power responsibly. Under the Foreign Assistance Act, it will be possible to provide assistance, even to a terrorist-dominated Palestinian Authority, to deal with health emergencies such as avian flu. That sort of assistance should flow, and indeed flows today. Finally, we establish, by statute, a policy that officials of the United States should not negotiate with members of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and that our government should oppose funding the Palestinian Authority, under the current circumstances, through International Financial Institutions. With that brief outline of the bill's key points, Madam Speaker, I would like to express my thanks to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Lantos for their efforts.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on May 11, 2006, I was absent for the following procedural votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: Rollcall No. 137, on motion to adjourn, ``nay''; Rollcall No. 138, on motion to adjourn, ``nay.''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to offer H. Res. 744, which expresses support for the Good Friday Agreement as the blueprint for lasting peace in Northern Ireland and support for continued police reform in Northern Ireland as a critical element in the peace process. I compliment the work of Subcommittee Chairmen Elton Gallegly and Christopher Smith for improving and making the originally-introduced version even more constructive and stronger on policing. The Good Friday Agreement needs U.S. support and a push to fully implement all of its terms. On the important issue of policing reform, the resolution before us wisely reflects the overall view of the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) for the north of Ireland, which has closely monitored paramilitary activities and made many critical suggestions for reform and change, especially in the area of a new beginning on policing. The IMC is made up of highly respected representatives appointed by both the Irish and British Governments, and includes an American as well. In its May 2005 report to the two governments and interested parties, the IMC stated some key findings on the responsibilities of all of the political parties on criminal justice, and it has just reiterated these again in its February 2006 report. The IMC said that all the parties should, among other things: ``Give credible vocal and practical support to all parts of the criminal justice system, including policing . . .'' ``Play a full and constructive role in the participative organs of the criminal justice system, such as the Policing Board and the District Policing Partnerships.'' These are some wise and constructive suggestions, which this resolution supports and fully endorses. We would encourage Sinn Fein and all the parties in the north to honor and live by these ideas for a better, more secure and democratic north of Ireland. There is no place for violence in the process. Finally, my resolution also calls on both the Irish and British governments to fully implement the important Patten Commission police reform provision which calls for senior-level police officer exchanges between the Republic of Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). These exchanges are clearly needed so that some of the cultural, religious, and other long-standing issues dividing communities and the police in the north can fully benefit from senior- level understanding and diversity. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on his recent speech before the joint session of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. I am proud to be joined in this effort by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). When terrorists hijacked airplanes, smashing them into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it was the worst disaster ever perpetrated on American soil. A large part of the world reached out in sympathy to our wounded nation. Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Premier, called for a giant rally for the Italian people to express their grief and shed their tears for the families of the victims, and to show their compassion for a nation that had been gravely wounded. It was a heartfelt expression of the pain they felt for America by hundreds of thousands of Italians who crowded into Rome's Piazza del Popolo, the place of the people. Berlusconi's call to action was so successfully answered by the Italian people, that certain political parties of the left called for a counter rally--an anti-American rally. These parties were two Communist parties, and a third party which had been the original Communist party but had changed its name to the Democratic Party of the Left. They paraded through the streets of Rome, a small phalanx holding red flags with the iconic Communist hammer and sickle and placards denouncing America for having entered Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama bin Laden and to destroy the Al Qaeda terrorists. They shouted anti-American slogans, said blood dripped from our hands and that we were assassins. They threw the American flag on the ground, trampled it, poured gas on it, and set it afire. Nowhere in their speeches or placards was there mention of the American tragedy, nowhere mention of grief for the dead or compassion for the families. Italy is a democratic country where everyone is guaranteed the freedom of speech. They expressed their opinions, feelings, and anti-American bias. When Silvio Berlusconi appeared, several weeks ago, before the joint session of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, which is a signal honor paid to a world leader, he was not invited by President Bush, as many Italian newspapers stated. He was invited by the House of Representatives and the Senate, led by Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, and Vice President Cheney, as Presiding Officer of the Senate. The Constitution imposes a separation of powers between the legislature and the executive branch and we, the legislative branch of the U.S. Government, are proud of the independence this grants us. We invited him. When the Italian Prime Minister stood before us and spoke, it was not to Democrats and Republicans but to all of the representatives of all of the districts of all of the states and for all of the American people. This legislative body represents the broad expanse of America and all of her people. And when we rose in a standing salute and gave thunderous applause to Prime Minister Berlusconi, it was the American people who were speaking. The American people who were exercising their right to the freedom of speech, a constitutional right in our country too. The American people gave their opinion. In standing in ovation to Berlusconi's impassioned words of friendship, we rejected the elements in Italy who had turned their back to our suffering, deploring their conduct and their opinions. We instead showed the warm feeling of affection in our hearts for the people of Italy.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, after 7 years of work on anti-narcotic efforts in Colombia, we are now seeing the fruits of our labors in the drug wars. Americans, and especially our young people, are greatly benefiting here at home from our policies in Colombia and the strong support of the government of President Alvaro Uribe. We are concerned, however, with the recent waning support by some in the administration for our vital counterdrug initiatives. A focused part of our war on drugs is comprised of the interdiction and spray airplanes used by the Colombian police and military. We have funded a number of these aircraft, but several have been lost because of serious maintenance problems or have been shot down or destroyed. Since the year 2000, more than 23 aircraft, including spray planes and vital helicopters, have crashed or been lost in action. This includes one of the original Black Hawk helicopters which we in the Congress obtained for the Colombian National Police, CNP, to use against the opium crops as early as 1999. The administration's FY07 budget fails to address these shortfalls. Moreover, after some correspondence, the State Department dismissed my recent call for the replacement of these aircraft. What we need is a small, but targeted, assistance package to replace lost anti-drug aircraft and to provide a few new Marine Patrol Aircraft, MPA, of modest cost for the Colombian Navy. We are asking that $99.4 million be directed for the operational costs of maintaining and replacing aircraft used by the Colombian police and military for drug interdiction efforts. Of that $99.4 million, we ask for $31 million to be allocated for the purchase and operation of ten Huey II helicopters, $40 million be used for the purchase and operation of two UH-60 Black Hawks, one of which will be dedicated to interdicting high value targets, HVT, $2 million to be given toward the upgrade and purchase of flight simulators to be used by the CNP for training on safety and night operations, and $26.4 million to be allocated for the purchase and operation of three DC-3 aircraft which will be used by the Colombian Navy as Marine Patrol Aircraft for multi-role shore interdiction and support missions. The assistance we provide to Colombia is equally as important to the United States as our assistance in fighting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lest we forget, more Americans die each year from using deadly heroin and cocaine that originate from nearby Colombia than did those on the day of the 9/11 attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon. We must continue to sustain our war against drugs and the progress we have been witnessing in Colombia.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to secure funding for an aerial surveillance platform to be used for counternarcotics efforts by the agents and personnel of our Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, in Afghanistan. The 9/11 Commission has made it clear that if Afghanistan were to again fall into failed-state status, we would be set back in our war on terror. The growing opium and heroin trade provides for that possibility. The massive opium crop helps finance terrorism and anticoalition attacks and hampers the effective growth of peace and stability in the region. The drug trade also fuels corruption, which undermines the new democratic institutions we have worked so hard to establish. We must vigorously pursue, interdict, and arrest the drug kingpins and shut down their operations. The just-signed PATRIOT Act has an additional provision I authored, creating a new Federal offense of narco-terrorism, to be enforced by the DEA against those who use illicit drugs and proceeds from their sales to support or fund terrorist acts or organizations, in places like Afghanistan. In order to enable the DEA to enforce the new legislation, it is important for it to have the appropriate tools. An aerial surveillance platform provides both ``force protection'' of its dedicated and courageous personnel, as well as a platform for gathering judicially enforceable and prosecutable evidence of drug-related crimes. This evidence can be used in this country as a means of prosecuting and bringing to justice the drug kingpins and their cohorts. If Afghanistan were to revert to its former failed-state status, the United States would be dealt a severe blow in its global war on terror. We cannot expect the Afghan legal system to effectively combat the drug problem in that country. Thus, it is critical that we take the appropriate measures to ensure security and stability in Afghanistan. This modest $9.2 million amendment is one huge step toward that goal.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, it was exactly 45 years ago today, on March 1, 1961, that President John F. Kennedy signed the Executive Order establishing the Peace Corps under its first Director, Sargent Shriver. Five months later, in that distant summer of 1961, the inaugural group of volunteers prepared to leave for the African country of Ghana. These first Peace Corps volunteers ``boarded a chartered Pan American propeller driven plane for the 17-hour flight to Accra.'' This was the beginning of not only a life-shaping experience for these 56 pioneers but also the commencement of the entire Peace Corps saga which we are honoring today. These fellow citizens had responded to the clarion call contained in President Kennedy's inaugural address, which had challenged all Americans to ``ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'' Since that first summer, over 170,000 volunteers have answered the late President's call, serving in over 137 countries. These are our diplomats of the highways and byways. They bring the smiling face of American optimism, the famous American can-do spirit, and the American dedication to democratic values to the far corners of the globe. Their ``offices'' are found in dirt-floor village classrooms, at rural health clinics, on Third World farms, in development projects in some of the world's worst urban slums, and at orphanages for the abandoned children of the world. Their rewards are found in the shy smiles of students, the grateful laughter of children, and the hearty handshakes of senior citizens who have finally found their longed-for American friend. The price these volunteers are willing to pay for their unique experience of service often includes sweat and toil, loneliness and frustration, but also the hearty laughter of welcomes and the sad tears of fond farewells. They are the unsung heroes of America's continued engagement with the peoples of the developing world. At a time when anti-Americanism has become the fashion in certain quarters overseas, Peace Corps volunteers have served their country in a manner which promotes international understanding and which makes all Americans proud. And so I join the Peace Corps Director, Gaddi H. Vasquez, and his dedicated staff at both Peace Corps Headquarters and in the field, in honoring those over eight thousand volunteers, currently serving in 71 countries around the world, as well as those who served in the past. The present volunteers, at a time of increased security concerns in many overseas locales, deserve special recognition for their decision to leave family and friends, home and hearth, and their comfortable, secure lives behind in pursuit of the Peace Corps mission of ``world peace and friendship.'' Former volunteers often use the linguistic and cultural skills they acquired in Peace Corps service later in their professional lives. They sometimes find themselves continuing to work with distinction in the fields of government and international affairs. Their ranks include current Members of the House and Senate as well as Congressional staff. In this regard, these ``RPCVs,'' as returned volunteers are called, continue to make a contribution, providing windows of understanding regarding diverse cultures of which most Americans have only a scant knowledge. Every year around this March 1st anniversary date, returned volunteers visit classrooms and community centers around the United States to carry their message of international friendship and understanding. At a time of heightened sensitivity to the need for greater cultural understanding of peoples from different traditions, the insights of former Peace Corps volunteers constitute a too little recognized national treasure. There is one endeavor related to the Peace Corps put forward during my tenure as Chairman of the International Relations Committee of which I am particularly proud. This is the legislative effort undertaken by myself and my good friend from across the aisle, Tom Lantos, to see that there was sufficient funding to achieve President Bush's goal of increasing the size of Peace Corps. This undertaking was one concrete means for addressing the new challenges to international mutual understanding found in our post-September 11th world. Let us all hope that the Peace Corps continues to grow as one response to these challenges. Money spent on the Peace Corps is money well spent. And so, today, I send greetings to those serving around the world who have. asked for little in return while asking what they, themselves, could do for their country. Whether this message finds you on some Caribbean isle, high in the Andes mountains, along a river in western Africa, in a sub-Saharan village, in a classroom in eastern Europe, on the steppes of Mongolia, in a river town in China, in a crowded urban center in Bangladesh, or far away in the South Pacific, I send you salutations on your anniversary date. Thank you for your service as America's Goodwill Ambassadors along the world's highways and byways. May you achieve every professional and personal success and may the Peace Corps flourish for the next 45 years.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the last day of Black History Month to commend the works of a great African-American artist, Mr. Paul Collins of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Mr. Collins has had a long and distinguished career painting portraits of individuals from all over the world. It has been said that Mr. Collins' work seeks to recognize and express the essential human dignity and worth of others. Mr. Collins' talent has been awarded and recognized internationally on numerous occasions, and he has been commissioned by several foreign governments as well as the U.S. to commemorate important people and events. One of Paul Collins' most celebrated works is the 18-foot by 8-foot mural of Grand Rapids native, President Gerald R. Ford, displayed in the Gerald R. Ford International Airport. Mr. Collins was awarded the mural commission in 1975. His finished product captures the various facets of President Ford's life as a husband, father and athlete. Upon its unveiling, the mural attracted national attention and critical acclaim and was applauded by Newsweek Magazine for its strong and dignified presentation of Gerald R. Ford. Mr. Collins is believed to be the first African-American artist to paint the portrait of a sitting president. In 1981, Mr. Collins created the Ford Museum Commemorative Poster which was copied from the mural to help raise funds for the Ford Presidential Museum in Grand Rapids, Michigan. More than 1,000 posters were sold to help raise funds for the museum. Also of note among Mr. Collin's lifetime achievements is the groundbreaking success and importance of his work, The Voices of Israel, conceived in the 1970s as a way to help renew the relationship between America's Black and Jewish communities during the civil rights movement. The work depicts the history of the people of Israel. This 25 piece collection has toured in Israel and all over the U.S. Mr. Collins has also made good use of his excellent artistic skill to create symbols and designs, whose meanings and importance extend beyond his actual works. In this regard, Mr. Collins designed the Martin Luther King, Jr. Peace Prize Medal, which is awarded yearly to an individual who has contributed to the cause of world peace. This important symbol has been awarded to such notable people as former President Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the late Rosa Parks. Similarly, Collins also created the American Woman Commemorative Plaque, honoring astronaut Sally Ride, the first woman in space. Throughout his long and distinguished career, Mr. Paul Collins has deservedly received many awards and honors. A few of his many distinctions include the Tadlow Fine Art Award, the People's Choice Award in Paris, and his election as one of the top 20 painters in America as voted by the Watson and Guptill Publication. It is right, then, that we continue to honor the artist and the individual, Paul Collins. Mr. Collins' works, in a nod to his skill and ability to capture the essence of human characteristics and spirit, have been commissioned to represent and symbolize some of the most important figures and events in this country. Mr. Collins' work as an artist is matched only by his contributions as a humanitarian, as evidenced through his continued service as a teacher and lecturer in Michigan area schools on the value of art and his life experiences, the establishment of his own scholarship programs, and the creation of the Paul Collins Humanitarian Award in 2000. Through his own merit, dedication and long and distinguished career of success, Paul Collins has assuredly gained a position of honor and distinction in our country.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 341. This resolution is closely modeled on a resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, introduced in the Senate by the majority leader, Senator Frist, csponsored by Senator Reid, the minority leader, Senators Lugar and Biden, and a bipartisan group totaling 32 Senators, and adopted unanimously on January 27. Our colleague, Representative Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, has worked with me and other members of the House Committee on International Relations, including our distinguished ranking Democrat, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, on this resolution. She has updated the text of the Senate resolution in the light of recent events and in the light of the understanding that we in the House have about Iran's actions and intentions. This House may be divided on precisely how to respond to every aspect of the Iranian challenge, but we are certainly united, as our vote will show, in our support for the current efforts to bring the weight of the Security Council of the United Nations to bear against Iran's continuing violations of its formal and informal obligations concerning its nuclear activities. These efforts are not only American efforts, but ones which involve many responsible members of the international community. The administration deserves credit for coaxing some of the reluctant states to this point: the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, has indeed reported to the Security Council on the Iranian nuclear program. Although the IAEA may make additional reports during the next month, the die is cast: the Security Council is in a position to take action, and it should do so. It should respond to what is clearly a threat to international peace and security--and making such responses in a collective way is precisely the purpose it is meant to serve. The administration deserves credit for having brought along the IAEA Board of Governors and, in particular, all of the permanent members of the Security Council, to this stage in the process. The signal to Iran could not have been more stark. Critical to arriving at this point was the support extended by the Bush administration for the so-called ``ED-3'' process, in which Britain, France, and Germany conducted negotiations with Iran-- negotiations that ultimately failed to contain Iran's efforts, to be sure, but which succeeded in keeping the international community moving forward in unison. At this point, we need to continue to keep the pressure on, but let us keep the pressure on the recalcitrant party--the Iranians--and not begin internecine warfare among the Western powers. It is only with the cooperation of other States that we can truly pressure Iran. As we consider other legislation in the next months--and the consideration of this resolution does not, in my mind, prejudice the ability of the House to consider other legislation--we should bear in mind that we need allies in this struggle. Sticking our finger in the eye of other states which are, in general terms, ``on our side'' will do nothing to bring Iran to heel. Another reason to work with our friends is that if the Security Council does not achieve consensus on how to deal with Iran, we will need to work with them to arrive at a ``Plan B,'' as an alternative. That plan should consist, in all likelihood, of a series of comprehensive economic and diplomatic sanctions. Those sanctions should be designed to serve several purposes. First, they should make it clear to the Iranian people that their leaders' course of action needs to change. Second, they should serve to inflict some pain on the Iranian leadership in an effort to coerce those leaders to behave in a responsible way. Finally, they should reduce the resources available to the Iranian state to continue their nuclear weapons program. In summary, Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution; it indicates quite clearly that we are behind the administration's approach. I hope that we will continue to support it in the days ahead.

Mr. HYDE

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 79) expressing the sense of Congress that no United States assistance should be provided directly to the Palestinian Authority if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 79. This resolution was sponsored in the other body by our former colleague Senator Thune of South Dakota and was cosponsored by Senators Brownback, Chambliss, Johnson, Lieberman, Talent and Voinovich. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent on February 1, 2006. On January 25, 2006, Palestinians turned out in large numbers from all walks of life to forge a new government that can respond to their various needs. The Palestinian people voted for change and improvement in their livelihoods. They were largely frustrated by the growing occupation in the West Bank, the inability of the Fatah-backed Palestinian Liberation Organization to deliver on the expectations of the peace process, and internal strife and rampant corruption. The Palestinian citizens used the power of democracy to send a loud and a clear message to their leadership. Speaking in a press conference shortly after the elections, President Bush noted the power of democracy, saying, ``When you give people the vote, you give people the chance to express themselves at the polls, and if you're unhappy with the status quo, they will let you know. Obviously, the people were not happy with the status quo. The people are demanding honest government. The people want services.'' The Bush administration's pursuit of freedom and democracy in the Arab world has strengthened the weight and role of ``people power'' in the region's political development. Representative democracy may result in the coming to power of groups in the Middle East or, for that matter, in Spain, that are critical of the United States or our policies in the Middle East. Certainly the recent Palestinian parliamentary elections pose a unique challenge. Over 50 percent of the seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council will be filled from a list chosen by an armed group that believes in the destruction of Israel, a United Nations member state, and is recognized as a terrorist organization by the international community. This result demonstrates the serious contradiction we see in Palestinian territories between the ideal of a democratic government characterized by the rule of law and the reality of a political process in which armed rejectionist groups participate. Should the United States at this point abandon all means to remain constructively engaged with the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas? Tying the hands of the administration is not in the interest of United States national security. We need to react with some care. Hurting the Palestinian people will reward terrorist regimes like Syria and Iran which seek to exploit the suffering of the Palestinians for their own selfish reasons. S. Con. Res. 79 is direct and to the point. It sends a strong message about the expectations of the United States and the international community toward Hamas when it comes to Hamas' attitude toward Israel. We declare that the United States will not provide direct assistance to a government that believes in the destruction of Israel. The election of the Change and Reform Party, Hamas' alter ego, has raised questions about other forms of assistance to a future Palestinian government. The Quartet, in which the United States is a core member, concluded that ``it was inevitable that future assistance to any new government would be reviewed by donors against that government's commitment to the principles of nonviolence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap.'' Many might be surprised to know that the United States does not provide ongoing, direct financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority. The majority of funds are channeled through the United States Agency for International Development to nongovernmental organizations under a strict vetting process. The United States has provided direct assistance only four times, three of which have been under this administration, with the funds being closely regulated and monitored. United States and other assistance to the Palestinian people is vital to meeting basic needs and avoiding a humanitarian disaster. According to the World Bank, unemployment in the West Bank and Gaza is 23 percent. Forty-three percent of the population is living below the poverty line. United States assistance to nonprofit organizations is also critical to achieving our objective of a two-state solution. Closing the door on moderates in Palestinian civil society will contribute to the growth of warlordism and chaos. The United States has a vital national security interest in a Middle East in which two states, Israel and Palestine, will live side by side in peace and security, based on the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. A viable, contiguous, and prosperous Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for. I believe the administration is responding appropriately to the situation at hand. Currently, the U.S. is reviewing all forms of assistance to the Palestinian people. However, neither the administration nor the Congress should make final decisions in advance of the formation of the new Palestinian cabinet, which is likely to occur in the coming weeks. If it is necessary to address this issue by legislation, we can do so at the appropriate time and will not prejudice their consideration by agreeing to this resolution at this time. As disappointed as we are by the results, I congratulate the Palestinian people for conducting what were arguably the freest and fairest democratic elections in the Arab world. I hope their leaders will be wise and represent the true interests of the Palestinians as the process moves forward. As Secretary Rice stated in Davos this month, ``The Palestinian people have apparently voted for change, but we believe that their aspirations for peace and a peaceful life remain unchanged.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Very briefly in response, I would like to say that I am taken by the arguments of Mr. Ackerman. I think he has a message, a point of view, that is legitimate and worthy of attention. I do not agree with him. I think that having Hamas, with all its flaws, participate in the democratic process, something alien to their spirit, is a sign of strength on our part, not weakness. And I think the effort, a legitimate effort, to help bring into the democratic process all of the dissident elements is worth it because, unless this situation gets solved, staring at each other with muscles flexed and weapons cocked gets us nowhere. But we shall see. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on January 31, 2006, I was absent for the following vote for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present'' on rollcall No. 1.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor to remind my colleagues of two home truths that may have been forgotten in the 4 years and 4 months since September 11, 2001. The first of these is that we are a Nation at war. Decades of dealing with terror networks like al Qaeda as a matter of law enforcement or criminal justice helped bring us to September 11. We passed the PATRIOT Act because we understood that we are at war with international terrorism and that wartime measures were required. The second home truth is that this war is being fought in a technological environment as different from World War II as the technology of World War II is different from the technology of the War Between the States. In a high velocity age of digital communications, the President and those most directly responsible for forestalling another attack of this sort that Osama bin Laden recently threatened must have the means appropriate to the life-or-death task at hand. If my colleagues will permit me, there has been something surreal, even unreal, about the recent debate on this front. We seem to have forgotten that the terrorists who hijacked the plane that was flown into the Pentagon on September 11 received more than a dozen calls from al Qaeda operatives in Yemen while the terrorists were living in San Diego, and that the NSA, fearful of being accused of domestic spying, did not act. Do we want a repeat of that? I do not think any of us do. But those who seem to imagine that President Bush is a greater threat to civil liberties than Osama bin Laden is to American lives and liberties need to stop politicizing this issue and work with the rest of us to strike a rational balance between a legitimate concern for civil liberties and the imperative need to equip the agencies responsible for our national security with the technological tools necessary to do their job in an environment where a few hours' delay might prove lethal. Let us refuse to tie our hands again as our hands were tied before September 11, with the gravest results. The PATRIOT Act is as necessary today as the reauthorization of the draft was in the dangerous months before Pearl Harbor. A few months before that devastating surprise attack, this House came within one vote of essentially dismantling the U.S. Army by refusing to reauthorize conscription. Wiser counsels prevailed. Let us rise to our responsibility as those who saw more clearly in mid-1941 rose to theirs, and let us give those charged with the weighty responsibility of providing for our national security in a new kind of war, fought with new kinds of weapons, the tools and the legal authority they need to do their crucial job.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on December 16, 17, 18, and 19, 2005, I was absent for several votes for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall No. 648, Passage Victory in Iraq, ``yes,'' rollcall No. 649, Zimbabwe's ``Operation Murambatsvina,'' ``yes,'' rollcall No. 650, Hamas and Terrorist Organizations, ``yes,'' rollcall No. 651, Independent Iraqi Judiciary, ``yes,'' rollcall No. 652, Motion to Instruct Conferees, ``no,'' rollcall No. 653, Goodlatte/Herseth Amendment, ``yes,'' rollcall No. 654, Stearns Amendment, ``yes,'' rollcall No. 655, Sensenbrenner Amendment, ``yes,'' rollcall No. 656 Norwood Amendment, ``yes,'' rollcall No. 657, Westmoreland Amendment, ``yes,'' rollcall No. 658, Gonzalez Amendment, ``no,'' rollcall No. 659, Sullivan Amendment, ``no,'' rollcall No. 660, Motion to Recommit, ``no,'' rollcall No. 661, Passage Illegal Immigration Control Act, ``yes,'' rollcall No. 662, Assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister, ``yes,'' rollcall No. 663, On Agreeing to the Resolution, ``yes,'' rollcall No. 664, Passage Stem Cell Research Act, ``yes,'' rollcall No. 665, On Agreeing the Conference Report (H. R. 1815), ``yes,'' rollcall No. 666 On Agreeing to the Resolution (H. Res. 639), ``yes,'' rollcall No. 667, Presidential and Parliamentary Elections in Egypt, ``yes,'' rollcall No. 668, Motion to Recommit, ``no,'' rollcall No. 669, On Agreeing to the Conference Report (H. R. 2863), ``yes,'' rollcall No. 670, On Agreeing to the Conference report (S. 1932), ``yes,'' and rollcall No. 671, Education Curriculum in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, ``yes.''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on December 14, 15, and 16, 2005, I was absent for several votes for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted: Vote No., description, vote: 626, motion to recommit, ``no''; 627, adoption of PATRIOT Act conference report, ``yes''; 628, adoption of Labor/HHS Approps conference report, ``yes''; 629, motion to close portions of the Defense Approps conference, ``yes''; 630, motion to instruct conferees, ``yes''; 631, establishing the Task Force on Ocean Policy, ``no''; 632, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, ``yes''; 633, on agreeing to the resolution, ``yes''; 634, motion to recommit Pension Protection Act, ``no''; 635, passage Pension Protection Act, ``yes''; 636, on agreeing to the resolution, ``yes''; 637, symbols and traditions of Christmas, ``yes''; 638, observance of an American Jewish History Month, ``yes''; 639, Jackson-Lee amendment, ``no''; 640, Hunter amendment, ``yes''; 641, Russian Federation and nongovernmental organizations, ``yes''; 642, close portions of the Defense Authorization Conference, ``yes''; 643, motion to instruct conferees, ``no''; 644, previous question, ``yes''; 645, on agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 619, ``yes''; 646, on agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 621, ``yes''; 647, on agreeing to H. Con. Res. 294 as amended, ``yes''.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on December 13, 2005, I was absent for several votes for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted: vote No. 623, Korean American Day, ``yes''; vote No. 624, Presidential $1 Coin Act, ``no''; vote No. 625, Small Public Housing Authority Act, ``yes.''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased with the conference report, H.R. 3199, to renew the PATRIOT Act. I want to thank and compliment all the conferees and the administration for bringing this about. By renewing this measure, we are continuing to provide our law enforcement agencies and the administration with many of the critical tools needed to combat global terrorism and protect America. Provisions of the PATRIOT Act have already been instrumental in warding off further terrorist attacks since 9/11, and they are responsible for helping to keep us safe here at home. In addition, the bill includes an added provision, which I authored, offering a new tool to attack the growing phenomenon of narco- terrorism, with the proceeds of illicit drug funding and financing feeding the Foreign Terrorist Organizations, FTOs, and supporting acts of terrorism. Passage of the PATRIOT Act conference report will enhance Federal criminal law to effectively address the current reality, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, of illicit drugs being linked to nearly half of the designated FTOs around the globe today. In this measure, my provision makes narco-terrorism, which involves both the illicit drug trade and support for terrorism, a Federal crime, and provides tough penalties that match the nature of such deadly and dual criminal activity. Our hardworking Drug Enforcement Administration will no longer be challenged to produce evidence of a nexus of these illicit drugs to the United States, if there is proof that the illicit drugs support FTOs or acts of terrorism. In Afghanistan, most of the heroin from illicit drug production goes to Europe, rather than here, and much of the profit then finances and supports anticoalition terrorists and attacks on our forces there. My provision will give us the tools to attack that drug-related support for terrorism and further protect America, our troops, and coalition forces on the ground in places like Afghanistan. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the PATRIOT Act conference report.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 571) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On October 15 of this year, 63 percent of Iraq's eligible voters stood in the suffocating heat for hours risking their lives to suicide bombers and guns. And why? Because they dared to vote. Do we honor their bravery by abandoning them? Nobody wants war. War has been truly described as hell. But at the same time, things are worth fighting for and even dying for. And among those things is precious freedom. Our own freedom was born in the crucible of a 9-year war to the sounds of muskets well described as the ``shots heard round the world.'' We can argue endlessly about the wisdom of getting into this war, but there should be no argument about how this war should end. The consequences of our retreat have not been discussed here tonight, but they deserve consideration. This debate has been a report card on Jack Murtha, and I give him an A-plus as a truly great American. But among his many fine qualities, infallibility is not one. And on Iraq I prefer my country not to retreat, not to run to the high grass. I prefer the counsel of John McCain who said last week, ``If we leave Iraq prematurely, the jihadists will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. Osama bin Laden and his followers believe that America is weak, unwilling to suffer casualties in battle. They drew this lesson from Lebanon in the 1980s and Somalia in the 1990s, and today they have their sights set squarely on Iraq.'' The recently released letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's lieutenant, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, draws out the implications. The Zawahiri letter is predicated on the assumption that the United States will leave Iraq and that al Qaeda's real game begins as soon as we abandon the country. In his missive, Zawahiri lays out a four-stage plan: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the ``jihad wave'' to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel, none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Zawahiri observes that the collapse of American power in Vietnam ``and how they ran and left their agents,'' suggests that ``we must be ready starting now.'' We cannot let them start, now or ever. We must stay in Iraq until the government there has a fully functioning security apparatus that can keep Zarqawi and his terrorists at bay and ultimately defeat them. I prefer the counsel of another war hero, my personal hero, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who stands with the President, the Iraqi people, and freedom fighters everywhere. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for purposes of control.