Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, President Roh Moo-hyun of the Republic of Korea is scheduled to visit the United States from September 12-15, 2006, for a summit meeting with President George W. Bush. After meetings in Washington with President Bush and Members of the Congressional Leadership, President Roh will travel to San Francisco. Mr. Speaker, recently I had the privilege of visiting South Korea and meeting with President Roh and other Korean officials, as well as with U.S. soldiers and members of the diplomatic community. The Korean people treated us with a warmth and hospitality, for which I am deeply grateful. While in South Korea, I had an opportunity to lay a wreath in tribute to GEN Douglas MacArthur at his statue at Incheon harbor. The statue was erected by the citizens of the city of Incheon to commemorate the General's vital leadership during the Korean war, including his implementation of the daring landing at Incheon in the darkest days of the Korean war. In his farewell address before this Congress in 1951, General MacArthur said: ``Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description. They have chosen to risk death rather than slavery.'' Korea and the United States have been allies and friends for more than half a century. Our economic ties are strong. With a per capita income of $14,162, South Korea is the world's eleventh-largest economy and the seventh largest trading partner of the United States, with a trade volume amounting to over $72 billion each year. The United States and South Korea are currently engaged in negotiations that will lead to a U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, which will further solidify and expand U.S.-Korean economic ties. With a population of well over 1 million, the Korean-American community has become, in the past century, a vital and important part of the American mosaic. The greater Los Angeles area, with its vibrant Korean-American community, is now one of the world's centers of Korean culture. But Korean-Americans are not only found in California. From Hawaii, east to New York, and from Alaska down to Florida, Korean- Americans are making a critical contribution to the United States in such diverse fields as medicine, education, science, engineering, martial arts, small business enterprises, entrepreneurship, music and the fine arts. America has been enriched by the Korean-American community's many contributions, and its existence has bonded us even closer to the Korean peninsula across the Pacific. It should come as no surprise, then, that the United States is also a popular destination for travelers from South Korea, whether they are coming here to visit their family members who have become part of the American community, attending U.S. colleges and universities, or meeting with business colleagues in the pursuit of greater trade and investment. The U.S. consular section at our Embassy in Seoul is the busiest non- immigrant visa issuing post in the world, processing between 1,800 and 2,000 visa applications each day. It is clear that South Koreans want to visit the United States, and they have good reasons for doing so. There are currently efforts underway to bring South Korea under the umbrella of the U.S. Visa Waiver Program, which already applies to 27 other countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and Japan. This program, established in 1986 with the objective of promoting better relations with U.S. allies, also eliminates unnecessary barriers to travel, stimulates the tourism industry, and permits the U.S. Department of State to focus consular resources in other areas. The South Korean government has made it clear that it intends to meet all of the statutory and regulatory requirements of the Visa Waiver Program. Seoul is working with the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State in a diligent fashion to make sure that relevant South Korean governmental agencies have implemented the most up-to-date passport controls, using biometric and other technologies to prevent fraud and abuse. Mr. Speaker, I am almost certain that the Republic of Korea's entry into the Visa Waiver Program will be one of the topics discussed by President Roh and President Bush during their summit meeting this month. There are, of course, other issues that certainly will be discussed at the White House by President Bush and President Roh, including the free trade negotiations, North Korean nuclear weapons development, and South Korea's active participation in the global War on Terrorism and its contributions to the war effort in Iraq. The United States and South Korea have enjoyed a long and productive alliance, which, based on blood ties forged in the Korean War, will deepen into the indefinite future. The frequent meetings of U.S. and Korean leaders are a clear manifestation of the close relationship shared by our two countries. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to welcome the President of the Republic of Korea, Roh Moo-hyun, to the United States as he visits Washington, D.C. and the Golden State of California. I invite all Members of the House to join me in offering President Roh our best wishes and hospitality as he visits our Nation's Capital.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, President Roh Moo-hyun of the Republic of Korea is scheduled to visit the United States from September 12 to 15, 2006, for a summit meeting with President George W. Bush. After meetings in Washington with President Bush and Members of the congressional leadership, President Roh will travel to San Francisco. Mr. Speaker, recently I had the privilege of visiting South Korea and meeting with President Roh and other Korean officials, as well as with U.S. soldiers and members of the diplomatic community. The Korean people treated us with warmth and hospitality, for which I am deeply grateful. While in South Korea, I had an opportunity to lay a wreath in tribute to GEN Douglas MacArthur at his statue at Incheon harbor. The statue was erected by the citizens of the City of Incheon to commemorate the General's vital leadership during the Korean war, including his implementation of the daring landing at Incheon in the darkest days of the Korean War. In his farewell address before this Congress in 1951, General MacArthur said: ``Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description. They have chosen to risk death rather than slavery.'' Korea and the United States have been allies and friends for more than half a century. Our economic ties are strong. With a per capita income of $14,162, South Korea is the world's 11th-largest economy and the 7th largest trading partner of the United States, with a trade volume amounting to over $72 billion each year. The United States and South Korea are currently engaged in negotiations that will lead to a U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, which will further solidify and expand U.S.-Korean economic ties. With a population of well over one million, the Korean-American community has become, in the past century, a vital and important part of the American mosaic. The greater Los Angeles area, with its vibrant Korean-American community, is now one of the world's centers of Korean culture. But Korean-Americans are not only found in California. From Hawaii, east to New York, and from Alaska down to Florida, Korean- Americans are making a critical contribution to the United States in such diverse fields as medicine, education, science, engineering, martial arts, small business enterprises, entrepreneurship, music and the fine arts. America has been enriched by the Korean-American community's many contributions, and its existence has bonded us even closer to the Korean peninsula across the Pacific. It should come as no surprise, then, that the United States is also a popular destination for travelers from South Korea, whether they are coming here to visit their family members who have become part of the American community, attending U.S. colleges and universities, or meeting with business colleagues in the pursuit of greater trade and investment. The U.S. consular section at our embassy in Seoul is the busiest non- immigrant visa issuing post in the world, processing between 1,800 and 2,000 visa applications each day. It is clear that South Koreans want to visit the United States, and they have good reasons for doing so. There are currently efforts underway to bring South Korea under the umbrella of the U.S. Visa Waiver Program, which already applies to 27 other countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and Japan. This program, established in 1986 with the objective of promoting better relations with U.S. allies, also eliminates unnecessary barriers to travel, stimulates the tourism industry, and permits the U.S. Department of State to focus consular resources in other areas. The South Korean Government has made it clear that it intends to meet all of the statutory and regulatory requirements of the Visa Waiver Program. Seoul is working with the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State in a diligent fashion to make sure that relevant South Korean governmental agencies have implemented the most up-to-date passport controls, using biometric and other technologies to prevent fraud and abuse. Mr. Speaker, I am almost certain that the Republic of Korea's entry into the Visa Waiver Program will be one of the topics discussed by President Roh and President Bush during their summit meeting this month. There are, of course, other issues that certainly will be discussed at the White House by President Bush and President Roh, including the free trade negotiations, North Korean nuclear weapons development, and South Korea's active participation in the global war on terrorism and its contributions to the war effort in Iraq. The United States and South Korea have enjoyed a long and productive alliance, which, based on blood ties forged in the Korean war, will deepen into the indefinite future. The frequent meetings of U.S. and Korean leaders are a clear manifestation of the close relationship shared by our two countries. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to welcome the president of the Republic of Korea, Roh Moo-hyun, to the United States as he visits Washington, DC, and the golden State of California. I invite all Members of the House to join me in offering President Roh our best wishes and hospitality as he visits our Nation's Capital.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to congratulate The Hospitality and Information Service, THIS, of Washington, DC, on its 45th anniversary. Since 1961, THIS volunteers have welcomed diplomats and their families to Washington, providing friendship, assistance and an understanding of Washington and the United States. THIS was organized in 1961 at the suggestion of Angie Biddle, then Chief of Protocol, to help the hundreds of newly arrived diplomats and their families adjust to Washington. THIS is a private, 501(c)(3) non- profit volunteer organization that receives financial support from its volunteers, the Meridian International Center, and corporations. Its sponsors include members of the President's Cabinet or their spouses, and the spouse of the Mayor of the District of Columbia. In 1961, there were 101 embassies with 1,200 diplomatic families. Today, embassies total more than 170, with 4,000 diplomats and families in Washington. The 400 volunteers of THIS provide a variety of services and programs to help diplomats and their families learn about Washington through English and seven foreign conversation groups and a book club. Programs include forums for discussion of issues that are worldwide in scope, such as health, human rights and education. We also have programs on government affairs, performing arts, art and architecture, and American history, among others. In today's difficult world, THIS is a beacon of light, holding out the arm of friendship without expecting anything in return. THIS has made a difference in the lives of so many diplomats, and I would like to share with you a few comments from some grateful recipients: ``THIS has enriched my stay in the United States by enhancing my fundamental understanding of the culture and society.''--Pakistan ``I would like to thank THIS for the wonderful work that you do and for your warm and friendly attention.''--Miriam Barak, Israel ``I express both my pleasure and my gratitude to the THIS organization as a whole. THIS is a wonderful vehicle by which the best of America is portrayed. Such an organization can only be an influential force for good.''--Ann Robinson, Great Britain ``THIS is a fantastic organization. It makes me feel very welcomed and comfortable . . . THIS has given me a better understanding of U.S. life and society and also has given me some new good American friends.''--Ingela Beiming, Sweden ``THIS is a window that opens Washington for us and lets us experience and know it. It opens opportunities to meet different people.''--Marilia Bulhoes, Brazil Congratulations, THIS, on 45 splendid years. May you enjoy many more.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I announce my difficulty in opposing my good friends, Mr. Berman and Mrs. Tauscher. They are both very learned in this field. However, this amendment is very similar to Mr. Sherman's amendment and should be defeated for virtually the same reasons. India already possesses nuclear weapons, and is very unlikely to dispose of them or be divested of them. This is a restriction that the U.S. imposes on no other nuclear power. Therefore, instead of proliferating good will it would proliferate bad will to impose this on India. This is the proverbial deal killer, as the Sherman amendment was. A vote for this amendment is a vote to kill the agreement even if the bill passes. So, with considerable regret I must urge the defeat of this amendment

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, this is a killer amendment. If you vote for it, you vote to kill this entire initiative, because this imposes limits on India's nuclear weapons program, but India already possesses nuclear weapons and is extremely unlikely to give them up. Recognizing this fact is recognizing reality. This is a restriction imposed by the Sherman amendment that we impose on no other nuclear power, with the exception of North Korea, which may have nuclear weapons. This, as I have said, is a deal killer. Both India has said so and the administration has said so, and a vote for this amendment is a vote to kill the agreement. So, with respect, I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5682, the U.S.- India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006, which the Committee on International Relations ordered reported by a vote of 37-5 on June 28. This, therefore, is truly a bipartisan effort. This bill is based on the administration's original proposal, H.R. 4974, which Mr. Lantos and I introduced last fall at the request of Secretary Rice. Current law does not permit civil nuclear trade with India. That legislation would have authorized the President to waive a number of provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to allow him to negotiate an agreement establishing civil nuclear cooperation with India. This agreement will permit the U.S. to sell technology to India for nuclear power development. In return, India will open up for inspection its civilian nuclear program to international inspections and also agree not to test nuclear weapons and abide by nuclear export controls. H.R. 5682 takes the President's bill as a starting point and amends it in several key ways. The most important of these is that the process of congressional consideration has been reversed, meaning that the agreement cannot go into effect unless Congress approves it. This seemingly small change actually has great ramifications for the role of Congress as it ensures that we will retain a substantive role in the negotiation and implementation of this historic and far-reaching agreement. Other major improvements in this bill include strengthening the conditions which the President must certify. The original, vague generalities have been made more specific and require a number of conditions to have already been met instead of being open-ended. The most important of these include: That India has provided the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency with a credible plan to separate its civilian and military facilities; India has concluded a safeguards agreement with the IAEA regarding its civilian nuclear facilities; India and the IAEA are making ``substantial progress'' toward concluding an Additional Protocol, which is a set of enhanced safeguards and inspection measures that the United States is urging all countries to negotiate for themselves; India and the United States are working toward a multilateral Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty; India is working with the United States to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology; India is taking steps to secure its nuclear and other sensitive materials and technology through enhanced export control legislation and harmonizing its export control laws, regulations and procedures with international standards; and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, also known as the NSG, has voted to change its guidelines to allow civil nuclear trade with India. As many of you know, the NSG is a voluntary group of countries that export nuclear materials and technology and that coordinate their export policies regarding other countries. Currently, those guidelines do not permit nuclear trade with India. In addition, the legislation requires detailed annual reports on the implementation of the U.S.-India agreement and on U.S. nonproliferation policy with respect to South Asia. There are also sections on Sense of Congress and Statements of Policy that, although containing many useful provisions, I will not take the time to describe in detail now. Taken together, the committee believes that this bill represents a judicious balancing of competing priorities and will help lay the foundation for an historic rapprochement between the United States and India, while also protecting the global nonproliferation regime. Having described the major components of the bill, let me take a brief moment to address some of the arguments made by supporters and opponents. I have yet to hear any objection raised by any Member regarding the desirability of improving U.S.-India relations in general. She is the largest democracy in the world, with 1.1 billion people. The announcement on July 18 of last year by President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Singh of a new global partnership between our two countries has been almost universally praised in this country and is rightly regarded as an historic achievement and one that is long overdue. That partnership embraces many elements, from combating the AIDS epidemic to collaboration on scientific research to closer cooperation and ensuring stability in South Asia and other regions. Among other benefits, the agreement on nuclear cooperation that this bill will make possible will help India address its pressing energy needs by allowing it to build several nuclear reactors to supply electricity and lessening the need for petroleum. A major argument in favor, however, is that a closer relationship with India is needed to offset the rising power of China. There is much to this view, and it is clear that the U.S. will need to draw upon new resources to handle the challenges of this new century. In the end, this is a good deal for both the U.S. and India. While the world has known that India possesses nuclear weapons, India has not had a seat at the table of nuclear stakeholders. The agreement calls for the U.S. to sell technology to India for nuclear power development. In return, India will open its 14 civilian nuclear reactors to international inspections, agree not to test nuclear weapons and abide by nuclear export controls. This brings India into the mainstream with other accountable countries, giving rise to the same benefits and responsibilities as such other countries. It is important to note that this deal would improve international nuclear security and at the same time expand relations between the U.S. and one of the most important emerging nations in the world. It will enable India to make energy cheaper, cleaner and more accountable. It would create more customers for U.S. firms and, in the end, both countries will benefit. I urge support of this important legislation. I want to acknowledge the indispensable collaboration of Mr. Lantos and his marvelous staff, matched only in talent and zeal by my marvelous staff. This is truly a product of very desirable bipartisanship, and I thank them and salute them for their contribution. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. I was simply going to suggest to my good friend, Mr. Berman, that while you are looking for patterns of conduct, think of the Libya example. Mr. Khadaffi might just turn in all their weapons. That is entirely possible.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 5682.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the world is witnessing yet another violent episode in the global struggle between civilization and terror. The cowardly and deadly attacks on Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah have resulted in a vigorous response by Israel. We shouldn't be surprised. A history of precarious existence in a violent region has persuaded most Israelis that wishful thinking carries deadly costs and has convinced them that their survival depends upon their own willingness to act. And so Israel has acted. As a result, Israel is now the subject of criticism around the world. The standard condemnations will be uttered, the familiar demands expressed. Israel will once again be excoriated for self-defense by governments that cannot be bothered to assist others or which are even the sources of threats themselves. Instead of offering help to halt these terrorist attacks, too many of the world's governments will yet again demonstrate their irrelevance to the region's problems or to any possible solution by restricting their contributions to making disparaging comments from the sidelines. We can be certain that terrorism writ large is likely to be verbally assaulted. But were verbal disapprovals as deadly a weapon as are missiles and bombs, the violence and slaughter that are the chosen instruments of the terrorists would be quickly eliminated. At best, a moral equivalence between the terrorist attacks and Israel's response will be asserted. But it is profoundly immoral to equate assault with defense, to erase the bright line between the deliberate killing of innocents and a determination to protect those innocents. Were we in the position of the Israelis, how would we ourselves react if missiles were launched from Cuba and rained down on Miami? Any government that would allow terrorists to attack its citizens and do nothing in response but protest or beg for mercy would betray its most sacred trust. Instead, we should take encouragement from Israel's courageous example and hope that others sleeping in their protective cocoons awake and finally see that this conflict holds enormous stakes for us all. Israel must win its battle against terrorism, or we all will lose. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on this measure be extended for 80 additional minutes to be equally divided.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 921) condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of my time to the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I ask unanimous consent that he may be permitted to control that time.

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. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 384 on the Watt amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' personal explanation

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, one of the best known and admired political figures in suburban Chicago is Patrick Durante of Addison, Illinois. One of the most influential local newspapers FRA NOI recently published a commentary by Leonard Amara about Pat that is worth reading and portions of it follow: Political Update For many years, folks from our ethnic community have demonstrated leadership in many Illinois counties. This month, we highlight the career of the highly regarded Patrick Durante. Serving as Chairman of the Addison Township Republican Organization since 1974, this is the longest term to date for a Republican township chairman from DuPage County's Republican Party. Born in 1940, Pat's political life started in 1964 at the age of 24, as a member of the Young Republicans. He went on to serve as Addison Township YR president, DuPage County YR vice chairman, and Illinois state YR executive director. During the course of his township chairmanship, he also served as the Illinois 6th District State Central Committeeman for 9 years. This early success demonstrated Pat Durante's interest in improving his community by suggesting its agenda and taking a leadership role. Franco Caladipiertro, a candidate for the Illinois House in the 45th District, says of his mentor: ``I'm involved in the political process because of people like Pat Durante. Pat, along with Hank Gianvecchio, Ed Levato and others of Bloomingdale Township, are my role models as to what politicians should stand for, what we should aspire to be.'' For Pat, as an Italian American in the early 1960s, breaking into the German/Irish/English Republican establishment in DuPage County was no easy task. There were only about a half dozen Italian Americans in the DuPage County Republican Party back then, and arguably our president wasn't well received. Having to endure the ``usual Mafia, Dago barbs that were constantly spoken behind our backs,'' according to Pat, he takes great pride in knowing that he helped open doors, because today there are hundreds of Italian Americans in various positions throughout the DuPage County Republican Party. Although Durante has been part of dozens of campaign staffs, and has personally run dozens of campaigns, his fondest memories include being a deputy state chairman for President Ronald Reagan; coordinator for Jim (Stringini) Ryan, Illinois attorney general and candidate for governor; and, most of all, serving as executive assistant to Congressman Henry Hyde. In 1963, now-deceased Elmwood Park Village President Elmer Conti urged Durante to get involved in politics. Conti was also instrumental in getting Henry Hyde to run for Congress in 1974. Pat has always held that, if ever there is a non- Italian to whom Italian Americans owe a large debt, it is Hyde. Pat's family lived on Peoria Street in the Taylor Street neighborhood. Angelo Durante, his paternal grandfather, came to America in 1901 from Laurino, Avellini, Italy, and opened up newspaper stands to make a living for his son James (Patrick's father), and his six daughters. His wife, who was a Gregorio, was also from Laurino. His maternal grandfather, John Bertellotti came here from Stazzema, Italy, in 1911, along with his wife and two daughters, Josephine (Patrick's mother) and Corrinne. He opened John's Grocery Store at Flournoy and Loomis and became prominent in the Chicago Italian-American Chamber of Commerce. Early in his professional life, Pat scraped up enough money to buy a house in Itasca, where he raised two wonderful children, Lori Ann and Vincent. Pat and his present wife, Kathie Cermak-Durante, current1y reside in Addison. Vince and his lovely wife Katie live in Bartlett and recently presented Pat with life's greatest reward, a grandson, Nicholas. Though Pat's parents passed away, they left him with many inspirational traits, the most compelling of which are his pride in being an Italian American and a passion for politics. His future plans are to stay with Congressman Hyde until he concludes his term at the end of 2006. He will stay on as Addison Township chairman for a few more terms if his fellow Republicans allow him. and he will be involved in campaigns for governor, congressman and a few others. He will continue to look for young people to train in the art of politics, like his proteges, Franco Coladipietro. and Dennis Reboletti, another candidate for state representative. He will help rebuild the Republican Party, while reminding himself whence he came so he can continue to be thankful for where he is today.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, on June 27 and 28, 2006, I was absent for several votes for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted: Vote Nos. 319, ``yes''; 320, ``yes''; 321, ``yes''; 326, ``no''; 327, ``no''; 328, ``no''; 329, ``yes''; 330, ``no''; 331, ``no''; 332, ``no''; 333, ``no''; 334, ``no''; 335, ``no''; 336, ``no''; 337, ``no''; 338, ``no''; 339, ``no''; 340, ``no''; 341, ``no''; 342, ``no''; 343, ``no''; 344, ``no''; 345, ``no''; 346, ``no.''

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, every year in my district, I ask students in grades 8th and 12th to participate in an essay contest. This year's contest focused on the issue of protecting our nation from terrorism. I am pleased that so many students chose to enter this essay contest. Unfortunately, however, there can only be one winner in each group: 8th grade and 12th grade. This year's 8th grade winner was Sean Doherty from Elmhurst, Illinois. He attends St. Charles Borromeo School in Bensenville, Illinois. The 12th grade winner was Katie Horton from Addison Trail High School. She lives in Addison, Illinois. This is Mr. Sean Doherty's essay, entitled: ``How does the Homeland Security Agency protect us from Terrorism?'' is as follows: The Homeland Security Agency (HSA) is a government agency responsible for tracking down those responsible for terrorism against the United States of America. It is part of The Department of Homeland Security. It works closely with the FBI, CIA, and other agencies to track down terrorists and those who are planning an act of terrorism, before they can commit such an act. Those responsible for the vast majority of terrorism against the United States are Muslim terrorists who operate in cells around the world. They seek to destroy us because of our basic freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. They will stop at nothing to destroy us; death is no border to them. To them, death is when they will be rewarded. This can be seen by the frequent homicide bomber attacks that occur. The HSA uses wiretaps, satellite imaging, email monitoring, and various other methods to track down terrorists. The terrorists use every tool at their disposal to evade capture and kill innocent Americans, so the NSA should and must use every tool at their disposal to stop terrorists before they can attack. At airports, the HSA uses metal detectors, bomb sniffing dogs, cameras, and physical searches of bags and passengers to make sure our airlines are safe. One machine, the Chemical Trace Examination (CTex) machine can even detect explosives by their density. At ports, containers are scanned with x- rays and gieser counters to make sure nothing that can be used for a terrorist attack is transported into the country. Also, some containers are even searched physically. The PATRIOT Act is a piece of legislation that was passed after September 11, 2001. It is designed to help the HSA track down terrorists. It makes small changes to already existing laws so that the process of hunting down a terrorist cell is streamlined. For example, the PATRIOT Act allows the HSA to wiretap or monitor a suspected terrorist without a court warrant. If a court warrant were required, the terrorist could be tipped off and destroy evidence or flee the country. In order to reduce terrorism, we need to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we stay there, we can start to spread more moderate feelings about western culture throughout the region. The people of those countries already show their gratitude to the United States for bringing democracy to their countries, now imagine if the whole Middle East was democratic and freedom of speech and religion were commonplace throughout. The world would be a better, safer place. Another additional precaution we need to take is to secure our borders. We need more border patrol agents and more Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and sensors on the northern and southern borders. If we do these things, the risk of terrorism both at home and abroad will be significantly lowered.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, every year in my district, I ask students in grades 8th and 12th to participate in an essay contest. This year's contest focused on the issue of protecting our Nation from terrorism. I am pleased that so many students chose to enter this essay contest. Unfortunately, however, there can only be one winner in each group: 8th grade and 12th grade. This year's 8th grade winner was Sean Doherty from Elmhurst, Illinois. He attends St. Charles Borromeo School in Bensenville, Illinois. The 12th grade winner was Katie Horton from Addison Trail High School. She lives in Addison, Illinois. This is Miss Katie Horton's essay, entitled: ``How does the Homeland Security Agency protect us from Terrorism?'' is as follows: Terrorism is an epidemic that continues to spread throughout the world. In the United States, terrorism is a danger that the government and its people must face everyday. The government works hard to expand its knowledge of terrorist activities and to protect America from terrorist attacks. It is crucial for the government, and the people of the United States to identify ways to reduce the threat of terrorism. This can occur in many ways, including more background checks of people who enter this country, more security at our borders, increasing intelligence gathering in countries that support terrorists, make it easy, or offer rewards, for citizen's to report suspected terrorist activities, educating people on what to look for, and working with other countries governments to eliminate the threat of terrorism. A group that has been on everyone's mind lately is the terrorist group called al-Qaeda. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks has stated that al-Qaeda is responsible for many terrorist attacks against the citizens, the government, and military forces of the United States and many other locations around the world (Wikipedia). Osama bin Laden is one of the founders of the al-Qaeda organization and has been held responsible for the September 11th attacks and many other attacks world wide. The Department of Homeland Security is trying hard everyday to make terrorist movements a thing of the past. The department follows a six-point agenda. The first point is to increase overall preparedness. Since the terrorist attack on 9-11, the United States has increased security in all government and government related buildings and has better prepared and trained employees to know what to do in case of a terrorist attack. The second point is to create better transportation security systems. Since 9-11, the government has increased security at all airports, train stations, and subways. The third point is to strengthen border security to enforce immigration laws. The American government does not want anyone entering the United States who could be a threat to the American public. Currently, the government is trying to enact laws to make sure that illegal immigrants are either departed or are on a path to become legal U.S. citizens. The fourth point is to enhance information sharing among partners. This point helps establish better communication because that is a key to stay safe. When all anti-terrorist groups combine and share information it becomes possible for the groups to protect one another. The fifth point is to improve financial management, human resources and to improve technology. This point helps the government continue to fight terrorist to the best of its ability. The sixth, and last point, is to realign the Department of Homeland Security organization to maximize mission performance. There needs to be more communication between the different divisions of Homeland Security so good decisions are made and we have the greatest chance of stopping terrorists before they strike (Department of Homeland Security). As a way to help stop terrorism, the government passed the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is an act to help protect people against terrorism. There are many parts to this act. The act allows law enforcement to gather information on the criminals and their supporters, destroy immediate dangers, and to plan arrests, before letting the terrorist know. This allows the government to convict the terrorists before they have time to leave the scene of the crime. The act also allows investigators to receive business records in order to convict terrorists. For example, they can receive records from banks to see who the people are that are aiding the terrorists. The Patriot Act allows investigators to receive search warrants to search not only where the terrorist act was carried out, but also where the terrorist act was planned. Also, the government now punishes people who house terrorists, punishes terrorists who attack transit systems, and also punishes bioterrorists (Department of Justice). Even though the United States has many precautions against terrorists, many more can be put into place. Traveling by airplane is a very common way of transportation. America has done a lot to secure the safety of the airplane passengers, yet more can be done. Airlines must train their attendants to be aware of terrorists and be prepared with knowledge of what to do once a terrorist is encountered. Individual pilots must think of ways to have flight attendants alert them when they sense signs of danger and airlines must also provide a way to alert the airport of possible dangers without the attacker knowing. Also, Requirements for passports should be changed. A thorough background check should be done before one can receive a passport. Thousands of people come to the United States each year. The border patrol needs to be stricter on who they let into the United States. By controlling who is allowed to enter the U.S. many job opportunities would be created. It would cost a lot of money, but would save lives. Many people come to the United States on a one- month visa for education or work. The government needs to pay attention to these people to make sure they are not staying longer then they are supposed to. People should be forced to check in periodically and provide contact information so the government can ensure that they are still legally in this country. If people cannot provide this information, they should not be allowed into the country or should be deported immediately. Another option would be to issue a national identity card, much like a state drivers license so that any policeman, citizen, could verify if the person is in the country legally. The government handles many pressures every day and should be rewarded for that. Yet, government officials must always stay on top of things and communicate with all levels of government while keeping up with current technology. America is a truly an amazing country with a lot more potential.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I can't help but comment on my good friend Mr. Murtha's eulogy for the first gulf war. The problem we have had there is we quit too soon. We quit before the victory was secure. We left the Republican Army, we left Saddam Hussein, we just washed our hands and left. I hope we learned a lesson from that, what a mistake it was and it led to later difficulties. Mr. Speaker, so much of what we do in this Chamber is inconsequential; but the subject of this debate is anything but trivial. Let us then be serious as life and death are serious. The capacity to reproduce that fearful mushroom cloud which first terrorized the world in 1945 is multiplying and becoming the deadly plaything of rogue nations across the globe. Partisans have charged the President with misleading us into war, ``misleading'' being a pale euphemism for lying. The acquisition is made more grave by the assertion that he concocted the war for purely political purposes. By any measure this is a monstrous charge, but questions persist that must be answered if we are to honestly examine the President's rationale for intervention. It is essential to first understand the context in which the decision was made. President Bush has cited two factors for his decision to intervene in Iraq: the first, his belief that Saddam was reconstituting his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction; and, secondly, that the Iraqi dictator was cooperating with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. The threat from Saddam Hussein stretches back much further than many of today's critics care to remember. Saddam's effort to develop a nuclear weapon began in the 1970s, centered around the nuclear reactor being constructed at Osirak. Despite the alarming evidence of its purpose, the world casually contemplated what it saw as a distant, perhaps even benign, development. But the luxury of inaction was not available to Israel because her leaders knew that the country was certain to be among Saddam's first targets. They also knew that the responsibility for Israel's safety was theirs alone, and that the world would do nothing to save their country if they failed to act. So act they did, launching a bold attack in 1981, destroying the reactor complex and setting Saddam's nuclear quest back many years. But far from praising this heroic act that benefited humanity, the world community responded with condemnation, even outrage. Yet, in hindsight, is anyone so foolish as to assert that Israel should have waited for the United Nations to confirm that a threat existed, that Israel should not have taken action to destroy the reactor, even in defiance of the international community? Had Israel not acted, the future of the Middle East and the West would likely have unfolded quite differently and far more tragically. Unchastened by this setback, Saddam continued his aggressive campaign to dominate the region and control the world's oil supply, launching a decade-long war against Iran in 1980 during which over a million people were killed and in which he used poison gas and other means of mass slaughter. After being beaten back from Iran, his attention then turned to Kuwait, which he invaded and annexed in 1990, assuming the world would meekly accept this fait accompli. Many forget that for a time that outcome was a real possibility. Much of the initial response in the world community, and in this country, was one of let's look the other way and hope for the best. Only when the United States decided to forcefully eject Saddam from Kuwait and to assume the principal burden for doing so was the international community finally persuaded to go along. We refused to allow our fate and that of the world to be shaped by a dictator, and all sensible people are glad of it. What we providentially discovered after that war astonished the entire world. Despite years of inspections and the best efforts of numerous intelligence services, Saddam had managed to secretly construct a massive program to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The experts estimate that he was only 6 months from an operational nuclear device. Had he postponed his invasion of Kuwait by half a year, the world would now be a much darker place. This record of unrelenting aggression and implacable menace was the only context in which a reasonable person could view Saddam's future designs. This was the background in which the events of 9/11 occurred. Imagine yourself as President, confronting the fact that an unknown group of terrorists had incinerated 3,000 Americans in an attack carried out by individuals who gladly committed suicide to create this horror. We had no idea how extensive their resources were, how global the threat was, who were their allies, how massive were the hidden terrorists to come. In this context, let us consider the alternative to our intervention in Iraq: The President is presented with evidence that once again Saddam Hussein has developing weapons of mass destruction, that he once again refuses to cooperate with international arms inspectors, that he has had contact with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that he is even harboring terrorist organizations. And yet the President decides not to act. He decides to wait, to see if those same inspectors who had previously been deceived by Saddam will again give him a clean bill of health months or years in the future, to wait until our allies or the United Nations grudgingly grant us a narrow warrant to act. To wait until Saddam perhaps gives to some terrorist organization a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to detonate in some U.S. city. To trust our fate to those who would destroy us is to die and leave no descendants. Is it possible to imagine the storm of condemnation that would justifiably fall on a President who, by not acting, allowed Saddam to arm himself once again with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons? To allow the possibility that these might be made available to a terrorist organization, to acquiesce in the death of thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps of millions of Americans simply because the available evidence was not 99 percent, no, 100 percent certain? For if al Qaeda had had a nuclear device, there can be no doubt it would have used it on 9/11 and we would be mourning the death of 3 million Americans, not a tragic 3,000. Which then was the greater risk in the face of decades of evidence? To act or not to act? To trust Saddam? Who in this body is willing to assert that it is ever wise, that it is ever moral to risk the destruction of the American people? That is the context in which the decision to intervene in Iraq was taken. Was our intelligence imperfect? In retrospect, that is obvious. But when is it ever perfect? Nor was this shortcoming uniquely ours. Every intelligence service in the world assumed that Saddam was once again engaged in developing weapons of mass destruction. After the invasion, we learned the astonishing fact that even Saddam's own generals believed he possessed them and was prepared to use them. It is certainly worth noting that among the shrillest voices condemning our intelligence failure are many who once devoted their efforts to weakening our intelligence capabilities, who employed their energies towards imposing restrictions, cutting budgets, sounding alarms about imaginary ``rogue elephants.'' Permit me to quote from some of the most strident critics of this administration and its campaign against the terrorists. The first is a United States Senator now serving with great distinction in the other body. And on September 23, 2001, 12 days after the events of 9/11 this Senator stated: ``The tragedy is at this moment that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence. ``We are weakest, frankly, in that particular area. So it is going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly.'' You will find that on CBS's Face the Nation, September 23, 2001. But this same Senator, in 1995, introduced a bill, S. 1290, that would have reduced the intelligence budget by $300 million in each of the fiscal years, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. Then we have a gentlewoman serving with distinction in this body, from sunny California, and in 1998 she stated, ``it is time to totally eliminate the CIA.'' Congressional Record, March 18, 1997. On several occasions in the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet empire, a majority of Democrats in the House voted to cut the U.S. intelligence budget. Yet, following the horrific events of September 11, the chorus of voices that had previously advocated reducing our intelligence capabilities quickly reversed their theme. Even they must thank God that they had been unsuccessful in their efforts. But on this subject we hear nothing but deafening silence. One inescapable lesson of history is that passivity in the face of a threat is an invitation to strike. The desire to run away only encourages pursuit. We are seeing that fatal approach gather strength elsewhere in the world manifested in efforts to bind the hands of those who would attack terrorism at its source. The hope is that, as with the passing of a storm, the threat will move on and blue skies reappear and that the nightmare will at last be over. But the terrible reality is by succumbing to the fear of terrorism, by doing too little in the fear that we are doing too much, we condemn ourselves to a future of unending assaults. Other countries have learned that, however meager their contribution to their own and the world's security, however ineffectual their actions, in the end the United States will rescue them. We will make the world right again. We will defend against all threats. We, however, no longer have that luxury. If we do not take action to defend ourselves, then we are lost because no one exists to rescue us if we fail. So, aware of its responsibilities, aware of the horrific consequences that might occur from indecision and a reliance on trust and hope, President Bush acted to remove the threat posed by Saddam. What he did is called leadership. And for doing his duty for all of us, he has been denounced by many of the same people who would have denounced him had he not acted, denounced by people who bear no responsibility, who take no responsibility, even for their own actions. Saddam is no longer a threat to anyone. That is a salutary lesson for those around the world who watch and wait for opportunities for unopposed aggression. They now know that their invulnerability has vanished. Even more important, and almost entirely unnoticed amid the torrent of criticism focused on President Bush, is that his actions have greatly enhanced the credibility of the United States. For the next time this or any President warns a foreign despot to cease actions we believe are threatening to us, there can be little doubt that we will take decisive and forceful action, no matter how great the opposition of the world community. No one can credibly question that this greatly enhanced credibility paid off with Libya's decision to abandon its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Qaddafi understood what President Bush's critics still refuse to acknowledge, that this administration is determined to eliminate threats to our country, both actual and potential, and if necessary, will use force to do so. That is in sharp contrast to the passivity of the previous administration, whose failure to react to the repeated attacks on the United States only encouraged our enemies to make further attacks. What other conclusion could al Qaeda and others have reached from our baffling inaction and response to their assaults on our embassy, on our military, on us? They were taught the false lesson that they were free to slaughter us and we would do nothing. Incredibly, senior officials from the administration now shamelessly criticize this President for taking decisive measures to address the threat that they themselves could not be brought to contemplate. By acting first in Afghanistan, and then Iraq to remove Saddam, President Bush has rendered the need for future interventions much less likely. It is unfortunate that the quest for political advantage and a high decibel partisanship have intruded into the national discussions of how best to address the problems we face in Iraq. But there can be no doubt that the more we appear disunited, and the more voluble our dissent into weakness, dissension and inaction, the greater the aid and comfort we give to our enemies. The world of predictability and relative safety we once knew is gone. We are now engaged in a cruel, brutal struggle with those who would destroy us, one unprecedented in its challenge to our perseverance and courage, and one that will be fought not just in foreign lands but on our own soil. To insist that decisions must await perfect intelligence, that the risk of action is to be more feared than the risk of inaction, that others will save us, is to guarantee our defeat. But defeat in this new and more dangerous world means annihilation. The smoking gun that some critics insist on might well be some of our cities. We in this Chamber, our country, the entire world, owe this President not condemnation but our thanks for acting in Iraq, for refusing to wait for an avowed enemy to strike, for not temporizing and letting the forces of destruction wage unopposed their pitiless war to destroy everything we believe in. To those faint of heart from temporary setbacks in Iraq or who seek to benefit politically from our differences there, permit me to quote from Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine wrote, ``These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of their country. But he that stands by it now deserves the love and thanks of men and women. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered. Yet, we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.'' Charles De Gaulle once said, ``France would not be true to herself if she weren't engaged in some great enterprise.'' Our great enterprise is the defense of freedom, and may we be worthy of the challenge. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, the Speaker of the House (Mr. Hastert).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 861.