Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. I also want to thank Tom Latham. Tom is a wonderful friend, and he has pursued this particular measure for an American citizen that fits all of our definitions of a hero. That is particularly the perspective of all Iowans and I am sure all Americans when we think about Dr. Borlaug's career. I would only like to make one philosophical contribution to this debate, and that is that Dr. Borlaug has been awarded the Nobel Prize for the green revolution, the notion of pure science being used to expand the production of food crops of various kinds to make it possible for people in the world to have nourishment. But it is the same science that goes into expanding biological crops that allows crops to be used for energy, and so the same science that has produced the green revolution is also producing a black evolution, the idea that food can also be used for petroleum substitutes. We are today facing a challenge of judgment as well as a challenge of new biology, which Dr. Borlaug is also continuing to work in, that there may not be enough crops that go around for both food and fuel. But, fortunately, it is not exactly an either/or; that is, the same kernels of corn can be used for extracting ethanol as well as producing a food additive for cattle. But we are going to have to continue to develop new techniques to increase yields. That is what is happening in many great institutions in this country, such as Iowa State University, the University of Missouri, Purdue, Minnesota, et cetera, and we are very proud of that effort. Dr. Borlaug stands on the shoulders of prior scientists. One from Iowa who we are also very proud of Henry Wallace, actually is the father of the movement which Dr. Borlaug pursued. It was Henry Wallace's idea to establish a research facility in Mexico in the early 1940s. That idea was brought by the then Vice-President to the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation who then chose Dr. Borlaug to head this research effort. We in Iowa are naturally proud of the role that Iowa scientists have played. That role has been played with the help, to some degree, of government and, to a greater degree, of private charity. So this is a very American initiative and a very American scientific product that this body is honoring today. And it is honoring the leader of it, a gentleman who began his young life as many noble gentlemen begin, as a wrestler. As a wrestler from Cresco, a great Iowa wrestling town, Dr. Borlaug competed in the scientific arena where he has achieved as great merit as any scientist in this country in the 20th century. We in Iowa are immensely proud, and I would like to thank Tom Latham, the leadership for allowing this bill to come forth, and the bipartisan spirit in which it is brought before us today.

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. LEACH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to thank very much the chairman to-be of the Financial Services Committee for his cooperation in bringing this forth. And I might say to the chairman to-be that I understand that you are thinking of a theme of being pro-business with an emphasis on fairness. I think that is a very appropriate theme, and I wish you every success. This Congress has a vested interest in seeing that the next Congress works well, so I wish you well.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my distinguished friend, and I wish him every great success as he takes on the leadership of this committee in this coming Congress. We all have a vested interest in the Congress doing well and the country moving forward.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we all understand, this body is composed of 435 Members, and one of the unique features of membership is everyone brings a different background. It has been my experience here that the Members that have some of the most helpful backgrounds possible are those that have served in the United States Peace Corps, and this applies both to knowledge of the area of the world that they may have served, but also just in general. Every Peace Corps volunteer that I have known that has served in this body has been of exemplary character and compassion. Symbolic of it all is the gentleman from New York, Mr. Walsh, one of our most decent, thoughtful Members, who served in Nepal, whose leadership on this issue and whose introduction of this bill is so much appreciated by this body. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from New York, Jim Walsh.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this timely resolution, which takes note of the recent comprehensive peace agreement between the government of Nepal and the Maoist insurgents and expresses the hope that this process will place Nepal on the path of lasting peace and democracy. In particular, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his thoughtful assistance in this resolution and to commend my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), for his leadership on the resolution and his long-standing interest in the welfare of the people of Nepal. As my colleagues know, sandwiched between China and India and home to the soaring Himalayan Mountains, Nepal has long been known as one of the most beautiful countries on the planet. A constitutional monarchy since 1990, Nepal has long enjoyed good relations with the United States at the governmental level, nurtured in part by the many Peace Corps volunteers, such as Mr. Walsh, who have so ably served in the world's only Hindu kingdom. Tragically, however, each year since the onset of a ruthless Maoist rebellion in 1966 has seen this country of 24 million ever more starkly challenged, not only by the insurgents, but by a panoply of developmental, governance and human rights problems that have converged to potentially jeopardize the viability of the state itself. Most recently, popular anger at King Gyanendra's autocratic actions since early 2005 boiled over in April of this year, resulting in massive demonstrations across the country, and public support for a nationwide general strike called by Nepal's seven major political parties. Despite harsh reprisals by the security forces, the resolve of the democracy movement ultimately forced the King to restore sovereignty to the people of Nepal. On April 24, the King bowed to public pressure and announced the reinstatement of Parliament. On April 28, Parliament convened for the first time since 2002 with G.P. Koirala of the Nepali Congress Party at the helm of a national unity government. The King's seizure of civilian authority and disdain for the political parties led them to seek a rapprochement with Nepal's Maoist insurgents, based on their mutual rejection of the King's royal coup. This rapprochement led to a formalized 12-point understanding between the parties and the Maoists, the key element of which is a commitment by the parties, now the government, to support elections to a constituent assembly charged with drafting a new constitution, a long- standing Maoist demand in exchange for Maoist commitment to support multiparty democracy. Under the comprehensive agreement reached this November, the Maoist rebels will join a transitional government, while their weapons are to be put under U.N. supervision. The new agreement also establishes an ambitious timetable for democratic reform with the objective of holding elections monitored by the U.N. to the constituent assembly by mid- June, 2007. The Government of the United States has welcomed the announcement of this agreement. The administration and Congress hope this step will place Nepal on a path to lasting peace and democracy. All of us hope that the Maoist commitment to peace and multiparty democracy is genuine, and that they have irrevocably abandoned their stated goal of establishing a one-party authoritarian state. While it is always prudent to judge those who take law into their hands by their actions, not their words, the Congress is committed to giving reconciliation approaches as a fair and reasonable chance. America fully supports any peace process that safeguards the aspirations of the Nepali people. As the resolution suggests, this means that violence and intimidation and criminal acts, such as forced recruitment of cadre and extortion, should cease forthwith. Nepali people who have lived in fear and insecurity for over a decade deserve not only a chance for peace and prosperity, but to choose their own form of government through free and fair elections. America is committed to helping the Nepali people build a peaceful, prosperous and democratic future. I urge support for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on this resolution.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1051) expressing support for democracy in Nepal that will require the full participation of the people of Nepal in the political process to hold elections for a constituent assembly and draft a new constitution and calling upon the Communist Party of Nepal- Maoist to adhere to commitments it has made and to respect human rights, as amended.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to note that folded into the SAFE Port Act is the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act which is one of the most important pieces of family legislation this Congress has ever considered. Internet gambling restraints have been under review for four Congresses. This evening we are finally poised to act decisively on this subject, and I want to extend my personal appreciation to the Speaker; to the majority leader, Mr. Boehner; and to the Senate majority leader, Mr. Frist, for their steadfast support. Companion legislation to the House product was forthrightly led in the Senate by John Kyl of Arizona. Many Members have played an important part over the years in this legislation, particularly Mike Oxley and Spencer Bachus from the Financial Services Committee and Bob Goodlatte and Chris Cannon from Judiciary. But I want to stress this is bipartisan legislation. The majority of Democrats voted for it just a few weeks ago. Indeed, all of us can be proud of this legislation. It should be considered a significant accomplishment of this Congress. After all, with each passing day we learn of friends and neighbors touched by devastating losses from Internet gambling. Never has it been so easy to lose so much so quickly at such a young age. As a professor of business at the University of Illinois has noted, Internet gambling is crack cocaine for gamblers. There are no needle marks; you just click the mouse and lose your house. The reason the NCAA, the NFL and the NBA, the NHL, and Major League Baseball support this legislation is their concern for the integrity of the games. The reason the religious community from Baptists and Methodists to Muslims has rallied to this cause is because it is concerned for the unity of the American family. The reason we should adopt this approach is that we must be mindful of our obligations to the American family. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I will submit for the Record at this point its legislative history. Legislative History for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act Section 801. Short title This Act may be cited as the `Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.' Section 802. Prohibition on acceptance of any payment instrument for unlawful Internet gambling Subsection (a) adds a new `Subchapter IV--Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling' to Chapter 53 of Title 31 (Monetary Transactions). The new subchapter will come immediately after subchapter III, covering Money Laundering and Related Financial Crimes. Section 5361. Congressional findings and purpose (a) Findings. The Congressional findings note that: (1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through the personal use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire transfers; (2) the National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which represent such sites; (3) Internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry; and (4) new mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are necessary because traditional law enforcement mechanisms are often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions on the Internet, especially where such gambling crosses State or national borders. (b) Rule of Construction. No provision is to be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting or regulating gambling within the United States. This is intended to alleviate fears that this bill could have the effect of changing the legality of any gambling-related activity in the United States. Section 5362. Definitions This defines the term `bet or wager' as the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance with the agreement that the winner will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. This subsection clarifies that `bet or wager' does not include bona fide business transactions such as securities trading or buying or selling insurance contracts, or participation in a simulation sports game or educational game. ``Something of value'' does not include personal efforts of the participants in playing the game or contest, or points or credits that the sponsor of the game or contest provides to participants free of charge and that can be used or redeemed only for participation in games or contests offered by the sponsor. Defines the term `unlawful Internet gambling' as placing, receiving, or transmitting a bet or wager by any means which involves the use of the Internet, where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made. Clarifies that purely intrastate transactions conducted in accordance with state laws with appropriate security controls will not be considered unlawful internet gambling. Likewise, transactions solely within Tribal lands complying with similar security requirements and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act will not be considered unlawful. Section 5362(10)(D) addresses transactions complying with Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) which will not be considered unlawful, because the IHA only regulates legal transactions that are lawful in each of the states involved. Also clarifies that intermediate routing of data packets does not determine the location in which bets or wagers are made. The Internet gambling provisions do not change the legality of any gambling-related activity in the United States. For instance, if use of the Internet in connection with dog racing is approved by state regulatory agencies and does not violate any Federal law, then it is allowed under the new section 5362(10)(A) of title 31. The Internet gambling provisions do not interfere with intrastate laws. New section 5362(10)(B) creates a safe harbor from the term ``unlawful Internet gambling'' for authorized intrastate transactions, if the state law has adequate security measures to prevent participation by minors and persons located out of the state. The safe harbor would leave intact the current interstate gambling prohibitions such as the Wire Act, federal prohibitions on lotteries, and the Gambling Ship Act so that casino and lottery games could not be placed on websites and individuals could not access these games from their homes or businesses. The safe harbor is intended to recognize current law which allows states jurisdiction over wholly intrastate activity, where bets or wagers, or information assisting in bets or wagers, do not cross state lines. This would, for example, allow retail lottery terminals to interact with a processing center within a state, and linking of terminals between separate casinos within a state if authorized by the state. Tribal gaming laws are similarly preserved. Transactions solely within tribal lands complying with similar security requirements and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act will not be considered unlawful, under section 5362(10)(C). Moreover, the principle of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is that state governments cannot apply discriminatory laws against gaming authorized by tribal governments within the state. If a state authorizes use of the Internet for gambling pursuant to this section and the tribal government also authorizes this, gambling businesses located on tribal lands within that state would be permitted to ``export'' gambling services to persons in the rest of the state, off of tribal lands, if the ``exported'' game complies with state law, pursuant to section 5362(10)(B). This does not give the state jurisdiction over the operation of the tribal gambling business, including licensing requirements, and does not allow the state to dictate tribal gaming laws. Only the game itself--including the method for playing the game--must comply with state law if a person physically located off of tribal lands places a bet that is received by a tribal gambling business. This principle also applies in reverse: if a person on tribal lands plays a gambling game with a state- based gambling business, the game must not violate tribal law. Section 5362 also defines the terms `business of betting or wagering,' `designated payment system,' `Internet,' and `restricted transaction.' Several additional terms are defined by reference to other sections of the U.S. Code. Section 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling Prohibits persons engaged in the business of betting or wagering from knowingly accepting credit, funds, bank instruments, or proceeds of any other form of financial transaction in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling. This is called a 'restricted transaction' according to the definitions section. Section 5364. Policies and procedures to identify and prevent restricted transactions (a) Regulations and (b) Requirements for Policies and Procedures. Requires the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board, in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney General, to prescribe regulations within nine months requiring any payment system to establish policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block restricted transactions, or otherwise prevent restricted transactions from entering its system. (c) Compliance and (d) Liability. Provides persons operating financial systems with immunity from civil liability for blocking transactions that they reasonably believe are restricted transactions, or in reliance on the regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve. Though a financial institution may block additional transactions based on reasonable belief, it has no duty to do so, and may rely solely on the regulations to fully discharge its obligations. (e) Enforcement. The Federal functional regulators and the Federal Trade Commission are given the exclusive authority to enforce this section. Section 5365. Civil remedies Authorizes the U.S. Attorney General and State Attorneys General to pursue civil remedies, including a preliminary injunction or injunction against any person to prevent or restrain a violation of this legislation. It clarifies that the bill does not alter, supersede or otherwise affect the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; generally limits responsibility of an interactive computer service to the removal or disabling of access to an online site violating this section, upon proper notice; restricts the ability to bring injunctive cases against financial transaction provider activities. Internet gambling operators primarily use the resources of two types of businesses to conduct their unlawful enterprises: payment systems and interactive computer services. The unlawful use of payment systems is addressed by section 5364, not by injunctions. The legislation addresses the unlawful use of interactive computer services through injunctions, but with appropriate limits to avoid imposing any duty to censor or monitor on these computer services. Section 5365(c)(2) also extends to interactive computer services the same immunity from liability that common carriers are afforded when complying with a notice from law enforcement pursuant to section 1084(d) of title 18 to discontinue service to a gambling business. Section 5366. Criminal penalties Authorizes criminal penalties for violating section 5363, including fines or imprisonment for not more than five years or both. Also authorizes permanently enjoining a person convicted under this section from engaging in gambling activities. Section 5367. Circumventions prohibited Provides that, notwithstanding the safe harbor provided in section 5362(2), a financial intermediary or interactive computer service or telecommunications service that has actual knowledge and control of bets and wagers, and operates or is controlled by an entity that operates, an unlawful Internet gambling site can be held criminally liable under this subchapter. Section 803. Internet gambling in or through foreign jurisdictions Subsection (a) provides that, in deliberations between the U.S. Government and any other country on money laundering, corruption, and crime issues, the U.S. Government should encourage cooperation by foreign governments in identifying whether Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering, corruption, or other crimes, advance policies that promote the cooperation by foreign governments in the enforcement of this Act, and encourage the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering to study the extent to which Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering. It also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to submit an annual report to Congress on the deliberations between the United States and other countries on issues relating to Internet gambling. Subsection (b) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to submit an annual report to Congress on any deliberations between the United States and other countries on tissues relating to Internet Gambling.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, let me stress, this bill has strong bipartisan support. It also has significant bipartisan opposition. And so it should be considered in the category of individual judgment, not politics. On the plus side of the bill, let me note that it does stress sanctions, not military action, and it quite properly gives the executive discretion to lift these sanctions. On the minus side, and this is the compelling point, it represents an escalation of tension, policy, and attitudinal friction with Iran. It is an escalation that is guaranteed to fail. You might ask, Why is it guaranteed to fail? It is because unilateral sanctions don't work, and there is no evidence that the other principal parties that are dealing with Iran will follow this example. We can pound our chest all we want to suggest that a Russia or a China should follow our lead, but these kinds of suggestions from Congress simply carry no weight. Secondly, no one should doubt that this complicates problems for our troops in Iraq today. That is an absolute utter circumstance that has to be dealt with, and we have to think it through. Thirdly, this step implicitly underscores and advances a diplomacy- less strategy. That is, the United States of America has advanced a no- talk-with-Iran strategy for more than this administration, for quite a number of years, and the question is does it work, is it as hapless as our strategy towards certain other countries in the world, including Cuba. In the backdrop is the issue of force, and also the issue of dominoes, dominoes in the sense of decisionmaking. Often policies that don't work implicitly are followed by other policies that we hope will work. If this particular policy doesn't work, do we then have to go to the force option? There is a neocon desire, as has been written about extensively, to consider the idea of a preemptive strike. All I would say is there is a ``3-3-100'' set of principles that we have to think through. The first ``three'' is there are three ways of obtaining nuclear weapons: one is to develop them; another is to steal them; and another is to buy them. If we bomb Iran, there is no doubt whatsoever we will put back their capacity to develop. But it might also accelerate the capacity to steal or purchase. The second ``three'' principle is that there are three weapons of mass destruction. We not only have nuclear; we have chemical and biological. And knocking back their nuclear certainly will accelerate the other two. The third issue is the issue of a ``hundred.'' We have the idea that we can do a preemptive strike quickly and it will be over. But the fact is that the other side will respond. They might respond for 100 years. I think it is time we talk about from the people's House the issue of developing mutual self-interest, not antagonism, and we ought to move in the direction of realism instead of taking ideological steps that don't fit the times.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I would like to recognize Chairman Hyde and the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, for their leadership in improving the Administration's draft proposal for facilitating civil nuclear cooperation between the United States and India. In particular, I appreciate their efforts to lessen the nonproliferation risks inherent in this initiative and to ensure that Congress remains a full partner with the Executive Branch as we move forward with this endeavor. Nonetheless, while the issue at hand is a close call, in my judgment this particular initiative does not strike the right balance between two competing American national security interests: the important goal of improving relations with a rising India and the critical priority of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile material in an era hallmarked by the global threat of terrorism. Let me explain why. There is nothing more difficult than to attempt to put perspective on events of day because so many issues can only be understood clearly, if at all, with the passage of time. For example, if we ask what is new on the Asian landscape over the last several years there is a tendency to emphasize troubling developments: the scourge of terrorism, North Korea, tensions over Taiwan, and America's growing trade deficit with China. But on the positive side little is more consequential than America's deepening ties with India. The growing warmth between our two countries has its roots in the common values and the increasingly congruent interests of democratic societies committed to the ideal of liberty, social tolerance, representative government and the fight against terrorism, as well as other transnational threats--such as the spread of weapons of mass destruction, illicit narcotics, and the scourge of HIV/AIDS. In this regard all Americans condemn the recent horrific bomb attacks in Kashmir and Mumbai, and we stand with the people and government of India in their opposition to anarchistic acts of terror. Our deepening government-to-government relationship is complemented by a rich mosaic of expanding people-to-people ties. In many ways, the more than 2 million Indian-Americans have become a living bridge between our two great democracies, bringing together our two peoples, as well as greatly enlarging our understanding of one another. From a Congressional perspective, it should be underscored that America's commitment to this robust and multi-faceted relationship is fully bipartisan. As underscored by the debate on this measure, there is virtually no dissent in Washington from the precept that India and the United States should become increasingly close strategic partners with compelling incentives over time to develop convergent perspectives on a host of regional and global policy concerns. By any objective measure, U.S.-India relations have never been on more solid footing. From new agreements on defense cooperation to expanded high technology trade and space cooperation, the relationship has been moving forward in an impressive fashion. On the economic front, America is India's largest trading partner and largest foreign investor. In many ways, however, what is impressive is how marginal, not how significant, is our trade. Economic and commercial ties between the U.S. and India are at an incipient, not end stage, and arguably deserve priority emphasis at this point in our relationship. In this context, many in Washington and elsewhere around the world were caught by surprise with the Administration's offer last July to extend full civilian nuclear cooperation to India; a proposal which presented Congress with a fait accompli, notwithstanding the fact that implementation would require legislative action. By background, when Prime Minister Singh was set to visit Washington last summer, the Administration was weighing two policy options to help ensure maximum success for this important summit with the President. One option would have been to announce unequivocal U.S. support for India's claim to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council; a stance clearly in the interest of India and also compatible with the interests of the United States. Bizarrely, however, the Administration position then and now has been that Washington is unprepared to take a firm position in support of Indian membership until the U.S. achieves certain goals related to UN administrative and management reform, none of which are as critical as the case for Security Council enlargement to reflect the new balance of power in world affairs. Frankly, I am flabbergasted by the Administration's ideological rigidity, as well as its lack of preparation to support India on this issue. I regard the U.S. position as awkward philosophically, illogical, and incompatible with sound strategic judgment. Instead of supporting India's aspirations for Security Council membership, the Administration instead chose to peremptorily re-write the rules of the global nonproliferation that have well-served U.S. interests for over three decades. To be sure, I acknowledge that there are a number of credible rationales for this agreement: to earn trust and goodwill with policymakers in Delhi, and the Indian public; to help accelerate the development of a strategic partnership between our two countries; to promote the use of nuclear power as an environmentally-friendly alternative to the use of coal and other scarce fossil fuels; and to emulate an Eisenhower-style atoms-for-peace initiative. Nevertheless, as strong as the case for this initiative may be, I remain deeply concerned that the agreement negotiated by the Administration fundamentally undermines the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the linchpin of U.S.led international efforts to stem the spread of nuclear weapons. Administration officials assert that the exceptional treatment being accorded to India is unique and un-replicable. Once an exception to treaty law is made, however, the door is opened for a whole spectrum of governments, including close friends and alliance partners, to come forward to make comparable claims for special treatment--whether they be Brazil, Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Pakistan, and even Taiwan. If India were the only consideration, it would be a no-brainer to support this agreement. Unfortunately, at issue is the rule of law as it applies to us and others as well. In particular a number of other countries, with whom we currently do not have amicable relations, such as Iran and North Korea, can be expected to similarly press the international community to recognize their legitimacy as nuclear weapons states. And if we unilaterally declare the right to ignore international law, other countries, including nuclear weapon states, can not be expected to go along with an exclusive American right to take exception to treaties. This agreement thus creates opportunity for countries to use commercial or geopolitical rationales to expand forms of nuclear cooperation otherwise prohibited by existing international norms (such as the NPT) or procedures (such as those developed by the multilateral Nuclear Suppliers Group). For example, in the immediate wake of the President's announcement of a policy shift, before either the Congress or the multilateral NSG could consider the proposal, Moscow moved to preempt Washington by announcing it would provide New Delhi with uranium reactor fuel in contravention of NSG guidelines. In other words, the mere announcement of an Executive Branch- initiated proposal has had the effect of undercutting the NPT and precipitated another nation-state to implement key aspects of Washington's initiative. Similarly, the government of Pakistan announced it would be obligated to match any expansion in India's nuclear weapons program. The reason we have an NPT is to restrain nuclear weapons development. Based on news reports this past week from Pakistan, it is clear that one of the consequences of breaking international law is the precipitation of an arms race on the Indian Subcontinent. But as unfortunate as this arms race is, the consequence of the U.S.-led unraveling of the NPT is the spiraling of nuclear weapons development elsewhere. Mr. Chairman, in a philosophical context this agreement is a reflection of an Administration approach to foreign policy rooted in the so-called doctrine of American Exceptionalism, which neo-cons do not define as refining a shining city on a Hill but as the right of a superpower to place itself above the legal and institutional restraints applied to others. In the neo-con world, values are synonymous with power. The implicit assumption in that American security can be bought and managed alone, in many cases without allies, and without consideration of contrasting international views or the effect of our policies on others. Treaties like a Comprehensive Test Ban, which every President since Eisenhower has propounded, have been rejected, as have negotiations to strengthen the verification provisions of the Biological Weapons Convention. Now the Administration proposes to weaken the NPT, perhaps fatally, which despite its weaknesses has helped limit the number of nuclear weapon states to a relative handful instead of 20 or 30 or even more. As much as I support the Administration's desire to more rapidly advance a warming of relations with India, I cannot in good conscience support a weakening of the global nonproliferation regime or the breaching of United States obligations under international law. I therefore cannot support the legislation in its current form.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman particularly for bringing a resolution about this son of Iowa. I might just mention, Bob Feller comes from a small county west of Des Moines called Dallas County. My family was originally from this county. This county produced a series of very fine athletes in a given era. One was our State's great hero, a Heisman trophy winner by the name of Nile Kinnick who lost his life in World War II. Another was a first cousin of Bob Feller's named Hal Manders. Hal also pitched major league baseball. A number of years ago, Bob and Hal visited me here in Washington, and Hal gave me a small gift that I will treasure for the rest of my life. It was a picture of Bob Feller and Hal as ballplayers at about the age of 12, and they were oversized kids on a small team, and across the uniform was marked, I believe, the Braves. And I asked Bob Feller, what was the background of this little league team? And Bob said, you know, we lived kind of in the country, we didn't have a team, so our two fathers who were brothers-in-law started this team. And I said to Bob, well, what would have happened if your father and your uncle didn't start this team? And he said, well, I never would have pitched ball again. And it is kind of a beautiful story for all of us, because what he was saying was that Bob Feller would not be Bob Feller if he didn't have a father who dedicated some time to starting a little league baseball team. And that is really the American system, the American dream, the American family. I think we give honor to Bob because we give honor not just to a great athlete, but to the idea of sport and to the idea and the ideals of American competition, which he has always reflected the best of. I thank you, Steve, for this moment.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House of the passing of one of lowa's most distinguished leaders of the 20th century, Seeley Lodwick. Seeley's was a life of public service--a Marine in the greatest war in human history; a farm leader during the greatest era of innovation and change in agriculture; a public servant who served in both our State and national capitols; and a political activist who helped elect presidents and legislators. Seeley will be remembered as a gentleman of the soil, a son of Iowa, a true friend. Seeley's passing leaves a gap in all of our lives, for his wife Pat particularly because no marriage could be closer; ours because no friend could be more counted upon for trusted support and sage advice. He will be much missed because he stood so steadfastly for the values in American politics that seems so forgotten--loyalty, decency, respect.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, the possibility is real that embryonic stem- cell research represents the greatest breakthrough in the history of science. It is, therefore, important that we understand the medical and moral issues at stake. In 1998, University of Wisconsin scientists for the first time isolated embryonic stem cells in a laboratory. These cells, 30 to 34 in number, are derived from a blastocyst, which is a group of 150 to 200 cells smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence. A blastocyst, in turn, is derived from a single cell known as a zygote, which comes into being after a sperm and an egg combine. Blastocysts have been created outside of the body in cell cultures for decades in fertility clinics. More than 400,000 are known to exist in frozen form. Thousands are discarded as medical waste and millions are eliminated naturally every year. The reason the scientific community is so excited about embryonic stem cells is that they are pluripotent. Unlike other stem cells, they are capable of continuously dividing and being coaxed into forming virtually any of several hundred types of body cells. Health research is conducted in stages--mice before people. At the moment, scientists are encouraged by the results they have obtained from the animal kingdom. Research on mice, pigs and monkeys is so promising that scientists can envision the possibility of creating ``cellular repair kits'' for the human body. If research is supported the regenerative power of embryonic stem cells may soon be harnessed to treat ailments as diverse as spinal-cord injury, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis and heart disease. Profound moral questions encompass embryonic stem-cell research. A blastocyst, which is subject to scientific engineering on a Petri dish, could, if implanted in a uterus, cause a life to form. ``Excess'' blastocysts also could be adopted. As the father of adopted children, I confess to personal enthusiasm for this option. Nevertheless, the ethical question must be addressed: Is it more moral to throw away as medical waste blastocysts that exceed demand for implanting, or to allow them to be used by scientists to extract therapies for saving life? More precisely, which is more pro-life: throwing a blastocyst away in a dumpster or placing it on a Petri dish to develop a remedy for heart disease? The question today is about science and its promise. Tomorrow, a different set of questions may have to be addressed. Could a mother deny a child dying of cancer access to embryonic stem-cell therapy? Could a son or daughter deny a parent suffering from Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease access to such therapies? Is it not pro-life to save and prolong life? On most political issues compromise is possible. On ethics, it is not so easy. Indeed, uncompromising approaches to ethics are generally considered admirable. The problem comes when values, as in this case, are in conflict. Morality is about means as well as ends. For citizens who believe nothing is more important than to protect life at conception, embryonic stem-cell research may be intolerable. For citizens who believe that the prospect of meaningful life begins in a mother, not a Petri dish, the moral imperative of attending the sick and alleviating illness is compelling. When one group of Americans considers embryonic stem-cell research immoral and another finds it ethically problematic to refuse to seek credible cures for life-threatening disease, the public goal can never be full agreement. But it can be mutual respect. One approach which this legislation advances is the notion of authorizing federal support for stem cell research involving only those lines derived from blastocysts that would otherwise be thrown away and that were not initially created for the purpose of research. I recognized that for some even this restrained approach amounts to hubris, to man tampering with nature. But this is what modern science is about: Care, to be sure, must be taken, particularly at this stage of scientific development, not to attempt to clone human life or toy with human reproduction. But careful, moral exploration into disease control is morally defendable. Indeed, for many of us it would be morally derelect to turn our backs on our ailing parents and sick children. Hence, I am compelled to vote to override this veto.

Mr. LEACH

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, one of the extraordinary aspects of terrorism is that a few can, with relative ease, disrupt peace negotiations between nation- states. The challenge is to see that a small number of terrorists do not destroy the right to peace of the many. As rightfully angered and concerned as the Indian Government must be, it would be a mistake of historic proportions to allow the violence of July 11 to end the warming dialogue that has commenced between the Indian and Pakistani Governments. There are few places on the globe where war can more easily break out than on the Indian subcontinent. India and Pakistan have fought three wars over the past 60 years, and both now possess nuclear weapons. The will to pursue peace is thus a social imperative. Revenge may be warranted, but real courage rests with maintaining restraint. Our heart goes out to the families affected by these acts of violence, and our heads congratulate the care with which the Indian Government has refused, to date, to overreact. This Congress sympathizes with our Indian friends and holds in deepest respect the leaders in Delhi who have such difficult decisions to make in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Royce, also from California.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Middle East Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for such time as she may consume.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the outset, let me acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Crowley in sponsoring this important and timely resolution, as well as that of the current cochairs of the India Caucus, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Ackerman, as well as the leadership of Mr. Hyde and, of course, Mr. Lantos, the distinguished ranking member. I would also like to express appreciation to House leadership for scheduling floor time today for this measure. On July 11, 2006, more than 200 people were killed and over 700 others injured in seven bomb blasts that targeted several locations on the local railway network in Mumbai, India's commercial capital during evening rush hour. Meanwhile, earlier that same day, grenade attacks in Srinagar, Kashmir targeted tourists, killing eight innocent civilians and wounding over 40 more. Although the motivations behind this attack are still a bit vague, previous attacks have been designed to provoke communal conflict and to disrupt the Indian economy. However, India's multicultural and multiethnic democracy is enormously resilient, and the warped schemes of those who planned and executed these attacks have so far, thankfully, come to naught. Mr. Speaker, it is self-evident that these brutal terrorist attacks are an affront to the world community, and they have, appropriately, been thoroughly and unequivocally condemned by leaders and ordinary citizens around the globe. For example, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, President and Mrs. Bush issued a statement on behalf of the American people expressing their deepest condolences to the friends and families of the victims. The President spoke for all Americans when he noted that ``The United States stands with the people and the Government of India and condemns in the strongest terms these atrocities which were committed against innocent people as they went about their daily lives. Such acts only strengthen the resolve of the international community to stand united against terrorism and to declare unequivocally that there is no justification for the vicious murder of innocent people,'' said President and Mrs. Bush. More recently on July 17, representatives at the Group of Eight Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia also condemned these ``barbaric terrorist acts'' and emphasized their unity with India in a common resolve to intensify efforts to combat anarchistic acts of terrorism and uphold the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, tribute must be paid to the people of Mumbai who not only responded with great compassion to families of those who were killed and injured in the attacks, but who demonstrated such courage and resolve in almost immediately restoring normalcy in that great and bustling city. It is astonishing that in the wake of these attacks not only were Mumbai's trains running the next day, but millions of its citizens overcame their fears and returned to those trains in order to keep that extraordinary city thriving. Likewise, at a time when international events seem to be spinning dangerously out of control, tribute must also be paid to the leadership of Prime Minister Singh, who has responded to the attacks in Mumbai and Srinagar with firm resolve but measured restraint as the investigation of these attacks unfold. Here, Mr. Speaker, let me stress that the challenge of establishing a balance between the two ``Rs,'' resolve and restraint, involves the most difficult judgment call in international relations today. Senseless, anarchistic acts tempt human nature. It is easy to succumb to the third ``R,'' revenge, but not infrequently that is the response terrorists most desire because it escalates violence and disorder. In this context, it is impressive how historically Indian democracy stands out, not only for its size, for its success in amalgamating extraordinary diversity, but for its origin in Gandhi-esque principles, revolution premised on nonviolence, the Indian term ``satyagraha.'' The power of principled nonviolence overwhelmed the power of colonialist arms. Today, there are models in the world of military reaction to terrorist disorder. These models of escalated violence are understandable, but it will be interesting to see if the model of restraint being established in India today to these unpardonable acts of violence proves more effective, as well as more humane, than military responses. I urge support for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 911.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 911) expressing sympathy for the people of India in the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai on July 11, 2006, as amended.