Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this timely resolution honoring Thailand's long- serving monarch, who commands enormous popular respect and moral authority among the Thai people. At the outset, I would like to express my appreciation to our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Lantos, as well as the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for their assistance and support in crafting this measure. As many Members are aware, Thailand is one of America's oldest and closest allies. Formal diplomatic relations extend back to the signing of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between our two nations in 1833, during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson. Since then, Thailand has been a steadfast friend and ally. Thai King Mongkut offered President Lincoln elephants to use in battle during the Civil War, and Thai troops fought alongside American soldiers in World War I, Korea, and Vietnam. Since 9/11, Thailand has provided overflight rights and access to facilities to facilitate U.S. and coalition efforts in Afghanistan, sent an engineering battalion to help rebuild Bagram airfield, and deployed nearly 500 troops to provide reconstruction and medical assistance in Iraq. President Bush recognized the importance of our alliance when he designated Thailand as a major nonNATO ally in 2003. Thailand and the United States also share robust commercial ties, with two-way trade totaling a little over $21 billion and cumulative U.S. investment in Thailand of over $20 billion. Our cultural and people-to-people ties are extensive and multifaceted, including more than 10,000 Thai students in institutions of learning in the United States. Indeed, our people-to-people ties even extend to His Majesty the King, who was born nearly 80 years ago in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where his father was studying medicine at the Harvard Medical School. Our two people also forged common bonds during times of tragedy; Americans will never forget the astounding generosity of the Thai people in assisting foreign survivors of the terrible tsunami of 2004, despite suffering devastating losses of their own. The tie that has been developed between the Thai people and the families from abroad who lost their fathers and mothers, sons and daughters while guests in Thailand during one of nature's most extraordinary acts, has solidified in mutual respect and humanitarian appreciation. As a congressional visitor in the wake of the tsunami, I could not have been more impressed with the thoughtfulness of the Thai government, and the stories of Thai goodwill extended to those who lost their loved ones. America and Thailand share many common vested interests and values, including a belief in democracy and human rights. Thailand enjoys a well-deserved reputation for tolerance, religious freedom and civil liberties. During the reign of the King, Thailand has become a democratically governed constitutional monarchy. Indeed, since 1992, there have been more than half a dozen national multiparty elections, which transferred power to successive governments through peaceful, democratic processes. In this context, while the King has circumscribed constitutional powers, he also exerts strong informal influence, which he has used from time to time to resolve political disputes that jeopardize national stability. In closing, I would note that the resolution before us is being amended to reflect the fact that late last month, Secretary-General Kofi Annan presented the United Nations first Human Development Lifetime Achievement Award to the King, hailing the Thai monarch's efforts to help the poorest and most vulnerable people in his kingdom as an example for the world. Mr. Speaker, 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 material on H. Con. Res. 409.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in deep respect for the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Hobson; and I recognize how difficult it is to establish budget priorities within the limits provided. Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that there are many lessons of 9/11; and the one that stands out is it is relatively easy to destroy. A few can inflict havoc on the many with advanced economies being more vulnerable than less advanced ones to terrorist acts. Significantly, what distinguishes this generation of citizens of the world from all others is that we are the first generation able not only to cause war or inflict anarchy but to destroy civilization itself. Weapons of mass destruction have been invented, refined, and access provided to a wider and wider group of nation states and potentially to terrorist organizations. In the most profound observation of the last century, Einstein noted that splitting the atom had changed everything except our way of thinking. In this context I think there has never been a more important time to give threat reduction assistance and arms control a chance. The goals of this Global Threat Reduction Initiative includes securing and/or removing vulnerable, high-risk nuclear and radiological materials throughout the world and minimizing or eliminating the use of highly enriched uranium. This amendment would add $27 million to the program and provide for acceleration of efforts to secure highly enriched uranium and other radiological materials. Further, it is our hope that this funding approach will give impetus to the effort to increase the number of HEU reactors being converted to low-enriched uranium. What is needed is increased priority to this program. If Congress can lead, we would, as President Eisenhower once suggested in another context, be dedicating some of our country's strength ``to serve the needs rather than the fears of mankind.'' Mr. Chairman, I honor the subcommittee chairman. There is a great deal that is worthy in this bill, and I fully intend to support it. But I would hope this modest change in priorities could be looked at sympathetically by this body.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentlewoman from New York and, of course, the gentleman from Missouri; and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5401, the Lewis and Clark Commemorative Coin Correction Act introduced by the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). This is a technical correction which addresses language in legislation that authorized the minting and sale of a commemorative coin recognizing the bicentennial of the great Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery expedition. The original legislation was sponsored by a former colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and the coin was issued in the year 2004. That bill specified that the surcharge income from the sale of the coins be divided between the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council and the National Park Service to be used for events commemorating the bicentennial. Unfortunately, the Park Service has no capacity to raise the private funding necessary to satisfy the matching funds requirement of statutes guiding the issuance of commemorative coins. This legislation, which has broad bipartisan support, corrects that problem and will allow disbursement of the funds in ways that support the Lewis and Clark exhibit that has made its way around the country and opened 2 weeks ago at the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History. This is an extraordinarily educational exhibit with many items from personal collections that have not been together since the expedition itself. Mr. Speaker, this is a technical correction with no cost to the government. The cause is deserving. American history has many elements, but the Lewis and Clark expedition is unique to our development as a Nation. The courageous trek deserves celebration because it helps define the innate sense of adventure which is such an integral part of the American spirit. Mr. Speaker, I ask for its immediate passage and would simply note the wonderful support on both sides of the aisle as symbolized by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a good friend. 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 insert extraneous material on this legislation.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5401) to amend section 308 of the Lewis and Clark Expedition Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act to make certain clarifying and technical amendments.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, May 18, 2006, I missed a series of votes because of a commitment to give a commencement address at Indian Hills Community College in Ottumwa, Iowa. If I had been present, I would have voted the following way: roll No. 160, On ordering the previous question and agreeing to the resolution, ``aye''; roll No. 161, On agreeing to the resolution, ``aye''; roll No. 162, On the motion to suspend the rules, ``aye''; roll No. 163, Weiner of NY amendment, ``aye''; roll No. 164, Poe of TX amendment, ``no''; roll No. 165, Pallone of NJ amendment, ``aye''; roll No. 166, Beauprez of CO amendment, ``no''; roll No. 167, Hinchey of NY amendment, ``aye''; roll No. 168, Chabot of OH amendment, ``aye''; roll No. 169, Oberstar of MN amendment, ``aye''; roll No. 170, Putnam of FL amendment, ``aye''; roll No. 171, Hefley of CO amendment, ``no''; and roll No. 172, On final passage, ``no.''

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, To be blunt, we can do better than this. Congress is missing the big picture. Ethics cannot be legislated, but the role of lobbyists and their disproportionate, sometimes corrupting, power can. The issue is money in politics and the need for campaign reform. There is nothing wrong with any of the proposals being considered today except that they do not do enough. Neither this, nor I suspect any Democrat substitute, includes what really matters. What is too often lost in debates surrounding Congressional ethics is the notion of the public interest and concern for the public good. Instead, in our discussions, especially off the Floor, a desire is frequently expressed to appeal to one or the other political party's base. Interest groups make it clear that they expect to be attended to and rewarded for support provided. Thus, to understand American politics and the ethics abuses that are spurring the legislation under consideration one needs to examine American campaigns. Interest group money is seldom given as a token concern for good government. It is too often disbursed in a quasi- contractual manner: quids to be followed by quos, to be matched in subsequent election cycles for those who follow the rules. Simply put, large contributions imply obligational contracts between a candidate and large donors. In a cyclonic cycle, legislators are caught in dozens of swirls that buffet the fabric of balanced democratic judgment. Priorities become impossible to set, thus making deficit financing a virtual inevitability. The last point should be stressed--federal deficits and the economic problems they create are not unrelated to campaign financing abuses. Deficits begin with choices on federal spending and taxation and each begins in promises and obligations, and all this begins in the way campaigns are run, in politics as usual--in commitments to large donors. Lord Acton, the British statesman, immortalized his public service with the observation that power corrupts, with absolute power tending to corrupt absolutely. It strikes me that a fitting corollary to the Acton dictum is the notion that even more corrupting than aspiring to power is the fear of losing it. This fear leads to timidity, if not complacency, on reform agendas. Today, for instance, we face one of the most troubling scandals of modern times. It uniquely involves PACs, Members of Congress, relatives of Members, lobbyists, insider-controlled non-profit organizations, and K Street interest groups acting surreptitiously and in concert to advantage themselves at the expense of the public. It is the story of raising cash, disguising sources and buying influence. The Jack Abramoff affair is a disgrace. But care must be taken to recognize that it may not be aberrational. There is a systemic element to the problem and it involves the sullying role of money in politics. A government of the people, by the people and for the people cannot be a government where influence is purchasable. The subordination of individual rights to indiscriminate moneyed influence is the subordination of representative democracy to institutional oligarchy. Kakistocracy is the end result. To put recent events in context, the legend of the Ring of Gyges is instructive. In The Republic, Plato's brother Glaucon tells the story of a shepherd in Lydia who finds a magical ring. After an earthquake revealed a cave, the story goes, Gyges discovered a gold ring on an enthroned corpse inside and put the ring in his pocket. Later with his fellow shepherds, Gyges noticed that when he turned the collet of the ring to the inside of his hand, he became invisible. When he turned the ring the other way, he reappeared. Confident that the ring was indeed magical, he contrived to be chosen as a messenger sent to the court. Once there, he used his invisibility power to seduce the queen, kill the king and take the kingdom. Glaucon's story suggests that when individuals are invisible--i.e., in a democracy out of sight of their constituents--it is difficult to resist enticement and act virtuously. The current Congressional scandals suggest that some actors may have thought they had gotten hold of Gyges' ring. That is why it is so important that new rules be applied to the political process. Transparency matters, but so do the rules that apply to conflicts of interest, many of which in the current system are quite legal. What this body is considering today is a band-aid when surgery is required. We need to end political action committees and go to a system of small donations matched by federal funds. The public wants less expensive, less conflicted, less divisive politics. Public service, not political partisanship should be the goal. Finally, with regard to the Abramoff scandal, it should be noted that one of the principal lobbying objectives of the gambling interests he represented was to block the kind of anti-internet gambling legislation that Representative Goodlatte and I have been pushing for the past 8 years. Passing internet gambling enforcement legislation is the unfinished business of a Congress in disrepute. It should, as I suggested to the Rules Committee, be part of this bill, as should the campaign reform amendment I requested be considered. But as chagrined as I am that the legislation before us doesn't do more, I am obligated to register appreciation for the commitment of leadership to bring forth a serious bill on the internet gambling issue by the first week of June.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I know of no circumstance in the world in which more options are all bad than this particular one. We all have to be clear-headed about the challenge of Iran. It is a more difficult society to deal with, a more difficult government than Iraq. It is absolutely clear that Iran does seek nuclear capacity. It is absolutely clear that Iran has been the greatest State promulgator of terrorist activity in the Middle East. Those are bases that we all have to understand. Then we have to think through what is our response and what are the kinds of strategies that the United States should develop and are there lessons that exist today that might lend to this circumstance. One of the lessons is that some things we do as a society can be counterproductive. All of us are concerned with the security and the fate of the State of Israel as well as the American national security, but if we think it through, does our policy in Iraq advance the security of Israel? Does a preemption of Iran advance the security of Israel? Does it advance the security of the United States? If the United States acts militarily, for instance, in Iran, do we spark and ensure the great prediction, that none of us want to come to pass, that we will enter into one of these clashes of civilization made inevitable by another war of the West against another Muslim State? Muslims would view this as a circumstance that the Judeo-Christian world is attacking the world of Muslim culture. We have to think deeply and seriously about this. Then when it comes to nuclear weapons, it is bad for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but there are things that are worse. One of the things that is worse is to give them reason to use that nuclear weapon, whether it be against ourselves or an ally of the United States. The administration has informed the committee of jurisdiction that it profoundly opposes this piece of legislation and that it prefers a tack of stressing international diplomacy, and it is suggested to the committee in the strongest possible terms that this type of legislation undercuts their effort to be multilateral. And so, while many Members of this body, many members of the public have objected to this administration for being too unilateral, this Congress is saying, with this kind of legislation, that we will be more unilateral than the administration wishes to be. In other words, with an administration that no one of any stripe would argue is not muscular--it is a very muscular administration--this Congress is trying to out-macho the muscular. That is something we should all think very seriously about. Then we ought to think through what it means if we go forth in a given kind of direction, which words like ``regime change'' imply. What does preemption mean? It is clear that if we move in a muscular direction and, for example, preemptively strike Iraq, that that will slow down the capacity of Iraq to develop a nuclear weapon. But will it stop it? Not necessarily, partly because of the capacities Iran has to develop WMD capacity in a more decentralized way than Iraq once did, but there are other ways of getting nuclear weapons. One can get nuclear weapons through the ``loose nuke'' dilemma of purchase or theft. And if one gives Iran reason to attack, it will, and it will in many ways that are now available in the world through decentralized terrorist activities, but also potentially through nuclear. And the potential of nuclear use increases if they are attacked. Now we have the other option which is stressed in this bill--but the first, force being implied, but what is stressed is economic sanctions. So our two options are to shoot Iran or to shoot ourselves in the foot economically. And I will tell you that I can't think of anything that is more outrageous in logic. So I think we have to think through new types of approaches involving new ways of dialogue, new ways of international pressure of a very different nature than are proposed by this committee at this time. While I have enormous respect for the proponents of this legislation, particularly the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and our distinguished ranking member on the full committee (Mr. Lantos), I am convinced that in its present form the approach brought before this body complicates ongoing diplomatic efforts to peacefully resolve the building crisis with Iran. Indeed, it is for this reason that the Department of State indicated that the Administration would be unable to support the legislation. As noted in a letter to Chairman Hyde, the bill would ``narrow in important ways the President's flexibility in the implementation of Iran sanctions, create tensions with countries whose help we need in dealing with Iran, and shift the focus away from Iran's actions and spotlight differences between us and our allies. This could play into Iran's hands, as it attempts to divide the U.S. from the international community as well as to sow division between the EU-3, China, and Russia. It would also create dissension among UNSC members, as the Council considers the Iran nuclear dossier.'' There are few areas of the world with a more troubling mix of geopolitical problems than the Middle East. The irony is that the war in Iraq which has consumed so much of our country's political and economic capital may hold less far-reaching consequences than challenges posed in neighboring Middle Eastern countries. To the West, the Israeli-Palestinian stand-off remains the sorest point in world relations, complicated by the incapacitation of Ariel Sharon and the rise of a Hamas-led government in the occupied territories. To the East, the sobering prospect of Iran joining the nuclear club stands out. In life, individuals and countries sometimes face circumstances in which all judgments and options are bad. The Iranian dilemma is a case- in-point. But it is more than just an abstract bad-option model because at issue are nuclear weapons in the hands of a mullah-controlled society which has actively aided and abetted regional terrorists for years. Indeed, the issue has become even more acute with the election in Iran of its hard-line, populist President, Mahmood Ahmadinejad, who suggested late last year that the murder of six million European Jews by the Nazis did not occur and called for Israel to be wiped off the map. In reference to recent disclosures of enhanced Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons as well as missile delivery systems to carry such weapons, concerned outside parties are actively reviewing options. The Europeans have led with diplomatic entreaties; neo-con strategists in the U.S. with open-option planning--including, if investigative journalist Seymour Hersh is to be believed--the possible use of nuclear weapons. In the background are references to the 1981 preemptive strike by the Israeli Air Force against Iraq's Osirak reactor. At issue is the question of whether preemption is justified; if so, how it should be carried out; and, if carried out, whether intervention would lead to a more conciliatory, non-nuclear Iran or whether the effects of military action would be short-term, perhaps pushing back nuclear development a year or two, but precipitating a new level of hostility against the U.S. and Israel in Iran and the rest of the Muslim world which could continue for decades, if not centuries. Since the American hostage crisis which so bedeviled the Carter Administration in the late 1970s, we have had a policy of economic sanctions coupled with comprehensive efforts to politically isolate Iran. Six years ago, Senator Arlen Specter and I invited Iran's U.N. Ambassador to Capitol Hill, the first visit to Washington by a high- level Iranian representative since the hostage crisis. On the subject of possible movement toward normalization of relations with Iran, I told the ambassador that while many would like to see a warming of relations, it would be inconceivable for the U.S. to consider normalizing our relationship so long as Iran continued its support of Hamas and Hezbollah. The ambassador forthrightly acknowledged that Iran provided help to both these terrorist organizations, but also noted, in what for some might be considered the most optimistic thing he said that day, that his government was prepared to cease support to anti-Israeli terrorist groups the moment a Palestinian state was established with borders acceptable to Palestinians. For decades in the Muslim world, debate has been on-going whether to embrace a credible two-state (Israel and Palestine) approach or advance an irrevocable push-Israel-to-the-sea agenda. The implicit Iranian position, as articulated by the ambassador, was support for a two-state approach, but if the U.S. on its own, or Israel as a perceived surrogate, were to attack Iran, the possibility that such a compromise can ever become possible deteriorates. While angst-ridden, the Muslim world understands the rationale for our intervention in Afghanistan where the plotting for the 9/11 attack on the U.S. occurred. It has no sympathy for our engagement in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, but if these two interventions were followed by a third in Iran, the likelihood is that such would be perceived in the vocabulary of the Harvard historian, Samuel Huntington, as an all-out ``clash of civilizations,'' pitting the Judeo-Christian against the Muslim world. In the Middle East it would be considered a war of choice precipitated by the United States. We might want it to be seen as a short-term action to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, but the Muslim world would more likely view it as a continuance of the Crusades: a religious conflict of centuries' dimensions, with a revived future. If military action is deemed necessary, the U.S. broadly has only three tactical options: (a) full-scale invasion a la Iraq; (b) surgical strikes of Iranian nuclear and missile installations; or (c) a surrogate strike by Israel, modeled along the lines of Osirak. The first can be described as manifestly more difficult than our engagement in Iraq, particularly a post-conflict occupation. The second presents a number of difficulties, including the comprehensiveness of such a strike and the question of whether all aspects of a program that is clandestine can be eliminated. The third makes the U.S. accountable for Israeli actions, which themselves are likely to be more physically destructive but less effective than the 1981 strike against Osirak. In thinking through the consequences of military action, even if projected to be successfully carried out, policymakers must put themselves in the place of a potential adversary. A strike that merely buys time may also be a strike that changes the manner and rationale of Iranian support for terrorist organizations. It may also change the geo-strategic reason and methodology for a country like Iran to garner control of nuclear weapons. ``Loose nukes'' abound. Countries with money and will can garner almost anything in the world despite efforts by the U.S. and others to make theft or sale difficult. It is presumed that the major reasons that Iran currently seeks nuclear weapons relates to: (1) Pride: a belief that a 5,000 year-old society has as much right to control the most modern of weapons systems as a younger civilization like America or its neighbors to the west, Israel, and to the east, Pakistan; (2) Power: the implications of control of nuclear weapons with regard to its perceived hegemony as the largest and most powerful country in the Persian Gulf, particularly with regard to its nemesis, Iraq, which not only once attacked Kuwait, but Iran itself using chemical weapons; (3) Politics: the concern that Israeli military dominance is based in part on the control of weapons that cannot be balanced in the Muslim world, except by a very distant Pakistan. The issue of the day from an American perspective is weapons of mass destruction, their development and potential proliferation to nation- states and non-national terrorist groups. The question that cannot be ducked is whether military action against Iran might add to the list of reasons Iran may wish to control such weapons: their potential use against the United States. Perhaps as significantly, American policymakers must think through the new world of terrorism and what might be described as lesser weapons of mass destruction. Any strike on Iran would be expected to immediately precipitate a violent reaction in the Shi'a part of Iraq, where the U.S. has some support today. With ease, Iranian influence on the majority Shi'a of Iraq could make our ability to constructively influence the direction of change in Iraq near hopeless. And there should be little doubt that in a world in which ``tit for tat'' is the norm, a strike on Iran would increase the prospect of counter-strikes on American assets around the world and American territory itself. The asymmetrical nature of modem warfare is such that traditional armies will not be challenged in traditional ways. Nation- states which are attacked may feel they have little option except to ally themselves with terrorist groups to advance national interests. We view terrorism as an illegitimate tool of uncivilized agents of change. In other parts of the world, increasing numbers of people view terrorist acts as legitimate responses of societies and, in some cases, groups within societies who are oppressed, against those who have stronger military forces. If Afghanistan, an impoverished country as distant from our shores as any in the world, could become a plotting place for international terrorism, such danger would increase manifoldly with an increase in Iranian hostility, especially if based on an American attack. If there exists today something like a one-in-three chance of another 9/11-type incident or set of incidents in the U.S. in the next few years, a preemptive strike against Iran must be assumed to double or triple such a prospect. And Iran, far more than Osama bin-Laden, has within its power the ability not only to destabilize world politics, but world economies as well. Oil is, after all, the grease of economic activity, and an Iranian-led cutback in supply precipitated by us or them cannot be ruled out. Given the risk, if not the untenability, of military action, policymakers are obligated to review other than military options. One, which has characterized our post-hostage taking Iranian policy for a full generation, is isolation of Iran. This policy can be continued, but as tempting as it is, there is little prospect of ratcheting it up much more, except in ways, such as a naval embargo on Iranian oil, that would be difficult to garner international support for and would, in any regard, damage us more than Iran. The only logical alternative is to consider increasing dialogue without abandoning the possibility of future sanctions with this very difficult government. Iran--its government and people--has to be fully engaged, and I am pleased that U.S. Ambassador Khalilzad in Baghdad has been authorized to talk to the Iranians about the situation in Iraq. The Iranians played a stabilizing role regarding Afghanistan just several years ago, and logically they have a stake in a stable Iraq. I would urge the leadership in Tehran to re-think its apparent decision to close the door on this potentially productive avenue for dialogue. With respect to the Iranian nuclear program, however, it is difficult to see how confrontation can be avoided if we will not talk directly with Tehran in appropriate foras about this and other matters. The stakes could not be higher. If diplomacy fails, there is a credible prospect that Iran will follow the North Korean model of rapid crisis escalation, including the cessation of international inspections, with a wholly unsupervised nuclear program leading in time to the production of nuclear weapons and the dangerously unpredictable regional consequences that might flow from that; or a perilous move to an Iraq- like preventive military strike, with even more far-reaching and alarming consequences both regionally and world-wide. A proposal that might be suggested is negotiation of a Persian Gulf nuclear-free zone, which would reduce, although given the high possibility of cheating, not eliminate entirely one of the reasons Iran presumably seeks nuclear weapons--fear that it may be at a disadvantage in a conflict with an oil-rich neighbor. In this context, Iran, the EU and Russia, with U.S. support, might agree on a proposal under which Iran would indefinitely and verifiably suspend domestic enrichment activity in exchange for an internationally guaranteed fuel supply, U.S.-backed security assurances, and a gradual lifting of sanctions by and resumption of normal diplomatic relations with the U.S., including expanded country-to-country cultural ties. Here, it should be stressed, hundreds of thousands of Iranians have been educated in the United States. The people, although not the government of Iran, have democratic proclivities. While real power in Iran is controlled by the mullahs. Few societies in the world have if given a chance more potential to move quickly in a democratic direction than Iran. And just as it is hard to believe that outside military intervention would lead to anything except greater ensconcement of authoritarian mullah rule, a bettering of U.S. relations with Iran provide a greater prospect of progressive change in Iranian society. There is nothing the new government of Iran, or for that matter Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda movement, benefit more from than an aggressive, interventionist U.S. policy toward Iran. Finally, a note about arms control. If the U.S. wishes to lead in multilateral restraint, we might want to consider joining rather than rebuking the international community in development of a comprehensive test ban (CTB). All American administrations from Eisenhower on favored negotiation of a CTB. This one has taken the position the Senate took when it irrationally rejected such a ban seven years ago. The Senate took its angst against the strategic leadership of the Clinton Administration out on the wrong issue. This partisan, ideological posturing demands reconsideration. We simply cannot expect others to restrain themselves when we refuse to put constraints on ourselves. We are in a world where use of force can not be ruled out. But we are also in a world where alternatives are vastly preferable. They must be put forthrightly on the table.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes and to revise and extend my remarks.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, with mounting sectarian tensions and unabated insurgent violence, I rise today to discuss the deeply troubling situation in Iraq and its implications for the national interests of the United States. Sometimes it is harder to know how to end a war than to start one. Just as it is important to think through the ``why'' of committing troops to a conflict, we must also think through the ``why'' of ending an engagement. Timing is a key element of both considerations. Perspective is always difficult to bring to bear on events of the day. Developments of this week, however, could provide Washington with a seminal opportunity to stimulate a rethinking about the philosophical basis for a war that we initiated, with the goal of assessing how a great power can and should disengage. Many people have noted analogies between America's involvement in Vietnam and the U.S. intervention in Iraq. My sense is that a number of these analogies are quite frail. But the one I am most concerned about relates to America's extraordinary difficulty in disengaging from Vietnam. A key problem for Washington in trying to wind down its commitment in Vietnam was how to develop a mutual accommodation with the other side that would lessen the prideful pitfalls that often occur when political figures are forced to reassess policies. In the end it was the Paris Peace Accord which facilitated the withdrawal of American troops. A negotiating avenue in a third-country capital does not appear to lend itself to a resolution of the Iraqi situation at this time. Nonetheless, I find it remarkable that in an autobiographical tome Henry Kissinger wrote that in December 1968, shortly after Richard Nixon had asked him to be his National Security Council Director, he met with the President-elect to discuss the direction of the new administration's foreign policy. They determined together, he noted, that their policy would be to get out of Vietnam. After reading this passage I asked him years later at a Library of Congress symposium why they did not just proceed to do that. Kissinger looked at me for a moment and then uttered words I will never forget. ``Young man,'' he said, ``we meant with honor.'' I then asked him if honor required escalation. ``Absolutely,'' he responded. In the Iraq circumstance, the executive branch has provided three broad rationales for American intervention. First, it hinted that there was an Iraqi connection to the attacks on 9/11. Then it suggested that America and the world faced an imminent threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. When these two justifications for the U.S.-led invasion turned out to be without foundation, the administration fell back on the goal of spreading democracy in Iraq and the broader Middle East as the basis for ongoing U.S. engagement. From an American perspective, the case for extending the reach of democracy abroad always has a ring of validity, although many have concluded that imposing democracy from the outside is not a proven or necessarily compelling art form. Intriguingly, however, it would appear that today in Iraq democracy building provides a credible rationale for American disengagement even though it was a secondary and possibly flawed basis for original intervention. In the aftermath of elections held 3 months ago, the Iraqis have finally formed a government which will have under its jurisdiction, although perhaps not complete control, a newly formed Army and a fledgling police apparatus. Based on three elements, credible national elections, a new government and a new infrastructure of security, the U.S. is positioned to begin and, almost as consequently, to announce a steady process of disengagement. In the middle of the Vietnam War, Senator Aiken proposed that we simply declare victory and get out. This may have been good politics then, but there is no basis for suggesting victory was at hand. Ironically, the formation of a new government today may provide the most promising claim of some success in Iraq. Not to take advantage of the circumstance could be a lost opportunity. This may indeed be the last timely movement for decisive decisionmaking. Lyndon Johnson knew his Vietnam policy was failing, but he chose to pass it on to a successor who proceeded to escalate an already escalated conflict. To the degree there is relevance to Presidential precedent, it would seem far wiser for this administration to set the conditions and proceed with withdrawal rather than leave such a decision to a future President. The reason a democracy-based framework for disengagement needs to be articulated is that it allows the United States to set forth a basis for ending the occupation that is on our terms and on our timetable. If we don't develop and announce a plan and a rationale for disengagement, we could at some point find ourselves withdrawing with the other side claiming it forced us out through destructive anarchy, i.e., insurgent attacks and suicide bombings, or through the insistence of the elected government in Baghdad. Democracy implies consent of the governed and when a large percentage of the Iraqi people want us to leave, as opinion polls indicate is the case today, the U.S. should be hard-pressed to follow the original neo- con strategy of establishing and maintaining a semi-permanent military base in the country. Here a note about the Crusades is relevant. While Americans use the word loosely and conjure up quaint cartoon images King Arthur and his knights, citizens of the Muslim world consider the Crusades living history, and it is no accident that Osama bin Laden refers to us as crusaders. For al Qaeda, the pushing out of U.S. forces would be an extension of the Crusades, an act of multi-century consequences. That is why it is so important to apply reason and public reasoning to the disengagement process. This war has precipitated a great loss of confidence in and respect for the United States around the world. Quite possibly Iraq will be a better country because of America's intervention. But if we hang around too long, the Iraqi government and our government may suffer consequences even more negative than has so far been evidenced. Indeed, with each passing day of occupation, it appears our presence is increasingly inspiring more instability than stability. It is true that precipitous withdrawal might be counterproductive and that precise timetables have disadvantages. But it is difficult for me to believe anything other than the declaration of a credible plan and reason for disengagement, coupled with a steady drawdown policy, is the wisest course of action today. In a novel development, Congress has required the establishment of an ``Iraq Study Group,'' under the aegis of the U.S. Institute for Peace, to be chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Representative Lee Hamilton. At the risk of presumption, I would hope the perspective outlined above will be one of the approaches it and the Administration review. There are risks in too abrupt a departure; but a prolonged occupation leads too easily to the kind of retributive civilization clash that misserves America as well as peoples of the region.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, when all is said and done, what defines our country is the people who are the American family. In a world which today is rife with conflict, it is particularly appropriate to pause and give recognition to an individual who has dedicated his life to bringing hope and sustenance to the family of man. No one symbolizes a sense of common purpose and community more than a native son of Iowa, Norman Borlaug. In the spring of 1941, the newly elected Vice President of the United States, another son of the Iowa soil, Henry Wallace, attended his first Cabinet meeting and suggested that the greatest challenge of the era involved the need to develop higher yielding crops in the developing world. Franklin Roosevelt's preoccupation at the time was presumably on the war in Europe and the possibility that the United States would soon become engaged. Accordingly, he suggested that Wallace, an agronomist credited with the development of hybrid corn, contact principals of the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation in New York to see if they would be interested in advancing such a project, initially in Mexico. They were and they did. The individual they selected to lead the initiative was Norman Borlaug, who three decades later received the Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering leadership of the Green Revolution, the astonishing biogenetic advancement which saved the lives of millions on the planet. The Congress and the American people have reason to suggest with pride that part of the American family is this gentle scientist from Cresco, Iowa. We honor him tonight and thank him for his service to humanity.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to conclude briefly with three thoughts. One, I think it is absolutely imperative that this body emphasize its friendship to the people of the Marshall Islands and affirm, as Mr. Faleomavaega has suggested, our obligation to take care of those whose health we are responsible for affecting. Secondly, I want to express my deep regard and friendship for the two Members who have spoken, Mr. Lantos, our ranking member, and Mr. Faleomavaega. And, thirdly, I want to make a constitutional point. People listening to the debate maybe do not understand that this is a body of 435 voting Members plus five delegates, and the importance of delegates is often not noted in the American constitutional system. But this is a classic example of an individual leader, Mr. Faleomavaega, who comes from American Samoa, who is bringing a resolution that would otherwise not have been brought to this House except for his leadership. It is resolution of seminal importance and one that intriguingly looks to the problems of our times and also to the history of the 20th century in a unique and profound way. So I want to express my deepest regard for this initiative, and I thank the gentleman from American Samoa. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, first I would like to commend the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for introducing this timely resolution which commemorates the six decades of friendship and strategic solidarity that the United States have shared with the people of the Marshall Islands. June 30 marks the 60th anniversary of the U.S. nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands. The program encompassed 67 atmospheric tests, including the 15 megaton blast codenamed ``Bravo,'' a detonation equivalent to a thousand Hiroshima-sized bombs, which occurred above Bikini Atoll on March 1, 1954. The last nuclear test occurred in August of 1958. These massive detonations were considered critical at the time to the development of our nuclear deterrent during the Cold War and represent the most vivid examples of a strategic partnership that stretches back to the Pacific campaign of the Second World War. They also symbolize the dangers of nuclear weapons and the unintended consequences of weapons development. Tragically, for instance, as this resolution points out, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 6.3 billion curies of radioactive iodine-131 were released in the atmosphere as a result of the testing in the Marshall Islands. Recently, the United States reaffirmed and extended aspects of its unique relationship with the Republic of the Marshall Islands in the amended Compact of Free Association which the Congress considered and approved during the 108th Congress. As we approach the anniversary of the commencement of the U.S. nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands, it is fitting to recall the mutual sacrifices that our people shared during the last century and commit ourselves to maintaining our special friendship in the decades ahead. I urge support of this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Madam 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. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 692) commending the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands for the contributions and sacrifices they made to the United States nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands, solemnly acknowledging the first detonation of a hydrogen bomb by the United States on March 1, 1954, on the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and remembering that 60 years ago the United States began its nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands, as amended.

Mr. LEACH

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

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but I would like to conclude with just one reference to a distinguished American that is a member of your side, Senator George Mitchell, who did so much to work to achieve and develop the accord that we are now referencing in this resolution.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has been such a leader on so many issues, including those that relate to Ireland.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), who chairs the Friends of Ireland Committee and who has played such a central role on Irish issues in this Congress.

Mr. LEACH

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

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 703) recognizing the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and supporting continued efforts to control radiation and mitigate the adverse health consequences related to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 703, a resolution introduced by Congressman Elton Gallegly, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging Threats of the House International Relations Committee. House Resolution 703 recognizes the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and supports continued efforts to control radiation and mitigate the adverse health consequences related to this terrible accident. I would like to commend Mr. Gallegly for his hard work on this resolution as well as that of Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania; Ms. Kaptur of Ohio; Mr. Levin of Michigan; as well as our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Lantos of California, for their great interest in ensuring that the international community lives up to its obligations to assist Ukraine and other countries in the region to overcome the continuing health, environmental, and economic problems caused by the Chernobyl accident. In just a few weeks, on April 26, the world will mark the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl power plant accident, the most devastating civilian nuclear disaster in human history. This disaster caused serious radiological, health, and socioeconomic consequences for the people of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Millions of people, children in particular, suffered severe and debilitating health defects and were forced to flee from their homes. Although 20 years have passed, the lives and health of individuals within the affected areas continue to be heavily burdened by the aftermath of the nuclear disaster. Ukraine must not only provide care for those affected but also ensure that the radioactive waste and environmental destruction from the explosion do not pose a threat to the region. The sarcophagus currently encasing the remnants of the destroyed reactor is in disrepair and may collapse at any time. In response to this emergency, the United States, the European Union, and Ukraine developed the Shelter Implementation Plan for the purpose of protecting people and the environment from the large quantity of highly radioactive material contained in the reactor. The most critical component of the Shelter Implementation Plan will be the construction of a new shelter designed to better protect the surrounding area from leakage of radioactive remains. The total cost of the shelter could well be in excess of $1 billion. In addition, Ukraine must still deal with the health and economic impact of the Chernobyl disaster, including the treatment of thousands of people who were exposed as children and have experienced significant increases in thyroid cancer. This legislation expresses the sympathy of the House for the ongoing effects of the disaster. In addition, H. Res. 703 calls upon the U.S. and other countries to continue to provide assistance for the construction of a new shelter and a facility to store spent nuclear fuel, and other efforts to mitigate the many adverse consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Madam Speaker, Ukraine is an important ally of the United States. Since the Orange Revolution, our bilateral relationship has been characterized by closer cooperation on trade issues, the strengthening of democratic institutions, and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is important that the House go on record in support of the Ukrainian people in their effort to overcome the negative economic and social impact resulting from this tragic accident. Again, I would like to commend the work of Congressman Gallegly on this issue and for the introduction of this important resolution. Madam Speaker, I urge the support of House Resolution 703. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.