Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement, which perpetuates the flawed CAFTA model by sacrificing worker rights and environmental standards for the sake of greater profits for the elite. American policies should promote global trade that is both fair and free. Trade agreements that meet this standard improve the quality of life for American families by expanding export markets for our products while also providing economic opportunity, human dignity and political stability for workers around the world. Unfortunately, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement is another step towards a lowest-common-denominator global economy where sinking labor and environmental standards undermine American competitiveness and global security. The intellectual property provisions of the agreement will hinder the spread of lower priced generic drugs, which could improve public health and stabilize populations in Oman. The agreement's only enforceable labor protection is a requirement that Oman enforce its own labor laws, even though the country's laws fail to comply with basic international labor standards in ten specific areas. Rather than requiring improvements in Oman's labor law, H.R. 5684, accepts unenforceable promises from Oman's government. Even the most basic labor safeguards in this agreement have been crippled: the Bush Administration subverted the will of Congress and stripped out a provision inserted by the Senate Finance Committee stipulating that goods made in Oman with forced labor may not benefit from the trade agreement. Global trade is the keystone of America's economic success. Expanding trade promotes economic growth in our country and the quest for higher living standards and opportunity abroad. And, as with foreign policy, America's trade policy is an expression of our values and a tool to advance our global vision. Unfortunately, this Oman Free Trade Agreement contradicts America's much-touted commitment to foster global democracy and freedom. If America is to find success in our efforts to spread democracy, serious commitments to the conditions that support democracy: economic stability, environmental sustainability and human dignity. To secure economic prosperity at home and human rights around the world, we in Congress do better than H.R. 5684.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4893, which represents a significant change in federal policy towards tribal governments and grossly undermines tribal sovereignty. The U.S. Constitution article 1, section 8 acknowledges Indian Tribes as governments, equal to States and Foreign Nations. In recognition of this constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, directs tribes to negotiate gambling compacts with states and the federal government. H.R. 4893 amends Section 20 of IGRA to restrict off-reservation Indian gambling by forcing tribes to enter into agreements with subdivisions of states for the first time in over 200 years. H.R. 4893 further undermines tribal sovereignty and Indian Self- Determination with a provision that requires tribes to enter into binding arbitration with counties and parishes. Binding arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution process between two equals, yet the Constitution makes clear that Indian Tribes are equal to Federal and state governments, not their local subdivisions. This legislation creates a precarious precedent that could lead to further erosion of tribal sovereignty. For these reasons, major tribal organizations vehemently oppose passage of H.R. 4893. The National Indian Business Association, the National Indian Gaming Association and the National Congress of American Indians, which includes 250 tribes throughout the United States, are among the bill's detractors. This bill is only the most recent in a long and regrettable series of assaults on the rights of Native Americans. As a proud member of the Native American Caucus and a stalwart defender of tribal sovereignty, I stand opposed to this legislation and in defense of the Constitution. I will continue to work in Congress to ensure that our federal government's commitment to America's Native peoples, cultures and languages remains steadfast.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, it is with appreciation that I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of the American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL). As a bipartisan, non-profit educational exchange organization, ACYPL serves a critical purpose in helping to ensure strong U.S. public diplomacy around the world. ACYPL programs enhance understanding of political systems, cultures, and people by fostering relations between young political leaders. These international exchanges are an important strategy in a broader effort to ensure our nation's security and the protection of U.S. interests abroad. Through these exchanges young political leaders learn from each other and share their experiences. In fact, two of my own staff have participated in ACYPL programs, including a program to Egypt and a program to Tanzania and Uganda. These experiences have provided opportunities for them to share their views on democracy, foreign policy issues, and cultural differences--broadening their world views and building new international relationships. I am also proud that my Congressional Office has hosted several young political leaders over the years. This September, my office hosted a young political leader from Egypt--Ms. Fatma Zaki-Khalil. Fatma is a staff member with the Badrawi Technical Bureau. Dr. Hossam Badrawi, a former of the People's Assembly and Chairman of the Education Committee, has also hosted young American political leaders, including a staff member from my office, through ACYPL exchange programs in Egypt. Thank you ACYPL. I look forward to continued partnerships in working to support cultural and political exchanges.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my congratulations to one of my constituents--Ms. Jeehyun Choi. Jeehyun, a resident of St. Paul, is one of six national winners of the Library of Congress's 2006 Letters about Literature competition. She is one of the two high school-aged winners. Jeehyun, who will read her letter during the Letters about Literature national awards presentation at the National Book Festival on the National Mall on September 30, 2006, is an 11th grade student at Saint Paul Academy. Jeehyun addressed her letter to Peter Hedges the author of What's Eating Gilbert Grape. In her letter she eloquently expressed her thoughts about the book and her ability to relate to the main character--Gilbert. The letter is a joy to read and will certainly inspire many to enter the world of Gilbert by taking time to read What's Eating Gilbert Grape. I also would like to recognize those who support Letters About Literature--affiliate State centers of the book and Target Stores--a Minnesota company. These kinds of public/private partnerships expand opportunities for our youth and I appreciate their commitments. Congratulations Jeehyun. It is my hope that you will continue to be inspired by literature and to share your inspiration with others.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6061. This bill will not improve U.S. national security and will clearly not provide for meaningful immigration reform. I voted against the construction of a fence spanning our entire southern border in December, when the House unfortunately passed H.R. 4437, the Border Security Act of 2005. It is disappointing that the Republican leadership has chosen to spend the time debating a provision that has already passed the House, rather than go to conference and pass comprehensive immigration reform that will protect American workers and secure our borders. This House should be addressing issues like raising the minimum wage, providing health care and quality education to every child in America, and ensuring that our State and local law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to keep our streets safe. Not re-hashing a border fence provision that has already been voted on in the last 12 months. Once again, I strongly believe that Congress needs to work to secure our borders and ensure the safety of our citizens. However, this bill is inadequate and clearly will not begin to address the complicated issues regarding immigration reform. Even the small effort authorized in this bill--a 700-mile fence along our southern border with Mexico-- is not fully funded. Nor does this legislation contain the resources necessary to increase the number of border security agents. This is nothing other than an election year ploy to use a serious issue that affects workers, immigrants, and our communities as a scare tactic. America deserves immigration reform that will work. The Republicans have had months to appoint a conference committee and work out the differences between the President's approach and the bills put forward by the House and Senate. Clearly, the majority is not truly interested in solving this problem. I hope my colleagues will oppose this bill and will join me in urging Republicans to get serious about this issue and to focus more on the security of this country then the security of their jobs.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations and warm wishes to Paul Pribbenow on his appointment as the 11th president of Augsburg College. Located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Augsburg College is a private liberal arts college associated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Augsburg has a long and proud history of not only educating and preparing students, but also in engaging and strengthening communities in Minnesota, especially those that co-exist with and neighbor the Augsburg campus. Dr. Pribbenow, with expertise in issues related to philanthropy, non-profit management, and ethics, is uniquely prepared to continue to strengthen community ties. He holds a B.A. from Luther College in Iowa, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in social ethics from the University of Chicago. Before accepting the position at Augsburg, Dr. Pribbenow served as the President of Rockford College in Rockford, Illinois. I am pleased to have this opportunity to join with the students, faculty and staff of Augsburg in welcoming Dr. Pribbenow to Minnesota and to Augsburg College. I look forward to continued work with Augsburg under the leadership of Dr. Pribbenow in ensuring a strong partnership between the federal government and our institutions of higher education in providing access to all those who wish to pursue a higher education, while strengthening the economic and social well-being of our communities.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the late Ann Richards who passed away on September 14th. I had the pleasure to meet Ms. Richards on one of her visits to Minnesota. A true inspiration to others, she will be remembered for her leadership, strength, charisma and humor as well as her lifelong commitment to public service. As a member of the Democratic Party, Ms. Richards began her political career as Travis County Commissioner from 1977 until 1981. In 1982, she successfully ran a statewide campaign for Texas State Treasurer and became the first woman elected to statewide office in 50 years. In 1988, Ms. Richards gained national attention when she delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta, Georgia. After two terms as State Treasurer, in 1990, Ms. Richards ran a successful campaign for Governor of Texas, and served as Chief Officer of the Lone Star State from 1991-1995. During her tenure as Governor, she worked tirelessly to eliminate gender barriers, revitalize the Texas economy, and decentralize control over education policy. She valued diversity, appointing the largest number of women and minorities to state boards and commissioners of any Texas governor up until that time. An idealistic, strong woman with a witty personality, Governor Richards connected with Texans and people across the United States. Unfortunately, in 1994, she lost a close re-election for Governor against Texas baseball owner, George W. Bush. Following her term as Governor, Ms. Richards continued her dedication to public service. She was a senior advisor to the communications firm Public Strategies, Inc. in Austin and New York, as well as a senior advisor with a Washington, DC-based, international law firm. Ms. Richards also served on several corporate boards and taught classes at Brandeis University and the University of Texas-Austin. I extend my thoughts and prayers to her four children, and eight grandchildren. Governor Ann Richards was a loving mother and devoted public servant. She will be remembered and honored in the highest regard. Mr. Speaker, please join me in paying tribute to the life of Governor Ann Richards.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise today to support an extension of the Higher Education Act, and to express my concern for the dangerous direction in which this Congress has taken our country's college students and our nation's valued higher education system. We should be voting on a bill today that would make college more affordable and make a higher education attainable for Americans. Today, we are once again voting on the sixth HEA extension--which maintains the status quo--despite skyrocketing college costs and cuts to student financial aid earlier this year. Our students and higher education system will have to continue to wait for legislation improving college access and affordability. This Republican Congress has failed to make access to higher education or our global competitiveness a priority. This became clear to me and the families of my District when Republicans voted earlier this year to cut $12 billion from the student loan program--the largest cuts in the history of federal student financial aid and is further evidenced by the failure to move HEA to the top of the agenda. The only good news is in this extension. The good news is that the current law that will be extended today is better than the Republican bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, H.R. 609, which does nothing to make college more affordable for students--the expressed purpose of the Higher Education Act. In addition, this extension includes provisions that will make it easier for Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) to serve their students. I applaud these changes. But more must be done for American students and their families. I support Democratic plans to provide substantive increases to the Pell Grant and to cut the student loan interest rates in half. As a cosponsor of the Reverse the Raid on Student Aid Act, I believe that Congress can be a better partner for students and families in making college more affordable. We must recommit federal resources to increase the purchasing power of the Pell Grant and to ensure student loans are affordable. As I've stated in earlier extensions--today, this temporary extension is necessary, but I will continue to work to ensure that college students are not forced to bear the weight of this Republican Congress's irresponsible fiscal policies that have slashed student aid in order to pay for tax cuts that only benefit one percent of the nation's wealthiest.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join with my colleagues in recognizing some of our Nation's most distinguished institutions of higher learning: America's Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The critical role of HBCUs in preparing our Nation's students for work and life is undeniable. Nearly 14 percent of our country's African American college students are enrolled at HBCUs. These young men and women are preparing to be our future community and civic leaders, business owners, teachers, artists, scientists, and scholars. This year's HBCUs Week, which is themed ``The Tradition Continues: New Successes and Challenges,'' reminds us all of the important partnership between the Federal Government in ensuring access for all those who seek a higher education and the institutions that provide the opportunities for students to learn and prepare them for a competitive workforce. HBCUs not only educate students, but they also conduct ground- breaking research and engage in community outreach--helping to ensure our Nation's higher education system remains the best in the world. It is critical that Congress continues to support the unique role our HBCUs play in our Nation's higher education system. I extend my sincere appreciation and regard for HBCUs and their faculty, staff, and students as we celebrate Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need to protect and preserve Native American languages. In my state of Minnesota, it is becoming more difficult to find elders to teach the Ojibwe language--the fourth most spoken Native language in North America. The facts cannot be ignored--decades of federal restrictions on the instruction and use of Native languages led to their deliberate decline. Despite treaties and laws and executive orders that call for the preservation and incorporation of Native language and culture in education--we are living at a time when Native American languages and culture are being eroded. Title VII--which exists to ensure Native children receive Native language and culture instruction--has been reduced or reallocated to other functions of the No Child Left Behind law--despite significant research proving that Native children do better in all subjects when taught through the use of Native languages and culture. Schools have felt pressure from the Bush administration to instead spend resources for Native language and culture on the goals of Bush's No Child Left Behind law. Title VII resources must be focused on Title VII goals--not siphoned off to support other goals of the Bush administration--especially at the expense of Native American children. Native children have the right to the education they are promised-- that means the highest quality education--including instruction in their language. As a Nation, we must reaffirm our commitment to preserve, to honor, and to teach the living traditions, cultures, and languages of the First Americans who have and continue to contribute to the strength of our Nation as teachers, community leaders, business owners, artists, elected officials, and neighbors--and the brave men and women who have fought in our armed services. Native Americans have identified the recovery and preservation of their languages as one of their highest priorities. As a country, we have a moral obligation to live up to our commitments to the First Americans. It is my hope that Congress will do what is right--and recommit our Nation's resources to strengthen Native American languages for all Native people across the entire country.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose H.R. 4844, Republican legislation that would suppress voter participation by mandating burdensome new voter identification requirements. This bill is similar to State laws that have recently been struck down as unconstitutional conditions to voting. H.R. 4844 is a discriminatory political ploy. No empirical data of voter fraud exists that justifies such onerous new mandates. The bill requires individuals to have a State or Federally approved photo identification in order to vote in federal elections in 2008 and to provide documented proof of citizenship by 2010. For those voting by mail, H.R. 4844 requires a photocopy of identification to be sent with the absentee ballot. In reality, the legislation would disenfranchise millions of American citizens who do not possess the required identification. Not surprisingly, those who will struggle most to comply with this bill are the same citizens the Voting Rights Act is designed to protect: racial and ethnic minorities, students, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, Americans living in rural areas, the homeless and low-income citizens. This burden will be overwhelming for many Native Americans, particularly elders and those living in remote areas, or those that use primarily tribal identification. In addition, a study conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee found that only 50 percent of African American and Latino men in Milwaukee had government issued photo identification that would allow them to vote in 2008. To obtain a drivers' license, birth certificate, passport or naturalization papers to meet the bill's requirements low- income citizens will face financial burdens and lost time from work while the elderly may struggle to make a trip to the local DMV. And citizens who lost their vital documents in the aftermath of Hurricane's Katrina and Rita should expect to face one final insult from Washington when they lose their right to vote. In addition, H.R. 4844 fails to specify how disputes over identification would be handled by poll workers. Consequently, the bill places an undue and irresponsible amount of discretion in the hands of overworked poll workers, which opens the door to widespread racial and ethnic discrimination at polling places. Imposing new barriers to the right of Americans to vote is simply unnecessary. Existing federal laws impose strict penalties on non-citizens who attempt to vote illegally. The success of existing federal laws is underscored by the fact that supporters of H.R. 4844 were unable to offer data to establish a need for this bill. The Help America Vote Act, HAVA, that Congress passed with bipartisan support in 2002 proved that securing the integrity of our elections process need not come at the cost of voter access. Congress should reject H.R. 4844 and instead, fulfill promises made in HAVA by providing States with the $800 million they need to expand access and prevent voter fraud. The Republican Majority should be held accountable for championing H.R. 4844, a bill that casually and callously undermines the constitutionally guaranteed right of all Americans to vote.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Guam, a fellow alumni from the College of St. Catherine's located in St. Paul, Minnesota, on the banks of the Mississippi River. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1796, the Mississippi River Trail Study Act, which will help connect America and Americans in the future to the Mississippi River and focus attention on its incredible natural resource. The Mississippi River Trail Study Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study examining the feasibility and the suitability of including the Mississippi corridor in our National Trails System. This study will be an important step towards coordinating the public and private amenities along the river, preserving its natural treasures, and recognizing the Mississippi's historic and cultural values for our country. This will be the first time the Mississippi River corridor is considered for inclusion in our National Park System, and it should be for, after all, the Mississippi River is America's river. On its journey from Lake Itasca in my home State of Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River touches 10 States. It shapes the everyday life for more than 11 million Americans living in communities along its banks and contributes to the enjoyment of millions of domestic and international tourists who visit the Mississippi River attractions each year. The mighty Mississippi continues to be a working river, moving goods safely and inexpensively along America's natural artery of commerce. The Mississippi River Trail Study Act is supported by local and multi-state groups. For example, the Mississippi Parkway Commission, the Audubon Minnesota and the Mississippi River Trail Corporation have offered to help the National Park Service complete the study by contributing data, local contacts and other tangible forms of assistance, and these are just a few of the examples that the Park Service can expect all up and down the Mississippi River corridor. The Park Service said, with this help and cooperation from groups, they will be able to save time and money in completing the study. In the past, the Mississippi River has been a powerful story line in America's narrative. Today, the River continues to shape our identity, strengthen our economy, and its beauty continues to be breathtaking. The Mississippi River a national treasure, deserving consideration authorized by this legislation. Once again, I thank my colleagues from Guam and New Mexico for helping with the floor debate.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, the situation in Iraq is more deadly than ever before. During July and August, 6,600 Iraqi civilians were murdered by death squads, militias, and insurgents. Today, it was reported that there are 23 armed and violent militias in Iraq, some with direct connections to the Iraqi Government officials and ministries. And we now know our own U.S. intelligence agencies are reporting that the Iraq war is fueling global terrorism, making America less safe. After nearly 3\1/2\ years of the war in Iraq, nearly 2,700 American lives lost, our own independent government agencies are saying the incompetence of the Bush administration's Iraq policy is radicalizing and inspiring the creation of terrorists around the world. Democrats are focused on fighting the war on terror, not creating terrorists. Democrats are focused on keeping America secure and bringing our troops home from Iraq safe and soon.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I am here to support H.R. 3127, but I have serious concerns that this legislation is too little too late for hundreds of thousands of innocent people who have died and continue to be in danger. Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the murder in Sudan a genocide in September, 2004, 2 years ago. I voted on this legislation in subcommittee 15 months ago. And every day since then, the violence and the humanitarian crisis in Darfur have gotten worse. Passing this legislation today may make us all feel good, but it will not end the genocide or even slow down the killing. Sudan is a rogue nation. Sudan is a state sponsor of terrorism. In the Darfur region, the Sudanese regime terrorizes its citizens; it trains, it funds, and it arms the Janjaweed militia that commits acts of terrorism and mass murder and the systematic rape of girls and women. More than 2,000 villages have been destroyed in Darfur. More than 2 million people have been driven from their homes, and thousands of lives are at risk of disease and ongoing terrorist attacks by the Khartoum regime and the Janjaweed militia. This is an evil regime perpetrating genocide. Genocide is not a number of random incidents of violence. Genocide is the sum, the horrible outcome, of acts of terrorism perpetrated in a systematic manner against civilians; 400,000 innocent people have died. When H.R. 3127 passed this House, it included language calling upon the Secretary of State to declare the Janjaweed militia a foreign terrorist organization. I thank Mr. Hyde, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Lantos for supporting it. This language, unfortunately, has been stripped from the bill. But let us today call upon Secretary of State Rice to immediately designate the Janjaweed militia a foreign terrorist organization. Those who murder Africans are terrorists. Those who murder Muslim Africans are terrorists, and they should be given the same terrorist designation as those who attack Americans and Israelis. The Janjaweed militia are terrorists, and they must be held accountable for their crimes against humanity.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of real, comprehensive lobbying and earmark reform, and in opposition to H. Res. 1000. While Republican leaders claim that this legislation is earmark reform, major loopholes in their bill allow future boondoggles like the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere to pass through Congress without full public scrutiny. Further, the bill abandons any lobbying reform to end the Republican culture of corruption--typified by the Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham scandals. The Republican majority has allowed these scandals and pet projects to run rampant, underscoring the dire need for comprehensive lobbying reform. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, since President Bush took office, federal spending on earmarks has more than doubled--from $33 billion in 2000 to $67 billion in 2006. Sadly, Republicans have failed to deliver on reform. On September 5th, a USA Today editorial said, ``Congress' answer to this ethics catastrophe has been a pair of competing measures in the House and Senate, which fall far short of what was promised in January but allow incumbents campaigning for re-election to claim they `voted for lobbying reform.' '' The reality is that H. Res. 1000 will not save one taxpayer dollar, will not remove a single earmark, and does not cover all earmarks. This sham reform bill is solely a symbolic effort to hide the fact that the Republican Majority has failed the Nation on fiscal matters. I join my Democratic colleagues in supporting a true, comprehensive lobbying reform bill that would ban travel on corporate jets, prohibit lobbyist gifts, slow the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, shut down the K Street project in which jobs in lobbying firms were traded for legislative favors; shine the light on earmarks so that special interest provisions cannot be slipped into bills without public scrutiny, and put an end to some of the procedural abuses that have flourished in the Republican-controlled House. Democrats are fighting for these comprehensive reforms to ensure that Congress is held to the highest ethical standards. Corruption has come at great cost to the American people--from the cost of prescription drugs to the price at the pump. Mr. Speaker, my fellow Democrats and I are fighting for a new direction, because Americans want and deserve the real reform that restores accountability, honesty and openness in Washington.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the St. Paul Public Schools on their 150th anniversary. On the first day of this school year, more than 41,000 kindergarten through 12th graders entered one of the doors of the more than 70 schools staffed by more than 6,500 teachers and personnel in the St. Paul Public Schools. This school year marks 150 years of the district's commitment to educating the families of St. Paul and creating public spaces for civic and community engagement. St. Paul Public Schools have a proud history. Harriet Bishop, originally a teacher in Vermont, traveled to St. Paul in the late 1840s and is credited with starting the first public school in St. Paul. It was in 1856 that a school district was formed in St. Paul in order to attract settlers and to educate the frontier children. Even before Minnesota was admitted into the Union as a State, the people understood the importance of education. Over the past 150 years, the St. Paul Public Schools have created a ``world of opportunities'' for their students, teachers, staff, and community members. And the world has also come to St. Paul Public Schools. More than 80 native languages are spoken in its classrooms. And each year, St. Paul elementary, middle, and high schools welcome a more diverse student body. And, this school year, the St. Paul Public Schools' Language Academies will teach English to 1,650 new Americans. As good stewards of public resources, St. Paul Public Schools are an integral part of our neighborhoods. They provide safe spaces for our children and youth to grow and learn where teachers and staff offer an enriched environment for students to develop into healthy, contributing adults. St. Paul Public Schools also provide the needed public community spaces to support a strong and engaged citizenry that is needed to support a strong democracy. In honor of the students, parents, families, and St. Paul Public Schools teachers and staff, I submit this statement for the official Congressional Record. I look forward to continued celebrations of success and milestones in the education of the people of St. Paul.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support the Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. The motion to instruct offered by my colleague, Representative Chet Edwards, would instruct House conferees to insist on Senate-passed language regarding the TRICARE retail pharmacy program. That language would allow TRICARE beneficiaries to purchase prescriptions from their local pharmacies at the same cost as through mail-order services, ensuring that our veterans and military retirees are not forced to pay more merely to visit their neighborhood drug store. The Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 requires drug manufacturers to grant a Federal pricing discount on all drugs provided to the Department of Defense, Veterans' Administration, the Public Health Service and the Coast Guard. Unfortunately, not all drug manufacturers grant this discount on drugs provided to retail pharmacy stores, instead only applying the discount to mail-order prescriptions. It is understandable that the Department of Defense would want to contain growing prescription drug costs. However, forcing TRICARE beneficiaries to obtain prescriptions by mail-order is not the solution--rather, we need to clarify that drug manufacturers must provide Federal pricing for all medications dispensed through the TRICARE retail pharmacy network. Section 721 of the Senate version of the Defense Authorization bill would do just this. Representatives of the Department of Defense have acknowledged that Federal pricing for pharmaceuticals dispensed through the TRICARE retail pharmacy network would ``significantly'' contain growing prescription drug costs. It has been estimated that if the Senate provision is enacted, it could save taxpayers up to $251 million in fiscal year 2007, and more than $300 million annually by fiscal year 2009, by requiring Federal pricing discounts to be applied to these TRICARE retail pharmacies. I have heard serious concerns expressed by veterans and military retirees in my district about this issue many times this summer. There are times when it is not possible to wait for a mail order to come before a person might need to begin taking their prescriptions. In those cases, for example, the men and women who have bravely served our country should not be punished for buying their prescriptions down the block. Our veterans, military retirees and their families deserve to have the option to use a pharmacy, and the services of a pharmacist, when they have questions regarding their prescriptions and their health. Passing this motion to instruct allows them that option. We must ensure that our veterans and military retirees receive the benefits they have so courageously earned, and this motion to instruct will help guarantee they are not penalized for doing so. I support this motion to instruct, and strongly urge my colleagues to do as well.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, last evening I had the great pleasure to join in a celebration in honor of our Nation's high schools that have made an outstanding commitment to music education. As a strong supporter of the arts and music education, it was a pleasure to sit among music industry supporters, arts advocates, individuals in the private sector, and corporate sponsors such as 7UP, who work every day to ensure that young people have access to strong music education programs. It was an even greater privilege to be part of a celebration where a Minnesota high school headlined the event. Brooklyn Center Junior/ Senior High School, located in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, received one of the Foundation's highest honors--the GRAMMY Foundation's Signature Schools Enterprise Award, which honors those schools that make great efforts to bring music to economically underserved students. I'd like to extend a warm congratulations to Ms. Chris Porter, Brooklyn Center High School's music teacher and all of her students, including Chanel Chatham, who both traveled to DC to participate in last evening's special event. As budgets for the arts and arts education continues to dramatically decline, I applaud the efforts of the thousands of teachers and students across the country who are working to piece together the critical funding needed to strengthen, and sometimes simply sustain, their music education programs. It is my hope that the federal government will recommit its resources to the arts and arts education-- especially since we know that there are strong correlations between arts education and achievement in math and science. Our nation's ability to compete in an increasingly competitive world will depend on not only strong math and science preparation--but also on an emphasis in the arts and in music education. As a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, I will continue to fight for a well- rounded education for all students. I commend the hard work and dedication of the students and staff at Brooklyn Center Junior/Senior High School. Thank you for the opportunity to join you in your celebration. I look forward to hearing more about your continued success in bringing the joys and benefits of music to students!

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I support final passage of this pension legislation because we must do something today to protect working families so that the pension promises that were made to them are honored. I am proud today to stand with the employees and groups who are in support of this legislation, including the Affliated Unions of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, International Association of Machinists, UNITE/HERE, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and many others. And, I join with all of my Republican and Democratic colleagues from the Minnesota delegation in broad bipartisan support for this bill. Without this legislation, Northwest Airlines, a major Minnesota-based employer and key player in the economic vitality of the region, will not be able to come out of bankruptcy with its pension plans intact. I support this legislation because it will help to ensure Northwest Airlines keeps flying and that their employees can keep working and ensure that their pensions are funded. This bill is not perfect. In addition to much needed relief for airline employees, this bill includes provisions that will make it easier for working families to save for their retirements by encouraging automatic enrollment in retirement savings. It is critical that families are supported in their efforts to create a strong foundation of savings for their futures. Working men and women have waited far too long for Congress to pass legislation to protect pension benefits and to honor the promise of pensions. Pension legislation should have been done many months ago. This Congress's failure to act in a more timely way will potentially make worse current and future employer bankruptcies and will impact the strength of all retirement benefits. It is shameful that this Republican Congress has put partisan politics ahead of the well-being of working men and women and those who have already retired. I am concerned that this pension bill before us today has been introduced with no notice and there has been no opportunity for Members to review the provisions. Instead of bringing forward the bill that Congress has been working on now for more than a year, House Republicans have brought this bill forward. It is outrageous that House Democrats were excluded in the conference committee negotiations between the House and the Senate. After missing three deadlines to complete their work, House Republicans, instead, were more interested in thinking of ways to attach their extreme tax cuts for America's wealthiest onto what should have been clean, common sense, bipartisan legislation. Their tactics were so extreme that their colleagues in the Senate were unwilling to go along with it. So, here we are now at the eleventh hour doing what we can to salvage pension legislation. Today, I wish I were rising to support passage of a bill that will guarantee quick action to save the pensions of millions of workers, but instead, once again, partisan politics will slow down the much needed action on pension reform. Even with House passage of the bill, we can't guarantee anything to America's workers because this legislation was taken from the conference committee and now it must pass the Senate with no changes in order for it to move to the President's desk for his approval. If the Senate wants to change anything in the bill, American workers will have to continue to wait for Congress to act. I do share some of the concerns expressed by my colleagues. There are some missed opportunities--including the failure to address executive compensation and provisions concerning the investment advice for those who have 401(K) plans and IRAS. The investment advice exemptions in the bill do not adequately protect against conflicted investment advice. Despite some legitimate reservations voiced by groups I respect, this bill contains good provisions--important provisions that must be passed now so that employers can keep the pension promises made to their employees.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns with the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006, H.R. 5682. While I intend to vote in support of this legislation, I do so with serious concerns that must be articulated to the Administration. The President and the State Department failed to seriously consult with Congress prior to announcing this proposed partnership, and therefore left little room for Congress to either voice concern or make any substantial change to the proposed partnership. Without any serious Congressional discussions on the issue, the Administration felt it acceptable to announce last July that it would seek to bypass the global nonproliferation regime that has served to provide international security for decades. The White House's tacit acknowledgement that such a proposition would require legislative approval once again shows how this Administration lacks any respect for the balance of powers enumerated in Constitution, and the principle that Congress is an equal branch of government. In the face of this serious lapse of judgment on the part of the Administration, the Committee on International Relations should be commended for its bipartisan work undertaken to strengthen this legislation, and improve upon the poor proposal the Administration originally proposed. Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos took the serious concerns expressed by many members, both those on the Committee and those not, into consideration to drastically improve the bill now before us, guaranteeing Congress the right to see the agreement prior to final Congressional approval. In addition, India will open its civilian nuclear facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency for inspections, and should India perform any weapons tests in the future, all U.S. cooperation would cease, permanently. India must work with the U.S. to conclude a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty as well. The overarching goal of this legislation, to increase positive diplomatic ties between the U.S. and India, is laudable. India is the world's largest democracy, and is a growing economic and political influence not only in Southeast Asia, but in the greater global community. There is bipartisan agreement that India is a friendly and growing partner of the U.S. in many respects. When India reached out to the United States in the 1960s, seeking partnership and increased friendly relations with us, we rebuffed them. It was a mistake to do so then, and it would be a mistake to do so now and allow an opportunity to warm relations with India to slip by. However, I have serious concerns that prior to any civil nuclear agreement can move forward, safeguards be in place to ensure that India does not use any of this technology to further its production of nuclear weapons. This legislation fails to ensure that India does not divert its domestic supply of enriched uranium to its weapons program, nor does it place India's military facilities under IAEA inspections, all regrettable. In addition, despite the fact that the five current nuclear weapons states are believed to have suspended the production of fissile material, this proposed agreement does not force India to do the same and operate under these same guidelines. I am extremely disturbed by recent media reports, however, that the Administration was aware of two Indian firms that had sold missile parts to Iran, but failed to inform Congress prior to this bill being debated before us. The fact that the Administration failed to present to Congress on July 1 a mandated report regarding weapons suppliers to Iran and Syria, is a case of neglect, but the timing of this severe neglect of duty could not have been worse. The Administration, despite its assertions that India has an impeccable nonproliferation record, has deemed it proper to sanction the two companies, but did not feel that it would be prudent for Congress to know this information prior to this vote. This oversight demonstrates a serious lack of judgment on the part of the Administration, and calls into question all given assurances of security safeguards on the proposed nuclear deal. Had this information been available prior to this debate, I believe it would have greatly influenced not only the content of the legislation before us, but the outcome of the vote we are about to take. I voted in favor of this legislation in Committee, and intend to support, this legislation now, in the hopes that the Administration would continue working to obtain assurances from the Indian government that there will be no transfer of nuclear technology, either deliberate or accidental, to either the Indian weapons program, or to rogue regimes who are attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction. I strongly urge the Administration to urge that all Indian facilities be placed under IAEA inspections, and that the Indian government voluntarily halt the production of fissile material.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today disappointed that I must oppose the Republican Health Care Information Technology Promotion Act. Developing and implementing a health information technology system that reflects the needs of patients and providers should be a priority for Congress and should be an issue that can be handled in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, once again the Republican Majority has rejected common-sense and strong public policy and instead chosen to support a sham piece of legislation that even the Congressional Budget Office states will ``not significantly affect either the rate at which the use of health technology will grow or how well that technology will be designed and implemented''. Information Technology (IT) reform would help decrease medical mistakes and would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our health care system. However, we must work hard to strike the delicate balance between increasing use of electronic medical records and maintaining individuals' privacy. It is critical that we ensure patients' personal health information is secure and confidential when they go to the doctor or check into a hospital. The Health Information Technology Promotion Act would codify the Office of the Health Information Technology Coordinator within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)--basically maintaining the status quo. This legislation fails to contain adequate funding for providers to implement EMR, it fails to provide for interoperability of system, it fails to address patient privacy protections, and could unfortunately open new opportunities for fraud and abuse by providing waivers for anti-kickback laws. Congress must find a way to move forward with the implementation of health technology and protect the American public. For this reason, I supported the Dingell-Rangel substitute. This amendment included grants for providers, opportunities to leverage private dollars, strong patient protections and it maintains our anti-fraud laws. In addition, this proposal is nearly identical to the legislation that has already passed the Senate unanimously. Unfortunately, the Republican Majority is so unwilling to have a full and open discussion about our health care system on the House floor, that this amendment was not even allowed to be considered during today's debate. I oppose H.R. 4157 and urge my colleagues to do the same. Lets reject this do-nothing legislation and have a real debate about the health care challenges facing American families.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th anniversary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the tens of thousands of men and women serving America's veterans in the VA system. With its establishment as the Veterans Administration on July 21st, 1931, the United States formalized its commitment to providing benefits to America's veterans. The freedom that we enjoy in the United States exists because of the sacrifices of the brave men and women who have served and protected our nation. Since America's humble beginnings in the Pilgrim colonies, our country has honored the great sacrifice of our veterans by committing to serve them upon their return from duty. Today, the United States provides the most comprehensive system of assistance for veterans of any nation in the world. Congress must ensure that this tradition of serving veterans remains strong. Many veterans returning from combat in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world have suffered multiple severe injuries, presenting challenges that were unimaginable in past wars. In Minnesota, the Minneapolis VA Medical Center is a leader in the nation in providing the state-of-the-art, life-saving care at its new polytrauma rehabilitation center. These new challenges require that Congress commit to fully funding research and care for these veterans who have given so much in the line of duty. Nationwide, more than 144,000 returning troops from Iraq and Afghanistan have now sought health care with the VA, and it is estimated that one in four Americans are eligible for VA benefits and services. More than 30,000 veterans are waiting in line for their first appointment with the VA, a problem that will only worsen with the growing numbers of returning service men and women. Despite this reality, the Republican budget for Fiscal Year 2007 cuts veterans health care by $6 billion over the next five years. In 1944, Congress enacted the original GI Bill of Rights, to honor the Greatest Generation--providing our returning troops with educational benefits, loans to buy a home and medical assistance. In each major military conflict since, we have honored the service of our soldiers through an improved GI bill. I join my Democratic colleagues in supporting the New GI Bill for the 21st Century to strengthen benefits for our men and women in uniform today, and provide long overdue benefits for the veterans and military retirees who have already served. For those returning from the frontlines, we are continuing our efforts to fight to adequately invest in veterans' health care, including mental health care. Veterans have earned our respect, whether they served during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War or have recently returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. These veterans who fought on the battlefield for freedom and liberty should not have to fight their own government for the benefits they earned and deserve when they return home. Nor should they have to fear that their private information entrusted to the VA is at risk. It is crucial that we continue to increase our dedication to veterans by providing them the services promised to them and we must fulfill our obligations to those who have worn our nation's uniform with not just words, but with deeds. The 75th anniversary of the Department of Veterans Affairs is an opportunity to salute our brave veterans and dedicated men and women who devote their careers to caring for them. Just as important, it is an opportunity for Congress to reaffirm both the responsibility and a moral obligation to provide the necessary healthcare, education, and disability benefits to meet the needs of all our veterans. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing the Department of Veterans Affairs, for its 75 years of service to America's veterans.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005. This legislation does nothing to address the real issues facing families in America today, and serves merely to distract and delay Congress from efforts to vote on issues that would actually impact the daily lives of our constituents. This bill failed to pass out of the Judiciary Committee, and yet, we are voting on it today on the Floor of the People's House, an event without precedence according to the Parliamentarian. The Majority is taking this extraordinary action not for an issue that will affect the daily lives of American families--but for a blatantly political debate in an election-year attempt to appeal to their base. My constituents are concerned about the conflict in the Middle East, earning a living wage, accessing affordable health care and relief from sky-rocketing gas prices. Minnesotans in the 4th District have made it clear that Congress should get to work on the priority issues of this country, rather than continue to play political games. H.R. 2389 would remove the Pledge of Allegiance from the jurisdiction of federal courts. This bill is an attempt by Republicans to strip our federal courts of their power to rule over issues of Constitutional relevance, and to tell our federal courts that their expertise on Constitutional freedoms is irrelevant. Our system of checks and balances was constructed by our Founders for this specific reason--to retain the independence of the Courts, and their ability to rule justly and uphold the rule of law in this great country. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated last year, the effectiveness of the federal courts relies on the knowledge that they will not be subject to retaliation for their rulings. Representative Mel Watt offered an amendment today to this bill that, had it passed, would have allowed the Supreme Court to hear cases regarding the Pledge of Allegiance--in effect, reversing the negative damage this bill will inflict if it passes. I supported Mr. Watt's amendment, and am extremely disappointed that the majority of my colleagues did not do the same. This bill is likely unconstitutional and debating it on the floor of the House today is an outrage considering the real issues facing American families. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, upholding the system of justice our Founders intended, and return to debating the issues we were elected to resolve.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act (H.R. 9). I am a proud co- sponsor of this bipartisan legislation, which ensures every American citizen has the right to vote. If the Constitution is the embodiment of America's ideal of equality, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a historic milestone in our pursuit of that ideal. The namesakes of this legislation are among the tens of thousands of common heroes who fought, sacrificed and even perished to abolish the institutional barriers to voting that cast a shadow on American freedom for nearly 200 years. It is the responsibility of our generation to honor their legacy of vision and commitment through our diligent stewardship of their hard-won victories. Today, as America's elected representatives, we in Congress must renew our dedication to advance the cause of freedom by reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. Enacted in 1965 and renewed in 1982, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) prohibits the use of any voting practice or procedure that discriminates based on race and requires certain jurisdictions to provide language assistance to minority citizens. The Act bars literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation, threats, violence and other transparent assaults on liberty. It also protects against insidious procedural barriers such as restrictive voter registration requirements, districting plans that dilute minority voting strength, discriminatory annexations and the siting of polling places at inaccessible locations. The Department of Justice has called the Voting Rights Act ``the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted.'' As a result of the Act in Mississippi, African American registration went from less than 10 percent in 1964 to almost 60 percent in 1968. In Alabama, registration rose from 24 percent to 57 percent. These immediate gains in access to the polls sowed seeds of equal representation that future generations would reap. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, there were approximately 300 African Americans serving in public office across the country in 1964, including only three in Congress. Today, more than 9,100 African Americans hold elected office at the local and state level, including 43 in Congress. The guarantees of full political participation codified in the VRA have greatly benefited all minority groups including Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans and Native Americans--the last group to win the right to vote. This impressive record of progress argues strongly for reauthorization of the Act. While most provisions of the VRA are permanent, several key provisions of the law are set to expire in 2007. These provisions include Section 5, which requires covered jurisdictions to obtain approval or ``pre-clearance'' from the U.S. Department of Justice before they can change voting practices or procedures. Section 203 of the Act requires election officials to provide written and oral assistance to certain citizens with limited English proficiency. Also due for reauthorization are Sections 6-9, which empower the U.S. Attorney General to appoint examiners and send Federal observers to monitor elections when evidence exists of voter intimidation at the polls. This bipartisan reauthorization bill restores the original intent of the VRA by making it clear that any voting rule changes motivated by intentional and purposeful discrimination cannot be ``precleared'' by a Federal court or the Department of Justice. And H.R. 9 modernizes the VRA by requiring the use of the most updated census data and by directing the GAO to determine ways to better administer election assistance to non-English speakers. Despite broad bipartisan support within the Congress for reauthorization, some Members question whether the VRA's protections are still necessary in today's America. Regrettably, almost 40 years after enactment of the VRA, voting discrimination is not only a painful memory of our past but also a persistent challenge for the present and future. Since the VRA was last reauthorized in 1982, the Department of Justice and disfranchised voters have brought hundreds of intentional voter discrimination cases before the courts, many within the last 5 years. In 2001, the mayor and all-white Board of Aldermen of Kilmichael, Mississippi canceled local elections when it appeared several African- American candidates might win seats. Elections were finally held in 2003, after the Department of Justice used the VRA to intervene. In the election that followed, the town elected three African-American board members and their first African-American mayor. South Dakota enacted a redistricting plan in 2001 that ``packed,'' or over-concentrated Native Americans into a district, preventing them from creating a majority voting bloc in an additional, neighboring district. Three years later, a Federal court invalidated the state's plan, finding ``substantial evidence'' that state officials excluded Native Americans from voting and holding office. Local officials in Bexar County, Texas attempted to undermine Latino voting strength in a 2003 special election by neglecting to site polling places near those communities. Using the special provisions of the VRA, Latino advocates were able to prevent Latino voters from being silenced in the election by obtaining expedited assistance from the local district court. And not all voting irregularities are local. The mere mention of ``Florida'' or ``Ohio'' evoke the voting controversies of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, which called the legitimacy of the outcomes into question and shook Americans' confidence in our elections process. The effort to reestablish confidence in the elections process has produced new controversies over electronic voting machines that leave no paper record for verification and recounts. Clearly, the voting discrimination and irregularities that inspired the Voting Rights Act persist and serve to remind us that the right to vote cannot be taken for granted, but it must be actively protected and defended. By passing H.R. 9 and reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, Congress reinforces the foundations of American democracy and keeps faith with generations of Americans past and future. I urge my colleagues to reject all attempts to weaken the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act (H.R. 9) and to support the bipartisan compromise before us today.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, today the world watches with sadness and grave concern as the Middle East is at war, civilians are being killed and maimed, and the possibility of a region-wide conflict grows by the day. People around the world watch this violence and ask what are the world's leaders doing to stop the killing, to end the bloodshed? We hear tough words, satellite television diplomacy, accusations and excuses, but no action or urgency to end the violence. With this type of global response we can all be tragically assured that our televisions will continue to show the horror, destruction and the suffering faces of innocents in Israel and Lebanon for some time to come. I extend my prayers and heartfelt sympathy to the citizens of Israel and Lebanon who are suffering and grieving. Allow me to also extend my sympathies to Canada which also had citizens tragically killed in this conflict. In light of so many civilian deaths and destruction of infrastructure, it would be my hope and desire that the international community, led by the United States, would immediately start the difficult work of brokering a cessation to the killing and the start of a process to resolve this conflict through diplomacy rather than rockets and bombs. This is essential to allow the thousands of U.S. citizens to be safely evacuated out of Lebanon, as well as to prevent a much larger regional conflict from starting. The entire world knows that Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, has provoked this conflict by illegally entering the sovereign territory of Israel on the border with Lebanon, abducting two Israeli soldiers and killing eight more. Today, this House rightly condemns this act and Hezbollah's on-going acts of terror with the passage of H. Res. 921. The United States has a profound national interest in the security of Israel. The right of Israel and all sovereign nations to be secure and defend themselves from acts of violence and terror is clearly defined in international law. The action of Hezbollah to enter Israel on July 12, 2006 and commit acts of kidnapping and terror demands a focused military response that sends a clear message that terrorism will not be tolerated. The firing of rockets into Haifa and other Israeli cities and towns with the intent of killing and harming innocent civilians requires a firm, focused and proportional response against Hezbollah. Yet, today, after a week of open warfare, there is the on-going destruction of civilian infrastructure in both Haifa and Beirut and more than 300 dead in Lebanon and at least 25 dead in Israel, overwhelmingly innocent civilians on both sides. In the near term, there is no prospect of security for Israeli or Lebanese civilians, only more death, destruction, fear and suffering on both sides. It is time for the international community to change this hopeless dynamic and immediately start to work to end this war using diplomatic power before it escalates and spreads throughout the entire Middle East. On the day of Hezbollah's incursion into Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, ``I want to make clear that the event this morning is not a terror act, but an act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel without reason.'' This statement explicitly attributes to the Lebanese Republic the responsibility for this aggression against Israel, not Hezbollah. This is of concern since there has been no evidence put forth that the nascent government of Lebanese Prime Minister Faud Siniora has any knowledge of or sanctioned Hezbollah's terrorist act. Lebanon is being bombed, ripped apart, in response to Hezbollah's terrorism. This strategic response may offer short-term security for Israel, but it also has the very real potential of transforming Lebanon into a radicalized, failed state. How will Lebanon recover politically and economically when this war ends? It is inconceivable that when the bombing stops there will suddenly be an international outpouring of generous donors willing support to spend billions of dollars to rebuild Lebanon's destroyed infrastructure, re-invest in its evaporated economy, and salvage its threatened democracy. It is much more likely that a new generation will be radicalized by the loss of hope in the future. At this moment, the prospect of a land bridge--a terrorist highway--of failed states and rogue nations stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf is a scenario that has emerged and poses a major threat to global security. I am disturbed at the diplomatic impotence of the Bush administration as it plays the role of a spectator watching this war escalate and the death-toll mount. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is correct and to be commended for moving forward quickly to marshal international support to negotiate an immediate cease fire. I believe President Bush should join him in working to make a cease fire a reality. Furthermore, I strongly agree with Mr. Annan's call for a significant multinational force in Lebanon to secure the border with Israel, eliminate Hezbollah's military capacity, and help to establish the presence of whatever Lebanese army remains to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1559. Of course there are many voices here in the United States that oppose diplomacy and are comfortably dismissive of the death, destruction and long-term consequences of this war. Today, an editorial in the Washington Post dismisses diplomacy by saying, ``If Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice makes the mistake of visiting Damascus, Mr. Assad will roll out the red carpet; then he will offer to stop the rocket and missile fire against Israel by Hezbollah and Hamas, on Syria's terms. The result will be to restore Damascus's influence in Lebanon and destroy the new independent, democratic government in Beirut--which has far more to fear from such a deal than from Israel's cratering of its airport runways and bridges.'' This ``let them fight'' sycophancy from the comfort of a safe office in the U.S. rather than a bombed out apartment or office building in Beirut ignores the obvious--Lebanon's democracy is being destroyed and it is a country on a path to becoming a failed state, as well as a haven for terrorists for years to come, unless the international community intervenes to change the current equation and establishes a guarantee of security for civilians. It is important to remember that on April 18, 2006, President Bush appeared at a White House with Lebanon's Prime Minister Siniora and said, ``There's no question in my mind that Lebanon can serve as a great example of what is possible in the broader Middle East; that out of tough times the country has been through will rise a state that shows that it's possible for people of religious differences to live side-by-side in peace; to show that it's possible for people to put aside past histories to live together in a way that the people want, which is, therefore, to be peace and hope and opportunity.'' Three months later Prime Minister Siniora's nation is a war zone, Israel is under attack daily from Hezbollah rockets, and the United States is content with waiting for the outcome of a conflict which threatens our vital security interests. It is shocking, sad and disturbing turn of events. Today we pass H. Res. 921 and recommit our support for Israel as it is under attack from a terrorist organization. Our prayers are with the families in Israel that want security, peace and hope. At the same time, my prayers are with the people of Lebanon who reject terror and have rebuilt their country over the past decade after years of civil war. Israeli cities and towns are being terrorized by Hezbollah rockets that should be targeted and destroyed, but I do not believe the massive attacks launched against civilian targets in Lebanon are justified. The U.S. has an obligation to stand with our ally as well as advance our vital interests in the region--security for Israel and the survival of Lebanon. Defending these interests is complicated and extraordinarily difficult because Israel is not secure and Lebanon may not survive. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has chosen the path of apathy, not diplomatic action. It is absolutely essential that the U.S. engage the rgion, hold terrorists accountable, and mobilize the Arab world, along with our European allies, to end the terrorist attacks on Israel while providing Lebanon with the support and resources needed to survive and excise Hezbollah. To do anything less in the upcoming days allows the possibility for an escalation into a global security and economic nightmare that will bring this Middle East war home to America.