Thad McCotter

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Dorothy Marie Korzym upon her retirement after 25 years of teaching the children of our community. After receiving her masters degree from the University of Michigan in 1984, Ms. Korzym taught at various schools, including Our Lady Gate of Heaven in Detroit, St. Fabian in Farmington Hills, and Marygrove College. In 1995, Ms. Korzym began teaching at St. Edith in Livonia.There is no doubt, her wisdom and guidance were a great asset to our community. Although she will be sorely missed at the school, she will continue to have a presence at St. Edith as she has been a member of the parish for the past 20 years. Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincere appreciation to Dorothy Marie Korzym, upon her retirement after 25 years of teaching, for her fine service to our community and our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Geraldine Catherine Murphy upon her retirement after 40 years of teaching the children of our community. After graduating from Marygrove College in 1964, Ms. Murphy taught the students of SS. Peter and Paul School in Detroit until 1998. During this time, she served on many educational committees, including the committee which wrote the Language Arts/English curriculum for the Archdiocese of Detroit. In 1998, Ms. Murphy came to the educational community at St. Edith in Livonia. There is no doubt, her wisdom and guidance were a great asset to our community. The impact she had upon St. Edith will be felt for many years to come, as she will be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincere appreciation to Geraldine Catherine Murphy, upon her retirement after 40 years of teaching, for her fine service to our community and our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Garden City Hospital's Center for Counseling upon the center's 30th anniversary. In 1974, the vision of former Garden City Hospital President and CEO Allan Breakie led to the development of counseling services which responded to an identified community need and also served as a resource for the medical staff of the hospital. Initially, the focus was on providing treatment for the chemically dependent patient in an inpatient setting. Under the leadership of Dr. Phil O'Dwyer, the Center expanded into the treatment of eating disorders and a broader range of mental health issues. The Center received national attention when its Patient- Treatment matching system was described as a ``model for the nation'' in the 1990 Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report to Congress. In recent years, services for children and adolescents were added, in response to the growing national concern with teen problems. In 2002, the Michigan Health and Hospital Association awarded the Center for Counseling its prestigious Patric Ludwig award for innovative community programming for adolescents. Today, the Center has an experienced staff which includes a Board Certified psychiatrist, doctoral and masters level psychologists, clinical social workers and professional counselors. Over the past 30 years, more than 8,000 patients and their families have benefited from the treatment services of the Center for Counseling. Countless numbers have benefited from the prevention and education efforts undertaken through seminars, public presentations, and TV and radio appearances. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Congress, the 8,000 patients, and family members, I would like to thank the Center for Counseling at the Garden City Hospital for their 30 years of service to the community.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, recently I lost an inspirational family member, and with sadness, I pay my uncle, Eugene Martinyak, a posthumous tribute today. Eugene truly lived the American Dream. Born to Polish and Ukrainian immigrants in 1936, he served our Nation in the United States Army from 1954-1957. Starting from virtually nothing, Eugene supported his family of four children while working full time attending college. As a professional, Eugene helped develop computer systems for the Chrysler Automotive Corporation. In doing so, Eugene fulfilled a promise to his children: gave them more than he ever had. Thus, on behalf of us all, I extend my deepest condolences to his wife Carol and his entire family for their loss.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Eileen Davis upon her retirement after 15 years of service to the citizens of the City of Livonia. Eileen Davis began her service to the citizens of Livonia in 1989 when she accepted the full time Clerk I position. Over the next 15 years she was promoted twice to the positions of Clerk Il and Elections Record Clerk. During this time, she processed rezoning and waiver use petitions, handled the recording of easements and deeds, processed absentee ballot applications, tabulated ballots on election nights, inputted payroll data and supervised the conducting of elections within the City. For a period of 12 years, she was a stellar help to the Livonia City Clerk, Joan McCotter. Her husband, Donald, and daughters, Lynette and Deanna, should be extremely proud of the undeniable mark she has left on the community. We at home will sorely miss and always benefit from her dedication and leadership. Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincere appreciation to Mrs. Eileen Davis, upon her retirement after 15 years in the. Livonia City Clerk's Office, for her fine service to our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Joseph Bommarito upon his retirement after 32 years of service to our community. Since his family moved to Redford when he was just 10 years old, Joe has been a staple in our community. Before accepting the appointment as Deputy Supervisor in January of 1997, Joe served the Redford Township Police Department for 25 years in the capacities of patrolman, sergeant, lieutenant and inspector. Joe's impact was immediately felt as he successfully negotiated cost saving contracts and gave the Townhall a new look. His wife, Carol, and his sons, Joseph, Tony, Michael and Bryan, should be extremely proud of the undeniable mark he has left on the community. We at home will sorely miss and always benefit from his dedication and leadership. Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincere appreciation to Mr. Joseph Bommarito, upon his retirement as Deputy Supervisor of Redford Township, for his fine service to our community and our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Laurie Marrs upon her retirement after 20 years of service as Executive Director of the Northville Chamber of Commerce. Due to her leadership in the business community, the Northville Chamber of Commerce has become one of the premier business associations in the State of Michigan. From 1985 to today, Laurie Marrs has increased membership from 100 to 525 members, founded and served as chairperson for the Northville Victorian Festival, increased the number of Farmer's Market vendors from 6 to 100, instituted the annual State of the Community luncheon and founded the Northville Business Showcase. Her husband, Terry, and daughters, Kelly and Andrea, should be extremely proud of the undeniable mark she has left on the community. We at home will sorely miss and always benefit from her dedication and leadership. Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincere appreciation to Ms. Laurie Marrs, upon her retirement after 20 years as Executive Director of the Northville Chamber of Commerce, for her fine service to the community.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose to speak on Iraq and maybe address a couple of myths or omissions that may have been missed in this. First, many of my constituents are Iraqi-Americans and much of what we hear today in some quarters is oddly reminiscent of what we heard in this country for about 140 years. There are those people who have claimed that the Iraqi people know nothing but an oppressive dictatorial government and that they will never take to democracy. They will never be able to take control of their lives and form a better future. In the past, within this country, we heard those same remarks made by slave owners trying to justify that African Americans should not be free. I think this is doing a horrible disservice to the Iraqi people whenever they hear from this country, from whatever corridor, that they will not take to democracy. The United States is an experiment in democracy based on the thought that through our revolution all people would see that liberty is to be enjoyed, defended and savored. The Iraqi people will do no less than we did at our own inception. Secondly, I think that in the fallout over Spain's decision in the wake of the terrorist attack to leave the Coalition, many people have been led to believe that the terrorists will only attack those whose foreign policy is a problem for the terrorists. And yet little noted is that the French Government has decided that Muslims cannot wear traditional headdresses in their public schools have now become also a potential target for terrorist attack. Let us be clear here, it is not simply a matter of foreign policy as to whether the terrorists attack you or not, whether you are American or whether you are European. The whole goal is to affect lives, be it the foreign policy decisions or your internal decisions of your own government. Which I think gets to a third myth, which is that some people believe that we through our actions will determine what the terrorists will do or not do to us. Having seen al Qaeda's motto, for wont of a better word, I do not see any exception to their belief that it is a Muslim duty to kill American soldiers and civilians. There is no codicil. There is no caveat. And I would encourage Americans to do what many in Europe did not do upon initially reading Mein Kampf, that you are best to take a lunatic at his word, especially when he talks about killing you, killing your children and destroying your way of life. In the overarching context of the situation in Iraq, the stakes could not be higher, and I believe that many people in both parties agree with that. If we fail in Iraq, the success we have had in helping to eradicate terrorism there and throughout the world will be dealt a major blow. If we choose to retreat from that commitment, if we choose to pull back to our own borders and try to rely upon intelligence and law enforcement, as we did prior to September 11, we are going to be faced with a terrible situation of prolonging the war on terror. Because if we do not take the war to the terrorists, as we have done in Iraq, as we have done in Afghanistan, then the terrorists will bring their attacks to us and we will prolong the war on terror well into the lives of our grandchildren. And I do not think that that is a situation anyone in this country, in this Chamber would like to see. It is easy sometimes when we look back, we were told after we defeated European communism that it was the end of history, that liberal democracy would face no external threat capable of destroying it. It was tempting to believe it; but as we found out, it turned out not to be the case. As a revolutionary country, as I stated before, we are always going to be a target for terrorists, tyrants and other despots bent on world domination. It is unfair to us, we who seek to live in liberty and seek to have amity with our neighbors and our international community; but liberty is our blessing. It is also our burden, and it is a burden generations of Americans before us have shouldered and is a burden our brave men and women in Iraq and the military are shouldering now and one we cannot turn our back on. For if we do, we will not only be inviting more terrorist attacks here, we will be renouncing our birth right as Americans to live in freedom and renouncing our duty to defend it.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, last week my district lost a beloved member of our community and, with great sorrow, I pay her posthumous tribute today. Irene Collins was a fiery, dedicated, and very determined lady, who never stopped giving of herself to her community, be it helping troubled teenagers or supporting numerous civic activities and community causes. This special lady is survived by her four siblings; six children; seventeen grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. May all who knew her and are terribly saddened by the loss of Irene take comfort in the kindness of her enduring works, which constitute the finest and truest tribute to her.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, between Sunday February 29 and Wednesday March 3, 2004, I traveled to Libya as part of a Congressional Delegation led by Representative Weldon and as Member of the House International Relations Committee and the Middle East Subcommittee. While there, we had the opportunity to meet with Col. Mohammar Qaddafi and members of the Libyan People's Congress to discuss Libya's recent renouncement of state sponsored terror and their development of weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Speaker, this prospective opening to the West is not a mystical revision, but a practical decision by the Libyan Government. It must be met with an equally practical policy of one very wary step at a time. While there, it became clear the Libyan possibility for peaceful regime conversion and rehabilitation gravely underscores the inherent stakes of succeeding in the Iraqi regime change and reconstruction. If the latter fails, the former fades, and we are all worse than we were at square one. Unfortunately, my participation in this trip forced me to miss a few votes. During this time I missed six recorded votes. If I was present I would have voted the following way: On H.R. 3769, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 137 East Young High Pike in Knoxville, Tennessee, as the ``Ben Atchley Post Office Building''. Roll Number 32, I would have voted ``yes.'' On H. Res. 526, expressing the sympathy of the House of Representatives for the victims of the devastating earthquake that occurred on December 26, 2003, in Bam, Iran. Roll Number 33, I would have voted ``yes.'' On H. Res 530, urging the appropriate representative of the United States to the 60th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to introduce a resolution calling upon the Government of the People's Republic of China to end its human rights violations in China, and for other purposes. Roll Number 34, I would have voted ``yes.'' On H.R. 912, Charles ``Pete'' Conrad Astronomy Awards Act. Roll Number 35, I would have voted ``yes.'' On H.R. 3389, to amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to permit Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards to be made to nonprofit organizations. Roll Number 36, I would have voted ``yes.'' On H.R. 1417, Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2003 Roll Number 37, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn and mark the passing of John Lennon and to acclaim the accomplishments of Bob Seger, both of them musicians and artists, performers and poets. First, on a sorrowful note, today observes the 23rd commemoration of the murder of John Winston Ono Lennon, M.B.E. Let us mark and continue to mourn his passage not merely with words but with his music and then with every agonizing echo of the deafening silence left in the wake of his senseless loss. Our heartfelt condolences go out to his widow and his sons. On a joyous note, however, I also rise to celebrate the achievements of one who has followed and honored Mr. Lennon's legacy, Michigan's own Bob Seger. Rising from his working-class roots, Bob Seger has reached the pinnacle of the rock and roll world. For after his loyal fans conducted a petition drive and collected nearly 4,500 signatures, Mr. Seger is finally being duly recognized and inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He could not be more deserving. Mr. Seger's life's work, his art, has been a celebration of working Americans, our lives, our loves, our losses and, most importantly, the little victories which hearten and heal and lead us all ever onward in this arduous journey of life. He is a musician, an entertainer, and a poet who speaks not only to our ears but also to our hearts. Once the romantic poet William Wordsworth explained the essence of artistic virtue: ``And then a wish: My best and favorite aspiration mounts with yearning toward some philosophical song of truth which cherishes our daily lives.'' For over 30 years, Mr. Seger has sung this philosophical song of truth, cherishing our daily lives. Let us now honor his.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on any day when the House convenes pursuant to section 2 of House Joint Resolution 80, the Speaker may dispense with organizational and legislative business.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of entering into the Record how I would have voted on issues before the House that I was unable to vote on on Wednesday, October 29 and on Thursday, October 30. On rollcall No. 579, I was the sponsor of the resolution and would have voted yes. On rollcall No. 578, I was a cosponsor of the bill and would have voted yes. On Thursday, October 30, on rollcall No. 580, I would have voted no. On rollcall No. 581, I would have vote yes. On rollcall No. 584, I would have voted no. On rollcall No. 585, I would have voted no. On rollcall No. 586, I would have voted yes. On roll 588, I would have voted no. On rollcall 589, I would have voted no. On rollcall No. 590, I would have voted no. And on rollcall No. 594, I would have voted no. On substantive votes, on rollcall No. 582, I would have voted yes. On rollcall 583, I would have voted yes. On rollcall 587, I would have voted yes. On rollcall No. 591, I would have voted no. On roll 592, I would have voted yes. On rollcall No. 593, I have would have voted yes. On rollcall No. 595, I would have voted yes. On rollcall No. 596, I would have voted yes. On rollcall No. 597, I would have voted yes. On rollcall No. 598, I would have voted no. On rollcall No. 599, I would have voted no. On roll No. 601, I would have voted yes. On roll No. 600, I would have voted no. The purpose for my inability to vote on these issues is, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) pointed out, there was a Congressional delegation that went to Iraq to visit with our troops and to inspect reconstruction and also to stop and visit our troops in the hospital at Landstuhl. While this business in front of our House was extremely important, I believe that nothing was more important for showing our support for the troops and inspecting the conditions under which they must exist and survive. In fact, I would just like to say that no matter how important this business was, nothing to me last week was more important that visiting with the troops at Landstuhl and to hear one of our fallen soldiers who had been in the Chinook say that he had gone through the most traumatic experience of his life and would not wish it upon his worst enemy. For in that moment he proved to me and all the world not only the bravery and courage of the American men and women in uniform, but their compassion as well.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I too agree that the Toomey amendment is a good addition to this bill. Business spends what it makes, government spends what it takes, and government should not take taxpayers' money and go into business against them and put these hardworking, tax-paying Americans out of business. The Toomey amendment will help curb this repugnant practice of harming our small businesses. Of course, rehabilitation of prisoners is a worthy goal, but rehabilitation is not the exclusive aim of incarceration. After all, Dostoevsky did not write Crime and Rehabilitation. Thus, we must now write and pass a law to stop government from rehabilitating prisoners by punishing productive Americans. So I urge support of the Toomey amendment.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Fred C. Fischer Library of Belleville, Michigan, as it celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. Serving the residents of Belleville, Sumpter Township, and Van Buren Township, the Fischer Library was built in 1953, when the public library outgrew its space at the J.C. Pullen Furniture store, and 3 other locations. From 1953 until 1992 the Fred C. Fischer Library remained the quaint and homey 3,500 square foot library it was built to be. Meanwhile, the population of the area grew from 12,400 to over 35,000. The library became increasingly crowded and more bookshelves were needed to accommodate the growing collection. Thanks to contributions from the Belleville Rotary Club's Charles B. Cozadd Foundation, the Simester estate, many smaller individual contributions, federal grants, and the commitment of the City of Belleville, Sumpter and Van Buren Townships, the Fischer Library was able to triple the size of the library, expand its catalog to include just about everything from books to DVDs, as well as offer public internet access, and events for patrons of all ages. The Fred C. Fischer Library continues to live up to its mandate of ``making the library an attractive place for all users, young people particularly.'' Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking the Fred C. Fischer Library for its outstanding service to the people of Michigan, and wish them well in the next 50 years.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge passage of the Fallen Patriots Tax Relief Act, H.R. 3365, which has been introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi). Contemporaneous with the Persian Gulf conflict, Congress increased from $3,000 to $6,000, the military death gratuity payable to the survivors of deceased members of our Armed Forces. Unfortunately, unlike the original $3,000 benefit, this additional $3,000 to the survivors of our fallen patriots was left exposed to taxation. This cannot continue. The Fallen Patriots Tax Relief Act will restore the military death gratuity to its rightful and tax exempt status and increase the military death gratuity for survivors of our fallen patriots up to a total of $12,000, retroactively effective to September 11, 2001. Mr. Speaker, of course, so many today are tempted to measure their compassion in money. Let us make no mistake, no amount of money will mute or diminish these survivors' immeasurable pain, an immeasurable pain which can only be told by the mounting of time and the mercy of God. Yet, still in support of and in tribute to our fallen and their families, our humanitarianism compels us to try. Consequently, in support of our troops and their families our words are prolific. Now, during this current Persian conflict, our deeds must best our rhetoric. It is the least and not the last we must do for those who have so terribly sacrificed and suffered for our freedom, for our country, for us.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the issue of Iraq, and specifically how our war on terror, a truly just war in the defense of American civilization, entailed the strategic imperative for Iraq's regime change and reconstruction, and now how in the war on terror we stand at a crucible for our country and civilization. On September 11, 2001, America was shaken by a sudden and concerted act of terrorism by fanatics who possessed no justification and our Nation no culpability for their willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of innocents. Stunned, we resolutely marshaled our courage and solemnly accepted the duty to defend our country and human civilization from the atavistic nihilism of Islamic extremism which amorally and arbitrarily colors and conditions the unviable sanctity of human life within the skewed prism of its adherents' abject pursuit of power. This is neither the first nor undoubtedly the last time our Nation will be called upon to protect itself and all the world from an extremist enemy with inhuman aims. In our relatively brief existence, we have led the successful efforts to eradicate the evils of imperialism, fascism and communism; and, heartened by our storied tradition of valor and victory, our current efforts must and will continue to tighten nooses around the necks of the practitioners of terror until they have joined their extremist antecedents in the ash can of history. It will be a long, hard, bitter task to defeat these disparate, desperate denizens of terror, who skulk in the shadows and steep in the venom of their perverted political phantasms. Their strength is their stealth and ruthlessness which, in the absence of their own nation- state, was spawned by their inability to wage conventional war upon traditional combatants. Their weakness, in turn, is their inability to subsist and act without sustenance from a cut-throat confederation of sheltering nation-states and sympathizers. These murderers are at once everywhere and nowhere; shrill in their threats, silent in their tactics; housed in the bosoms of evil and hunted in the citadels of freedom. They are the faceless foes of a million-mile front in a war without borders or bounds, but with this grim reality: they want to kill us. They want to kill our children. And to kill us, they will kill themselves, too. Make no mistake, the only way to stop them from killing us is to first kill them until they capitulate. The war is here. The war is now. And unless and until our victory is won, every American man, woman and child will live in a perpetual state of imminent threat from terrorists and their patrons because, as proven by the sneak attack on September 11, the extremists' existence is an imminent threat to our existence. Given this grim reality and our enemies' assets and liabilities, defeating terrorists requires severing them from their sponsoring states and sympathizers in tiered theaters of operations determined and devised as necessity demands and opportunity provides; and within these theaters of operations involved, diplomatic, economic and military, must each be tailored by time and circumstance for maximal advantage and efficiency. It is a root-and-branch approach. The U.S. and its allies must uproot regimes supporting terrorism; serve notice on other rogue regimes to cease and desist in their succor of terror, lest they suffer the same fate; and leave terrorists to die on the vine of their own dependencies and the steel of our resolve. Within this mission, theaters of operations must first be defined. Tragically, the tier-one theater has already been designated for us: the homelands of America and her allies. Tier-two theaters exist within those nations in which America and her allies must diplomatically, economically, and/or militarily act to end a rogue regime's intransigent sponsorship of terrorism. Prioritizing and selecting tier-two theaters is an agonizingly difficult task; but a practical, tripartite regime change, reconstruction calculus can be formulated from the factors of necessity, victory, and stability. First, necessity is determined by the rogue regime's continued support of terrorism, a question answered only by these nations' actions. Secondly, victory's viability is determined by the prospects for a successful regime change through diplomatic, economic, and/or military means. Third, stability is determined by the prospects of reconstructing within the newly liberated nation a stable, civilized, indigenous government opposed to terrorism. Regime change and reconstruction are the twin pillars of one policy: victory. Having effectuated a regime change, the U.S. and its allies cannot idly and anxiously await a newly liberated nation's indigenous developments in the areas of politics and economics for, devoid of stability and a steady progression toward democracy and prosperity, a deposed regime's vacuum will be filled by more ruthless rulers or by anarchy, and either outcome will foster terror's network. The U.S. and its allies must promptly and purposely act, even prior to the final ending of military hostilities, to commence reconstructing newly liberated countries and actively facilitating their reentry into the community of civilized nations opposed to terrorism. Such reconstruction will not happen instantaneously; such reconstruction will not happen inexpensively. But happen it must, lest the war on terror never end. But strategic imperatives are insufficient rationales for Americans to wage war. As a civilized people, we will only fight a just war, one necessarily engaged and morally waged. In prosecuting the war on terror, America solidly stands on the moral high ground. The moral legitimacy of our war on terror is lost upon many amidst the fog of rhetoric surrounding the determination of which rogue regimes supporting terror must be changed through American military force. Regardless, the logic remains: as all civilized nations have allied to end terrorism, any contrary country harboring and helping these criminals is, itself, uncivilized and criminal; and such a rogue country's immoral regime is illegitimate within the community of moral nations. As for the moral legitimacy of unilateral American preemption of rogue regimes aiding and abetting terrorism, the United States, a sovereign Nation, cannot and will not delegate or subordinate to any country or international organization our morally justified duty of defend and deliver ourselves from evil. Having already been grievously wounded by an unannounced, unprovoked attack on our soil, the U.S. is already in a state of war against terrorists and their state sponsors, and is morally justified in speaking out and bringing to justice all who are, all who aid, and all who abet our self-appointed enemy. The doctrine of preemption, then, is both morally justified and wholly irrelevant, because the terrorists' insidious onset to this war means the war on terror is now. America is not arbitrarily or preemptively prosecuting a prospective war on terror; America is necessarily defending itself against terrorists and their state sponsors in a war which reached our shores over 2 years ago. In the final analysis, because America was immorally and unilaterally attacked, America can morally and unilaterally counterattack. We have the moral right to do so, and the moral duty to do no less. Throughout this just war on terror, America possesses a moral right to seek rogue regime changes; and America possesses a moral responsibility to reconstruct liberated nations. This is not a novel path to a just and equitable peace for Americans who, in rebuilding our war-torn enemies following World War II, honorably fulfilled the promise of their late President, Franklin Roosevelt: ``Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights to keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.'' Presently, such unity of martial and moral purpose can only be fulfilled by rehabilitating the newly liberated countries of Afghanistan and Iraq into democratic Middle Eastern allies in the world's war on terror. Immediately following September 11, 2001, the United States and its allies against terror squarely set their sites upon Afghanistan, whose primitive Taliban regime repeatedly refused to terminate its assistance for the butchers of innocents. Affirmatively evaluating the necessity for and viability of a regime change, and the prospects for reconstruction and post-conflict stability within Afghanistan and the region, on October 7, 2001, America's initial tier-two theater of operations opened in Afghanistan. Then, targeting terrorist enclaves and training camps and various Taliban military and political assets, the U.S. and our allies, including indigenous anti-Taliban Afghans, struck with unprecedented speed and success and the rogue regime rapidly disintegrated and capitulated on November 13. Following the fall of Kabul, the U.S. and its allies have engaged in both military operations against terrorists and Taliban loyalists and reconstruction operations with the Afghan people. Militarily, there exists a NATO force of 5,000 troops in Kabul to provide security and stability to the fledgling government of President Hamid Karzai, and there remains a U.S.-led coalition force of 11,500 troops throughout the country to hunt down al-Qaida and Taliban diehards. In reconstruction efforts, the U.S. alone has contributed over $900 million in assistance to the people of Afghanistan, including the rehabilitation of 72 hospitals, clinics and women's health care centers; the vaccination of 4.3 million children against measles; the treatment of 700,000 cases of malaria, the enrollment of 4 million children in school, the repatriation of 2.5 million Afghans to their homes, the commencement of 6,100 water projects to aid farmers, and commitment to rebuild the Kabul Kandahar road. To date, this concerted implementation of the regime change rebuilding nexus, still in its infancy, has been successful in eliminating the state-sponsored terrorism of the Taliban, facilitating a stable new government progressing toward democracy and prosperity, and increasing America's and the world's security. For the allied forces, this success in the Afghan tier-two theater of operations provided concrete milestones and guideposts along the path toward the next tier-two theater of operations, Iraq. Under the despotic direction of Saddam Hussein, Iraq long posed a danger to America and the international community. Suffice to say the threat was recognized by all nations after Iraq's 1991 invasion of and expulsion from Kuwait. Curiously, though, after the onset of the war on terror, minds have differed over whether or not Iraq's threat to America, in particular, and the world community in general, sufficiently existed to compel martial force be used to effectuate an Iraqi regime change. There should be no doubt. Applying the regime change-reconstruction calculus proves opening the Tier 2 Iraqi theater of operations was a strategic imperative in the war on terror. First, Iraq constituted a necessary Tier 2 theater of operations due to its refusal to stem and, instead, perpetuate its state sponsorship of terrorism. Interestingly, as early as 1998, the agreement on this point appeared nearly unanimous. ``The only answer to aggression and outlaw behavior is firmness. He Saddam will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and someday, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again as he has ten times since 1983.'' National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, February 18, 1998. From the same day I quote: ``Iraq is a long way from here but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.'' Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 18, 1998. ``One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.'' President William Jefferson Clinton, February 4, 1998. Given Saddam Hussein's unabashed and unabated hatred of Americans and his willingness to conspire with murderers of any stripe to kill Americans, the evidence of which continues to slowly but surely seep to the surface despite the old regime's attempts to bury and burn their intelligence records, the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, seemed to solidify the early consensus American national security required a regime change in Iraq. ``We know that he, Hussein, has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.'' Former Vice President Al Gore, September 23, 2002. The necessity test met, what was the viability of deposing Hussein and his minions? While the level of U.S. and allied military force required was debated, especially in the absence of the United Nations' cooperation, the viability of successful Iraqi regime change was little disputed by knowledgeable minds. Iraqi forces remained hobbled after their defeat during the liberation of Kuwait, and its economy languished under postwar economic sanctions. Still, it was not an easy decision and never is when sending good American sons and daughters into harm's way. But it was a decision which nearly all involved concluded would lead to a victorious military operation. Events, to date, have validated this original assessment. On March 20, 2003, the U.S. and its Coalition of the Willing allies launched military strikes against Iraqi leaders. By April 5, U.S. tanks entered Baghdad. By April 9, U.S. troops aided Baghdad residents in toppling a statue of Saddam Hussein, thereby symbolizing his removal from power. By April 14, the Pentagon announced it ``would anticipate that the major combat operations are over'' and it began the process of sending air and naval forces home. And finally on May 1, President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq. Yet even as the general assessment of the viability of an Iraqi regime change was upheld, significant opposition has arisen and jeopardizes the final stage of the operation, the reconstruction of a stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq. Initially, the postregime change reconstruction of Iraq portended a long, but ultimately successful, transition to a stable democratic state. The Iraqi people, though long oppressed by Hussein, remained a highly-industrious, highly-educated people, possessed of a long history replete with notable accomplishments in the areas of agriculture, commerce, science and scholarship. Once liberated, it was projected, Iraqis would seize upon their newfound freedoms to forge a new nation of equality and prosperity and join the league of civilized nations. According to the State Department, Iraq has experienced enormous post-Saddam progress in the areas of security, essential services, economics and governance. On the security front, significant accomplishments have occurred. More than 40 of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi officials have been apprehended by Coalition forces. Northern Iraq and the Shi'a heartland, running from just south of Baghdad to the Kuwaiti border, have been secured; and recruitment for the first battalion of the new Iraqi army has commenced, with 1,200 Iraqi being trained this year and 40,000 to be trained over the next 2 years. Essential services, too, have progressed. All of Iraq's hospitals and 95 percent of its health clinics have opened and are providing services, including the dissemination of 22.3 doses of measles, TB, hepatitis B, diptheria, whooping cough, tetanus and polio vaccines required to inoculate 4.2 million children. More than 100 schools have been rehabilitated, with 600 more projected to be completed prior to the start of the school year. Ninety percent of Iraq's public schools and all of Baghdad's universities have reopened. Dilapidated and looted power, water, and sewage treatment facilities have been rehabilitated and electricity generation now nears 75 percent of prewar levels. Further, phone service has been restored to hundreds of thousands of customers; and massive cleanups of Baghdad's poorest neighborhoods have been completed. Economically, Iraq is beginning to flourish. The streets of major cities bustle with commerce, markets now access many previously sanctioned goods, including more than 150 Iraqi published newspapers. Long-term growth is being promoted through regional integration and increased trade. Banking reforms, including the unification of currency with new bank notes in circulation and new monetary policies based upon transparency and discipline are being implemented. And oil production has passed 1 million barrels per day and soon will reach 2 million barrels per day. And the governance of this once captive country is finally in the hands of the Iraqi people. Iraq's new, diverse, 25-member Governing Council was fully formed on July 13. All major Iraqi cities have city councils, and over 85 percent of Iraqi towns have town councils. All Baghdad neighborhoods have advisory councils. Eleven government ministry buildings have been rehabilitated or equipped, and dozens of nongovernmental organizations are being funded to deliver local services and build a civil society. As noted by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on September 25, when measured against past reconstruction efforts, specifically those in Germany following World War II, the progress in Iraq is striking: ``Within 2 months, all major Iraqi cities and most towns had municipal councils, something that took 8 months in postwar Germany. Within 4 months the Iraqi Governing Council had appointed a cabinet, something that took 14 months in Germany. An independent Iraqi Central Bank was established and a new currency announced in just 2 months, accomplishments that took 3 years in postwar Germany. Within 2 months a new Iraqi police force was conducting joint patrols with Coalition forces. Within 3 months we had begun training a new Iraqi army, and today some 56,000 are participating in the defense of their country. By contrast, it took 14 months to establish a police force in Germany and 10 years to begin training a new German army.'' Moreover, Iraqi reconstruction successes are especially striking when one realizes the new Germany's reconstruction only followed Nazi Germany's unconditional surrender and complete cessation of hostilities. In Iraq, while the major operational conflict is over, the Coalition is rebuilding a country with which we are still at war. The major military conflict phase ended with the fall of Baghdad. But the fall of Baghdad was not a surrender. It was a strategic retreat, one devised to commence the war's guerilla phase. Baathist diehards, Saddam loyalists and terrorists from or drawn to Iraq are employing terror's ruthless tactics to wage a guerilla war against American soldiers and a psychological war against American citizens. These cowardly criminals' ghoulish goal is to kill enough American soldiers to force a disheartened American public to demand a hasty withdrawal from Iraq. The criminals learned this lesson from the successful North Vietnamese military dictum asserting their war with the U.S. would not be won or lost on battlefields of Southeast Asia but in the streets of America. Thus, heartened by every politician's or pundit's groundless pontificating to the effect Iraq is our new Vietnam, these Iraqi extremists kill on as they cling to any false hope they will usurp power when a dispirited America retreats. They are, of course, wrong. America will not retreat from Iraq. America will reconstruct Iraq. And we will do so in the very face of this guerilla phase of the Iraqi campaign. Unfortunately, this act of humanitarianism is both unprecedented in world history and little noticed by the world community, including many Americans. The failure to fully recognize the context and accurately gauge the progress of Iraqi reconstruction forms a misguided basis for opposition to Iraqi reconstruction, jeopardizes the coalition's efforts to win the Iraqi theater of operations, and increases the odds of Iraq becoming the first setback in America's and its allies' war on terrorism. And it is not the only misguided basis for opposing Iraqi reconstruction. While subsequent events have so far vindicated the decisions dictated by the regime change-reconstruction calculus regarding the necessity and viability of regime change in the Iraqi theater of operations in the war on terror, the stability wrought only through successful reconstruction efforts remains elusive due to international, Iraqi and American opposition. In 1940, England's finest hour arrived as it singlehandedly fought off the Wehrmacht war-machine subjugating continental Europe, and its steadfast lion, Mr. Churchill, implored the United States to abandon its intransigent, antiquated isolationism and join the struggle to save civilization from Naziism. Ironically, we now find ourselves similarly situated in the concert of international events and the court of world opinion. Yet unlike the opposition Prime Minister Churchill faced from international appeasers and American isolationists in the nascent stages of World War II, in the war on terror no civilized country denies the danger and all demand its end. Still, many nations are reticent to make the hard sacrifices needed to end terror. This is thoroughly disgusting but hardly surprising. Nearing the close of World War II, a former isolationist and an eventual bipartisan leader in international cooperation, U.S. Senator Arthur Vandenberg, Republican of Michigan, squarely addressed the problem of international cooperation against common foes: It means the continued and total battle fraternity of the United Nations. It must mean one for all and all for one, and it will mean this unless somewhere in this grand alliance the stupid and sinister folly of ulterior ambitions shall invite the enemy to postpone our victory through our own rivalries and our own confusion. The United Nations, in even greater unity of military action than heretofore, must never, for any cause, permit this military unity to fall apart. If it does, we shall count the cost in mortal anguish even though we stumble on to a belated though inevitable victory. This is an obligation which rests no less upon our allies than upon us and no less upon us than our allies. First things must come first. History will not deal lightly with any who undermine this aim ere it is achieved. Destiny will one day balance any such ghastly accounts. Now I am not so naive as to expect any country to act on any final motive other than self-interest. I know of no reason why it should. That is what nations are for. I certainly intend that intelligent and loyal American self- interest shall be just as vigilantly and vigorously guarded as is amply obvious from time to time in their own behalf by the actions of our allies. The real question always becomes just this, where does real self-interest lie? Until last week, the answer was mixed, with too many nations cravenly calculating to meanly subsidize their security from terrorism with the blood of American and allied soldiers. Yes, the recent unanimous approval by the United Nations' Security Council of Resolution 1511, (2003) provides a faint, begrudging admission a democratic Iraq would benefit the world community. However, these nations' true test will come not through their delicate words, but through their concrete deeds. The international community's first concrete deed must be relieving the new Iraq of the debts amassed by the old Iraq. The resolution of this issue involving billions of dollars of debt, much of it munitions debts owed to members of the very United Nations Security Council which sanctioned Iraq, yet who continued to sell weapons and dual-use technologies to the former rogue regime until the removal of Mr. Hussein, will prove the real answer to where these nations believe their real self-interest lies. Regardless of their decision on the debt, and their track record does not portend a proper one, the U.S. and its allies must still fulfill the obligation of international etiquette to ask these other nations' participation and cooperation. But we must, throughout the process, rid ourselves of any delusion these nations will suddenly abandon their old greed and accept their true duty. And we must dedicate ourselves to the arduous task of reconstructing the new Iraq wherever these nations perceive their real self-interest to lie. This debt test also applies to American supporters of reconstruction efforts who advocate U.S. reconstruction funds to Iraq be tendered as a loan rather than a grant. If America shares the taint of short-term pecuniary interest, it will eclipse the faint hope the world's predator-creditor community will relent from their billions in claims upon Iraq. The death of this slim hope will then write its own wicked epithet by crushing this nascent democracy under oceans of red ink, precluding Iraqi prosperity, undermining Iraqi democracy, and spawning a new Iraq regime of the old Iraq regime, by the old Iraqi regime and for the Iraqi regime, or worse. Prior to determining where their real self-interest lies, these international amassers of Iraqi debt and American loan proponents should read an elementary treatise recording the mounting miseries of their philosophical predecessors beginning with the Treaty of Versailles up to the Weimar Republic and on through the rise of Nazi Germany. Then they might see their position may or may not ``saddle our children with tomorrow's debt''; but it will saddle our children with today's threat. Not surprisingly, active Iraqi opposition to reconstruction is comprised of the same thugs who opposed Iraqi regime change, namely, deposed members of the former Baathist regime, former soldiers who were disbanded under the first wave of de-Baathification, and terrorists both native to and newly arrived in the country. These bands' opposition to a new, democratic Iraq is self-evident. They will fight to the death to restore the old Iraq, for they have nothing to live for in the new Iraq. The larger, long-term obstacle to reconstruction is the passive nonparticipation of large segments of Iraq's general population. Typified by a reticence to assist Coalition forces and nongovernmental organizations in rebuilding efforts, this de facto opposition is a direct result of recent history. Too often Iraqis have witnessed Saddam's apparent demise only to see him resurrected; and, not illogically, a chary Iraqi populace will not risk life and limb in reconstruction efforts so long as there exists a glimmer of danger the Coalition will depart and Saddam will return. Despite this indigenous opposition, the beneficent prospects for long-term reconstruction remain. The active opposition must and will be dealt with by both coalition forces and the new Iraqi security apparatus; while the defacto opposition must be dealt with through a firm coalition commitment to reconstruction, consistent progress towards democracy and prosperity, and by Saddam's corpse. Finally, there exists domestic American opposition to the reconstruction of postwar Iraq. Such opposition is fascinating, particularly when viewed in light of the President's $87 billion Iraqi reconstruction request, a reasonable request, the New York Post observed, as it was less than ``the sum to replace a chunk of Manhattan, which could easily top $100 billion, not to mention the toll on the broader economy.'' And not to mention the death toll of 3,000 Americans on September 11. Why this domestic opposition? To begin with, all previous combatants in war utilized information, or more crudely, propaganda, to galvanize one's homefront and demoralize an opponent's homefront. In the war on terror, contrarily, and especially in the area of homeland security, unprecedented propaganda constraints severely delimit a nation's ability to broadcast its victories to its citizens. Practically and strategically, the U.S. and its allies cannot list all of the terrorist attacks prevented without jeopardizing precious and often scarce intelligence sources, instructing terrorists as to the real internal machinery of homeland defenses, and disconcerting and demoralizing our citizenry. The American public is reduced then to accepting the proposition ``no news is good news,'' equating government officials' silence with homeland security's efficacy, and all the while they are expect to remain fully engaged in the war on terror. It is a daunting chore and dangerous circumstance. In yet another dubious precedent of the war on terror, Americans rarely hear of our wins and our enemies rarely hear of their losses. The inverted equation becomes elementary and insidious: the more successful the effort to stop terrorist attacks on American soil, the more likely Americans are to believe the war has already been won or the threat significantly diminished. And for terrorism's adherents, one successful attack amidst a sea of defeats will delude them into believing they are winning and will lead them to ever greater depths of depravity. Exacerbating and intertwining with the ``no news is good news'' conundrum of the war on terror is the man-bites-dog dictum of journalism fostering a barrage of reports upon solely the setbacks in Iraqi reconstruction efforts. Such reporting has crafted an inaccurate public perception to the effect an ungrateful Iraqi people are bent upon killing the very American infidels who liberated them. This public perception is demonstrably false. Polls consistently prove the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are grateful for their liberation, and once the threat of a Baathist resurgence is finally vanquished, Iraqis will prove the ultimate architects of their own emancipation and realization of democracy. Nevertheless, an American public bombarded by no news or negative news will not prove easily disabused of this misconception, and it will continue to prove a formidable obstacle to garnering domestic support for Iraqi reconstruction efforts. Finally and most formidably of all domestic opposition to reconstruction stems from America's still retaining a strong current, however scattered and misdirected, of isolationism, comprised of the twin branches of traditional isolationism and, ironically, liberalism's post-Cold War hyperglobalism. Liberalism's post-Cold War hyperglobalism is, in reality, a thinly veiled venture to delegate and thereby subordinate America's national interests to international organizations. Inveterately, such hyperglobalist requests for international aid or assistance or cooperation or partnership on issues affecting American national security are but a pretext to providing an international veto prior to America's defending its interests. In doing so, hyperglobalism would alienate America from its own national security interests by subordinating America to the United Nations. This, in effect, would isolate America from its supreme sovereign duty to defend its own interests and from its especial role to defend freedom and democracy throughout the world. Naturally, while America must still always welcome international support to defend freedom and ourselves, in the war on terror where America is the enemies' primary target, isolationism disguised as hyperglobalism is ridiculous and dangerous: if we surrender our self- defense to the whims and good wishes of the U.N., soon we will never be more loved and never more dead. The separate branch of the same tree, traditional isolationism, once thought as ideological casualty of Pearl Harbor, has never expired because of its emotional, albeit fanciful, appeal: Who would not want to avoid foreign wars costing the lives of Americans? Of course, so few people argue against a wish so enticing, and this of course is why so many politicians propound isolationism, be it however subtly or less than subtly. For example, consider these excerpts from a certain Senator's radio address: ``My friends, it is this satanically clear, clever propaganda that appeals to Christianity, the idealism, the humanity, and the loyalty of the American people that takes us into war. ``Do not let yourselves be swayed by mass hysteria. ``Warmongers, sordid romanticists, reckless adventurers, and some whose sympathies and sentiments are stronger than their reasoning powers would plunge this Nation into war. Plunge us into a war from which we would gain nothing. ``Don't let yourselves be misled by the so-called notables . . . they do not represent labor, the farmer, the youth and the mothers or fathers of America. `` . . . Americans in greater numbers must firmly resolve and express themselves that we will fight no offensive war.'' The Senator continued: ``America's war ought to be against industrial unemployment and low farm prices . . . ``We sympathize with the oppressed and persecuted everywhere. We also realize that we have great problems at home, that one third of our population is ill-fed, ill-housed and ill-clad, and unless and until this situation is corrected, our democracy is in danger.'' He then concluded: ``I cannot help but feel that we should settle our own problems before we undertake to settle the problems of Asia, Africa, Australasia, South America and Europe. As Americans interested first in America, what is our present stake?'' This isolationist ode to only spending Americans' money solving Americans' domestic problems comes not from the current Iraqi reconstruction debates. They were the remarks of U.S. Senator Burton Wheeler, Democrat, Montana, in opposing the Roosevelt administration's lend-lease proposal with England. Still, the crude crux of the matter, originally posited by Wheeler and later by his isolationist ilk from the debates over aid to Greece and Turkey through the Marshall Plan right up to today's debates over Iraqi reconstruction remains: What is in it for us? A bitterly ironic inquiry from baby boomer Democrats who once applauded JFK's inaugural challenge to ``ask not what your country can do for you,'' but I digress. What is in it for us is what is in it for everyone: a stable, democratic, and prosperous new ally in the war on terror serving for generations to come as a bulwark in the struggle for the survival of our Nation and world civilization. True, some isolationists find the survival of freedom and civilization far less tactile goals than, say, a new road or free condoms, but the survival of freedom and civilization must suffice as our abiding cause in this time of national crisis. Seriously, what is more presently pressing: erecting schoolchildren new classes or eradicating schoolchildren's killers? Where must we must urgently expends our resources: finishing the liberation of Iraq and standing tall at the front door of terrorism, or spending ever more money at home so when terrorists blow in our back door, they can admire our compassion as they kill us? Right now, more than ever, we must resist all of isolationism's shortsighted and selfish special interest appeals, lest America asphyxiate upon its tissue of lies. And may God spare the souls of those who do partake of the isolationism's fools gold only to find its blood money, blood money borrowed at the collateral cost of future Americans killed. This we will not do to our children. This we will not do to our civilization. This we will not do to ourselves. History is a harsh mistress, beautifully chaste in her truth, but brutally cruel in her treatment of fools who fail to learn her lessons. So while many today may not recall Senator Burton Wheeler's name and many presently reprise his siren song of isolationism, for both, history will record and return an equally ignominious and indelible indictment. Or worse, for our contemporary isolationists. After all, the isolationist Wheeler railed before 2,300 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor. The new isolationists rail after 3,000 Americans were killed on 9-11. Mr. Speaker, waging and winning the war on terror requires the arduous global eradication of terrorists through diplomatic, economic, and military operations, often including the concomitant tactics of rogue regime change and reconstruction, in tiered theaters of operations. To do so throughout this unsought struggle, we must mobilize our Nation's greatest resource: ourselves. For while our path is clear, our road is hard. But we must trod it ever bravely to a better world for ourselves and our children. There is no turning back to await an ignoble death. In his December 26, 1941, address to a joint session of Congress, Prime Minister Winston Churchill warned another shocked generation of Americans sucked into a world conflagration to firmly press on: ``Some people may be startled or momentarily depressed when, like your President, I speak of a long and hard war. But our peoples would rather know the truth, somber though it be. And, after all, when we are doing the noblest work in the world, not only defending our hearths and homes but the cause of freedom in other lands . . . Sure I am that this day, now we are masters of our fate, that the task which has been set us is not above our strength, that its pangs and toils are not beyond our endurance. As long as we have faith in our cause and an unconquerable willpower, salvation will not be denied us.'' Once again ambushed but unbowed, we heirs of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill have again allied and formed a coalition of the willing to defeat the common enemies of our countries and our civilization, while much of the world stands mute or worse and seems blithely ambivalent to the arrival of the terrorists upon their doorsteps. But we cannot evade this crusade. We cannot wish the world away. Today's war on terror will yield either a bitter death or a better day. And thusly does our generation of Americans face our fiercest foe and our finest hour. As Americans, we are honor bound to defend freedom for ourselves and all the world. And no one more ably embodied and expressed this grim acceptance of our sacred duty than our valiant wartime Commander in Chief, whom I quote: ``There comes a time when you and I must see the cold, inexorable necessity of saying to these inhuman, unrestrained seekers of world conquest and permanent world domination by the sword: `You seek to throw our children and our children's children into your form of terrorism and slavery. You have now attacked our own safety. You shall go no further.' ``Normal practices of diplomacy, note writing, are of no possible use in dealing with international outlaws who . . . kill our citizens. ``One peaceful nation after another has met disaster because each refused to look the danger squarely in the eye until it actually had them by the throat. ``The United States will not make that fatal mistake . . . '' Our President continued: ``I have no illusions about the gravity of this step. I have not taken it hurriedly or lightly. It is the result of months and months of constant thought and anxiety and prayer. In the protection of your Nation and mine, it cannot be avoided. ``The American people have faced other grave crises in their history, with American courage, and with American resolution. They will do no less today. ``They know the actualities of the attacks upon us. They know the necessities of a bold defense against these attacks. They know that the times call for clear heads and fearless hearts. ``And with that inner strength that comes to a free people conscious of their duty and conscious of the righteousness of what they do, they will, with Divine help and guidance, stand their ground against this latest assault upon their democracy, their sovereignty, and their freedom.'' Those were the inspirational words our wartime President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which he used to conclude his fireside chat on national defense. The date: September 11, 1941. Be it September 11, 1941, or September 11, 2001, our Nation, founded as a revolutionary experiment in democracy and remaining so to this day, so too remains the primary target of all would-be world despots. Consequently, as every generation of Americans inherits the blessings and the burdens of our liberty, every generation of Americans has the right and responsibility to defend our Nation and civilization against every tyrant and terrorist who knows they cannot enslave and exterminate humanity so long as the United States and its people breathe and fight on against them. Mr. Speaker, in this, our moment, such is our duty, we must accept. And it will be met, in this, our finest hour, until tomorrow where a finer, kinder day awaits. May God continue to grace and guard and bless our United States of America.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my alma mater Detroit Catholic Central Men's Golf Team, the 2003 Michigan High School Athletic Association Division I Champions. In conditions unfavorable to competitive golf, Catholic Central fired a two-round total of 636, six shots ahead of their nearest competitor. Led by seniors Chris Eliason, Mike King, and Jimmy Burns sophomores David Denyer and Adam Hogue, and Coach Bill Hayes, the Shamrocks easily captured the Catholic League Championship and State Regional Championship while posting an 11-1 dual meet record. Mr. Speaker, I extend my warmest congratulations to the Shamrocks of Detroit Catholic Central for capturing the MHSAA Golf Championship.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

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

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consumed to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 400) honoring the 25th anniversary of Pope John Paul II's ascension to the papacy, as amended.

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 400, the resolution now under consideration.

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Briefly, this resolution is here this week which I appreciate, but I would like for the ``eternal record'' to record that any delay in this resolution, please not be added to my sentence in purgatory should I get that far.