David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the extraordinary accomplishments of a distinguished educator, coach Frank Comfort. It is fitting that we recognize this exceptional gentleman for his remarkable contributions to higher education, his manifold successes and abiding dedication to college athletics, and his enduring influence on generations of college students. Frank Comfort has the distinction of being the winningest dual-meet swimming coach in NCAA history. He has amassed an unparalleled record of leadership and has devoted his time, skills, and energy to cultivating the very best in student-athletes. His career has been defined not only by athletic achievement, but by a dedication to the development of young men and women who are student-athletes in the finest sense: those who successfully combine athletic prowess with academic achievement. Frank Comfort is a 1967 alumnus of Syracuse University, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts in history and physical education. He went on to earn a Master of Arts in physical education from the University of North Carolina, UNC, and in 1968, became the head swimming coach for men and women at Johns Hopkins University. At Hopkins, his swimmers won 12 NCAA individual titles and one NCAA relay title. In 1977, Frank Comfort returned to UNC, where his consistent leadership and dedication to excellence for 30 years as Head Coach have made him one of the most respected college swimming coaches in history. Many people have made notable contributions to collegiate athletics. Few leave the legacy of Frank Comfort. He has developed swimming teams that have thrilled the collegiate athletic world with their courage, skill and achievement. Frank Comfort's swimmers and divers have won often and won big. Of his 578 dual meet wins, 308 have come while coaching men's teams and 270 while coaching women's teams. More than a decade ago, Frank Comfort became the winningest swimming coach in the history of the Atlantic Coast Conference in terms of league championships won. Overall, he has led Tar Heel teams to 25 Atlantic Coast Conference championships during his tenure--the most in conference history by a single coach. In his 30 years at UNC, his women's teams have been a consistent national force, finishing in the top 25 an astounding 25 times, including nine seasons in the top ten. During his long tenure at UNC, he has taught many National Collegiate Athletic Association, Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women and U.S. Swimming national champion swimmers. Several of his swimmers were chosen to represent the United States in the Olympics as well. Because of these accomplishments, Frank Comfort's stature as a coach has solidified in the amateur and international ranks. Among his many additional coaching positions, he served on the coaching staff at the U.S. Olympic Festival on six occasions and as the head coach of the U.S. Women's Team which competed in the Goodwill Games in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1994. It comes as no surprise that Frank Comfort's name has been on the U.S. Swimming International Coaches List consistently since 1976, an honor going only to the most elite coaches in the United States. He was named the youngest recipient ever of the Master Coach Award from the College Swimming Coaches Association and was inducted into the Johns Hopkins Athletic Hall of Fame. Frank Comfort is a living testament to the positive role that collegiate athletics plays in our national experience. His guidance has empowered both teams and individuals to fulfill their promise and to extend their purpose and passion, to step out of their comfort zone and excel. Athletic achievement is not an endeavor that runs itself. It requires the constant leadership, foresight, encouragement, and discipline that can be afforded only by dedicated coaches. Coaches are one of the best examples of what is great about our country. They inspire students and athletes to become better people; to give their best in every endeavor and to make the most of their God-given abilities. Frank Comfort's leadership is about cultivating the promise of the human spirit and encouraging those who work daily to make that promise a reality. Frank Comfort's career will soon come to a close. After almost 40 years as a coach and educator, he has left an indelible mark on college athletics and on countless students whom he has coached, mentored, advised, and inspired. Please join me in commending Frank Comfort, distinguished coach and educator, and an exemplar of strong character and leadership.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill as chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, advocating for the bill's acceleration of programs critical to the integrity of our borders and the safety of the American people. These are carefully crafted, legitimate emergency security measures, and there is no good reason to wait further to make this country more secure. Today, however, I want to address the broader bill, speaking colleague to colleague, mindful and respectful of the struggles with conscience so evident among us in recent days. I did not support originally giving the authority to the President to wage war in Iraq. I have introduced legislation calling for an end to that authorization. But I understand there is a wide range of opinion on where we should go from here, and there are many who believe that this bill, which takes a major step towards changing our course in Iraq, either goes too far or not far enough. Our discussions on this issue have brought to mind lessons from my days in divinity school and as a teacher of ethics, lessons I believe are helpful in sorting out what it means and should mean to follow one's conscience on a matter such as this. On the first day of Ethics 101, we learn that we often face two kinds of moral choice in life. One has to do with the morality of an act itself, which is what many colleagues are referring to when they say they are ``voting their conscience'' on what we know is an imperfect bill. The second kind of moral choice requires us to consider the consequences of our acts. That is also an exercise of conscience, perhaps an even more demanding one. Think about the consequences. What if the consequence of voting ``no'' is to let slip away the best chance we may have for a long time to compel a change of course in Iraq? What if a consequence is the further crippling of this House's influence in this country's foreign and defense policy? What if the consequence of a ``no'' vote is to allow the President to continue on the same failed policy course? Are those not matters of conscience? Some talk as though we should simply square the contents of this bill against an ideal and vote accordingly. No, I am afraid moral choice and our obligations as public servants run deeper than that. Please, don't sell short a vote in favor of this bill as though it were a mere practical or political accommodation. By all means, treat this vote as an act of conscience, but an act based on a searching consideration of the full range of consequences that may result.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the escalation of troop levels, to call for an end to the American occupation of Iraq, and to support the resolution before the House. The two clauses of this resolution go hand in hand. There should be no doubt about the support from this Congress and indeed from the American people for those who risk their lives to defend this Nation. As a Nation, we have learned to sincerely honor the warrior, even when we disagree with the war. I have personally been moved by my own interactions with our troops. I have been honored to meet with them here at home, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Kosovo, and in numerous other places where they are serving honorably. And I have mourned with their families when their service has led to the ultimate sacrifice. No one who spends time with the members of our Armed Forces can fail to be impressed by the dedication and valor with which they carry out their duty. In addition to guaranteeing that they have the resources, equipment and compensation they need, supporting our troops also means ensuring that the missions we ask them to perform are viable and well-designed in terms of our national objectives. The President's surge plan does not meet these criteria, and Congress should oppose it. The question before us today is whether an escalation of as many as 48,000 American troops is the best way to turn things around in Iraq. However, this question is part of a much larger debate that this country and this Chamber must conduct, a debate about the future of the U.S. military mission. There cannot be a simply military solution to the challenges that we, and the Iraqi people, face in Iraq. The size of our military presence will not make the difference, because any solution to Iraq's problems will still be political, not military. The recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq confirms this conclusion. The unclassified report noted that even the term ``civil war'' is not grave enough to convey the complexity of the security challenges in Iraq. More to the point, the NIE noted that there were three ``identifiable elements that could help to reverse negative trends'': broader Sunni acceptance of the federalist political structure, Shia and Kurdish concessions to Sunnis, and ``a bottom-up approach to help mend frayed relationships between tribal and religious groups.'' Note that none of these elements can be achieved by military force. The outgoing commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq, Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, recently stated, ``We need to get out of thinking that this is solely a military conflict. All of our Nation's strengths--diplomatic, economic, political--must be leveraged to help the Iraqis find their way through this process.'' Other military leaders have echoed this sentiment. My colleague from North Carolina, Brad Miller, and I have proposed such an approach in our bill, H.R. 645. Our bill would dramatically strengthen U.S. political and diplomatic efforts. It would send special envoys to the region to encourage Iraq's neighbors to play a more productive role in resolving the conflict and to facilitate a national reconciliation process in Iraq. It would also authorize a program to get would-be insurgents off the streets and into the workforce. And it would provide ongoing support for the development of democratic institutions, particularly at the local level. While enhancing our political and diplomatic efforts, our bill would de-escalate our military commitment. It would terminate the authorization for the war at the end of this year, and require President Bush to develop an exit strategy for bringing our troops home by that date. We can no longer ask our troops in Iraq to do the impossible. In fact, their presence is fueling the insurgency and is a magnet for international terrorism. It is time for the American occupation of Iraq to end, and for Iraqi leaders to assume responsibility for their country's future, for better or for worse. Some have argued that our troops must remain in Iraq to prevent intolerable outcomes. But the outcomes that we have most feared--a civil war, a training ground for terrorists, an ascendant Iran--have already become reality, despite the continuing presence of our troops. While a military presence may delay even worse outcomes, it cannot prevent them. If we are to avoid a regional war or an exponential increase in Iraq's carnage, our best hope is the increased political and diplomatic effort that I have proposed. Mr. Speaker, how we leave Iraq does matter. A well-planned withdrawal can enhance our ability to protect our troops and prepare Iraqis to assume control. We must not make the same mistake ending the war that we did in beginning it, pursuing a strategy without adequate planning. But we should not hide behind this imperative. We can't allow an exit strategy to prevent or postpone an exit. I urge my colleagues to consider H.R. 645, which I believe offers the best way to pursue American national security interests in Iraq. Let me close on a note of caution. The resolution we are debating here today is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The President should hear our message, which expresses the conviction of the majority of the American people that the time to end our occupation of Iraq has come. However, if he doesn't take steps to bring our troops home, the President should be under no illusion that this nonbinding resolution exhausts Congress's role. Rather, it is a first step in holding him accountable and reversing a failed policy that has made our Nation less safe, and has cost us so dearly in blood and treasure.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Thank you. And we do thank the chairman and the ranking member, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, for scheduling this resolution so promptly, so that the House could act on this and our commission could get on with its work. I also want to acknowledge the previous speaker, Mr. Dreier, the previous chairman of the House Democracy Assistance Commission, who did a wonderful job in getting this commission launched in its first 2 years. As he said, we have operated every step of the way on an open and bipartisan basis; and so as we swap roles, with my assuming the chairmanship and his being the ranking member, I am very hopeful that this will be a seamless transition, and that this cooperative way of operating will continue. Indeed it should, as we work together in this body to take the message and the practice of democracy to our partner legislatures around the world. House Resolution 24 would reauthorize the work of the commission. This is a body that was inspired by the work of the Frost-Solomon Task Force back in the early 1990s. We worked then with states in Central and Eastern Europe as they were emerging from communism. Our commission has undertaken this same kind of work. We are building the institutional capacities of legislatures in emerging democracies. We are working with them to develop their research and budget analysis, oversight, legislative drafting, and other capabilities. There is a difference, though. In contrast to the Frost-Solomon effort, our scope is not just Central and Eastern Europe, although some of our partner countries are still in that region. We are undertaking around the world to work with partner legislatures. In the commission's first 2 years, we have worked with legislatures in 12 nations. Many of these countries are of key strategic import for our own Nation, and all are enthusiastic, worthy, and willing partners: Afghanistan, Colombia, East Timor, Georgia, Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Mongolia, and Ukraine. Madam Speaker, we view our work as a small but important niche in the United States's mission to spread democracy around the world. We do this not in the sense that we have all the answers about how to promote democratic rights and governance. The commission's work is rooted in the fundamental realization that the heart of democracy is not found just in elections but between elections. Between elections, that is when a nation's ability to govern itself in a way that is responsive to its citizens and representative of its citizens is established. What happens between elections, establishing representative institutions of governance, is just as important as the nation's free determination of who will govern. Our commission works with partner legislatures to support development of the tools legislators need to establish responsive, effective government. We carry on our work in the sure realization that we do not have all the answers. We know that our own democracy is a work in progress. We do think we have an important story to tell. But we approach each of these legislatures in a true spirit of partnership, learning from them as they learn from us. We also don't have a corner on the market of democracy promotion, and we coordinate closely with USAID, with the State Department, with other actors in the field to ensure that our efforts complement and enhance theirs. We have high expectations for the program which we hope to implement in 2007 with the support of this body. During the last 2 years, our focus has been on assessing candidate legislatures and seeking to establish partnerships. Now we plan to move toward consolidating these relationships by expanding and focusing our programming. We plan to conduct advanced seminars on critical legislative capabilities, to enable sustained communications between members and staff of our legislatures, to identify and support pro-democracy reformers in partner legislatures, and to provide small-scale material assistance in cases of significant need. So, Madam Speaker, let me close by again thanking my colleague Representative David Dreier, the founding chairman of the House Democracy Assistance Commission, thanking him for his leadership. He has led us with vision and with an inclusive spirit. I also want to thank Speaker Pelosi, past Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Hoyer, Chairman Lantos, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, and many others who have supported the commission and helped bring forward quickly this resolution to get our work going. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, which offers Members of this body a promising opportunity to directly contribute to the important work of championing democracy around the world.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California for those very generous and indeed extravagant words. Coming from him, they mean more than I can say.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an accomplishment for which my constituents and all North Carolinians have tremendous pride. The 2006 Lady Tarheels of the University of North Carolina have just claimed their 19th Women's Soccer National Championship, beating the Notre Dame Fighting Irish 2-1 in the title game last Sunday. Under the leadership of Head Coach Anson Dorrance, Carolina women's Soccer has been the most dominant program in the history of college athletics, winning 18 of the last 25 national championships since the NCAA established the women's tournament. The national title game capped off a stellar career for senior captain Heather O'Reilly, who was named the tournament's Most Outstanding Offensive Player, as well as for Carolina's other seniors. Junior Defender Robyn Gayle was named Most Outstanding Defense Player, and seven freshmen played for the Lady Tarheels in the game. I also take great pride in the fact that the championship game took place in my district at the SAS Soccer Park in Cary. The sell-out crowd of more than 8,300 enthusiastic fans is a testament to the growing popularity of soccer in North Carolina and across the country. So I extend my congratulations to the Lady Tarheels on their outstanding success, to a Notre Dame squad for a well-played tournament, and to the university community in Chapel Hill that has come to embrace women's soccer as one of its most precious gems. Even the great Dean Smith, himself the winningest coach in college basketball history, once remarked: ``This is a women's soccer school. We're just trying to keep up with them.''

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about S. 2370, the Senate-passed version of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act before us today. Earlier this year, the House considered a version of this legislation. I rose in strong opposition to that bill, because it would have unfairly punished the average Palestinian citizen for the crimes of extremist Hamas leaders. It would have shut off all aid but the most narrowly defined humanitarian assistance, ending U.S. support for successful non-governmental efforts to promote democracy, tolerance, and peace in the region. In short, though well-intentioned, it would have undermined our ability to stop attacks against Israel and to achieve our most important foreign policy goals in the region. I was joined by several of my colleagues in opposing the bill. Though the House passed this flawed legislation, we were able to send a vital message: at this critical moment, we cannot afford to pull the rug out from those working for democracy and reconciliation in the region. The Senate heeded our message, and passed a much improved bill. Specifically, the bill addresses two significant concerns we raised during the House debate. First, the Senate bill provides the Administration far more flexibility to deliver aid to the Palestinian people and to those working for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. In addition to broader humanitarian aid, it explicitly authorizes ``assistance to promote democracy, human rights, freedom of the press, non-violence, reconciliation, and peaceful co-existence.'' Second, the bill expands the Administration's options for engaging diplomatically with Palestinian leaders not associated with Hamas, including Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, who will be a critical ally if we are to negotiate a peace agreement. I am greatly pleased to see the improvements the Senate legislation has made, and for that reason I will support the bill's passage. However, because events have evolved since this legislation was first considered, I want to add a few words, lest our action today send the wrong message at the wrong time. After a summer of crisis, during which the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier led Israel to send its military into Gaza, there have been several recent positive developments. First, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PA President Abbas negotiated a ceasefire to end the violent confrontation in Gaza. Second, both Prime Minister Ohmert and President Abbas have recently made clear their commitment to resuming peace talks. And third, Palestinian leaders are reportedly on the verge of forming a unity government that would end Hamas's sole control of the PA. Passage of this legislation at this time should not be interpreted as unawareness of these positive developments or unwillingness to support them. Such progress should be rewarded with an increased U.S. commitment to work for peace in the region, not punished by the erection of new obstacles or the imposition of new sanctions. With that said, however, I strongly support the goals of isolating Hamas and encouraging the Palestinian leadership to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist, practical and principal steps toward the resumption of negotiations aimed at a two-state solution. This bill would accomplish those goals and I will support it. I hope it will serve not as an endpoint but as a launchpad for reinvigorated U.S. action to support a settlement that will bring a lasting peace to Israelis and Palestinians.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and am proud to add my voice of commendation in support of House Resolution 1088, which I have cosponsored with the gentleman from California, chairman of the House Democracy Assistance Commission. In July, I traveled with the commission to Beirut to initiate a partnership with the Lebanese Parliament. While there, I had an opportunity to have lunch with Pierre Gemayel. I was struck then by his charismatic personality and his enthusiasm over the prospects for real reform in Lebanon. In many ways, Pierre Gemayel represented the promise of Lebanon's future. A strong advocate of democratic governance in Lebanon, he shook off the constraints of confessionalism to battle side by side with Christians, Sunni and Shia Muslims to guarantee Lebanon's sovereignty against the persisting threat of Syrian domination. Pierre Gemayel was named to lead the Industry Ministry in the wake of the Cedar Revolution demonstrations of March 14, 2005 and the subsequent national elections which brought to power a cross-sectarian coalition of pro-democracy politicians, determined to reform the Lebanese Government to make it strong and effective and to resist foreign domination. Our Nation celebrated the courage of the Lebanese people in registering their demand for democratic government in these elections, but we have not done enough since the elections to support the democratic institutions and leaders like Pierre Gemayel have worked to strengthen. This resolution before us sends a clear signal that the United States must do more to support these institutions if we hope to help the Lebanese people achieve their dreams. I thank my colleague, David Drier of California, for his strong leadership as chairman of our House Democracy Assistance Commission. This commission, as he has stated, has allowed Members of this body to work colleague to colleague to strengthen the Lebanese Parliament and other parliaments in emerging democracies. I look forward to joining with him in the next Congress to continue this important work. And I join my colleagues in expressing condolences to the Gemayel family and the people of Lebanon on their tragic loss. We must also acknowledge that Mr. Gemayel is but the latest in a succession of leaders recently martyred in Lebanon because of their fight for democracy, beginning with former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. We must fight to bring justice to the perpetrators of these crimes and to bring fulfillment to the goals these pro-democracy leaders have sought. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution and to support efforts to strengthen democratic institutions in Lebanon.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to join the chairman and our ranking member in paying tribute to Martin Sabo, whom I also consider a dear friend and one of this institution's finest Members. Martin has served here for 28 years. He was the chairman of the Budget Committee when Congress passed the largest deficit reduction package in its history. He served as our ranking member on Transportation Appropriations and on Homeland Security Appropriations ever since that subcommittee was formed. Martin is an exemplary Member of this body in every way. He is a skilled legislator who is more interested in achieving results than in claiming credit. He is a gifted politician with a knack for finding common ground. He is a man who understands and loves this institution. He is a congenial colleague and he is a good friend, displaying qualities of character that in the end matter above all. So we will miss Martin Sabo. We salute him for his service to Minnesota and to this country, service that is indeed exemplary and has inspired and encouraged us all.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to confront a question of central importance to our Nation: are we doing everything we should to protect our Nation from terrorism? This is not a threat we can afford to underestimate. The terrorists' means of organization, communication, and attack challenge our intelligence community, our armed forces, and our domestic law enforcement agencies in fundamentally new ways. We must take the fight to the terrorists, but that does not mean we must sacrifice our moral leadership in the international community. We must defend our homeland from attacks, but we must also avoid self- inflicted damage to the values we stand for and the liberties of our people. Our strategy cannot be merely aggressive; it must also be smart and efficient, and it must be true to the values that make us American. We must not only kill and capture specific terrorists and dismantle their organizations. We must also reduce the number of new terrorists and organizations that might exist tomorrow. Ultimately, we will win this war not by denying the rights of detainees and not by law enforcement excesses, but by protecting the integrity of our free and democratic society, and by repairing our diplomacy and showing the world that there is a better way. The Bush Administration has repeatedly implied that Americans must be prepared to set aside moral considerations, American values, and America's image in the world if such concerns get in the way of the aggressive pursuit of terrorists. In reality, such a strategic blindness will hamper our ability to win the war on terrorism. An anti- terrorism strategy informed by moral considerations, American values, and our effort to lead the world by example is consistent with an anti- terrorism strategy that pursues terrorists smartly, effectively, and aggressively. What's more, such a strategy augments our efforts because it unites the American people--and the world--behind us. Following the 9-11 attacks, President Bush had two choices. The first option was to create and implement a smart, bipartisan anti-terrorist strategy. Such a strategy would have been focused on devoting sufficient troops and resources to Afghanistan to bring down the Taliban, find and incapacitate Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and enable that nation's successful reconstruction--not just in the capital but in the outlying areas that we have never fully secured. The President could have capitalized on the tremendous outpouring of public support in the wake of the attacks to build bridges between our nation and the rest of the world, including the millions of moderate Muslims who hold no sympathy for the terrorists who are hijacking their religion. He would have proactively sought a resolution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, which has historically been the largest source of inspiration for new generations of terrorists. (The Iraq war can now lay claim to that ignoble reputation.) And he would have more significantly bolstered our defense and intelligence assets to prevent future attacks and dismantle terrorist networks. Instead, the President chose a second option that has simply failed to meet the standard of an intelligent anti-terrorism strategy. He diverted resources from the hunt for bin Laden to prepare for and initiate a war of choice in Iraq--a war, incidentally, that has made the threat of terrorism worse, not better. The recent National Intelligence Estimate makes this quite clear. In doing so, President Bush left Afghanistan vulnerable to the resurgence of the Taliban we have seen over the last several months, resulting in a deteriorating security environment in that country five years after we supposedly defeated them. He has undertaken policies that have seriously undermined public support for the U.S. in the Islamic world and beyond, including policies that cultivated a culture within the military and the intelligence community that have tolerated and even encouraged the abuse of detainees--many of whom were later determined to be innocent bystanders. He has largely neglected the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with disastrous results for Israel, Lebanon, and the entire Middle East region. David Schanzer, one of my constituents and director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism, got it right in a recent op-ed. He wrote: ``Unfortunately, we have made no progress, and in fact may have lost ground, in the ideological conflict that is fueling jihadist violence around the globe.'' So I ask today: are we doing everything we should to protect our nation against another terrorist attack? Is President Bush pursuing a smart, effective strategy to win the war on terrorism? The answer to these questions is clearly ``no.'' This week in the House, we are debating two prominent components of the President's strategy to fight terrorism: a bill to grant the President the right to circumvent checks by the judiciary to wiretap the phones of American citizens, and a bill to establish an extrajudiciary system for trying detained terrorist suspects. These bills are both clear examples of how the President continues to make the wrong choices in the war on terrorism. There is no doubt that we need a more extensive and sophisticated wiretapping program directed at those who mean us harm, both outside and inside the United States. That is not the question. The question is who should make decisions that balance civil liberties with surveillance needs. The Administration says ``just trust us.'' To that, we say a resounding no. This is not merely because the Attorney General and the Bush administration have proved unreliable stewards of our liberties. It also recognizes what our founding fathers knew quite well, that balancing power among institutions with different functional roles is the essential to our form of government. The executive branch is in the business of putting criminals and terrorists in jail; the judicial branch is in the business of interpreting the law and the Constitution, and protecting individual rights. Neither can effectively do the job of the other. The 1978 FISA law established procedures governing how the Federal Government can constitutionally collect foreign intelligence, including the ability to gather intelligence immediately in urgent situations and to obtain a warrant post-facto. Unfortunately, this administration feels that protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens has become too cumbersome. Instead of abiding by current law, the administration has chosen to make up new ones. And now that we have called the administration on this violation of the law, it is asking Congress to formally authorize its practices. In essence, the administration is telling us that we have to choose between being safe and being free. I, for one, am not willing to accept this overly simple analysis or the proposed wiretapping bill. We do not yet know what provisions will be included in the House bill, but the President's proposal would allow warrantless surveillance of international calls and e-mails of American citizens without any evidence that they are conspiring with terrorist organizations. The communications of Americans would only be protected if the National Security Administration ``reasonably believes'' all senders and recipients are in the U.S. Essentially this provision would allow anybody communicating with family or friends outside the U.S. to be monitored at any given time without any real justification or oversight. In addition, the President's proposal would pre-approve warrantless searches on all Americans following a terrorist attack in the United States for up to 45 days. I know the investigations that take place in the days and weeks following a terrorist attack are crucial in apprehending all of those involved, and I agree that we need to make sure the intelligence community has whatever resources it needs. However, providing pre-approval to the President to violate the 4th amendment of the Constitution after an attack is completely unnecessary. Current law already allows the President reasonable exemptions in these situations, and if extensions are needed, he simply needs to request judicial approval. The second key terrorism bill under debate in the House this week would establish a system for bringing detained terrorist suspects to trial. Again, there is wide and bipartisan agreement that this issue must be addressed. But President Bush has once again failed to choose the smart and morally acceptable way to do it. Over the past 3 years, many of us have watched in horror as new details about the Bush administration's treatment of detainees have been revealed. Torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, indefinite imprisonment--Americans used to think of these as charges off the pages of reports about other countries, not as sanctioned American policies. While some of us have spoken out against these practices since they became public, recent actions by the Supreme Court and a handful of courageous Senators have forced the administration to revisit them. Yet, the legislation before the House-- legislation supported by Republicans in the House, Senate, and White House--would do little to rein them in. In fact, under the proposed legislation, the Administration could continue to arbitrarily arrest and detain foreign citizens. It could continue to imprison these detainees indefinitely, without standard judicial protections such as their right to challenge their detention in court and the right of the accused to know the charges against them. And, despite the coverage granted to the so-called compromise between the White House and Senate Republicans, the Administration would still be able to continue practices that violate the Geneva Conventions prohibition of torture. Many have argued that we must prioritize winning the war on terrorism above considerations for the rights of detainees accused of having links to terrorism, as if the two were always mutually exclusive. It might be tempting to understand the issue in such simple terms, but we should resist that temptation. It is certainly true that terrorism is such a grave threat to our nation that, in some circumstances, extraordinary actions may be necessary to protect American lives. The question we should be asking, however, is whether particular policies advance our fight against terrorism, both now and over the long term. In this case, the moral argument--that potentially innocent detainees do have rights that should be protected--is in line with the appropriate strategic argument. In the short-term, the Administration's approach fails because, as current and former military and intelligence officers have repeatedly stated, torture does not reliably produce actionable intelligence. In addition to the statements of these experts, we have hard evidence: the New York Times has reported that, according to our military, interrogators were able to obtain up to 50 percent more actionable intelligence from detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq after coercive practices like hooding, stripping, and sleep deprivation were banned. In the long-term, the Bush administration's approach is even more detrimental to our progress in the war on terrorism. First, it is already having disastrous repercussions on our effort to win the hearts and minds of those at risk of being tempted by terrorist recruiters. Let us be clear: while stopping active terrorists is a critical challenge, disrupting the development of new generations of terrorists is the single most important task in winning the war on terrorism. Every person that we can persuade to renounce violence and cast his or her lot with the forces of moderation is one fewer threat to our Nation, one fewer potential airplane hijacker or train bomber. Winning hearts and minds is no exercise in sentimentality; it is perhaps the key strategy in protecting our Nation from another 9-11. The Administration's approach negates such efforts, as it essentially endorses indefinite imprisonment, arbitrary detention, and treatment of detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Administration's approach further harms our progress in the war on terrorism by placing our own troops at risk. It sends a dangerous signal to other nations that the United States has endorsed these practices for foreign detainees, inviting these nations to visit the same practices upon our own troops. It is that risk that has led several top-ranking former military leaders to object to the Administration's proposal. There is no question that a system is needed for bringing terrorists to justice. But doing it the wrong way will impede our ability to stop terrorists in the future. And the Bush administration's approach is, quite clearly, the wrong way. Victory in the war on terrorism demands, and the American people deserve, a smarter approach, consistent with the values that have made our country great. Mr. Speaker, we can choose a smart, effective strategy for combating terrorism that makes our Nation safer, or we can opt for an irresponsible, shortsighted approach that undermines our progress. These bills represent the latter. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose them.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer thanks for the life and work of Bishop F. Joseph Gossman in the Raleigh Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church and to welcome his successor, Bishop Michael F. Burbidge, whose installation I attended at Meymandi Concert Hall in Raleigh last month. It was a grand event, dedicated to the glory of God. The community is indebted to Father Gerald Lewis, General Chair of the Planning Committee, and others who so carefully and lovingly prepared this service. Bishop Gossman led the Roman Catholic diocese for 31 years in Raleigh, becoming the longest-serving diocesan bishop in the United States. The diocese grew from about 38,000 members in 1975 to 200,000 in 2005, with 62 new churches dedicated during that time. Priests who worked with Bishop Gossman describe him as collaborative and collegial, genial and gentle. But he was a warrior on issues to which his faith spoke. He supported the right of factory and farm workers to organize, spoke out against the death penalty, and stood up for civil rights and social justice. In recent years, he addressed the divisive issue of immigration, advocating for laws that respect the human rights of immigrants and preserve the unity of their families, and paid special attention to the spiritual needs of North Carolina's growing Latino population. Bishop Gossman broke new ground in promoting and participating in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. He moved women into more and more responsible leadership positions; eight of the parishes in the diocese are now headed by women. Noting that his leadership drew on expectations flowing from the Vatican Council of the 1960s, William Powell, historian of North Carolina Catholics, recently recalled what Bishop Gossman said when asked how he would like to be remembered: As someone who loved people and . . . who let people breathe, not just the air of the Church but the air of life. Joseph Gossman leaves a rich legacy, not only of burgeoning parishes and schools, but also of countless lives touched and enriched by his witness and his ministry. I join a grateful community in wishing him health, happiness, and many rewarding years to come. Bishop Michael Burbidge comes to Raleigh from Philadelphia, PA with a rich history in the church despite his relative youth. He studied for the priesthood at the Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary and subsequently served as parish priest, school chaplain, seminary dean, and administrative secretary to the Archbishop of Philadelphia. More recently Bishop Burbidge has led in the formation of future priests as Rector of St. Charles Borromeo Seminary and has served as an auxiliary bishop of Philadelphia with oversight duties ranging from the Secretariat for Clergy to the Office for Communications. Bishop Burbidge thus brings a wealth of experience to the Diocese of Raleigh, where he has invited the faithful ``to join him in his prayer for grace always to `walk humbly with God,' in loyalty and fidelity, trusting the past to His mercy, the present to His love, and the future to His providence.'' He has made an auspicious beginning, and the citizens of North Carolina welcome him warmly and wish for him grace and strength in the work he has undertaken.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of All Kinds of Minds and its Schools Attuned Program for reaching more than three-quarters-of-a-million students through the 30,000 educators who have participated in its professional development program since it began in 1987. All Kinds of Minds was co-founded in 1995 by renowned pediatrician Dr. Mel Levine and financier Charles R. Schwab to translate the latest research on the many different ways children learn, into programs, products and services that help struggling students become successful learners. The Institute's programs are based on insights from pivotal medical and educational studies, as well as more than 30 years of clinical experience by Dr. Levine, other faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, experts at All Kinds of Minds, and other leading researchers in the field. The Schools Attuned Program is a research-based program that educates K-12 teachers about the science of learning. It was designed using the standards of professional development from the National Staff Development Council. Enrolled teachers learn about eight neurodevelopmental constructs that affect learning by participating in a minimum of 35 instructional hours and 10 hours of follow-up experiences. In addition to focusing on how the brain is ``wired,'' the program examines the different ways students learn, patterns in those differences in learning, and how students' interests and strengths can be used to overcome weaknesses within the regular classroom. The framework and tools provided in the Schools Attuned Program allow parents, teachers and children to work together to conquer student learning differences. The 30,000 educator mark, which includes over 750 teachers from my home district, was accomplished through the efforts and support of teachers, schools and communities in all 50 States, Canada and Switzerland. The program has also benefited from Federal funding to supplement local educational funds in 15 States; State funding for teacher participation in North Carolina and Oklahoma; a 5-year New York City Department of Education initiative allowing nearly 1,600 educators to take part in the program; and over $70 million in funds raised since 1995 from private foundations and major philanthropists supporting the Institute nationwide. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the Schools Attuned Program for achieving this milestone of training 30,000 teachers to help students succeed in the classroom.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I address my colleagues tonight in support of H. Res. 921, but acutely aware of some of its shortcomings. Let me stipulate two things from the beginning. First, Hezbollah attacked Israel without provocation, and it now threatens the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Israelis in the range of its rockets. Such a situation is intolerable for Israel. It would be intolerable for any country. And a robust response is necessary to protect Israel's sovereignty and its citizens. Secondly, we must fully acknowledge the human toll of this conflict on innocent civilians in Lebanon and Israel and on our own citizens caught in the crossfire. As Israel meets the imperative of self- preservation by disabling Hezbollah, it must also do all it can to obey the moral imperative of protecting the innocent, though it is an imperative we know is wholly disregarded by Hezbollah. The Lebanese people are not the enemy of Israel, nor is the Lebanese Government, which is led by a reform coalition that is fighting against Syria domination. Our ultimate need is for a stronger, not a weaker, Lebanese Government. And Israeli strategy should take that, too, into account. The real enemy here of both Israel and Lebanon is Hezbollah. With those stipulations the question before us is how can our Nation play a productive role in bringing a swift and just end to this conflict? The resolution offers little insight into this; so I want to use the limited time I have here to urge my colleagues to consider this critical question. I recently returned from a mission to Beirut with the House Democracy Assistance Commission, which is working with Lebanese parliamentarians as they seek to establish an independent and effective representative body. We met with many of the reformers who won a majority of seats in the Parliament in the 2005 Cedar Revolution. Democracy has a foothold in Lebanon, and we must find a way to empower those Lebanese leaders who seek reform and democracy in their country. To bring about such a resolution, the United States must dramatically increase its engagement in the region. Secretary Rice should go there sooner rather than later, work with the international community toward a resolution of the conflict. I am not talking about a settlement that leaves Hezbollah intact and merely postpones the fight. We must have a resolution that guarantees Israel security, that permanently disarms Hezbollah, and supports the development of democracy in Lebanon. If we are truly to support Israel, we must do far more than the resolution before us suggests. Madam Speaker, I address my colleagues in support of H. Res. 921 but acutely aware of its shortcomings. Nearly two years ago, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling for the disarmament of all armed militias in Lebanon. As Lebanon's Cedar Revolution has brought new pro- democratic forces into power, one group has defied the world's mandate: Hezbollah. Hezbollah has justified its defiance by claiming to be a legitimate resistance against Israel's occupation of a small parcel of land in Syria, adjacent to Southern Lebanon, called Sheba Farms. It has tried to straddle the fence, claiming political legitimacy by participating in democratic elections and the Lebanese government, yet refusing to disarm and adding to its arsenal of rockets and other weapons. Hezbollah's decision to kidnap two Israeli soldiers and kill three others--without provocation--and to launch rockets deep into Israel belie its claims to legitimacy and reveal its true mission: fighting not for Lebanon, but for its own interests and those of its patrons in Iran and Syria. No nation should be expected to tolerate a situation in which a terrorist organization bent on its destruction has free rein to ignore established borders through ground attacks or air strikes. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis are living in constant fear of deadly rocket attacks. I join with my colleagues in strongly supporting Israel's right to defend its sovereignty and its citizens. The human toll of this conflict has also been frightful on the Lebanese side of the border. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of innocent lives have already been lost. Hundreds of homes housing innocent Lebanese citizens have been destroyed, and tens of thousands of families have been displaced. The Lebanese people, like the Israelis, are living under a dense cloud of fear and danger. Our own citizens, too, have suffered from this violence. Over the last few days, I have received calls from tearful fathers with young daughters stuck in the hills of Lebanon with no way out; from families stuck in Beirut on vacation; from relatives with Lebanese family members killed in the conflict. We must remember the suffering of these innocent citizens, caught by chance in the storm of war. As Israel faces the imperative of disabling Hezbollah, it must do all it can to obey the moral imperative of protecting the innocent, though it is an imperative we know is wholly disregarded by Hezbollah. The enemy here is not the Lebanese people. And the enemy is not the Lebanese government, which is led by a reform coalition that continues to fight against Syrian domination. The real enemy here is Hezbollah. Our ultimate need is for a stronger, not weaker, Lebanese government. What sense does it make, for example, to demand more vigorous action against terrorists by the Lebanese Army, and then proceed to destroy that Army's barracks? Our country's role must be to work for an end to this conflict that is both swift and just. Let us harbor no illusions: a cease fire that allows Hezbollah to remain intact and merely postpones this fight until another day is not an acceptable option. We must require Hezbollah to disarm permanently and guarantee that Hezbollah will no longer threaten Israel or Lebanon. That will likely require the establishment of an international peacekeeping presence. We must also work for a resolution that preserves the promise of the Cedar Revolution and empowers those Lebanese leaders who seek reform and democracy in their country. I recently returned from a mission to Beirut with the House Democracy Assistance Commission, which is working with Lebanese Parliamentarians as they seek to establish an independent and effective representative body. Our Commission met with many of the reformers who, in a stunning victory, won a majority of seats in the Parliament in the 2005 Cedar Revolution. While key positions in the government, including the Presidency, are still controlled by those who would do the bidding of Syria, democracy has a foothold in Lebanon--the most significant foothold for democracy in the entire Middle East, outside of Israel. We must not allow the current conflict to destroy that foothold. To bring about such a resolution, the United States must dramatically increase its engagement in the region. As the conflict has unfolded, we have watched the international community react with promising diplomacy. The United Nations, our allies in Europe, and key actors in the region--Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia--have come forward with mediators, cease fire proposals, and calls for international peacekeepers. Even the Arab League, too often silent in the face of past attacks against Israel, is working to convene an emergency summit to deal with the crisis. But where has our own Administration been? As one commentator recently wrote, ``the world's sole superpower is also its only no-show.'' With so much at stake for our national security interests in the region, the Bush Administration's lack of engagement is troubling. But it is not surprising. This Administration has taken a hands-off approach to the area, at great cost to the prospects for peace. It has allowed the Road Map for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to wither on the vine. It has failed to sufficiently support the moderate Palestinian leader Abu Mazen, watching as Hamas capitalized on his political struggles. And, after trumpeting the gains of the Cedar Revolution, it has done too little to actually support the fledgling reform movement in Lebanon. With the Administration's gaze still fixed on Baghdad, the tensions that have led to the current conflict mounted unchecked. Madam Speaker, the current crisis demands decisive leadership. Secretary Rice should go to the region sooner rather than later, working with the international community toward a resolution to the conflict that guarantees Israel's security, permanently disarms Hezbollah, and supports the development of democracy in Lebanon. If we are to truly support Israel, we must do far more than the resolution before us suggests.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act reauthorization appropriately carries the names of civil rights pioneers Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King. Along with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act was the major legislative expression of that great movement that inspired and challenged so many of us, whites and blacks alike, and that brought the liberty and justice that our Nation professes closer to realization. Now, many Republicans say the Voting Rights Act is too burdensome or that pre-clearance is no longer needed. But listen to the testimony of North Carolina election officials. ``I would hate to operate without it,'' says one. ``Pre-clearance requirements are routine, and do not occupy exorbitant amounts of time, energy or resources,'' adds another. ``The history of X County causes our operations to be scrutinized and rightfully so,'' says a third official. And a fourth adds, ``The Voting Rights Act allows us an opportunity to assure the public that minority rights are being protected and that someone is independently validating those decisions.'' Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act works, and we must pass it at full strength.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am here to deliver a message from the North Carolina General Assembly. It is a bipartisan, nearly unanimous message from our State House: Stop underfunding our schools. Last week, 52 Republicans joined all voting Democrats in the North Carolina House of Representatives in passing a resolution that, ``urges the President of the United States and Congress to make a serious commitment to improving the quality of the Nation's public schools by substantially increasing the funding for the No Child Left Behind Act, the Higher Education Act, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, and other education-related programs.'' This resounding call from both sides of the aisle in my State is a sign that North Carolinians are exasperated with a President and a Congress that refuse to follow through on their commitments. They are simply fed up, Mr. Speaker. By consistently underfunding No Child Left Behind, the Federal Government has failed to hold up its share of the bargain it made with our schools when No Child Left Behind was signed into law 4 years ago. In passing the law, the government promised to help improve failing schools by targeting the areas that needed support and providing that assistance. By failing to come through on promised funding, the administration has turned No Child Left Behind into a program that punishes our schools instead of supporting them. Two of the resolution's clauses tell the story more fully. ``Whereas the Federal government has decreased funding to North Carolina for No Child Left Behind in fiscal year 2006 by almost $11 million, and overall funding for public education by almost $12 million, including a deduction of $759,012 from programs that serve students with disabilities, and, whereas, in addition the Federal Government has cut almost $11 million from postsecondary education programs in North Carolina.'' Mr. Speaker, since No Child Left Behind was signed into law in 2002, counting the President's latest budget proposal, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have underfunded this law by some $55 billion. In fact, the House is expected to debate an appropriations bill for the Department of Education soon that will cut the program by another $500 million as compared to last year. And what about other Federal education programs? The story is much the same. The government is not fulfilling its promises. Since the passage of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 1975, the Federal Government has failed to fully fund the education of children with special needs to the tune of $217 billion. And this President and the leadership of this House have dropped the ball on making college more affordable for students and parents. Student loan rates are going up and Federal support for aspiring students is stagnant or decreasing while the cost of education continues to rise. To put this in perspective, our alternative Democratic budget would invest far more in education smartly and strategically while at the same time balancing the budget sooner. Mr. Speaker, North Carolina schools are no strangers to accountability. The teachers and parents and administrators in my State want our students to succeed like none other. They are simply asking that our Federal Government be a reliable partner and live up to its promise of support for the education of our children. Mr. Speaker, I will insert at this point in the Record House Resolution 1811 from the North Carolina General Assembly adopted on July 5th, 2006. A HOUSE RESOLUTION URGING CONGRESS TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR THE NO CHILD

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to affirm the critical importance of our Nation's friendship with India and to add my name as a cosponsor to H.R. 5682, legislation implementing the U.S.- India Civilian Nuclear Agreement concluded earlier this year. Our friendship with India is among the most important bilateral relationships for our Nation's security and prosperity. The world's largest democracy, India is a vital partner in many different arenas: fighting the war on terrorism, expanding and advancing both the U.S. and Indian economies, modeling responsible democratic government to other regions of the world, addressing climate change and other key environmental challenges, and crafting a productive relationship with an emerging China, to name a few. It is also a nation with which we share many common characteristics, making it a natural friend and ally. Both nations emerged from British rule to become flourishing democracies, each giving political voice and representation to hundreds of millions of citizens and each serving as a beacon of democratic values and human rights to the rest of the world. Both nations share a tremendous diversity of ethnicity and religion, and despite periodic setbacks, both have found sustainable and just models for drawing strength from this diversity. The United States and India have, in the last decade, forged increasingly intimate linkages economically, as India has emerged as one of the fastest growing free markets in the world. And, of course, our Nation has welcomed a large and vibrant community of Indian-Americans to our shores, a community that has immeasurably enriched the fabric of American life. Unfortunately, our friendship with India over the last three decades has not been as strong as it should be. It is the only democracy with which our Nation had poor relations through most of the cold war. In 2000, President Clinton ushered in a new era in our bilateral relationship, becoming the first President to visit India since President Carter. But that positive momentum stalled in the early years of the Bush administration, as the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks unsettled South Asian relationships and India- Pakistan tensions increased. The primary obstacle to a stronger relationship remains India's nuclear program. In 1974, India defied the world by conducting a nuclear weapons test, demonstrating that it had developed nuclear weapons capability outside the bounds of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. From that day forward, India has remained outside nuclear nonproliferation regimes and has faced international sanctions and lack of access to civilian nuclear materials and technology. The price of its defiance--thirty-two years of sanctions and prohibitions--has not forced India to give up its nuclear weapons program or to make any discernible policy changes. The reality is, despite the best efforts of the international community to limit nuclear proliferation, India is and will continue to be a nuclear weapons state. Moreover, it is a stable, responsible nuclear weapons state that poses no threat to our national security. It is both unfair and unwise to continue to treat India as an international pariah. The time has come to recognize reality and adjust our outdated policies toward one of our most important allies. The U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement, as a first step toward recalibrating our policies toward India, holds great promise for bringing our two nations closer together. Characteristically, President Bush has negotiated without adequately engaging Congress and the international community. But he has correctly recognized the need for this landmark policy shift. The agreement itself is a greatly-needed improvement over current policies, yet the details of the agreement pose some questions and challenges for our national security. The agreement has both negative and positive features, and the American people need to be aware of the full array of consequences as we proceed. The most critical entry on the positive side of the ledger must be the agreement's impact on our relationship with India. This improved relationship will strengthen our national security in a variety of ways, particularly by enhancing our partnership in the global war on terrorism and in our efforts to forge a productive relationship with an emerging China. Our role as a world leader in confronting several global moral crises--like poverty, hunger, and HIV/AIDS--will also be enhanced, as the improved relationship will allow the United States to bring greater attention to efforts to improve the lot of India's 600 million poor people. Indeed, the accelerated economic development anticipated as a result of expanded civilian nuclear energy production will hopefully lift millions of people out of poverty and into prosperity. The agreement also has the potential to enhance our efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation around the world. Currently, India's large nuclear program is subject to only limited safeguards. Therefore, bringing any additional part of its nuclear program under the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards and inspections regime will be positive. Perhaps more importantly, we can reasonably hope that, upon entering the community of responsible nuclear-weapons states, India will set aside its historic resistance to nonproliferation regimes and join us in fighting nuclear proliferation around the world. The agreement likewise could have some adverse consequences. Let us examine the facts: Eight of India's nuclear power reactors and 9,000 kilograms of spent nuclear fuel--enough to produce more than 1,000 nuclear weapons--will not be placed under any type of international safeguards or inspections regime. India will also have the flexibility to designate any reactors built in the future as part of its military program, keeping them out of international inspections regimes. Civilian nuclear cooperation could free India to devote more resources to its nuclear weapons program; by purchasing fissile material from the U.S. and other suppliers for its civilian reactors, India could choose to use more of its native uranium stocks for its weapons program. The agreement could send a dangerously mixed message to other non- nuclear weapons states, namely, that they are expected not to develop a nuclear weapons program but, if they do, they could be rewarded with a Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. This mixed signal is especially harmful at a time when we are confronting reckless proliferation by Iran and North Korea. These are serious concerns that have the potential to harm our national security. They are concerns that must be addressed in some fashion before we move forward. Examining both sides of the ledger, I come to three conclusions: First, the American people should not be under any illusions: this agreement is a strategic trade-off involving a significant element of risk. It states that we are willing to sacrifice some progress on the nonproliferation front in order to achieve broader benefits to our national security as a result of an enhanced U.S.-India friendship and cooperation. Second, Congress must enact this agreement because a rejection of it would set back U.S.-India relations immeasurably. For the precise reasons I have cited in stating that a strong U.S.-India relationship is critical, a weakened relationship would be disastrous. Finally, Congress must find a way to navigate between these two realities. We must minimize the risks associated with the gamble the agreement represents while maximizing its potential for strengthening U.S.-Indian cooperation. In other words, Congress's active engagement in refining and strengthening the agreement is essential. I rise today to cosponsor the implementing legislation accompanying the agreement because I have gained assurances that Congress will play such an active role. I am particularly encouraged by two recent developments. First, the Bush administration and House leaders have agreed to a two-stage process in ratifying the agreement. Congress will first vote on H.R. 5682, the legislation I am cosponsoring, which will provide the President the authority to waive provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to allow civilian nuclear cooperation with India. Later, after agreements have been reached with the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Congress will vote on a specific U.S.-India bilateral Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. If our concerns are not sufficiently addressed in these three additional agreements, the second stage will allow Congress to put on the brakes. Secondly, I am encouraged by the significant steps the House International Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have taken to refine the legislation and fill in important details. Both Committees have signaled that they will not simply rubber-stamp the President's proposal, but that they will conduct due diligence and ensure that the legislation implementing the agreement guarantees our national security. This commitment is embodied in H.R. 5682, which represents a tremendous improvement and refinement of the draft legislation originally submitted by the President. Mr. Speaker, I am cosponsoring this legislation to signal my belief in its importance and to aid in its forward movement. But I also want to underscore the importance of the next steps to be taken by this body. I rise today to urge my colleagues to focus upon several key considerations as we continue our consideration of the bill. First, the final legislation must challenge India to take its commitment against nuclear testing seriously. India has refused to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and has only pledged to withhold nuclear testing in the absence of a provocation from another nation. As the 2002 showdown between India and Pakistan demonstrated, any nuclear tests by India will have a destabilizing effect on the region and could damage our national security. The current draft allows the President to terminate the agreement if India conducts a nuclear test, and it is essential that this provision remain in the final legislation. Second, the agreement must provide for some reasonable transparency over the use of India's native fissile material and spent nuclear fuel. As India begins to import nuclear material for use in civilian reactors, its native material stocks will become fungible, free for use in producing nuclear weapons. Its spent nuclear fuel stocks, not subject to international monitoring under the agreement, will also be available for use in nuclear weapons. Clearly, our civilian nuclear cooperation should not be used as a means for India to accelerate its nuclear weapons development. The current legislation contains a provision that will alert us if India is taking advantage of the nuclear cooperation agreement to fuel a nuclear arms race. Of course, we will depend heavily on our intelligence community to assess India's production of nuclear weapons, and we must ensure that they have the personnel and resources they require. Third, we must strongly urge India to cease the production of fissile material explicitly for use in nuclear weapons. For over a decade, the international community has been working toward the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty that would ban the production of new fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. India's endorsement of such a treaty would significantly allay the concerns about the agreement's impact on nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Our nation should also be urging India's nuclear neighbors, Pakistan and China, to sign such a treaty in order to provide India the assurances that it can do so without endangering its national security. Fourth, the deal must be conditioned on the conclusion of an acceptable agreement between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The negotiations between these parties are ongoing. An acceptable outcome would have to include an acceptance by India of a permanent safeguards regime that requires the same transparency, the same access, and the same type of inspections that other countries admit under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The legislation contains some helpful provisions in this regard; however, we must remain engaged after the passage of this legislation to ensure that the negotiations meet our standards. Finally, Congress and the Bush administration can strengthen the U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement by working together to enhance and expand nuclear nonproliferation efforts in other regions of the world. Our national security depends greatly on keeping the worst weapons, nuclear weapons of mass destruction, out of the worst hands, those of fundamentalist terrorists who target our nation. Ensuring adequate protections against proliferation in the U.S.-India agreement is a key component of this priority, but it does not end there. As we work to bring India in line with international standards for nuclear responsibility, we should also be accelerating programs that increase nuclear security elsewhere. One of the most critical programs is the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program that secures loose nuclear material and technology in the former Soviet Union, where enough nuclear material to produce thousands of nuclear weapons remains unsecured. As the 9-11 Commission's Final Report rightly noted, ``the government should weigh the value of this investment against the catastrophic cost America would face should such weapons find their way to the terrorists who are so anxious to acquire them.'' Of equal importance, the administration and Congress must strengthen our dismally ineffective efforts to confront Iran and North Korea as those nations defy the world. One of this Administration's single most dangerous failures has been to allow North Korea to proliferate freely for five years without crafting any viable strategy for confronting the world's worst proliferator. And the Administration's strategy to rein in Iran has been scarcely better, allowing the situation to continue unresolved for far too long. As long as these two rogue nations freely seek nuclear weapons, weapons they could easily sell or transfer to terrorists, our nation cannot be secure. The U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement is a dramatic departure from the past. We must not enter into it with any illusions that it is without risk; however, I believe it holds the potential to make our nation and the world safer and more secure. We have the opportunity to build a strong and lasting friendship with the world's largest democracy, one of the world's fastest growing markets, and a nation from which we have remained estranged for far too long. We should not let such a tremendous opportunity pass by. At the same time, we must proceed responsibly, ensuring that we minimize the risks inherent in the agreement. I believe Congress is taking seriously its responsibility to do so, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to craft legislation that makes our Nation stronger and forges a new era in U.S.-Indian relations.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to honor the Carolina Hurricanes, the proud winners of an outstanding seven-game Stanley Cup series with the Edmonton Oilers. You know, the skeptics said that hockey would never work in North Carolina. Who would ever watch this northern sport in a southern city? Even if some small crowd showed up, could they even follow the rules of the game? Some doubted we could put ice to any purpose beyond cooling sweet tea. Well, I stand here this evening to report that those early skeptics were wrong. Hockey has found a welcome home along Tobacco Road. Although I represent a constituency that I have to admit is more familiar with Tar Heels and Blue Devils, and the Wolfpack, we North Carolinians have found another winter sport in which to place our pride. We are proud of the Hurricanes and the Stanley Cup they have brought to our State. We are proud of Cam Ward, the 22-year-old rookie goalkeeper who was recognized as the post-season most valuable player. Also veterans like Rod Brind'Amour, Glen Wesley, and Bret Hedican, who played a combined 49 NHL seasons before winning the Stanley Cup. We celebrate every team member as well as Coach Peter Laviolette and the rest of the Hurricanes' management and staff. We are proud of the newfound energy and excitement that the Hurricanes have brought to their sport following that 2004-2005 lockout and the lost season. The thrilling championship run gave fans everywhere a chance and a reason to celebrate hockey again while also introducing many to the sport for the first time. We are proud of how this team gives back to the community, generously donating time and resources to several charitable organizations across the State. The Hurricanes' Kids 'n Community Foundation serves my district by funding scholarships and youth sports and the arts and educational and children's health programs. And of course, we are proud of the first major professional sports championship won by a team from North Carolina. This team's outstanding achievement and the dedication of their loyal fans have electrified Raleigh and the Triangle and our entire State. So as the proud Representative of their home district, I offer my congratulations to the Carolina Hurricanes, winner of the Stanley Cup and the 2006 National Hockey League Champions. Go Canes.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we face a critical challenge in Iraq with no certain outcome. While those in the White House and the Majority may want to use this debate as an opportunity to gloss over the situation and cast aspersions at their opponents, now is the time for a serious and sustained conversation within our government and among the American people about how we can end the occupation and do so in a way that maximizes Iraq's chances to govern and defend itself. A brief survey of the status of our operations confirms the gravity of our position. First, consider our strategic interests in the conflict. The Administration's entire case for invading Iraq has proven false. The President's claims about nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, links to terrorism, an imminent threat--they were all wrong. CIA weapons inspectors followed every plausible lead to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and came up empty. We might have known the outcome of this search had we showed more patience with international weapons inspections before the President launched the invasion. We have also confirmed what many of us suspected at the time, that the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda terrorists were fabricated and false. In fact, with the CIA now calling Iraq the world's number one terrorist training ground, we have ironically created a problem that did not exist when we set out to solve it. And we diverted attention and assets from Afghanistan, which truly was ground zero in the anti-terrorist offensive. Indeed, we have engaged in a war of choice that has actually made our nation less safe. Congress has poured over $400 billion into Iraq that was entrusted to us by American taxpayers, dealing a serious blow both to our economy and to the many critical domestic programs that have been cut, essentially to help pay for the war effort. We have overextended our military, damaging recruiting and retention efforts and leaving our military units undermanned, underequipped, and exhausted from repeated deployments. We have created a terrorist breeding ground in Iraq that may threaten our security for years to come. And, by fueling tensions both between sectarian groups inside Iraq and between Iraq and its neighbors, like Iran, Syria, and Turkey, this war has stirred up a dangerous hornet's nest that could lead to significant regional conflict. In short, our national security is at far greater risk now than three years ago when the war began. Despite these shortcomings, the new ``unity government'' led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki represents some progress in our political efforts, produced by the successful conduct of a handful of elections, a constitutional referendum, and sustained negotiations between major Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish political parties. These successes are the most positive story we have to tell in Iraq. If Iraq's leaders choose to work together to unite their nation and prevent sectarian agendas from tearing the Iraqi people apart, there will be hope for achieving stability and democracy in that country. Unfortunately, Iraqi leaders have not yet made clear what their choice will be. They have not yet shown the unity of purpose and political courage that will be necessary to hold their country together after the U.S. departs. They have not yet proven that they can set aside their sectarian agendas. Most importantly, they still must prove that they have the power to reach out beyond the green zone to influence Iraqi citizens and lead them toward unity and peace. Here, especially, the jury is still out on the extent of progress. U.S. taxpayers have spent $20 billion on reconstruction projects, but have only limited concrete results to show for their investment. Tens of millions of dollars were irresponsibly squandered through poor management and questionable contracts with companies like Halliburton. The Coalition Provisional Authority was unable to account for the use of nearly $9 billion in U.S. and Iraqi reconstruction funds. According to conservative estimates, up to a quarter of reconstruction funding has been diverted away from reconstruction activities to pay for associated security costs. Furthermore, much of the reconstruction work that has been carried out has been ineffective. In an October 2005 audit of over $250 million in water and sanitation projects, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that over one-quarter of the projects were ``inoperable or were operating at lower than normal capacity.'' The results of this mismanagement are striking. Over half of all Iraqi households still lack access to clean water, and 85 percent lack reliable electricity. Oil production remains well below pre-invasion levels. A quarter of Iraqi children suffer from chronic malnutrition. More than a quarter of Iraqis--possibly up to forty percent--remain unemployed. By any standard, the reconstruction effort has fallen disastrously short. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration appears to have learned the wrong lesson from these reconstruction failures, proposing no additional funding to rebuild Iraq and support the civilian population. Without additional funding, our reconstruction efforts will come to an end even though we remain far short of our goals. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) has reported that more than two-thirds of planned health care centers, over 60 percent of planned water sector projects, and a third of planned electricity projects will not be completed due to lack of funds. The answer is not to give up on Iraq reconstruction altogether, but to find effective ways to make reconstruction projects work. On the security front, some limited progress has been made. According to the State Department's most recent weekly update, approximately 265,000 Iraqi troops have enlisted to secure and defend their homeland. In addition, American forces recently scored an important victory by killing the number one terrorist leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. As Iraqi troops have stood up, however, American troops have not been able to stand down, despite promises to the contrary. The sheer number of Iraqi enlistees has neither translated into capability for independent operations nor improved the security situation. In fact, Iraq is more violent, more dangerous, and more divided than at any time since the war began. The security situation is increasingly complex. Instead of fighting one battle, we are fighting at least three: against largely Sunni insurgents who are fighting to recapture the power they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein; against growing sectarian violence; and against terrorists, some foreign-born, united under a banner of Islamic fundamentalism. Above all, we are fighting to prevent full-fledged civil war, and the outcome remains uncertain. The death of Zarqawi will help in our battle against the fundamentalist terrorists, but it will not markedly change the larger challenge we face in pacifying Sunni and Shiite extremists. This picture is not pretty, and it is not a picture the Administration has been willing to discuss frankly. But it is the reality. Crafting an effective Iraq strategy means facing this reality head-on. Unfortunately, the Administration has adamantly refused to do so. In fact, Middle East expert Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies called the Administration's most recent report on progress in Iraq, ``both dishonest and incompetent.'' Cordesman noted, ``the American people and the US Congress need an honest portrayal of what is happening, not lies by omission and ``spin.'' Most Americans now understand that this Administration has relied on spin and misinformation to carry out its Iraq policy from Day One. It led our nation into war based on false claims and insinuations. It misled the American public about the likely costs and duration of our operations. It has attempted to discredit critics of its post- invasion operation, including former military officials. And it has consistently refused to level with the American people about the significant obstacles we continue to face. The real question before us--the question most Americans are asking-- is how long must our troops stay in Iraq? The President has told us that, as Iraqi troops stand up, American troops can stand down. But that formula is backwards. Iraqi troops will not truly stand up until American troops begin standing down. Iraqi leaders will not make the necessary comprises and take charge of their own destiny until they know their dependence on American forces is coming to an end. As we stand down, they will have no choice but to stand up. While our military's valiant efforts have clearly facilitated important steps forward, including the formation of a democratically elected government, the troubling reality is that our continued presence makes success more elusive. It serves as a disincentive for Iraqi military and political leaders to take courageous risks to stabilize their country and assume responsibility for their government. Equally importantly, our presence is a magnet for international terrorists and an incitement for the insurgency. While the Administration argues that we must stay the course to help Iraqis accomplish key objectives, our very presence is actually detracting from progress toward those objectives. In order to jump-start progress, our troops must begin to come home. How we leave does matter. We must leave in a way that maximizes Iraq's chances to govern and defend itself. At the same time, we cannot become hostages to the failures of Administration policy, prolonging our stay in a situation where our very presence is a continuing provocation. That is why I joined with Rep. Brad Miller last fall in introducing H.J. Res. 70, which would require the President to deliver the exit strategy that the troops and the American people deserve. Today, I am renewing that call. Let me explain in clear terms what a responsible exit strategy means: We need to hear that that the President has a plan for reducing our presence in Iraq within a reasonable timeframe. ``As they stand up, we will stand down'' isn't a strategy; it is a slogan. A responsible exit strategy would set out, in clear and realistic terms, a plan to guide our troops through their departure from Iraq and a strategy for reducing our military commitment. We must be willing to adapt to changing conditions, but a responsible exit strategy must not hold our troops hostage to the Iraqi people's ability to resolve their own differences. We need to hear that such a plan would begin with an initial, near- term drawdown of U.S. forces. The Administration has repeatedly hinted that a significant drawdown may be imminent, but has quietly backed away from such predictions over and over again. A near-term, initial drawdown of forces would send a message to Iraqis that we have no permanent designs on their country, that our presence is coming to an end, and that they need to step forward to take the reins of responsibility. We also need to hear a pledge from the President that we will not establish long-term bases on Iraqi soil. When I questioned General John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, in a recent subcommittee hearing, he refused to make a commitment not to establish permanent bases. In the wake of that exchange, the House has voted twice to force such a commitment. A House-passed amendment to the fiscal year 2006 supplemental appropriations bill to prohibit permanent U.S. bases in Iraq was removed from the final version of the bill by the Republican congressional leadership. The House recently passed a similar provision as part of the fiscal year 2007 Defense Appropriations bill, but it is unclear if it will survive in the final version of the bill. The President must heed Congress's message and send a clear signal that the U.S. has no long-term military designs in Iraq. In addition, we need to hear that there is a plan to continue to support Iraq when our troops depart. Such a plan would mean ongoing U.S. assistance for the Iraqi government as it crafts policies to facilitate unity, security, and prosperity. This support will be particularly critical as Iraq revisits its constitution later this year. It also means support for the development of Iraqi institutions like its parliament, its judiciary, and its security forces. Such a plan would also involve increased and assertive engagement by the international community to increase its involvement. The international community has pledged billions of dollars in resources for Iraq that it has not yet delivered. Just as importantly, however, we need the international community to have a presence in Iraq, working with the Iraqi government, mediating disputes between sectarian parties, establishing greater ties with Iraq's economy, and supporting the development of civil society. Finally, this plan would require engaging Iraq's neighbors to play a constructive role in giving Iraq a chance to succeed. This means pledging not to interfere in Iraq's affairs. It also means securing borders, training Iraqi security forces, and welcoming Iraq into regional institutions. I was encouraged that the Administration tentatively agreed to conduct a dialogue with Iran on its involvement in Iraq. I hope that this effort will move forward and that similar efforts will engage other Gulf States. These are the elements of a responsible exit strategy. This is the type of leadership that the President owes our troops and the American people. After more than three years, the loss of more than 2,500 American troops' lives, and $400 billion, this is the type of leadership that is long overdue.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, all this posturing about fiscal responsibility is nothing more than a side show. This legislation is not about fiscal responsibility. Look no further than the Republican estate tax bill this House just passed. Putting us nearly $1 trillion further in debt over the next 15 years for the sake of a few of our country's wealthiest families is evidence enough of where the priorities of the Bush administration and the Republican congressional leadership lie. In fact, the line item veto has very little to do with budgeting at all. It has everything to do with power, Presidential power. The shift of constitutional power from Congress to the executive branch has greatly accelerated since the 1990s. As congressional scholars Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein observe, the Republican Congress, under the administration of George W. Bush, has featured ``a general obeisance to Presidential initiative, and passivity in the face of Presidential power.'' This bill would tilt the balance of power even further in the direction of the White House. Specific provisions of the bill would give the President inordinate control over the appropriations process. For example, the President could cherry-pick from among a wide range of provisions, authorizations or appropriations, discretionary or mandatory, and package them together in whatever way he saw fit, requiring Congress to vote up or down on the entire package. This bill would give the White House unprecedented leverage over Congress by allowing the President to condition his support for our priorities on our acquiescence in his priorities. It is for this exact reason that many experts believe this bill would actually increase government spending, not reduce it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will take a back seat to no one in targeting bridges to nowhere and other examples of congressional waste. But I also know this: Presidents almost invariably ask for more money than Congress is willing to appropriate. And the profligacy of our current President is well documented. The line item veto is not about spending versus saving. It is about letting the President, not Congress, decide what we are spending money on. Mr. Speaker, if the leadership of this House were serious about getting our finances in order, it would never have abandoned the pay- as-you-go rules, which helped produce balanced budgets and even surpluses in the 1990s. And it would reinstate those rules today, as proposed by Mr. Spratt's substitute. The Spratt substitute would also have addressed several other key weaknesses of H.R. 4890. But once again, the House leadership has rigged the rules to deny us a vote on it. Instead, we get this fig-leaf bill designed to hide the fiscal sins of this Republican Congress from the American public. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has three fundamental powers: declaring war, conducting oversight, and the power of the purse. We have already gone a long way to sacrifice the first two to the executive branch. Do we really want to give away the only one we have got left? I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the American people are increasingly aware of where things stand in Iraq, despite the glib assurances and political spin we get from sources like the whereas clauses of the resolution before us and the Pentagon's most recent quarterly report, which has been so devastatingly refuted by Middle East expert Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The real question before us and the question most Americans are asking is, how long must our troops stay in Iraq? Our military's valiant efforts have clearly facilitated such important steps as such as the formation of a democratically elected government in Iraq. But the troubling reality is that our continued presence also makes success more elusive. It serves as a disincentive for Iraqi military and political leaders to take courageous risks to stabilize their country and assume responsibility for their government. Equally important, our presence is a magnet for international terrorism and an incitement for the insurgency. In order to jump-start progress, our troops must begin to come home. We must leave in a way that maximizes Iraq's chances to govern and defend itself. At the same time, we cannot become hostages to the failures of administration policy, prolonging or staying in a situation where our very presence is a continuing provocation. How we leave does matter, but we must leave. That is why Representative Brad Miller and I introduced a resolution last fall, H.J. Res. 70, which would require the President to deliver an exit strategy for Iraq. Tonight I am renewing that call. Let me explain briefly in clear terms what a responsible exit strategy means. First, we need to hear that the President has a plan for reducing our presence in Iraq within a reasonable time frame. ``As they stand up, we will stand down'' is not a strategy. It is a slogan. Secondly, we need to hear that such a plan would begin with an initial near-term drawdown of U.S. forces to send a clear message to the Iraqis that our presence is coming to an end. We also need to hear a pledge from the President that we will not establish long-term bases on Iraqi soil. And, finally, we need to hear that there is a plan for filling the void left behind when our troops depart, to mobilize resources within the international community, to ensure that Iraq's neighbors do not interfere in internal Iraqi affairs, and to support the ongoing development of the Iraqi Government and security forces. These are the elements of a responsible exit strategy. This is the type of leadership that the President owes our troops and the American people.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment, although I have great respect for what my colleague is trying to achieve. What we are hearing in this debate is two narratives, both of which are important. In the first narrative, we hear that Egypt's progress toward democratic reform has been far too slow with far too many setbacks; and, my colleagues, that is true. The Egyptian Government persists in imprisoning political opponents like Ayman Noor. I could add Professor Saad Ibrahim to that list. I worked for several years with colleagues to urge the Egyptian Government to free Mr. Ibrahim, director of an organization in Cairo that promoted democracy and was critical of President Mubarak's leadership. Thankfully, Mr. Ibrahim has now been released, but the pattern of imprisoning dissenters continues. These are very real concerns, and I hope the Egyptian Government hears the debate in this Chamber today as a strong alarm signal regarding Egypt's slow pace of progress. However, there is a second narrative that is equally compelling. Egypt is one of our most important allies in a troubled region. It has contributed greatly to many efforts critical to our national security, including supporting efforts to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan; training Iraqi police and troops; helping ensure an orderly withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, including the sending of 750 troops to the Sinai-Gaza border; and policing the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Palestinian territories. Perhaps most important now, Mr. Chairman, is Egypt's role as a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Egyptian leaders like General Suleiman have intervened in discussions and negotiations when the U.S. simply cannot do so. Just this morning, USA Today reported that Egypt had mediated between Fatah and Hamas to secure an agreement under which Hamas will withdraw its 3,000-person militia from Gaza and allow it to be folded into the Palestinian security forces. Egyptian leaders have intervened on several other notable occasions. In an effort to prevent Fatah's disorganization from enabling a Hamas victory in Palestinian elections, General Suleiman worked with Abu Mazen in December 2005 to try to mediate between splinter parties. In December 2004, during a period of heavy attacks against Israel, General Suleiman initiated a dialogue with Hamas and the Islamic jihad and other Palestinian militant groups to seek an end to the attacks. Mr. Chairman, we are facing a critical period in the Middle East. The political crisis caused by Hamas's victory makes Egyptian mediation more, not less, critical. That is decisive for me. It is a time to build on this second narrative, not to deliver an irresponsible poke in the eye to a critical player at a critical time. Let me say a few words about the supposed beneficiaries of this amendment. Mr. Obey has cleverly crafted the amendment to distract attention from the cuts to Egypt by directing the money to two causes that many of us believe are of the highest importance, stopping genocide in Darfur and stemming the spread of HIV/AIDS. I strongly support both of these priorities and would support added funding in this bill for them. However, this amendment does a disservice to those priorities by making them pawns in a political game that is about our support for Egypt, not for support for AIDS and Darfur. I hope we can add funding for efforts to address the AIDS pandemic and the genocide in Darfur, but this amendment is not the responsible way to do it. Let us not lose sight of the millions of people in the Middle East who are depending on our leadership and our ability to work with Egypt to achieve peace in their troubled region. That is the priority of which we must not lose sight. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Obey amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker, and I rise in support of H. Res. 699, a resolution I sponsored with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), and many other colleagues. The resolution supports the goals and ideals of National Entrepreneurship Week. More than 70 percent of American high school students say they would like to open their own business someday. Over 10 percent of American adults are actively planning to become entrepreneurs in their local communities. These figures indicate the strong entrepreneurial inclination of many Americans. Yet while many people have an interest in starting a new business, only a fraction of these actually make the attempt. Entrepreneurial education brings together the core academic, technical, and problem-solving skills needed for future entrepreneurs. Individuals who receive entrepreneurship training are not only more likely to start a business, but they are also more likely to enjoy success with such a new venture. H. Res. 699 would support the goals and the ideals of National Entrepreneurship Week and the implementation of entrepreneurship education programs in elementary and secondary schools and in institutions of higher education. National Entrepreneurship Week would consist of a national series of celebrations, business plan competitions, and other community events to nurture entrepreneurship and to engage young people in the opportunities available to them as future business owners. In short, Mr. Speaker, National Entrepreneurship Week offers the opportunity to recognize the societal contributions of America's leading entrepreneurs and to encourage those with a dream to become entrepreneurs. I am fortunate to have several organizations in my home State of North Carolina that effectively promote entrepreneurship in varied ways. For example, the North Carolina Rural Center, the North Carolina Community College System, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are working together to develop a system of education for youth and adults that ensures anyone who seeks advice or assistance on starting a business gets the help they need. The Small Business and Technology Development Centers and the SCORE program, run by retired executives, help new entrepreneurs translate their aspirations into reality. ``Marketplace,'' a forum which I joined colleagues in starting years ago in the Triangle area of North Carolina, introduces entrepreneurs to opportunities in government contracting. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Entrepreneurship Club is dedicated to encouraging entrepreneurship among students by connecting them with local entrepreneurs, professors, and support organizations. The North Carolina Center for 21st Century Skills is the first of its kind in the Nation to help elementary and secondary public school students acquire the knowledge and the skills needed for success in the global economy. The Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education continues its work to make entrepreneurship education a formal part of the American curriculum in each school district and educational institution, and I want to commend the consortium for their leadership role in developing and promoting the resolution before us today. I also want to thank Representatives Tom Osborne and Danny Davis and their staffs, as well as the bipartisan staff of the Education and the Workforce Committee, for their contributions to this effort, this effort to call attention to the need for encouraging our young people to become entrepreneurs. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Poe amendment. Although I have some concerns about the intended use of the $41 million that is the subject of this amendment, I want to focus tonight on the offset. My colleague from Texas proposes to offset the cost of his amendment with an equivalent reduction to the Office of Chief Information Officer, specifically targeting funds that the committee has included to cover the establishment of a mirror, or back-up, data center. It has been 4 years now since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and we are still at least months away from consolidating and securing data that is essential to protecting the homeland. Agreeing to the Poe amendment would strip funds intended for the establishment of this second data center which we should be accelerating, not delaying. To take on face value that this funding is not important because it was not part of the President's budget request is to abandon this institution's responsibility and authority. We are responsible for overseeing the Department's budget and operations, and this additional funding is the result of our subcommittee's best judgment. Having a mirror data center for the Department of Homeland Security is not only desirable; it is essential. If last hurricane season taught us anything, it is that we need to be fully prepared for the next disaster. The Poe amendment would compromise that preparedness. I urge colleagues to reject it.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ken Stewart, recipient of the 2005 National Language Teacher of the Year Award, which is given by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). Ken is the very first teacher ever to receive this award. Senor Stewart, as he is known by his students, has taught Spanish at Chapel Hill High School for nearly 20 years. A National Board Certified Spanish teacher, he has been successful in sharing his passion for language learning in the classroom because of his foreign language teaching philosophy, education, and extensive travel experience. As the ACTFL National Language Teacher of the Year, Senor Stewart competed for this award with five other regional winners from across the country. His award dossier included video segments demonstrating his skill as a classroom teacher and documentation of his teaching practices, as well as testimonials from his students, their parents, and his school administrators. This award, sponsored by ACTFL and publisher McDougal Littell, was created to recognize foreign language teachers at the K-12 level who exhibit excellence in classroom language teaching. As part of this honor, Senor Stewart is now involved in serving as a spokesperson for language educators and making appearances and giving presentations that promote language education through the ``Discover Languages'' national public awareness campaign. The shortage of qualified language professionals across the United States underscores the importance of Senor Stewart's work: only 9 percent of students enrolled in college study a foreign language. We need to introduce language study at an earlier age and do more to encourage pursuing real proficiency. Foreign language needs have significantly increased due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the United States economy. Outstanding teachers who instill critical skills of language competence and cultural understanding in our students are indeed worthy of recognition and gratitude. I call on my colleagues to seek out the 2006 Language Teacher of the Year in their own states and to encourage that teacher as he or she competes this year at the regional and national levels. It is important that we support these educators who do so much to provide our students with the foreign language skills and cultural understanding that are essential to a world class education and that will prepare them for living and working in the 21st century. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Senor Stewart for his years of dedicated service and his commitment to foreign language instruction.