Steve Russell

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, Will and Ariel Durant, perhaps the most renowned recorders of the history of mankind, wrote shortly after their landmark 40-year multivolume work was completed: ``Civilization is not inherited; it has to be learned and earned by each generation anew; if the transmission should be interrupted . . . civilization would die, and we should be savages again.'' It is a warning we must heed. For all of our advancement in self- governance, the rule of law, and the betterment of people's lives, the world stands in crisis. Our actions toward evil, twisted brands of militant Islamic jihadism in the coming months will determine how humanity navigates the coming century. As Will Durant correctly predicts, we must either prevent the death of civilized life or become savages again. Responding to the Paris attacks, French President Francois Hollande is correct in saying enough is enough. The coalition of willing defenders of humanity is immense. The world looks toward America for our leadership. ``Why? Why does it have to be us?'' people ask. It is for the same reason we ask a trusted colleague for counsel, for the same reason a resident asks a neighbor to help him with a heavy lift, for the same reason a parishioner asks his pastor for guidance in times of crisis, for the same reason a citizen asks a policeman for assistance in times of trouble, and for the same reason those attacked ask a soldier to defend them. For the sake of civilization, we must provide it. American accommodation of ISIS savagery through lethargy must end. Should America remain dispassionate and disconnected, she is at risk of losing her moral compass. Are we really an America today that no longer can be moved by any action, by beheadings, immolations, crucifixions, sexual enslavement, and human suffering in the lands that these savages have forcibly taken? Are we so self-indulged that we somehow think that leaving ISIS alone is a legitimate option for the good of the world? The President has suggested that ISIS' actions are acts of genocide. On that, we absolutely agree. Yazidis have been targeted by ISIS in their genocidal fanaticism. One city overrun saw ISIS lining up all males 12 and above in a gymnasium, separated them into groups, and systematically exterminated them. Young Yazidi girls, whose only crime was being born, have been forced into sodomistic, sexual slavery by a Godless, evil, twisted brand of Islamist jihadist ideology that also conveniently fits rape and child molestation into a twisted, sinister form of ethics. In Mosul and Palmyra, Christians have been singled out for destruction of life and property by marking their structures with an Arabic N. Across Iraq and Syria, Chaldean and Assyrian Christians have been slaughtered while we in Congress thump our chest about refugees as Americans call on us to turn a blind eye toward these Syrian refugees that the United Nations has tried to place with willing churches and sponsors here at home. Have we forgotten that it is the statue of Lady Justice that is blindfolded as she holds up a balanced scale, not the Statue of Liberty who holds the torch? Lady Liberty is inscribed on our shores with these words: Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp, cries she with silent lips. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door. In the last 3 weeks, more than 400 people have died in three separate attacks as a Russian airliner has been blown from the sky, Lebanese worshippers were blown to bits, and youthful French citizens and tourists were massacred as they ate at cafes and watched a concert. As the world watched in horror, it has also looked to the United States. Where America leads, nations stand shoulder to shoulder. Where America is absent, tyranny takes it chances and rears its ugly head. But who would have thought America, through constant inaction and listless response, would allow barbarity to prosper? Since last year, the President has been unable to articulate his strategy to aid our allies in Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, and Israel, as they react to the disintegration of Syria on their borders. More broadly, the President has been unable and possibly unwilling to form the necessary multinational coalitions in the Middle East and elsewhere that are essential to curb barbarism and provide stability within the Sunni Arab populations of Iraq and Syria, where ISIS has filled the void. As a combat veteran of Iraq and other places, this has been difficult for me personally to process. In service past, we sacrificed to turn the country around. I watched my American and Iraqi friends die, handled the flesh and blood of infantry combat, performed brutal personal combat to take human life, and watched with agony as the good people of Iraq suffer in absence of effective government. It is personal because I have lived among the Sunni Arab. I have celebrated their victories, their weddings, their birthdays, and their accomplishments. I have broken bread with them and eaten at their communal bowls. I have mourned as close Sunni Arab friends have died to acts of terror, mourned when Sunni Arab educated, intelligent, and free people have been expunged by ISIS. They do not want this. They have no place to go. When I lived among them, we told them with conviction and honesty that we would be there for them. They believed us. Then the President ordered us out. We soldiers and servicemembers who have sacrificed so much in Iraq weep. We defeated Saddam's army, toppled the Baathist Government, captured and brought a world tyrant to justice, fought an insurgency and stood shoulder to shoulder with disenfranchised Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds to restore control to Iraq's government. We turned the country around together with a military pause. Instead of the United States nurturing a nascent Iraqi infrastructure, as we have done in the Philippines, Germany, Japan, and South Korea, to give them a future, the President used that pause for abandonment, both militarily and diplomatically. Worse, he then used that for political expediency. Where we sacrificed, he quit. When America became absent, radical, evil Islamic jihadists filled that gap with cruelty, fear, and barbarity before, a nascent government and population had the strength to build trust and hold firm. Whatever the President's political advantage, whatever the supposed cost saving, whatever the heartfelt conviction of why some believed abandonment was the optimum course of action, it has instead created a political nightmare, transcending nations, and has bled more treasures and lives than any estimates our continued presence might have caused. Moreover, it has sickened the hearts of world humanity to see civilization taking such punishment from savages when a quiver of options have been available to shoot at the heart of the problem. America has the capacity, the intelligence, and the goodwill to rally nations, but it cannot be a unitary effort. It must be collective. It cannot be a defensive effort. It must be offensive to blunt further attack. As President Hollande of France was saying enough is enough, President Obama proceeded to tell America and the world what the attacks on Paris were not and what our actions would not be. Mr. Speaker, this Congress and the American people need rather to hear from our President what the attack was and what our actions will be to make them stop. The President, distracted by his ideological efforts, though sincere, on climate, has failed to see that the world is on fire. The people of our great Republic have not failed to see it. They are calling on us to stand with France and say enough is enough. What should be our immediate action? How about some of this? Cripple Raqqa. It is clear it is the symbolic center of ISIS power. The President's cabinet says: We are worried about collateral damage and civilian casualties. News flash. The most humane thing we can do to end suffering of hundreds of thousands of people is to cripple what ISIS draws its strength from. Destroy their infrastructure. Hammer their electricity capacity. Drop their transmission lines. Eliminate their cell towers where they draw their communications capacity. Destroy the bridges on their roads of ingress and egress. Hammer their oil refining installations they possess and fund themselves with. We have the ability to rebuild them later, but ISIS would be diminished financially by their loss. Put a different way, the most humane thing we can do to protect civilians is to disrupt ISIS' immediate ability to advance and recruit. If the U.S. leads, others will stand shoulder to shoulder. We need our President to be that man. To do these immediate actions on Raqqa, we also need to take the handcuffs off of our military that has already deployed. Weeks to get approval and missed targets, allowing freedom of movement for ISIS is not a way to win anything. It is not enough for the Secretary of Defense to merely endorse plans put before him by our military experts. Endorse? That type of equivocation tells our military leaders: We don't have your back. We need the Secretary of Defense to lead. Don't endorse. Approve them. The Secretary must take the handcuffs off our pilots and special operations forces that are already deployed. Our warriors know what to hit. They can't throw punches with handcuffs. Another action we can take. World opinion and goodwill is on our side. France has the support of all civilized countries. They will likely have the support of a U.N.-sanctioned effort. They may ask for article V protections under NATO and would likely get it. So what will America do? Lead. Let's build that coalition. NATO special operations forces, combined with Kurds and Sunni Arabs, can provide the immediate ground capacity. Safe zones where Assad cannot reach them with airstrikes and barrel bombs will give them determinations and hope. Modern civilized allies can provide airpower, logistics, the wealth, and the commitment. Russia has opened the door with statements from Foreign Minister Lavarov that a stabilized Syrian Government cannot include Assad. We should walk through that door. That solves having to build new governance. Syria has survived civil wars before. She can again. Old structures can have new leaders with new coalitions that provide voice to all Syrians once ISIS is expunged. In Iraq, we must find a place for the Sunni Arab and Sunni Kurd to have self-determination without having to turn to ISIS. The fighters exist. But they won't fight to be enslaved by draconian Shia Arab governance in Baghdad. That gives them no future. With Raqqa squeezed in Syria, we must build the coalition to restore Mosul and Baiji. Then the disenfranchised Sunni Arab and Sunni Kurd must have a place at the table both in Syria and Iraq in post-conflict rebuilding. This will not be possible while savages run free and civilized nations do nothing. America needs to build the coalition on an ISIS-first policy. Then we can settle into the less barbaric and less threatening future. We have a window. Do we have a President that will lead? Here are some immediate short-term measures. Launch cyberattacks on ISIS recruiting Web sites. While interceptive communications is important and we want to track their movements and intentions, we cannot confuse that with allowing ISIS propaganda to reach into our free communities to turn misguided youth into neighborhood attackers. Intercept what we must, but attack what draws recruitment and copycat actions in the first place. We cannot be just defensive in this area. Part of reducing homegrown terrorists is to cut off the juice from ISIS abroad. They should not have a free hand in our free speech. Now let's talk about counter-messaging. Here is what every American can do to help. American news stations and newsprint can join the fight by not putting ISIS-produced videos and imagery on networks as B-roll on our newscasts and in articles in our newspapers. Why should we promote their propaganda? Replace it rather with cross-hairs and explosions of their defeat or show rather the world their acts of barbarity and the human suffering they have created for their own people. Use that for B-roll. America must stop aiding and abetting these evil savages that use our free press, our laws, and our protections to destroy ours. Americans, write your local stations and ask them to please stop. Mr. Speaker, I want to shift my focus now to the refugee crisis. While I have tried to focus my comments on actions that we should take to eliminate ISIS, one action we should not take is to become like them. America is a lamp that lights the horizon of civilized and free mankind. The Statue of Liberty cannot have a stiff arm. Her arm must continue to keep the torch burning brightly. If we use our passions, anger, and fear to snuff out her flame by xenophobic and knee-jerk policy, the enemy wins. We have played into their hands, period. Here are some Syrian refugee facts you may not know. Despite a long- established, multilayered system to vet and bring refugees into the United States--I have worked with the International Organization for Migration on deployed battlefields, and I have worked with the UNHCR in their efforts to help place refugees--despite a long-established system, despite biometric and biographic screening, despite intelligence vetting with the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, and the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, added to the fact that Syrian refugees receive additional screening to national security concerns--and most of them are women and children--coupled with the fact that only a total of 1,900 Syrians have entered this country in the last 4 years, most of them women and children, Americans across the country now are calling on Lady Liberty to drop her torch and give the stiff arm, with perhaps even another gesture. I want you to listen carefully to these statements by Members of Congress in response to a refugee bill--not an illegal immigration bill or permanent residents, but refugees, a refugee bill. Listen to these comments by Members of Congress about people fleeing for their lives. Fighting immigration is ``the best vote-getting argument . . . The politician can beat his breast and proclaim his loyalty to America.'' ``He can tell the unemployed man that he is out of work because some alien has a job.'' Here is another one: Congress must ``protect the youth of America from this foreign invasion.'' And how about this one? ``American children have first claim to America's charity.'' There are many more, but these quotes were from 1939. The refugee bill was not for Muslim and Christian Syrians or Iraqi Muslims, Christians and Yazidis; it was for German Jews. While it was true that Germany was, indeed, a threat, the refugees were not. They were 20,000 children. Not only did that bill of 1939 not pass, but that Congress, with the same speech and rhetoric that I have been hearing in recent days in this august Chamber, Mr. Speaker, passed hurdle after hurdle in 1939 to make it more difficult for refugees to enter. They were, unfortunately, successful. Mr. Speaker, America protects her liberty and defends her shores not by punishing those who would be free; she does it by guarding liberty with her life. Americans need to sacrifice and wake up. We must not become them. They win if we give up who we are, and even more so, without a fight. We guard our way of life by vigilance. We must be watchful. We have to have each others' back and be alert to dangers around us. We must speak up when we see something unusual. By maintaining who we are amidst the threat, amidst the hatred, amidst the trials, we win. Patrick Henry did not say, ``Give me safety or give me death,'' but, rather, ``Give me liberty,'' implying that he was willing to lose his life to defend that liberty. We have defended our way of life, Mr. Speaker, for 240 years. Now we as Americans must defend it again. We must defend it when the critic sitting on the couch in his underwear eating his bag of cheese puffs is pecking out hatred and vitriol on some social media. We must defend it and have courage when voters are caught up with sincere passion, demanding security that also might kill our liberty. We must defend it with our warriors who have worked hard to keep the fight off our shores by being vigilant and aware at home and while looking after their families who don't have them to protect them. We will always have threats, but liberty, when lost, takes generations, if ever, to regain. I am asking all Americans tonight to pray for our President. How much time, really, have we spent on our knees at home for our leaders? How much counsel have we sought from the Almighty? It is God who has given us the spark of freedom. It is He we must turn to. He will take us and guide us in times of crisis, if we only ask Him and humble ourselves and seek His face as a nation. Mr. Speaker, we would not even have that nation without the aid of France. Lady Liberty would not even stand on our shores without the generosity of France. And now, as civilization faces peril and trial, we must stand the test, shoulder to shoulder with France, this Congress, our people, our way of life. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. Really this whole matter and discussion is pretty simple: Article I, section 8, Congress shall have the power ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes''--explicit language in the Constitution that we all defend and that I have defended since I was 18. It is the purview of this Congress, not the rulemakers of the National Labor Relations Board, to regulate commerce. This Nation must continue to recognize the rights of Indian tribal sovereignty, and this Congress must uphold the Constitution and sovereign treaties with those tribes. Those opposed to this bill, Mr. Speaker, say that it will take away the rights of workers. As a Representative from Oklahoma, whose Fifth District has more than 13 percent Native American, our largest minority, our constituents know that the actions of the rulemakers will take away the rights of sovereign tribes. Congress must restore these rights with the passage of this bill.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, streetcars, also known as trollies, are mass transit vehicles that operate on rail lines embedded in normal roadways, often drawing electrical power from overhead structures. From 2009 to 2014, the Department of Transportation awarded $432 million for streetcar projects in 14 cities throughout the country. Streetcars are highly impractical from a public transit standpoint. Like a bus, but unlike a train, a streetcar's speed is constrained by the speed of traffic around them. Unlike a bus, however, they are bound by their tracks. If anything blocks the tracks, such as an accident or a construction project, the entire line shuts down, making it an inefficient form of transportation. Streetcars are costly to build and operate. They require extensive infrastructure, including tracks and overhead power, that is not required for buses. Per passenger, per mile, they are also significantly and consistently more costly to operate than buses. According to a 2013 Journal of Public Transportation study, they fail or are at the bottom of all efficient forms of transportation. The Congressional Research Service can find no clear evidence that streetcars increase transit ridership. Streetcar corridors that saw economic growth often benefited from other substantial subsidies. It is unclear if streetcars contributed to this growth. The main argument for this amendment, which would prohibit future funding, is that it would establish Federal prohibitions on any financial assistance to establish, maintain, operate, or otherwise support a streetcar service unless there is a current contract in place that would be entered into before the date of the enactment of the act. The main argument for streetcars is often their psychological appeal. While this is appreciated, it is also very subjective, and it depends on the sentiments of tourists or local communities. They are more comparable to water taxis or Ferris wheels than to buses and light rail. The Department of Transportation is not in a good position to judge how tourists and locals will feel about a streetcar project. The agency, therefore, lacks the insight to predict the success of a project. Most streetcar funding has come from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant program, or TIGER program. TIGER is an extremely competitive program with 20 times more applicants than there is money available. Recent rule changes are expected to make it easier for streetcars to receive funding from the Capital Investment Grant Program, also known as the New Starts and Small Starts program. The President's administration has requested $3.2 billion for this program for FY 2016, including $75 million for streetcar projects, and at least six more are under development. Any further grant awards for streetcar projects will divert scarce Federal funding from other high-priority transportation projects. While we appreciate all forms of transportation, our infrastructure, our national defense, and the vitality of our commerce on our roads beg for more efficient means of transportation for our dollars, which are limited. Bus Rapid Transit projects, or BRT projects, for example, attract riders with higher quality stations and buses, traffic lanes that are fully or partially dedicated to buses, and more reliable, frequent service. Unlike for streetcars, there is objective evidence that the BRT tends to increase transit ridership and decrease trip time, according to the Government Accountability Office. Streetcar projects are expensive, uncertain gambles that depend on subjective local and tourist sentiments more than on objective facts. It is for that reason--as we face a $19 trillion deficit and as we face foreign policy challenges abroad that require contingency dollars and as we look at husbanding the strength for our transportation--that my amendment would make sure that these resources are used in their proper place. Local communities should, therefore, risk their own funds, like in my home State of Oklahoma. Oklahoma City recently passed a $129 million downtown streetcar project, which its own citizens approved, without using Federal funds. While municipalities may desire streetcars, they should not do it with other Americans' money. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, no research supports clear economic growth, according to the Congressional Research Service. While there may be other factors--usually with heavy government subsidies--that also contribute to this growth, it does not have any delineation toward streetcars. This amendment does not dictate but protects scarce resources. In a nation that has an incredible deficit problem, we have to get to the point at which we can have priorities. This focuses on priorities. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for all of her hard work on the Armed Services Committee. Mr. Speaker, I served my country 21 years in the Infantry in the United States Army and have deployed operationally to Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. As a combat Infantry veteran, I know firsthand the hardships and dangers that our warriors face. The question that we have to ask is: Why has the President increased the hardship and danger to our troops? Has he forgotten that we have troops in the field that are still fighting? Has he forgotten that he has committed to contingency operations that created new hardships, new deployments, unscheduled training, unscheduled maintenance? And now, after asking them to turn everything on their heads, he is not even going to support it. A Presidential veto blocks needed funds for our ongoing combat operations and for our emergency operations and contingencies. The President claims that we need to do this right; yet, he has created the foreign policy mess that has required our troops to deploy on contingencies and then has asked this body to get additional Congressional authorization for those efforts. And now he adds to their burden. The veto eliminates crucial planning time just for normal peacetime operations in training from 3 to 6 months, forcing the military to waste millions of dollars as they play a catch-up game, usually in the spring, by having to deal with such efforts to try to make up for lost time. The veto reduces certainty in our overall national security posture. The veto also blocks a revised retirement program benefiting 83 percent of our warriors that are not currently covered, and it denies expanded access to health care and blocks access to needed drugs. It continues to leave our warriors defenseless at recruiting stations, camps, posts, and bases by denying their ability to carry firearms in their defense against terror threats. The veto also blocks a mediocre pay raise that the President himself already reduced by 1 percent, and now they will not even get that pathetic 1 percent pay raise, 1.3 percent. Mr. Speaker, a Presidential veto makes one thing crystal clear: Nothing is too good for our troops and nothing is what he is going to give them. That is why we will fight to overturn this veto, so that he can hear the people of the United States and our constitutional requirement to defend this republic. We will overturn this veto, and we ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Nation join us in this fight. I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, this measure is to memorialize the service of Bob Kalsu by designating the post office in Del City, Oklahoma, to carry his name. Bob was born as James Robert Kalsu and attended Del City High School in Del City, Oklahoma, my alma mater and my hometown. At 6'3" and 235 pounds, he was an All-American offensive tackle in 1967, playing for the University of Oklahoma as they won the Big Eight Conference Title. The Buffalo Bills of New York selected him in the eighth round of the 1968 college draft, but he quickly proved himself by earning the team's Rookie of the Year award in his first American football league season as guard. It would also be his final season of professional football. Bob had made an ROTC commitment, earning a commission in the field artillery in college. In late 1969, he was called to duty in the Republic of Vietnam. He was told that, as a pro football player, arrangements could be made where he wouldn't have to serve, but Bob would have none of it. He said: I gave my word to my country. Just because I play professional football doesn't make me any better of a man or any different of a man then the men already serving our country. I'm going to live up to that commitment and the word I gave. Bob deployed to the 101st Airborne Division, leaving behind his beloved wife, Jan, who was pregnant, and a 10-month-old daughter named Jill. On July 21, 1970, only 8 months into his tour of duty, First Lieutenant Bob Kalsu was killed in action at Fire Support Base Ripcord on an isolated jungle mountaintop near the Ashau Valley, Thua Thien, South Vietnam. He was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. Bob was survived by his wife, Jan, his daughter, Jill, and son, James Robert Kalsu, Jr., born 2 days after he was killed in action. Bob Kalsu was the only active professional football player killed in the Vietnam War. He has been further memorialized as the namesake of FOB or Camp Kalsu in Iraq, a base where thousands of Americans served from 2003 to 2011. As long as we have breath we will remember him. This act allows others who live after us to do so as well. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the service of this fallen American hero.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the Congresswoman. Mr. Speaker, it is a serious issue that our Nation faces when we imagine the sacrifice that our veterans make only to see them become casualties in a battle with the mind. Those of us who have borne the burden of battle carry the weight of that burden the rest of our lives. As a warrior, I have seen the worst things that human beings can do to one another. I have had to take human life. I have had to watch fellow warriors lose theirs. I have caressed wounded brothers as they have been bleeding. We recall these things and carry these things, and, as warriors, we attempt to process it all when we come home. When we do come home, others attempt to interact with us not quite knowing how that interaction should play out or how to treat the Americans we really are. So, as we address this issue of veteran suicide and as we stand here to speak in support of the many good measures that we have heard today, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to provide a couple of things worth noting with which we could reach out to the community at large, to our States, to all of America. For the population that deals with returning battle veterans, purpose matters. We don't want to come home as victims. We don't want to be put in some special class. We have maintained the stresses of battle, and we have fought our Nation's wars, but purpose matters as we come home. If that purpose is somehow denied us because of fear of capacity or fear of being able to interact with other Americans in employment or in whatever it is that we put our hand to, then we will miss a great opportunity early on to engage returning veterans in things that will help them heal. Secondly, we should treat our returning veterans as the Americans they really are. We somehow unintendedly imagine them as damaged goods, or maybe they have had something happen to them that does not make them quite like we are. That is a mistake. Thirdly, when we look at the stresses of battle and how they shape our lives, we must remember this, that post-traumatic stress is treatable. As we deal with those who have faced battle as they struggle through this, it is important to note that the returning warrior has not lost his mind or her mind. It is treatable. Mr. Speaker, one can easily relate when you think about, in my home State, maybe surviving a tornado or maybe, across America, being in a horrific car accident or losing a loved one in some capacity. It creates stress on the human being, yet no one in that scenario would say, ``Well, they have been through quite a lot, so I am not sure that they can engage with the public anymore and be employed'' or, ``I am not sure they will be able to handle the daily stresses.'' Instead, we look at them, and we realize that these are life-altering experiences, whether it be through a car accident or a tornado, and we say, ``Wow, that is terrible, but they have really bounced back, and they have done a good job of recovering.'' We need to look at it in the same capacity. I am no physician, but I am a warrior who has come home. For the warrior, as he or she does come home, Mr. Speaker, we must urge all of our warriors, especially as they face insurmountable pressure about ``Does life have a purpose?'' to not live in isolation, and we must understand that the adrenalin of survival at our peak in battle, which is all around us--every sense alive to protect us as we survive-- physiologically doesn't instantly change when we come home. Those levels of adrenalin stay, and we crave them. That is why your returning veteran may ride his motorcycle at 120 miles an hour or pursue a dangerous activity. As the warrior processes it, he must understand as well that it takes time to abate that and to adjust. I also want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that our returning veterans should band together with their fellow warriors. Above all, don't quit. Only we can take ourselves out of that fight. To all of us, I think it is best to recall what Solomon tells us in Ecclesiastes in that two are better than one because they have good reward for their labor, for, if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him that is alone when he falls, for he does not have another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat. But how can one be warm alone? And if one prevails against him, two shall withstand him, and a threefold cord is not quickly broken. As we attempt here in government to bind up the wounds, we must also realize it is not the government's sole responsibility. As an American community, we need to bind together as those wounds are bound up to heal.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, it is a psychological fact of life that, when it comes to human beings, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, period, end of story. Psychologists who study human behavior agree that past behavior is a useful marker for future behavior, but only under certain specific conditions. For example, high-frequency, habitual behaviors are more predictive than infrequent behaviors. Predictions work best if done over short periods of time, based upon these behaviors. The anticipated situation must be essentially the same as the past situation that activated the behavior in the first place. Also, the behavior did not change by corrective or negative action or feedback. The person must remain essentially unchanged in their consistent behavior. The person must be fairly consistent in his or her behaviors over time. Forensic psychologists that observe such behavior often use metaphor to warn of serious danger by referring to such individuals as ``a ticking time bomb'' or as one ``carrying a hand grenade, and it is just a matter of when the pin is pulled.'' What happens if we apply these same criteria to Iran's behavior? The result is the same. Psychologically, there is no reason to expect future behavioral change, given Iran's 36 years of bad behavior. The record of history since 1979 is clear with regard to Iran's actions with the West and, in particular, the United States. For 30 of those 36 years, the United States has declared Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world. For 36 years, Iran has brutally murdered more Americans than any other terror group or state sponsor of terror. Their clerics have declared fatwas on the United States; their leaders have dubbed us the Great Satan and have called Israel a one-bomb state, with pledges to eliminate their existence. That brutal behavior earned them treatment, and rightfully so, as a pariah, shunned by global economy, diplomacy, and withholding international goodwill. So what a fantastic time to accommodate a terrorist state and make a deal. Some, such as Secretary of State John Kerry, dismiss all of Iran's reticence as posturing rhetoric. How in God's name can we be so naive at the highest levels of our Republic to believe it? How in God's name can we judge Iran's actions worthy of fair treatment and goodwill? Perhaps we should take the teachings of Christ as a guide when he stated: Every good tree bears good fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. Therefore, by their fruits, you will know them. Christ's words, of course, are true. Iranian deeds speak louder than words. The problem is both word and deed are reprehensible, which should cause us even more alarm. Don't believe me? Here are the facts of Iranian actions under this regime. 1979, hostage crisis. From the moment this regime came into being, the first act was to overrun the United States Embassy in Tehran, terrorizing 66 American hostages for 444 days, most of them, and forcing abandonment of our U.S. Embassy and consulates. 1982-1992, Lieutenant Colonel William Buckley, the CIA Station Chief and Vietnam warrior, decorated for valor, is tortured and brutally murdered. David Anderson, a reporter of great renown, was captured and held for 7 years. American University President David Dodge was captured and held for a year. 1983, April 18, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut is bombed, murdering 63, 17 of them Americans. The entire CIA Middle East contingent is reportedly murdered. The entire operation was directed by Hezbollah and financed by Iran. October 23, the United States Marine barracks in Beirut was destroyed by the largest nonnuclear explosion detonated on Earth by the hand of an Iranian terrorist; 241 United States Marines are slaughtered, and 100 are wounded. During the same attack, the French barracks are destroyed by another Iranian terrorist bomb that murders 58 French paratroopers. December 12, 1983, the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait was bombed by Iranian terrorists from Iranian-backed Hezbollah and Dawa, murdering 5 and wounding 86. Seventeen members of the Dawa are captured and arrested in connection. Iranian-sponsored terrorist acts then are perpetrated for years to come to try to negotiate their release. 1984, September 20, United States Embassy annex in Beirut is destroyed by Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorists, murdering 22 civilians and 2 U.S. soldiers. 1985, June 14, Trans World Airlines Flight 847 hijacked with 160 hostages. Robert Dean Stetham, a United States Navy diver, is forced to kneel in front of an open aircraft door, shot in the back of the head, and dumped onto the tarmac. The remaining hostages are released, following terrorist releases from prisons in Israel and Lebanon. 1989, July 13, Dr. Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou, the Secretary General of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran, was assassinated by Iranian operatives, along with two associates in Vienna, where he was secretly meeting with envoys sent by then-Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. 1991, August 8, the assassination of Shapour Bakhtiar, who was the last Iranian Prime Minister prior to the Islamic Revolution by Iranian operatives. In a botched attempt on Bakhtiar's life in a Paris suburb before in 1980, his assailants murdered a French policeman and a female neighbor. 1992, March 17, the Israeli Embassy bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Iran's terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, perpetrated the suicide bomb attack on the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, which murdered 29 people and wounded 242 others, the great majority of which were civilian bystanders in the vicinity of the embassy. On the 17th of September 1992, Kurdish leader Dr. Mohammad Sadegh Saeid Sharafkandi and three other Iranian Kurds were assassinated at the Mykonos Cafe in Berlin. German courts linked the Iranian Government and Minister of Intelligence, Ali Fallahian, to the assassination. 1994, July 18, Iran was directly responsible for the Argentinian- Israeli Mutual Association Jewish community center bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which murdered 85 and wounded 300. The AMIA attack remains the deadliest terrorist attack in Argentina's history. In 2006, an Argentine court ``declared former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani and eight others fugitives from justice in Argentina'' for their role in the AMIA bombing. 1996, June 25, 14 members of the Iranian-backed Saudi branch of Hezbollah detonated a massive bomb in front of the Khobar Towers, a U.S. military housing complex in Saudi Arabia. The terrorist attack murdered 19 Americans and wounded 372 of our service men and women. The attackers detonated a parked truck laden with the equivalent of somewhere between 3,000 and 8,000 pounds of explosive in the Khobar Towers parking lot. The resulting explosion ``sheared the face off an eight-story structure which housed U.S. Air Force personnel.'' 2003-2011, following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran undermined U.S. operations by ``consistently supplying weapons, its own advisers, and Iranian proxy Hezbollah advisers from Lebanon to multiple residence groups, both Sunni and Shia,'' which targeted Coalition Forces. For the U.S., ``concern revolved around Iran's role in arming and assisting the Shiite militias.'' In Iraq, ``the top killer of U.S. troops'' were IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, which were primarily supplied by Iran. In total, Iran's support for Iraqi insurgents led to the death of thousands of U.S. soldiers and others in Iraq. In 2010, United States Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey stated, ``Up to a quarter, or 1,200 of the American casualties, and some of the more horrific incidents in which Americans were kidnapped can be traced without doubt to these Iranian groups.'' I should also personally note that many were my friends, and all were my brothers and sisters as fellow warriors. 2006-2015, Iranian support for the Taliban against United States troops in Afghanistan has been ongoing since at least 2006. According to a RAND report, ``although Iran has traditionally backed Tajik and Shia groups opposed to the Taliban, its enmity with the United States and tensions over the nuclear program led it to provide measured support to the Taliban.'' According to the Treasury Department, ``since at least 2006, Iran has arranged frequent shipments of small arms and associated ammunition, rocket-propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107 mm rockets, plastic explosives, and probably man-portable defense systems to the Taliban.'' A member of my own staff left limbs in Afghanistan by these devices. Through ``Qods force materials support,'' the report states, ``we believe Iran is seeking to inflict casualties on U.S. and NATO forces.'' In 2010, multiple media sources reported Iran as ``paying Taliban fighters $1,000 for each U.S. soldier they kill in Afghanistan.'' This is currently. Over a 6-month period in 2010, one ``Taliban treasurer'' claimed to have collected more than $77,000 from an Iranian firm in Kabul as payment for killing Americans. 2011, October, U.S. authorities thwarted a terrorist plot in this town, Washington, D.C., which included ``the assassination of Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States and subsequent bomb attacks on Saudi and Israeli Embassies.'' U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the plot was ``directed and approved by elements of the Iranian Government and, specifically, senior members of the Quds Force''--in this town. The two individuals charged were ``Manssor Arbabsiar, a 56-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen holding both Iranian and U.S. passports, and Gholam Shakuri, an Iran-based member of Iran's Quds Force.'' U.S. authorities arrested Arbabsiar on September 29, 2011, with Shakuri remaining at large. 2012, in March, Azerbaijan. United States and Israeli officials were among those targeted for assassination by a group of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps from Iran-linked terrorists. They were arrested in Baku, Azerbaijan. According to The Washington Post, ``United States and Middle Eastern officials now see the attempts as part of a broader campaign by Iran- linked operatives to kill foreign diplomats in at least seven countries over a span of 13 months.'' How right they were. 13-14 February, New Delhi, India, the wife of Israeli Defense attache and her driver were wounded after a device attached to their car exploded. The Delhi police concluded that the suspects were members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. A similar device was defused in Tbilisi, Georgia, after being discovered on the underside of an Israeli diplomat's car. The following day, three Iranian men accidentally detonated a cache of explosives--darn--in Bangkok, Thailand. The explosives were intended to be used to assassinate Israeli diplomats. A multinational investigation has produced ``the clearest evidence yet that Iran was involved'' in all three plots. 18 July, a suicide bomber destroyed an Israeli tour bus in Burgas, Bulgaria, murdering the bus driver and five Israelis, and wounding more than 30 others. In an investigation in 2012, the Bulgarian Government found Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, responsible for the attack. Behavior, behavior, 36 consistent years. But now President Obama wants to negotiate with terrorists to prevent war. Mr. Speaker, we are not the attackers here. Threat of war only comes from the United States when we are bullied, cajoled, attacked, or threatened. The President and Secretaries Kerry, Lew, and Moniz want us to show goodwill for bad behavior. The American people are against it, as evidenced by the strong opposition from the majority of Americans who rightly deduce the deal would allow nuclear capacity for Iran and makes a legal path to possess weapons of mass destruction. The President often makes political speeches demanding we keep dangerous firearms out of the hands of those with psychological problems, yet, under identical behavioral criteria, he would give nuclear capacity to Iran. While public multiple-victim shootings are horrific, imagine an Iran with a nuclear capacity. Given Iran's prolific use of every form of weaponry and export of terror, are our leaders so naive to think Iran's behavior would be any better than putting a weapon in the hands of a psychologically consistent and dangerous individual? Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Any psychologist or criminologist will tell you this, yet the President is selling us on the deluded hope that this is somehow the right and only path to take. Nonsense. No alternative you say? How can that be? Our own administration does not even realize that Iran's interpretation of this very deal and ours are separated by a fairly problematic gulf. In the last month, even the last few days, Iran's President Rouhani and his foreign ministry have made public statements that declare the following regarding this good deal. According to Iran and its statements from its leaders, here is what they think they have agreed to: Iran can pursue the development of missiles without any restriction. They can violate the U.N. resolutions without violating the agreement. Iran says it is not a treaty but binding. Iran can violate the U.N. Security Council Resolution without violating the JCPOA, or the agreement. Iran intends to violate the United Nations Security Council Resolution restrictions on weapons sales and imports. In fact, they are already negotiating with Russia for the sale of SS-300 and -400 missiles. And Iran also has not agreed to inspect Parchin itself, but it will refuse to let anyone else inspect it. These are from their own statements in recent days. Iran's public statements declare, Mr. Speaker, that all sanctions will be lifted. Under Iran's interpretation and even in the stated language of the agreement, this includes those, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps--they are in the agreement; they are listed--and the Quds Force, the same organization that we just itemized all of these terrorist acts, both of these groups. Two of the most reprehensible terrorist organizations in the world are in this agreement for sanctions to be lifted. Read them. Annex II sanctions list. I have. This flies in the face of our President's own statements and reassurances. Under Secretary of Treasury Szubin assures us that sanctions on these organizations will be maintained. Secretary of Treasury Lew even goes further and has stated recently that, ``We will not be providing any sanctions relief to any of these lines of activity and will not be delisting from sanctions the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Quds Force, or any of their subsidiaries or senior officials.'' Then, why are they in the deal? According to the agreement and even Iran's recent public statements, they believe that they will be lifted. Terrorists Soleimani, A.Q. Khan, numerous organizations that I have had to fight on battlefields, now we will reward their bad behavior with goodwill. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and the Quds Force are both listed in this agreement and have sanctions against them lifted, according to interpretations of its terms. What a great deal. There is none better. This is the best we can do. President Hassan Rouhani declared last month, ``After the agreement is implemented, the economic sanctions will be immediately removed, meaning, financial, banking, insurance, transportation, petrochemical sanctions. All economic sanctions will be removed.'' Congratulations, Mr. President, on that good deal and that goodwill. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in grave danger. We are trusting a psychologically fanatical and terrorist State with 36 consistent years of bad behavior to now behave well. Perhaps the only thing missing to shore up the President and Secretary Kerry's reassurances is perhaps an airplane on the tarmac with an open door with our United States leader waving a document in his hand, declaring, ``Peace in our time.'' The power of this Nation only rests with the consent of the people. That is where the Congress, both parties, this august body, comes in. But now our President even wants to find a political way to strip the American people from a vote by their duly elected representatives to avoid the optics of an opposition. I guess he and President Hassan Rouhani of Iran do have something very much in common after all: not allowing a vote in their respective legislative bodies. One would expect that from a fanatical, unstable, religious dictatorship, but not in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, the President is outside his constitutional authority. No other President in the history of our Nation has ever cobbled together sanctions provisions meant to prevent nuclear capacity, to provide a de facto treaty with a foreign rogue State and give them what the sanctions were intended to deny. The President has acted without the consent of the people. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the people, through their duly elected Representatives, will now act without the consent of the President. Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, a document I have defended since I was 18, states that the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations rests in the Congress of these United States. Article II, Section 2, states that the President can only make a binding treaty with a foreign nation upon two-thirds consent with the Senate. Mr. Speaker, the President states that this is not a treaty. We agree. And, therefore, constitutionally, we are not bound to abide by it. Neither are the States. The Supremacy Clause does not apply here. It is not a treaty. Not having the effect of treaty law, the States are free to act. And today they are and will. And we will. I call upon my colleagues, people that have taken an oath to support and defend this republic, to stand with me. We will declare the lifting of sanctions of terrorists as laid out in the agreement as null and void. It is illegal under past U.S. sanctions law. We will uphold United States sanctions law against executive fiat action. We will make explicit the sense of Congress in upcoming State actions both legally and economically. We will prevent the lifting of sanctions on scores of those listed in the agreement, thereby violating section 37 of Annex II of the Iran deal. We will send a strong message to Iran that the power of this republic does not rest with its President. It rests by the consent of the people. We are bound to uphold that trust as our constitutional duty. Mr. Speaker, I also call upon Americans to stand with me. Pound the White House with calls and emails. Support State legislative actions and sanctions. Support your representatives, both State and assembly, and your U.S. Representatives in this fight. We ask the people to support us in this fight, not shoot us in the back, regardless of political party with anger and cynicism, leveling blame on those who oppose this deal rather than on the one who has created it. Then, if we do this, what will the future look like? It will look like an Iran contained, not an Iran accommodated. It will look like a Nation that led rather than cowered. It will have a United States that stands firm when Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, does--if they ever do--decide to go rogue, will be like North Korea, when a previous administration assured us that, if we reached out to them with the IAEA and lifting of sanctions and easing, that they would come around. They abandoned it. We should have known it. Their bad behavior was consistent. That future was predictable. They have nuclear weapons, and we knew it. We said we could trust them in a similar agreement. But our country will stand for free people and free economies on this globe. It is what we do. And if we fail in that task, who will take our place? How we fight today determines how we shape tomorrow. Accommodating terrorists and nations with 36 consistent years of bad behavior is not the best deal we have. If Iran, like Libya, displays good behavior first, then we will have a basis for discussion and follow-on goodwill, which we saw in that case. Until then, the power of the republic rests with its people, not with its executive. Let us never waiver from that position. As long as we treasure this republic and its Constitution, this will defend. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the House floor to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the National Collegiate Honors Council. The NCHC, which is dedicated to achieving excellence in education in diverse subject and curriculum areas currently, represents over 800 colleges and universities around the country and over 325,000 students in honors programs. To recognize these achievements, I have sponsored House Resolution 360 which was introduced last Friday and was supported by my colleagues as original cosponsors, Reps. Boustany, Benishek, Bishop and Cole. H. Res. 360 commemorates the hard work that these students and their faculty and administrators have undertaken with the NCHC over the past five decades to maintain U.S. preeminence in education. As a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, I salute the NCHC and its officers for their valuable contribution to the high education of our young people. I would also like to honor Southern Nazarene University, in my district, on their membership in the National Collegiate Honors Council. Having just completed their 7th year as an honors program, SNU's curriculum emphasizes service leadership and real-world application. As a part of the curriculum students in the Honors Program at SNU are required to write a grant on behalf of a local Title1 elementary school, where the first year honors students also mentor two children each throughout their first year of college. To date, the SNU Honors Program first year students have had just under $15,000-worth of their grants funded in the four years they have been doing this experience. Most of the graduates of the SNU Honors Program continue on in their education, with the majority attending medical, professional, or graduate school directly after graduation from SNU.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege today to have with us to provide the opening prayer my pastor and good friend, Shane Hall, from Del City, Oklahoma. Although Shane was born in Brook, Indiana, he actually grew up in Burns Flat, Oklahoma. He is a graduate of Oklahoma Baptist University, with a secondary in education. He also got a master's of divinity with biblical languages from the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He has pastored a half-dozen churches in Oklahoma and Louisiana, and he is currently the pastor of my home church, First Southern Baptist Church of Del City, Oklahoma. He also serves on the executive committee of the entire Southern Baptist Convention, and he is a member of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma board of directors. His wife, Misty, and his two daughters, Macy and Mallory, are wonderful people that, if you are ever in Oklahoma, I encourage you to attend services and get to know them. Thank you for allowing us to make his introduction this morning.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 378 I was absent due to travel for personal reasons and in connection with my official duties. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 377, I was absent due to travel for personal reasons and in connection with my official duties. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 376 I was absent due to travel for personal reasons and in connection with my official duties. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of weeks, America has asked what is our strategy to defeat ISIS and what is the President's plan to prevent the spread of barbarism in Syria and Iraq? For all of our advancement in self-governance, the rule of law, and a betterment of people's lives, the world stands in shock at beheadings, immolations, crucifixions, sexual enslavement, and human suffering as a way of governance could exist on earth today. As the world has watched in horror, it has also looked to America. Where America leads, nations stand shoulder to shoulder; where America is absent, tyranny takes its chances and rears its ugly head--but who would have thought barbarity would emerge? Since last year, the President has been unable to articulate his strategy to aid our ally in Iraq to combat ISIS. As a combat veteran of Iraq that has had to watch my American and Iraqi friends die, that has had to handle the flesh and blood of battle, that has had to do terrible things to destroy enemies, that has had to watch the good people of Iraq suffer in absence of effective government, this is deeply personal. It is personal because I have lived among the Sunni Arab. I have celebrated his victories, his wedding, his birthdays, and his accomplishments. I have mourned as close Iraqi friends have died to acts of terror and mourned when Iraq's educated, intelligent, and free people have been expunged. The President's refusal to negotiate a status of forces agreement and decision to abandon Iraq in 2012 is largely responsible and aided ISIS' path to destruction in that country. We soldiers and servicemembers who have sacrificed so much in Iraq weep. We defeated Saddam's army, toppled the Ba'athist government, captured and brought a world tyrant to justice, fought an insurgency, and stood shoulder to shoulder with disenfranchised Sunnis and Kurds to restore control to Iraq's Government. We turned the country around with a military pause. The President used that pause for abandonment and political expediency; where we sacrificed, he quit. I speak for so many of the Iraq veterans when I say: Mr. President, you have hurt us deeply. You have torn a hole within us. We are at a loss to see the state of Iraq today. Now, as we ask what can be done, we see a strategy offered by this administration. I heard it yesterday in the House Armed Services Committee when Secretary of Defense Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dempsey attempted to articulate it. I left more confused than when I entered. The President is offering a plan without vision or conviction. Indeed, Secretary Carter could not even name it, calling it the so- called nine-line strategy. So-called? Do we not even have enough conviction to call the strategy some name? Is it our strategy or not? Are we so unsure of it that we do not even know what to call it? Then we were informed of the ``lily pad strategy.'' I suppose that is the one that makes us look like a bunch of toads. The nine lines, if we decide to actually call it that, this strategy, when taken together, is mostly passive and defensive. In my 21 years of military infantry service, I have never seen enemies defeated by defense. While passive measures are important, they are only complementary. The President is looking for nations in the Middle East to lead. Middle Eastern countries are looking to the United States for leadership. We cannot approach this problem like pushing a strand of wet spaghetti. Grab it by the front, and it will go where you want it to go. If Iraq and Syria were a crime-ridden neighborhood, this nine-line strategy would be like relying on neighborhood watches to physically fight criminals and restore leadership of the town. The mayor and police would then tell them, Well, if you clean up your neighborhood, then we will come and provide the protection that you require--if only life worked that way. The military can provide pauses, but we cannot provide an Iraqi collapse when the President pulls out all the protection necessary to sustain a nascent government. If the United States is not committed with a diplomatic, economic, and informational solution, all the heroics exerted by our men and women in uniform to provide a window will be squandered once again if we abandon our gains. Secretary Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dempsey spoke of trying to find people willing to fight in Iraq. There are plenty of them. The problem is they are Sunni Arabs and Kurds. They do not wish to live under ISIS; yet we will not organize them into a Sunni-Arab and Sunni-Kurd federation that would actually stand a chance of success and would be a deadly blow to the objectives of ISIS. They want to govern themselves because Baghdad cannot include them. They do not wish to live under ISIS' barbarity, and we should embrace them. In the interim, what can be done that is not passive? How about some of this? Cripple Raqqa. This town, it is clear, is the center of ISIS power. The President's Cabinet says: We are worried about collateral damage and civilian casualties. News flash, the most humane thing we can do to end the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people is cripple what ISIS draws its strength from; destroy their infrastructure, hammer the electricity capacity of that city, destroy the bridges on their roads of ingress and egress, take away the oil refining installations that they possess and use to fund themselves with millions of dollars of illegal cash. We have the ability to rebuild those later, but ISIS would be diminished deeply by their loss. The most humane thing we can do to protect civilians is defeat the barbarians, causing their suffering. That is true humanity. If the United States leads, others will stand shoulder to shoulder. Mr. President, we need you to lead. We hear talk about countermessaging. Well, here is something every American can help with. News stations, stop putting ISIS recruiting videos as B-roll on your newscasts. Replace it with crosshairs and explosions of their defeat, or show the world their acts of barbarity, instead, for the B-roll. Stop using their images and their propaganda for furthering American newscasts. Americans, write your local news stations and tell them to stop it. Iran, here is the cold reality and its impact on ISIS and Middle East unrest. Lifting sanctions on Iran will introduce tens of billions of dollars into these war-torn nations and will destabilize the entire region. Mr. President, do not lift the sanctions on Iran. They must show good action before we show good will. Finally, we must go back to the drawing board on this so-called strategy of halfheartedness. Using American warriors should mean backing them with the full weight and might of this Republic. Mr. President, do you not realize that our enemies hear you loud and clear when you say you will not sign the Defense Authorization? Secretary Carter, do you not realize that we are still negotiating it between both Houses of Congress? Why do you say you support a veto when we are still in the process of its negotiation? By such actions, one thing is certainly clear: nothing is too good for the troops, and nothing is what they will get. Instead, lead, achieve, get an ISIS strategy worthy of this mighty Republic, sign the Defense Authorization, and let's get back to our constitutional requirement to provide for our Nation's defense. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a chance this week to turn the President's pivot to Asia into a pivot to America. The question is: Will we listen to the American people, or will we double down on a watered-down policy that has divided both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle? To stop the TPA, we must hold firm. Republicans and Democrats all want trade barriers to be removed, but we are at a crossroads because both parties have voiced a lack of trust in the President's ability to be able to negotiate what is best for America. That is why we are still fighting to stop the trade promotional authority, better known as fast track. Fast track will not be the panacea of all ills. In fact, if granted, we could see President Obama move swiftly on the Trans-Pacific Partnership that will likely not deliver the goods and have harmful secondary effects in multiple areas. Dr. Aurolyn Luykx, from the University of Texas at El Paso, makes this analysis: ``I think the consequences could be very dire. We already saw under NAFTA how so many jobs left the United States and, also, went from Mexico. Then we saw, as well, tens of thousands of low- income Mexican families being put out of work and losing their land, and we saw how that drove migration to the United States.'' The architects of the TPA in both Congress and the White House claim that with fast track they can lower barriers on U.S. exports among the 11 other TPP nations in the negotiation, thus, increasing jobs and wages. Now to the facts. We already have high-standard, free-trade agreements with 7 of those 11 other nations in the proposed Trans- Pacific Partnership. We are writing the rules in the Pacific. Let's write them some more with good bilateral agreements. If you don't believe me, how about Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and a professor at MIT Sloan. Here is what he says about the myth of needing the TPA to lower tariffs among the proposed members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Almost all tariffs on trade among Canada, Mexico, and the United States are long gone. Under the Australian and Singapore free trade agreements, almost all tariffs on U.S. goods have been eliminated. Goods from the United States have entered Chile without tariffs since January 1 of this year, and most tariffs imposed by Peru have already been phased out. The TPP will amount to a free trade agreement with Brunei, with a population less than Omaha, Nebraska, and New Zealand, with a population less than Louisiana. Encouraging exports to these countries is surely desirable, but the economic impact on the United States is unlikely to be more than a rounding error. That leaves three larger countries where the issues are more complex: Japan, Malaysia, and Vietnam. And TPP will also confer special status on foreign investors, allowing them to sue for financial judgments against host-country regulations. Creating a quasi-legal process outside the regular court system just for foreigners can go wrong in many ways. I would add, from my own reading of the TPP, without divulging the details, concerns about private rights in disputes; the transnational panel empowered with a living agreement even after the accord is signed; and possible exceptions granted to Brunei, whose legal system is not to the same standard as other nations. So, one says, What solutions do you have? Well, here are a couple: First, listen to the American people. If the majority of Americans completely across the political spectrum have voiced concerns against TPA, then our actions this week will truly reflect if we are being representative of that voice. Second, the President must demonstrate he can lead on foreign policy. He has yet to do it. Granting fast track to negotiate with 40 percent of the world's economy should be based on how well he has handled foreign policy. Have we forgotten the handling of Syria, ISIS, Iraq, Crimea, Ukraine, and Iran? I can go on, but the question is, Why are we? The President must show us some deeds, not words. He should start by negotiating a bilateral agreement with our ally Japan. Intently focus there. Bring that to us, and we will likely approve it. Third, negotiate an interim agreement with China. We still have much to do with raising the standards bar on Chinese trade, but China lacks lawyers to fight these problems. Well, do we know how to make plenty of those. Negotiate a law school program all across our land's rich institutions to create Chinese attorneys to help fight these issues. As to goods, China is seeking oil, natural gas, coal, timber, aggregate, beef, and pork. We have an abundance of these. How about a trade agreement on these narrow products that will immediately benefit us all? It is not impossible. We have the resource. We have the technology. What we need are the guts to do it, a rekindling of the American spirit, and the leadership to get it done. It starts by putting the brakes on fast track. We need the right track instead.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a chance this week to turn the President's ``Pivot to Asia'' into a ``Pivot to America.'' The question is: Will we as Members listen to the people, or will we double down on a watered-down policy that has divided both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle? We often complain about lack of bipartisanship, but in this case, we are seeing it stop the trade promotion authority, or TPA, fast track. We must hold firm. Republicans and Democrats have a long history of being for free trade. We all want our goods to go to international markets and for trade barriers to be removed. We find ourselves at a crossroads today because both parties have voiced a lack of trust in the President's ability to be able to negotiate what is best for America. That is why we are still fighting to stop the trade promotion authority, better known as fast track. Fast track will not be the panacea of all ills. In fact, if granted, we could see the President move swiftly on the Trans-Pacific Partnership that will likely not deliver the goods, potentially binding our Nation to an agreement that could circumvent U.S. interests and law and have secondary harmful effects in multiple areas. Dr. Aurolyn Luykx, an anthropology professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, makes this analysis: I think the consequences could be very dire. We already saw under NAFTA how so many jobs left the United States and also went from Mexico. Then we saw, as well, tens of thousands of low-income Mexican families being put out of work and losing their land, and we saw how that drove migration to the United States. The architects of the TPA in both Congress and the White House take offense at any opposition, leveling the charge that we are being protectionists. The White House claims that with fast track they can move the TPP to lower barriers on U.S. exports among the 11 other nations, thus increasing jobs and wages. Now to the facts. Contrary to what we hear, we already have high-standard free trade agreements with 7 of those other 11 nations in the proposed Trans- Pacific Partnership. We are writing the rules in the Pacific. Let's write them some more, with good bilateral agreements that will allow the American people to have a voice, not some council or transnational commission that sets our fate. If you don't believe me, then how about Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, a professor at MIT Sloan, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics? Maybe he knows something about it. Here is what he says about the myth of needing the TPA to lower tariffs among the proposed members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Almost all tariffs on trade among Canada, Mexico, and the United States are long gone--that was the effect of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Under the Australia and Singapore free trade agreements as well, almost all tariffs on U.S. goods sold in those countries have been eliminated. Goods from the United States have entered Chile without tariffs since January of this year, and most tariffs imposed by Peru have already been phased out. The TPP will amount to a free trade agreement with Brunei, with a population less than Omaha, Nebraska, I might add, and New Zealand, with a population less than Louisiana. Encouraging exports to these countries is surely desirable, but the economic impact on the U.S. is unlikely to be more than a rounding error. That leaves three larger countries where the issues are more complex: Japan, Malaysia, and Vietnam. And TPP will also confer special status on foreign investors, allowing them to sue for financial judgments against host-country regulations. Why we would want to provide such differential protection to nondomestic companies is a mystery. Creating a quasi-legal process outside the regular court system, just for foreigners, can go wrong in many ways. From my own reading of the TPP, without divulging the details, I would add the concern about private rights in disputes, the transnational panel empowered with a living agreement--and yes, it is there; I have seen it with my own eyes--even after the accord is signed by member nations. There are also the possible exceptions granted to Brunei, whose legal system is not to the same standard as the other nations. Of great concern is a stated intention to economically integrate like the EU--Not cooperate, but integrate. So, one says: What solutions do you have? Here are a few. First, we must start by listening to the American people. If the majority of Americans--from socialists to progressives, to liberals, to moderates, to conservatives, to constitutionalists, to the Tea Parties--have voiced concerns and do not want TPA granted, then our actions this week will truly reflect if we are being representative of that voice. Second, the President must demonstrate he can lead on foreign policy. He has yet to do it. Granting fast track to negotiate with 40 percent of the world's economy should be based on how well he has handled negotiations with other nations in his tenure. It is here, in the foreign policy arena, he is found wanting. The President's talent for negotiation among nations should be measured by his foreign policy record. Have we forgotten the line in the sand, the arming of al Qaeda and other nefarious Syrian rebels to fight Assad, only to watch them morph into ISIS, then dismiss them as a JV team, only to see them tear through Iraq, which fell apart after we abandoned it, after we were assured they could stand on their own if we left early, and now, no strategy to fix it? Then, there is the Arab Spring, which has morphed into a potential for nuclear winter with Iran. Let's not forget Crimea and Ukraine. I can go on. The question is: Why are we? As I have said before, like Lucy holding the football, we are told that the President needs the power to negotiate; if we just come and take a kick at it, all will be fine. We cannot take such chances with our Nation; instead, the President must show us some deeds, not words. He should start by negotiating a bilateral free trade agreement with Japan, an ally, the biggest nation of those that remain and the one that has the greatest economic impact. Intently focus there, bring that to us, and we will likely approve it. Third, negotiate an interim agreement with China. We still have much to do with raising the bar on Chinese trade due to corruption, piracy of intellectual property, standards of goods, and other concerns. We made those same claims with Japan in the 1960s and with South Korea in the 1980s. Today, we no longer have those concerns. China lacks lawyers to fight against these problems. Well, we certainly know how to make plenty of those. Negotiate a law school program all across our land's rich institutions to create Chinese attorneys to enforce the economic benefits of the rule of law. As to goods, China is seeking oil, natural gas, coal, timber, aggregate, beef, and pork to expand their infrastructure and to feed their people. We have an abundance of these and hard-working Americans that will gladly produce and send these goods. Instead of making China turn to terrorist states like Sudan and troublemakers like Venezuela to pursue these resources, how about a trade agreement on these narrow products that will immediately benefit the American people, reduce our debt with China, and strengthen our friendly ties? It is not impossible. We have the resources. We have the technology. What we need are the guts to do it, a rekindling of the American spirit, and the leadership to get it done. It starts by putting the brakes on fast track. We need the right track instead. I urge my colleagues, left and right, to stand your ground. It is time for Congress to lead and be the clarion voice of the American people that we represent. That leadership starts this week in the United States House of Representatives. Let's hold our ground. Let's pivot back to the American people, invest in ourselves, and benefit not just the Pacific, but the entire world, as we have clearly demonstrated we can do in the last 100 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, TPA, TPP, TTIP, WTO, GATT, fast track, to the American people, we have made the ability to understand trade relations with other nations nigh on impossible. Politicians, pundits, and prophetic economists are issuing clarion calls to free trade. We all like free trade, but these same advocates insist that we do it fast, you know, put it on a fast track with ``trade promotional authority.'' Listening to these experts, they insist that we cannot do trade without it. Never mind that for 160 years we negotiated without it under the guide of the Constitution and the watchful eye of the Representatives of the people. Now, they want the negotiations to be secret: Don't worry. The trade agreements are complex. They will give us the final agreement, and we will have a little bit of time to look it over. Can't change it. Just look it over, and then you can have a simple up-or-down vote that could bind America to the terms of other nations. ``But it will create jobs?'' they say, just like NAFTA, just like the world trade agreement, just like CAFTA. We were reassured then that those would fix everything. We passed them. We are still waiting for those jobs. Americans need to ask a few questions of us in this body before we commit to something that could have decades of impact. The Pacific Partnership includes a transnational commission with a living agreement clause to change it. Why would we surrender congressional authority of a two-thirds vote to stand guard against something that could clearly damage our laws and Nation? Why would we want to isolate China, possibly driving them toward Russia, and create cold war II. The Army Chief of Staff saw a need this week to ease tensions with China. Why would we want to increase them with anti-Chinese trade rhetoric? You think military spending is high now; try it in a cold war or worse. Let's trade with China instead, not make them our adversary. Even a partial pruning of commercial links or even a gradual upsurge in Western protectionism toward China would have a profound impact on the world's well-being. Why would we pursue a path that most likely creates tension that could spill over in other areas with devastating consequences, sending ripples throughout the world? The current President's talent for negotiation among nations should be measured by his foreign policy. Have we forgotten the line in the sand, the arming of al Qaeda and other nefarious Syrian rebels to fight Assad, only to watch them become ISIS, and then dismiss them as a JV team, only to see them tear through Iraq, which fell apart after we abandoned it, after we were assured that they could stand on their own if we left early? Now, there is no strategy to fix it. Then there is the Arab Spring, which has morphed into the potential for a nuclear winter with Iran. Let's not forget Crimea and Ukraine. I can go on. The question is: Why are we? Like Lucy holding the football, we are told that the President needs the power to negotiate. If we just come and take a kick at it, all will be well. Much is at stake. National security, American jobs, capital, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, agricultural, and, contrary to economic theorists, even American law. One only has to look at the case of Australia's law that made generic packaging required on cigarettes. The law was challenged by a cigarette company who went treaty shopping by using its Hong Kong subsidiary and was able to interfere with Australia's law because of her treaty with Hong Kong. Perhaps most concerning is all the anti-Chinese rhetoric. China is an enormous trading partner, a holder of large amounts of U.S. Treasury bonds that have kept interest rates low and our purchasing power at the store high. They are not our enemy. Yet the rhetoric coming from the White House and the architects of the TPA bill seem set on anti-Chinese dictums to make their case. We need China. China needs us. Let's establish some rules of the road as competitors rather than laying the track for the smashup derby. It will take time, it will be hard, but dialogue and diplomacy are better than tanks and Tomahawks. We can do this without turning it into a foreign policy disaster that gives the President and Congress a chance to make China our enemy. We can engage without granting TPA, but we have to lead. TPA without leadership is less valuable than leadership without TPA. Among the proposed Pacific Partnership's 11 other nations, we already have high- standard, free trade agreements with seven of them. We do not have to subject ourselves to this multilateral trade treaty to work with them, and we certainly should not do it fast by granting TPA to a President that has exhibited poor leadership in foreign affairs. We need the right track, not the fast track.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, with trade deals on the horizon, President Obama has asked Congress to grant him trade promotional authority, also called fast track, to ``write the rules for the world's economy.'' This measure would allow the President to pass sweeping trade partnerships without the input of the American people through their elected representatives in the normal process. Despite the various myths circulating about TPA, I sincerely believe that it is not in the best interest of our Nation, as written at this time. You have heard it said that a vote against TPA is a vote against international trade, but actually, a vote against TPA is a vote for a better construct and trade agreement. I am a strong supporter of trade when deals are negotiated strategically in the best interest of the United States economically, militarily, and diplomatically. With the President leaving office in just months, I have serious concerns about the rapid pace and content of any deal that could have decades of implication. Many have said TPA will strengthen our international relationships, and that may be, but while TPA would fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership, in specific, currently being negotiated by the President with 11 other Pacific nations, I am not convinced that this is a partnership that must be done in haste before the President leaves office. We currently trade with 6 of the 11 other members. Our vital yet delicate relationship with China--a country not included in the Trans- Pacific Partnership--would likely be damaged by a rivalry for economic influence in the region. The Trans-Pacific Partnership rewards nations with serious human rights violations while slighting our faithful trade partners with shared values in Europe. While I support the lifting of trade barriers and promoting better standards of living, I believe we must do the right track, not the fast track. Others have claimed TPA will strengthen national security. On this point we should take careful note. The President has used dangerous and isolating language regarding China, with words coming from the White House like ``hegemony'' and ``containment'' to ask for the TPA, or the trade promotional authority, but we must note that China is not our enemy. Therefore, we should not put it on the path to become one. By isolating China, we could easily transform our capabilities-based defense strategy to a threat-based one, with all of the implication and decades of effort that that would entail. It would affect all of our future defense spending and could even begin Cold War II. The trade promotional authority can be granted and trade agreements inked without making China excluded, or worse, our enemy. We need to use the next 20 months to repair the relationships as we move towards better trade agreements. The trade promotional authority, some say, gives Congress a seat at the negotiating table. But the TPA allows Congress to set broad objectives for negotiation--and that comes at a high price. Under the trade promotional authority, Congress sacrifices its authority to make any changes on the final deal, and they are left with a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. I believe the American people deserve their voice in trade agreements which impact all of our livelihoods and affect all of our families' finances. And while trade is vital to economic opportunity and our international friendships, I cannot support granting the President permission in light of these concerns with trade promotional authority. Madam Speaker, America has long been fascinated with China. From the time of Columbus, who sought to find a western approach to China and instead discovered America, we have been drawn to its ancient culture and its people. The earliest American vessel pulled into a Canton port in 1748. Forty years later, we began free trade with the Cantonese. The first mention of China obtaining a favored nation status was actually as early as 1844, when we signed the Treaty of Wanghia. The way seemed open to engage China and her market. But there were concerns. Wrote one negotiating diplomat regarding this treaty: ``It is the most uncivilized and remote of all nations . . . it is in an isolated place outside the pale, solitary, and ignorant. Not only are the people entirely unversed in the forms of edicts and laws, but if the meaning be rather deep, they would probably not even be able to comprehend. It would seem that we must make our words somewhat simple.'' What is amusing is that the diplomat was Chinese, and his comments were directed toward the United States. China moved ahead slowly and cautiously with its relations with the West. The interplay of Western covetousness with Chinese reluctance kept the door to China at a mere crack. European attempts to force the crack with opium and acquisition of port cities broadened the natural distrust. Unlike demands of Europe, though, the United States wanted trade, not territory. U.S. Ambassador Burlingame was able to secure the first treaty that China ever made with any Western nation in 1861, and China was regarded as an equal. Chinese workers began to flock to the United States and literally began to move mountains in California as economic opportunity thrived. Unfortunately, the goodwill of Lincoln faded in just one generation. The plundering of Chinese port cities by European competitors changed how Americans began to view China. The flood of Chinese immigrants to California became an easy target for any setback on its economic ascent. Equals were now called coolies. Racism reached such a height that in 1882 the United States Congress--this body--passed and the President signed the first ever act that excluded a specific race on immigration. We did not even make any pretense about it, calling it the Chinese Exclusion Act. The provisions remained in effect for nearly 60 years. As these events played out, Commodore Perry of the United States Navy entered Tokyo in 1850 and demanded that Japan ``open up.'' The Japanese obliged. Japan embarked on a stunning modernization program, where China was reluctant. In an incredible span of only 50 years, Japan adopted Western technology, governance, law, industry, and military doctrines. Her rise from mystic feudalism to world power alarmed the West. In response, the goodwill of Lincoln towards China would take hold again in the form of his youthful personal secretary, John Hay, now an older, wiser, and towering figure of respect serving as the Secretary of State in 1900. Hay saw the best way to compete with Japan would be to open up China to trade while protecting her territory. Hays' open-door policy was widely heralded across the globe as the solution to imperial Japanese ascendancy. This would have long-lasting implication, but one important side effect was to restore U.S.-Chinese relations. Hay even secured a guarantee from Japan in 1908 to respect China's ``open door,'' independence, and territory. It would last only 7 years. As China moved to become more enlightened to the West with Sun Yat- sen's revolution in self-governance in China, Imperial Japan made what was known as the 21 Demands during World War I. Great Britain and U.S. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan moved quickly to prevent Japan from attempting to make China its own protectorate. American-Chinese relations warmed even further when the United States declared China's right to autonomy with tariffs and trade in 1928. As once-warm Japanese relations with the United States turned sour over Imperial Japanese policy in China regarding Manchuria, America established what became the Stimson doctrine, which refused to recognize Japanese acquisitions in China and upheld China's rights to its own sovereignty. The 1930s saw a mercurial Imperial Japan plunder China, pull out of the League of Nations, and commit horrific atrocities in Nanking and Hong Kong. The U.S. responded by calling for a global quarantine against Japan in defense of China in 1937. China's own struggles internally with Mao Zedong's Communists paled in comparison to losing its industrial heart and its coast to the Imperial Japanese army. By 1941, America was sending lend-lease war material and economic aid to China in her defense. American volunteer pilots cut dashing figures as they flew American P-40 Warhawks for the Chinese Air Force as the famed Flying Tigers. Ultimately, America's defense of China led it to be attacked at Pearl Harbor and resulted in a brutal Pacific and Chinese theater of war during World War II. The United States committed an entire effort in China, with ``Vinegar Joe'' Stilwell as the commanding general; the building of the Burma Road; and by training, equipping, and launching a Chinese Army to attack Japanese forces. Immigration restrictions that were imposed in 1882 were now finally repealed. America had sympathy for China's struggle. By war's end, China was an important partner and ally. Her struggle did not end, however. Ripped again internally by civil war once the Japanese were defeated, China would be led by Mao Zedong and the Communist Party. The United States did not recognize Communist China, but neither did it materially aid fleeing Nationalist Chinese on the continent. A period of isolation and strained relations with the United States began once again under Mao. In 1949, China began to arm Communists in French Indochina. The U.S. became embroiled in a deadly struggle with North Korea and countered her assault in the south with an attack that pushed them all the way north to the Yalu River on the Chinese border. Alarmed, China struck back. For the first time since 1900, Americans and Chinese were fighting each other. By 1953, an uneasy line had settled on the Korean Peninsula. Chinese relations remained cool with the West, but were not always promising with the Soviet Russia. When the U.S. fought in Vietnam, China continued to arm and send troops to the Communist government of Ho Chi Minh. Then a series of odd events from 1969 to 1971 brought Americans and Chinese back to warmer relations in the most unlikely way. When Soviet Russia attacked outposts on the northern border of China, Mao Zedong reassessed relationships with the United States. He reasoned that China could not be isolated by both world powers. Overtures from President Nixon in his inaugural address and a series of ping-pong matches created dialogue for the first time in decades. In 1971, Henry Kissinger went on a secret mission to China, opening the way for Nixon's visit with Mao. Who would have thought that the man that shunned the United States in favor of communism and the President that built his reputation on fighting communism would both come to realize that our nations, despite their differences, needed each other. Mainland China was now officially recognized by the United Nations. The U.S. set up diplomatic offices. Trade agreements opened. Relations warmed by the 1980s, with state visits from both countries. As the horizon brightened and the Chinese people hoped, the Chinese Government cracked down on dissidents in Tiananmen Square. The U.S., alarmed, imposed sanctions and restrictions. Tensions loomed through the 1990s, culminating with the U.S. bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, in 1999, during the Kosovo campaign. Calmer heads prevailed and tensions eased. By 2001, trade restrictions were loosened once again. China pledged a deep commitment to fight the war on terror and committed material aid in great amounts for the effort. By 2006, China-U.S. relations deepened under the strategic economic dialogue. Business in both countries increased as commerce offered great economic opportunity for both countries. On the verge of a bright future, we now see today with timidity and fear, where we should see opportunity and favor with regard to China. China needs us, and we need China; yet we see, in the last week, Madam Speaker, a week of a barrage of negative press on China, covering everything from hedging them on trade, to condemning them and their development of island outposts in the China Sea, to framing them up as the new military threat that must be checked by the United States. Dialogue and diplomacy are cheaper than tanks and tomahawks. Does the United States really wish to believe that we can leave a capabilities- based military to create some new threat-based military and it would be in our favor? While China is not our enemy, we could certainly set the conditions to make them one in the future. It would be a tragic mistake. It would devour our diplomacy, drain our defense, and diminish our domestic priorities. Worse, it could set the course for some future horrific conflict between dozens of friendly nations that we currently trade with, including China--including China. Where is the dialogue on including China in the Trans-Pacific Partnership? I have not heard it from this Chamber or the White House. Sure, we claim they can join if they meet the standard, only after we use every anti-Chinese statement in trying to make the case for the trade promotion authority. That is not very reassuring. Some say we must not include China at all in the Trans-Pacific Partnership because of their human rights record. Others object because they are a Communist nation. Others cite the fact that China has been our former enemy. Well, here are some thoughts to ponder. If we can forgive Germany and Japan for horrific human rights violations in World War II, can we not reach out to China? If we can embrace former enemies who reformed their existing Communist governments, such as Vietnam, can we not reach out to China? If we can turn former enemies, such as Great Britain, Canada, Mexico, Spain, the Philippines, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Japan, and Vietnam, into our top trading partners, can we not also reach out to China? China needs petroleum and natural gas, and we have plenty of it. We have both ready to export. China wants to lay thousands of miles of road in ambitious projects for her commerce. We have the raw materials for asphalt, industry to make their road-paving machines, and colleges to educate their engineers. Madam Speaker, we need China; 3.8 million Chinese nationals live and work in the United States. That is more than the population of my home State of Oklahoma. China constitutes our greatest trading partner, working with thousands of businesses that bolster our economy and better our quality of life. Our peoples are historically and deeply intertwined. We must proceed with wisdom and caution. While we love trade and while we love economy, we can work out differences, rather than magnify them and deepen suspicion and concern. Instead, we can dialogue. The same standards that people often cite with regard to China and how she is stealing technologies or making shoddy goods were the same charges that we leveled against Japan in the 1960s and South Korea in the 1980s; yet we no longer have those concerns about those allies today with their incredible effort, economy, and technology. Our peoples are historically and deeply entwined, the United States and China, and we must work hard to maintain that. Madam Speaker, I would hope that our colleagues and our President would temper the rhetoric with regard to discussions on trade and using it as some new effort to hedge or contain China, rather than to embrace and trade with that nation. Whatever differences we may have can be worked out in the spirit and good will of Lincoln. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, at his State of the Union Address, President Obama asked us in Congress to grant us fast-track Trade Promotion Authority, so he can ``write rules for the world's economy.'' I sat alarmed for America's future should we expand this President's authority, given how he has extended executive overreach, fumbled our foreign policy, debilitated our defense, and diminished our domestic tranquility. At least this time, the President asked to bypass Congress. Regardless of the merits of trade partnership or the tactics of their negotiation, two fundamental questions loom: Why do we trust this President, given his track record in foreign affairs? And what serious harm would come to the Nation by waiting 21 months? Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, would prevent Congress from amending as much as one word of the rules he writes, a sweeping agreement the White House has been working toward for the past 6 years. Even if parameters were set beforehand, violations would be subject to an up-or-down vote with no amending permitted. Unlike a treaty, a simple majority is all that would be needed to pass. For Congress to cede oversight on such a sweeping agreement could have grave implications. The American people must be at the table, and they can be, through their elected representatives in Congress. In a balanced process, the full range of congressional committees would hold hearings with experts, establish clear objectives, set the terms of negotiation, and be regularly informed throughout the negotiating process. This would ensure trade deals are in the best national interest for the long haul, not designed to please some small groups of well- connected insiders for some tempting short-term benefit. While trade is vital in securing economic freedom and in strengthening our values and friendships, we must approach any partnership with a comprehensive view of its strategic impact. Advocates have stated that a Trans-Pacific Partnership will open trade involving 40 percent of global economic activity. This is a misrepresentation when one considers that 6 of the 11 nations proposed for the partnership already have strong trade agreements with the United States and many of the remainder enjoy excellent trade relations, such as with Japan. The President also claims a trade surplus without delineating this improvement will come from services such as financial, insurance, and computing, not from manufacturing, as he purports. Given Obama's scathing treatment of financial and insurance investment overseas, one wonders if there is not some other hidden motivation. Alarmingly, Mr. Obama uses containment language with regard to China as a major premise for obtaining fast-track authority. While we employ economic instruments of our national power with regard to an ascendant China, we must ensure in tandem efforts with diplomatic and informational instruments as well. Strategically, these are lacking. Further, should a trade dispute result in an impasse, nations historically have lashed back with their last remaining option, their military. I have been on the receiving end of many of those strategic implications. Ours must be prepared--our military--as we explore these new frontiers. I have heard no serious discussion from anyone in Congress or the White House thinking comprehensively and strategically in this manner, that our military and our diplomatic efforts must also be resourced and reinforced as we move economically in this pivot to Asia. When John Hay opened trade with China more than a century ago as a hedge on an ascendant Japan to balance European concerns, the achievement was widely heralded. Japanese society had rapidly embraced Western science and technology since the days of Commodore Perry. A vibrant economy blossomed. Western ideas in manufacturing, banking, business, and even military doctrine quickly transformed Japan into a formidable power. This was not without political consequence. Japan had transformed her society, fought as an ally in a world war with the West, imported goods to a demanding public, built ships together with the West, and signed treaties. Their rapid transformation alarmed the Japanese Diet hardliners, who used this anti-Western sentiment to wedge political power. Within a 15-year span, the lengthy embrace of the West gave way to competition for resources, distrust, the fall of Japanese Government, and the doctrine of their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. In only a couple of more years, what was embraced in the West was now widely disrespected in Japan. Despised, they were deliberately attacked; few ever saw it coming. That Japan and the United States are such strong allies and friends today is a testament of our mutual commitment to the repairing of human diplomatic and economic tragedies. We cannot allow President Obama to rush willy-nilly into a fast-track Chinese hegemony without regard to strategic thinking. Given his dismal foreign policy record, it comes as no revelation, but it does come with consequences. What serious harm will come to our Nation by waiting 21 months when we have an administration that actually could achieve foreign policy successes, instead of one foreign policy defeat after another? A dog may lap up antifreeze because it seems good to the taste and pleasant to the eye, but it does so with consequence. We should not be lured by the appeal to our natural senses for trade and economic growth. Patience now may prevent horrific consequences in a major war in the future. We do that by advancing our national instruments of power with diplomatic effort, military readiness, and preparedness in tandem with our economic effort. What serious harm can come by waiting 21 months? As Abraham Lincoln famously said: Nothing good can be frustrated by time. We do not need to give the President this authority. We need to wait, have the patience, lay the strategic foundation so that we can do what is best for our country, and move into a trade agreement that will have a long-lasting foundation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. I thank Congressman Lucas and my friends and colleagues. Mr. Speaker, on April 19, 1995, I was defending my country as an officer in the United States Army. We were preparing warriors to defend our country, never imagining that an attack would occur in our hometown. Among the 168 people that were killed and the 680 nonfatal injuries, the 324 buildings that were destroyed or damaged in a 16-block radius, and the $652 million worth of damage that was caused in my hometown, there were a number of brother warriors and sister warriors that were defending their country at their duty stations at the recruiting depots that were contained in the Federal building--Victoria Sohn, a master sergeant in the United States Army; Benjamin Davis, a sergeant in the United States Marine Corps; Lakesha Levy, an airman first class in the United States Air Force; Randolph Guzman, a captain in the United States Marine Corps; Cartney McRaven, an airman first class in the United States Air Force; and Lola Bolden, a sergeant first class in the United States Army--never imagining that in their recruiting duties in Oklahoma City that they would give their lives in defense of their country. To my colleagues and to Congressman Lucas, I would ask that we could observe a moment of silence in memory to all the 168 Americans, Oklahomans, friends that were killed in this despicable act of terror on our domestic shores, and to all of those that carry the scars and injuries to this day, if we could observe a brief moment of silence. I thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Lucas, and thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, labor relations are vital to the smooth operation of business and commerce. In the culture of our Republic, Americans are raised to expect to have their say in everything from schoolroom elections to choosing the President of the United States. It is in our DNA to have a choice. To inform that choice, we expect free speech so we can ask questions, gain information, and make wise decisions. This is why the recently finalized rule by the National Labor Relations Board is so egregious. It is against that American spirit. Under this rule, longstanding policies that allow employers and employees to guide how they relate through unions has been deeply damaged. Companies could have as little as 11 days, or employees in relating to the companies, as little as 11 days to make a choice that could drastically affect their career and the health of the business that they rely on to put bread on the table. Employers would only have a 7-day period to obtain counsel, set parameters, and are even restricted in contacting and discussing issues with their employees. They are prohibited from making any changes after that 7-day period based on new information that they may acquire. Further, the privacy and safety of workers is placed in jeopardy by a swift ambush election process imposed by these rules that could put their employment in jeopardy. This resolution stops this. It restores policies that have guided labor relations for decades. It upholds the right for American workers to gain information to make choices without draconian, strong-arm pressure tactics that harm the worker and stifle American free enterprise. This body was founded, Mr. Speaker, on the spirit of promoting the general welfare and ensuring domestic tranquility for our Nation. Passage of S.J. Res. 8 aids this by stopping and blocking the strong- arm tactics of the National Labor Relations Board, and the American people are counting on us to do that job.