…This particular contract, this one commercial situation, is of importance to many parties and of importance to this country, but it has ramifications across our global economy. Our Nation is daily dealing in a one-market economic market. Really it is a one-world market of diplomacy among the free nations as well. Indeed, it is a one-world market in terms of our individual and collective securities, particularly in the war on terrorism.

It has been fascinating to me, although I have visited the UAE in times past, to focus once again on this pivotal and rapidly growing nation, a nation of several emirates which have drawn together, a nation which is becoming one of the major financial markets in the world and major investors in the world.

According to the United States Trade Representative, the United States and UAE engaged in $4.6 billion worth of trade in 2003–and that figure has doubled since then according to the Financial Times. More than 500 U.S. companies have regional headquarters in the Emirates. Oil and Gas are leading industries in the UAE, as the country holds approximately 8 percent of the world’s crude oil reserves and has the 5th largest natural gas reserves. In addition, at the end of 2005 Emirates purchased 42 Boeing 777 aircraft for approximately $9.7 billion. This represents some of the vast investments by UAE in America and American investment in the UAE.

On Saturday afternoon I went to the Department of Defense. I went down to the Joint Staff, where I met with the key officers who are dealing with a variety of issues relating to this and other matters to verify that over 500 U.S. warships docked–and I use the word “docked” because they went right to the piers. Our sailors went off; others came on to work with the ships. They didn’t anchor out in the harbor and send in the lighters and the other transportation. It is the only port in that region in which we can dock our major supercarriers.

In addition, there are airfields that are supporting the ongoing operations we have in Afghanistan and Iraq.

…I am gravely concerned about the image of America. I have checked into the press coverage of this in the Arab world, and I regret to say that it is extremely disturbing. We cannot, in the course of our responsible work in the Congress and the continuing responsible work of the administration, allow our actions to be viewed by others as being biased. Congress must look at this not only as a business deal between two companies but also consider the global diplomatic, economic, and military security issues associated with this acquisition.

It is imperative we not send a mixed message to–or impose a double standard on–our allies by expecting assistance in the global war on terror and an open door policy toward investing in their country while sending a message that they are not welcome to invest in ours. We have to show that, yes, we are concerned about security, but in doing so and working through this process, we should not be perceived as treating elements of the Arab world and governments of the Arab world as second-class citizens. It is imperative that at the conclusion of this–however it comes out, and I am hopeful it will come out positively–the U.S. is viewed by the Arab world as a reliable working partner and that recognizes the importance, particularly in the war on terrorism, of having the support of a number of Arab nations to protect our interests and those of other nations in the free world.

Here’s a fun game, let’s play guess the speaker:

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is an important first step to cut off direct aid to the Palestinian Authority now that Hamas will be in power. However, it is only one component of the dramatic overhaul that needs to take place as we redefine our relationship with the new Palestinian government.

Responsible for attacks that have murdered hundreds and injured thousands, Hamas is first and foremost a terrorist organization. Its fund raising and training operations run through the same shadowy networks as Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. Its philosophy and practice are grounded in the spread of extremist hatred, anti-Semitism and violence.

The United States must set a strong example and be firm in urging the international community to join us in cutting off all funding and diplomatic contacts with the Palestinian Authority once Hamas takes control.

The Palestinian election may have been conducted in a free and fair manner, but it does not make the Hamas victory any more legitimate. Until it disarms, renounces violence, and recognizes Israel’s right to exist, the group should continue to be dealt with as a rogue entity.

There is no room for ambiguity. Governments that wage the global war on terrorism should not be propping up a terrorist regime. International organizations that believe in the peace process should not be financing a Palestinian leadership bent on Israel’s destruction. Nations that disavow anti-Semitism should not be providing assistance that would give an even greater pulpit for Hamas to spew its hatred.

It is alarming that despite these realities President Putin and others have made overtures to Hamas leaders. There should be no distinction between terrorists in Chechnya who target Russian school children and those from the West Bank and Gaza who blow up Israeli pizza stores and public buses. Equivocation only emboldens their use of such heinous tactics.

If there is hope of pressuring Hamas to change, the world must unite behind a clear message: We will not support a terrorist-state, but stand ready to assist when and if a Palestinian government emerges that is ready, willing and able to embrace a peaceful future.

Can you do it, can you guess who it was? Henry Waxman. Yeah, I wouldn’t have guess that either.

Few can match the vitriol and sensationalism of a Robert Byrd diatribe, such as the one he gave February 17, 2006 on the Senate Floor:

[I]n his radio address on December 17, 2005, President Bush disclosed that after September 11, 2001, he authorized the National Security Agency, NSA, to undertake wiretapping of American citizens to try to prevent terrorist attacks. The President argued that his actions were, in his words, “fully consistent” with his constitutional responsibilities.

The President wrongly asserted–Mr. President, the President wrongly asserted–that his authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens on American soil is supported by his inherent Presidential powers and the joint congressional resolution that authorized the use of force after September 11.

Actually, the surveillance in question was of known terrorists conducting international calls. When a terrorist picks up the phone and calls someone inside our country, we have to listen immediately, regardless of whether the burden of “due cause” is met. To do otherwise would be criminally negligent.

A huge swath–a huge swath–of America, including many expert legal minds, does not–I say, does not–agree with the arguments put forth by the administration. These arguments are transparently contrived, intellectually deficient, indefensible excuses being served up like tripe to silence legitimate criticism of the White House.

Let me say that again. A huge swath of America, including many expert legal minds, does not agree with the arguments put forth by the administration. These arguments are transparently contrived, intellectually deficient, indefensible excuses being served up like tripe to silence legitimate criticism of the White House, a White House so infused with its own hubris that it has talked itself into believing that its inhabitants are above the law. But they are not. They are not above the law. President Bush is not above the law. No President is above the law. No United States Senator is above the law. No man is above the law. No one in the United States of America is above the law. Remember, this is a nation of laws, not of men.

“No Senator is above the law.” I think I heard Ted Kennedy snicker at that one…but it might have been a drunken snort, I’m not entirely certain. No man is above the law, that is correct. Nor should we expect peacetime law to be applicable in a time of war. Soldiers do not get charged with murder for shooting other soldiers (though many a peace activist wishes it were so!). Terrorists who call people in the United States do not get the protections of the fourth amendment, neither should those they talk to.

Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler from NY showed us recently that the democrats are not going to deviate from their standard playbook of fear and scaremongering on the issue of Social Security. Comments from the Congressional record February 16, 2006:

[I]n the President’s budget he asks for a few hundred million dollars over the next few years for the cost of privatizing Social Security. When he was here at the State of the Union address, he commented that Congress rejected his proposals to privatize Social Security. All the Democrats to his surprise got up and cheered, because we think it is a terrible idea to privatize Social Security.

To do to Social Security what they are doing to the pension system, eliminating private pensions and making people depend only on 401(k)s, we think is a terrible idea. What the President telegraphed, by putting in his budget the money to pay for the cost of privatizing Social Security, is that if the Republicans retain control of Congress in this election, they are going to try it again.

They will privatize Social Security if the Republicans control Congress again next year. If anybody thinks that privatizing Social Security is a bad idea, that we should not destroy Social Security, you better vote Democratic this year.

You’ve heard it here, folks. If you vote Republican, Social Security will be destroyed! Vote for us, the Democrats. We’d rather just watch the system go bankrupt.