Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I just want to start off by thanking my good friend Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, for bringing this legislation to the floor. We have talked to a number of the countries involved in the preferences, and they were very concerned.

So, Charlie, I want to thank you for bringing this to the floor at this time. I wish it was for a longer period, but 8 months, as has been said by Mr. Weller, is a good start.

The one issue that I would like to mention, and it has not been addressed, and that is creating jobs in Central and South America helps us with our immigration problem. We are going to be talking about illegal immigration here in a couple of weeks or a couple of days maybe. I don't know when the Senate is going to send it over. But the fact of the matter is where there is poverty, where there are no jobs, where there is conflict, people leave and the people in Central and South America, obviously, would come north to the United States. We have a very serious immigration problem right now. In 1986 we tried to solve it. It didn't work. We gave amnesty then. It won't work now. But one thing that will help and will work to a degree are trade preferences and free trade agreements, Charlie, and I hope that you, as chairman of the Ways and Means, will look with some favor on some of the free trade agreements when they come up later on. I think it helps not only their economy and our economy, but it also helps with the illegal immigration problem in the long run.

Mr. Chairman, I've always supported the right- to-life position. And I've listened to this debate with great interest.

Money is fungible. Tens of millions of dollars are going to go to NGOs. And these NGOs can take money that they already have and use it for abortions, because they'll have money that they can use for the family planning that they're talking about tonight. They'll be able to free up money to do what we don't want them to do.

Intent is one thing Mrs. Lowey's talking about. What happens is quite sometimes another.

The American taxpayers who are for abortion, and who are pro-life, don't want their tax dollars used for abortion, across the spectrum. They just don't want it to happen.

No tax dollars can be or should be used for abortion. I've had town meetings, and people who are pro-choice have come up to me and said they don't want their tax dollars used for it. They're pro-choice, but they want people to do it with their own dollars.

I'd just like to say to my colleague, money is fungible, and this will be tax dollars used for abortion.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to my colleagues I understand what you have been saying. You are going to give product to them. But when you give them product, that frees up money that they have for abortions. So you are indirectly going to be funding abortions. That is what I said. And the American taxpayers don't want their money in any way to be used, indirectly or directly, for abortions.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the Omnibus Autism Hearing which started on June 11, 2007, down at the U.S. Federal Claims Court here in Washington, DC. At issue are the 4,800 claims against the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program filed by parents of autistic children who believe, as I do, that thimerosal--the mercury-based preservative in vaccines--caused their children's disorders.

There are many people in our health agencies, in the pharmaceutical industry and here in Congress who say that there is no the scientific evidence linking thimerosal and autism. However, during my tenure as chairman of Government Reform Committee (1997-2002), and as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness (2003-2005), I chaired numerous hearings examining the alarming increase in autism in this country over the last several decades. In the 1980s, roughly one in 10,000 American children was diagnosed with some kind of autism spectrum disorder. Today that number has risen to 1 in 150. I believe, as do many credible scientists and researchers, that the clear correlation between the dramatic rise in the number of autism cases, and the rapid expansion of the childhood vaccination schedule during that 20-year period, points to the mercury-based preservative thimerosal--routinely used in pediatric vaccines during the period--as a contributing factor to our country's literal epidemic of autism. In fact, I firmly believe my own grandson became autistic after receiving nine shots in 1 day, seven of which contained thimerosal. In fact, Dr. Bernard Rimland--founder and director of the Autism Research Institute--testified before the committee that classic autism, (noticeable from birth) has largely been replaced by late-onset or ``acquired autism''; a form of autism in which children are born normally developing but later regress into autism in the second year of life. He was one of the first to point to environmental insult through vaccine injury as a possible leading contributing factor.

The truth is that since the initiation of my vaccine investigation, two schools of science have evolved leading to two very different conclusions. The first, largely funded by the Centers for Disease Control, consist of epidemiological evaluations in Denmark that look at medical files in individuals who developed autism and deciding whether or not thimerosal exposure was more predominant in the autism patients. Those who have focused solely on the epidemiology research have concluded that there is no relationship between vaccine injury and the onset of autism. However, once published, these studies were discovered to have many methodological flaws. For example, using individuals in Denmark did not provide a true comparison to the U.S. vaccine schedule, and by the CDC's own admission, the study could not really provide any true conclusion as to whether or not a subset of the population-- because of vaccine exposure to mercury or some other vaccine injury-- developed autism.

The second school of research has conducted so-called ``hard'' science; providing objective measures through laboratory and animal research. For example, Dr. Hornig at Columbia University replicated the thimerosal exposure in vaccines in a mouse study and discovered mice exposed to thimerosal had both behavioral and biological responses-- displaying autism like behaviors and exhibiting white matter changes in the brain that were measurable. Other laboratory research has shown that thimerosal exposure affects the protective sheath of the neurofibrals in the brain as well as the IGF-I molecule. And Dr. Jill James at the University of Arkansas has shown that thimerosal exposure affects the methylation process--the mechanism used to regulate genes and protect DNA from some types of damage.

The most recent hard science study to be published is from Dr. Burbacher, a leading expert on mercury, who investigated the different affect methyl mercury and ethyl mercury had on primates. He found that ethylmercury--the form of mercury in thimerosal--stays in the brain (doing more harm) than methylmercury.

The bottom line is that mercury is a base element and the most toxic substance known to science outside of radioactive materials; and each of these hard science studies, and more, show that it is biologically plausible for mercury exposure in vaccines to cause the onset of autism and provide tantalizing pieces in the puzzle about how.

My support for the link between thimerosal and autism, especially in open congressional hearings has caused many people to throw around the accusation that I am ``anti-vaccine.'' My response to that is that vaccines are the only medications that are mandatory for Americans to receive and as such we have an even greater obligation to ensure that they are as safe as possible. In addition, experience tells us that, as with any other epidemic, while there may be underlying genetic susceptibilities, there usually is some type of environmental trigger as well, such as a virus, fungus, exposure to heavy metals, pollutants, or whatever. There has never, to the best of my knowledge, been a purely genetic epidemic. So, genetics alone simply cannot explain how we went from 1 in 10,000 children with autism spectrum disorders 20 years ago to 1 in 150 today.

No one has ever identified a positive health benefit to mercury in the human body. Thus, it was sound public health policy to eliminate mercury from thermometers, blood pressure gauges, light switches, cosmetics, teething powder, horse liniment, hat-making materials, smokestack emission, and mining operations. It would also be sound public health policy to eliminate mercury from all vaccines.

But Madam Speaker, getting the mercury out of all vaccines is only the first step. We also have a responsibility to help all of the children who have already been injured by mercury in vaccines. That is why the outcome of the Omnibus Autism Hearing is so critically important. In the 1980s, Congress creating the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to shield medical professionals and vaccine manufacturers from liability if an individual suffered an adverse event from receiving vaccines. The compensation fund, which currently contains about $2.5 billion, is financed by a tax on pediatric vaccines. We created VICP to protect the vaccine supply and to insure that all who were injured by a vaccine would receive compensation in what was supposed to be a no-fault, easy to use manner. Congress intended for families to be compensated quickly and fairly; and when the evidence was close as to whether or not the medical condition in question was vaccine related or not--as is the case with thimerosal-- the court should always err in favor of the injured. But over the years the system has broken and what was supposed to be quick and fair has become slow and contentious; which is why today 4,800 families are fighting in court to be heard. They have waited a long time for their day in court and I am pleased that the court is providing the transcripts online quickly and that audio streaming on the internet is being provided for the thousands of families who are not able to travel to Washington and actually be in the courtroom during the proceedings.

As the Omnibus hearings proceed, I hope that all of the evidence regarding vaccine injury will be received by the courts and given a full and fair review. I believe the families of these autistic children deserve to be compensated for their vaccine injury as Congress intended when it created VICP. I believe the science is there to prove this case and I am hopeful that the court will agree and at the end of this arduous process these 4,800 families will finally get justice.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I think for the edification of my colleagues who may not be on the floor right now, they would like to make absolutely sure how this procedure is going to work.

As I understand it, when the conference report comes back, we have the right to raise an objection or point of order against the whole bill. But what about individual projects that are put in the bill? Will we be able to raise a point of order against each one of those projects that are put in the bill, that are airdropped into it in the conference committee?

One of the reasons we have been debating this so strongly over the last couple of days is because we want to make sure that the Members have a right to vote on these projects. There is a considerable amount of money in the bill which is not designated for any individual project right now. So if it is the whole conference report that we have to raise a point of order against, that is not getting to each individual airdropped earmark that is put in the bill.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, I think this is very, very important. There are many of us, for years, that have come down and fought against individual pork- barrel projects, and it was my understanding over the last few days that we were going to try to make sure we knew what was in this bill, and if there were earmarks in there we didn't want, we would have an opportunity to vote on each individual earmark.

Now you are going to have a bill that is going to go over to the Senate without any earmarks in it, I would like to know also how much money is in here for earmarks, but it is going to go to the Senate and it is going to come back with airdropped earmarks in it, and we will not be able to vote on each one of those, as we would right now if we were going to debate each individual earmark that is put in the bill.

I understand what the minority leader is saying, but this is of concern I think to a lot of us, because if we get the whole enchilada and we can't go to the individual earmarks that are put in the bill because they are airdropped in, we don't really have a chance to cut out any of the pork.

If the gentleman would yield further, let me just say that I don't know how much money is in here, is in this bill for earmarks that may be airdropped in. Nobody has told me how much money is in here.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, in the conference committee they will airdrop earmarks in and we will not be able to vote for those individual earmarks; is that correct? We are going to have to vote on the whole conference report, up or down, or raise a point of order against it, which is the same thing.

Well, if the gentleman would yield further, you are our leader and I certainly won't try to object, because you think this is the right thing to do. But it does bother me, I have to tell everybody and I hope the people watching in their offices, it bothers me that we are not going to have a chance to vote on any airdropped earmarks that will be put in this bill in conference.

I know what you are saying. I understand. But I think it is a tough issue for you right now. But I don't like it.

What time may we expect to come in tomorrow?

At what time may we expect some floor votes tomorrow?

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I intend to yield a couple of minutes to my colleague here.

But before I do, my colleague who just spoke said that we ought to be working together, and I really agree with that. The problem is, to my knowledge, the people on our side really weren't consulted about these appropriation bills in any real detail, and we didn't know that they were going to put pork-barrel projects in the bill after the fact, maybe in conference committee when we didn't have any idea what was going on there and we didn't have any control over those bills because they weren't, those pork-barrel projects weren't debated here on the floor.

So let me just say that we really should work together, and I hope you'll convey that to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, so in the future we won't be taking this much time on the floor.

I will be happy to yield to my colleague.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I agree with him.

The fact of the matter is that there is billions of dollars in pork that is stuck in this bill or will be stuck in this bill and nobody in this place knows what it is going to be. And many of the liberal newspapers that support your side of the aisle, the Democrat side of the aisle, are taking issue with this practice. So even your own supporters, the New York Times and Washington Post, are giving you Hades for this.

So I would just like to say my colleagues, you ought to reevaluate what you are doing today because I think it is hurting you. You are sticking a knife in your own foot by doing this.

Now, the thing I would like to say before my time runs out is that the Democrats, since they have taken charge, have increased in authorization bills by $105 billion in new spending. They are hiding pork, as I said, from the American people.

They want to let the tax cuts expire, which means that everybody in this country will have a tax increase. In Indiana it will amount to about $2,200 per person. That is because you are letting the tax cuts expire.

Mr. Chairman, if the tax cuts expire, that in effect is a tax increase. And that tax increase will amount to $392 billion on the American people, the largest tax increase in American history.

This second-degree amendment here only cuts $9 million in spending. Just $9 million. You guys have already authorized $105 billion in new spending. Why in the world would you object to a $9 million spending cut? It doesn't make sense.

My colleague from Tennessee just said that we ought to work together. I really agree with that, and I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the appropriations chairman will take that to heart and in the future not do the things that he did in this bill so we won't have to stay here all night and all day debating the same paragraph in one bill because you won't work with the Republican minority. You always complained about us and now you are doing worse.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I have been here in this Chamber for a long time, and I was here in the minority back in the early 1980s when my colleagues over there were running this place. They ran this place for 40 years. For 40 years they ran this place, and they ran the budget right into the ground and raised taxes and spent more money.

But they became reformed, like some ladies of the evening are reformed. And they changed their spots and said, we have got to do something about spending in the Congress because the Republicans took over for 12 years, and they didn't like the way we ran this place. They said we were spending too much money, and they went on a tirade time after time, saying that they needed to be back in power because they were going to be fiscally responsible, and they were going to control spending, and they were going to do everything they did not do for 40 years when they had control.

I used to walk past my colleagues' offices when we were in charge, and they had big signs out in front of their offices: Today the national debt went up this much and today spending went up this much, and it is all because of the Republicans, they were implying.

Well, they got control back and what has happened? They have authorized $105.5 billion in new spending over the next 5 years. And they complain because we want to cut $1.241 million out of this bill. Just $1.241 million, not billions but a million. And you don't like that. And we are keeping the spending at last year's level.

My colleagues on this side of the aisle do not want to vote for a balanced budget amendment. They will tell you they want to balance the budget. But when a balanced budget amendment comes to the floor, they almost all vote against it because they know where their power lies, and that is in spending and taxes, spending and taxes; and that is what they are going to do.

The tax cuts that President Bush and this Congress, back in the early part of the Bush administration, put in place, they want those tax cuts to expire. And in Indiana alone, that means that most of the people in my State will have a $2,200 per person tax increase because the tax cuts expire. They want those to expire. They want to spend more money like they are doing right now. They want to extend spending over the next 5 years by $105 billion. And yet they are the fiscally responsible people in this body.

I would just like to say to my colleagues and anybody else who is paying attention that they really ought to look at history. They really ought to look at what the Democrats said before they took power, and then they ought to look very seriously at what they are doing right now. They want more taxes. They want more spending. They want more control. And that is exactly what they did the 40 years they had control before the Republicans took office and the Bush administration.

There is no question that when we were in charge, we spent too much money. But compared to them, we are pikers. And the American people are going to find out once again how much these people spend and what big spenders they are and what big taxers they are. It is going to happen.

Hopefully, the American people will get the message and put the right people back in charge.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2007 recipients of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. The Ellis Island Medal of Honor is presented annually by the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations (NECO), representing more than 250 organizations that span the spectrum of ethnic heritages, cultures and religions. Since the organization's founding in 1986, approximately 1,700 American citizens have received Ellis Island Medals of Honor, including six American Presidents, several United States Senators, Congressmen, Nobel Laureates, outstanding athletes, artists, clergy, and military leaders.

As we all know, citizens of the United States can trace their ancestry to many nations. The richness and diversity of American life makes us unique among the nations of the world and is in many ways the key to why America is the most innovative country in the world. The Ellis Island Medals of Honor not only celebrate select individuals but also the pluralism and democracy that enabled our ancestors to celebrate their cultural identities while still embracing the American way of life. This medal is not about money, but about people who really seized the opportunities this great country has to offer and who used those opportunities to not only better their own lives but make a difference in the lives of those around them. By honoring these outstanding individuals, we honor all who share their origins and we acknowledge the contributions they and other groups have made to America.

In addition, NECO awards one International Ellis Island Medal of Honor each year. This year's international honoree was Victor Phillip Dahdaleh, Chairman, Dadco. Mr. Dahdaleh is Canadian.

And for the first time in its history, NECO presented a Global Humanitarian Award to H. E. Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, President of the 61st Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

When the immigrant station at Ellis Island, New York, opened on January 1, 1892, it admitted 700 immigrants into the United States on just its first day of operation. By the time the center closed in 1954, 17 million immigrants had passed through its doors. The Ellis Island administration and staff, on average, processed up to 5,000 people per day. Many of these newcomers had little or no knowledge of English, hardly any money, and many arrived with only the clothes on their backs. They arrived risking their lives in exchange for freedom and a better way of life.

I, once again, commend NECO and its Board of Directors headed by my good friend, Nasser J. Kazeminy, for honoring these truly outstanding individuals for their tireless efforts to foster dialogue and build bridges between different ethnic groups, as well as promote unity and a sense of common purpose in our Nation. As Rosemarie Taglione, Executive Director of NECO has said so eloquently on a number of occasions: ``NECO's message of tolerance and harmony among diverse ethnic groups is, perhaps, even more important today than it was 20 years ago.''

Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the good works of NECO, and congratulating all of the 2007 recipients of the Ellis Island Medals of Honor. I also ask unanimous consent that the names of this year's recipients be placed into the Congressional Record following my statement:

Dr. Gregory Adamian, H. E. Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, George Altirs, Peter Arnell, Dr. Elias Ayoub, Dr. Ernest M. Barsamian, Michelle Bodden, Edgar Cahn, Leo Chen, Dr. Aram V. Chobanian, Jaekun Chung, Mario Ciano, Denis A. Cortese, MD, Hon. Leslie Crocker-Snyder, Victor Phillip Dahdaleh, Nicholas J. Daniello, MD, Dr. Joel Alan DeLisa, Kirti Desai, Dr. Akshay Desai, Michael J. Dowling, James J. Dowling, Blaise Durante, Hon. Jacob Eapen, MD, MPH, Mory Ejabat, Richard A. Elias, MD, Hani Findakly, PhD, Arthur Flegel, Jon Fortgang, Douglas Foshee, Philip Friedman, Cynthia R. Garrett, Obren Gerich, Joi Gordon, Col. R. L. Grabowski, USMC, MSGT Nicholas G. Grand, USAF (Ret.), Patrick Grant, Hon. Chuck Hagel, George Hamilton, William Harrington, Esq., Richard Heckmann, Col. Jack H. Jacobs, USA (Ret.), Rev. John I. Jenkins, CSC, Ik Joong Kang, Dr. Sarkis Kechejian, Don Keenan, Do-Young Kim, David E. Kimmel, Jr., Dr. Steven S. Koh, George J. Kostas, Les Kuczynski,

Joan Kuyper-Farver, Irene Ladas, LTC. Larry H. Lang, USAF, Rep. Tom Lantos, Dr. Edwin Pak-Wah Leung, Dr. John M. Levinson, Hon. Guillermo Linares, Harvey Mackay, Patrick J. Martucci, Thomas Mattia, CPT. Gary A. Maynard, USN, Mitchell Modell, Hon. Samuel Mok, Todd Morgan, C. Warren Moses, Dr. Vance Moss, Dr. Vince Moss, Sharmin Mossavar-Rahmani, Maureen Murphy, Fereydoun Nazem, Hon. Liet Nguyen, Col. Tracey E. Nicholson, USA, Fr. Michael O'Connell, Dr. Kiran C. Patel, Antonio M. Perez, Asst. Chief Diana L. Pizzuti, L. Rafael Reif, PhD, RADM Stephen W. Rochon, USCG, James Rogers, Michael Rogers, Hon. Carlos A. Romero- Barcelo, Ali A. Saberioon, Carlos A. Saladrigas, Dominick M. Servedio, Smita N. Shah, Donald Soffer, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, Toomas M. Sorra, MD, Debra Brown Steinberg, Esq., Daniel J. Sullivan, Daniel J. Thomas, DDS, Gerald Turpanjian, Luis A. Valentin, Tai Nin Wang, Richard J. Wolff, Mahvash Yazdi, Dr. Gazi Zibari, Mira Zivkovich.

Mr. Speaker, everybody in America is concerned about gas and oil prices. We all remember the long gas lines during the Carter administration, and the government made a commitment that we would be independent as far as energy needs were concerned at some point in the not too distant future, and we were supposed to work toward that end. I would like to give a report on where we stand because the American people are very, very concerned about high gas prices right now and the lack of oil.

On May 29, the United States consumed as much oil as it will produce domestically all year. All the oil that we produce in the United States has been used up by May 29. That means from that date until January, 2008, next year, we are now completely dependent upon politically unstable regions of the world such as the Persian Gulf, Nigeria, and Venezuela for our energy needs. Why is that? Because year after year, decade after decade, this country throws up more roadblocks, usually because of some environmental reason, to exploring for and utilizing domestic supplies of oil and natural gas.

In the ANWR, for instance, it holds the single largest deposit of oil in the entire United States, and that is 10.4 billion barrels of oil, and it is more than double the proven reserves in the entire State of Texas, and almost half of the total proven reserves in the United States, which is 22 billion barrels.

To put it more simply, opening the ANWR could increase U.S. reserves by nearly 50 percent.

And I have been up to the ANWR, and I can tell you there is no environmental damage that is going to take place if we drill in that area. And we could get between 1\1/2\ to 2 million barrels of oil a day. That would help a tremendous amount the needs of the American people.

On the outer continental shelf, another example, as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Department of the Interior recently conducted a comprehensive inventory of oil and natural gas resources located off of our coastlines. According to the Department of Interior, there is an estimated 8.5 billion barrels of known oil reserves and 29.3 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas reserves along our coastlines; with 82 percent of the oil and 95 percent of the gas located in the Gulf of Mexico.

However, even more importantly, the Department of the Interior estimates there are untapped resources of about 86 billion barrels, 51 percent in the Gulf of Mexico; and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 55 percent in the Gulf of Mexico, that is out there.

In July, 2004, a Spanish oil company, Repsol-YPF, in partnership with communist Cuba's state oil company, CUPET, identified five oil fields it classified as ``high quality'' in the deep water of the Florida Straits right off the coast of Florida, 20 miles northeast of Havana and within Cuba's Exclusive Economic Zone.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the North Cuba Basin holds an estimated 4.6 billion to 9.3 billion barrels of crude oil and 9.8 trillion to 21.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Unfortunately, since the 1980s, the U.S. has prohibited oil and gas drilling on most of the outer continental shelf except for limited areas of the western Gulf of Mexico, not the Florida Straits or around Florida, and limited parts of Alaska.

Oil shale: There is enough oil shale in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming to create the equivalent of 1.8 trillion barrels of oil and potentially as much as 8 trillion barrels of oil. In comparison, Saudi Arabia reportedly holds proven reserves of 267 billion barrels, which is less than about one-eighth of what we have in the United States in shale.

Unfortunately, oil shale is roughly equivalent to diesel fuel and a number of Clean Air Act regulations, such as low-sulphur diesel, and Federal motor fuel taxes, which favor gasoline over diesel fuels, have created a strong financial disincentive regarding the production and use of oil shale fuels.

I don't want to belabor this point, but we have enough oil that we could move very closely to energy independence if we didn't have environmental radicals stopping us from drilling where we have the oil and we have those known oil reserves.

It is tragic that we have to continue to rely on Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other countries that are very unstable in various parts of the world when we really know that at some point in the future we are going to need more and more of their oil.

We need to move toward energy independence. We have been talking about it since the 1980s. Nothing has been done, and now gas prices are going up because we aren't producing enough oil and gas in the United States. And we have the reserves there to do it. We haven't even built any new oil refineries for 30 years. We can't even refine the oil that we do get here in the United States to take care of all the needs of the American people.

So I would just like to say to my colleagues, as I close, on both sides of the aisle, that we need to start moving toward energy independence. We need to start thinking about economic concerns as well as environmental concerns and have a balance there. We can do it in an environmentally safe way, and the American people want us to do it, and we need to listen to them as well as the environment lobby here in Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise as a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and member of the House Azerbaijan Caucus, to honor the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan--a strong strategic partner and ally not only to the United States but also among the democratic nations of our world--as they prepare to celebrate Republic Day on May 28.

Republic Day commemorates the day Azerbaijan first declared independence from the Russian Empire in 1918--becoming the first ever Muslim democratic republic. Although the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic only lasted 2 short years, succumbing to Soviet forces in 1920, in its 2 years of independence Azerbaijan made great strides in areas such as state building, education, and economic growth. The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was even ahead of the United States in terms of granting suffrage to women; which didn't happen here in the U.S. until 1920.

Azerbaijan's second opportunity for freedom and independence began in 1990 when Azerbaijanis began openly gathering in protest against Soviet rule. Tragically, January 1990 will forever be known to all Azerbaijanis as Black January, as these peaceful demonstrations were crushed by Soviet intervention at a cost of over a hundred and thirty civilians' lives.

Yet even in the face of such brutality Azerbaijanis never gave up their dream of freedom and independence and following the final collapse of the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan quickly declared its re- independence.

By August 30, 1991, a free Azerbaijan's Parliament adopted the Declaration on the Restoration of the State of Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and on October 18, 1991, the Constitution was approved.

Having lived under Soviet rule, the people of Azerbaijan have a great appreciation of living in a democratic civil society and since its re- independence, the Republic of Azerbaijan has been an invaluable ally in the Global War on Terror; committing both their human resources and their leadership to the fight. Azerbaijan was among the first nations-- Muslim and non-Muslin--to offer unconditional support to the United States in the war against terrorism; providing airspace and the use of its airports for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Today, Azerbaijan peacekeeping troops continue to serve with distinction in Kabul under the leadership of the International Security Assistance Force.

Azerbaijanis have also fought shoulder-to-shoulder with our troops in the second front in the war against terrorism, Iraq. In fact, Azerbaijan--in another first--was the first Muslim nation to join the Coalition and send troops to Iraq.

Finally, Azerbaijan has joined all 12 international conventions on counter-terrorism and continues to support regional cooperation on fighting terrorism through numerous local agreements as well as its participation in the activities of regional organizations such as NATO, the Organization for Security in Europe and others.

Azerbaijan has also assumed an important political role in the fight against terrorism and tyranny. As a founding member of the GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development--whose namesake members include Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova--Azerbaijan has been a leading voice on enhanced regional economic cooperation through development of a Europe-Caucasus-Asia transport corridor; and a facilitator for discussion on various levels of existing security problems, promoting conflict resolution and the elimination of other risks and threats, such as illegal trafficking and border security.

I believe that the past several years have proven that the people and government of Azerbaijan are committed to democracy. They have taken a bold and courageous stand for freedom and democracy by committing troops and resources to the fights in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have expended their political capital to bring different nations together in their region, and abroad, to peacefully organize and build, through democratic institutions and commerce, a safer world.

Madam Speaker, I would ask all of my colleagues to join me now to thank the people of Azerbaijan for their friendship, to congratulate them on the 89th Anniversary of Republic Day and to renew our commitment to further develop and strengthen the bonds between our two peoples.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush today gave a speech, and he talked about the terrorist threat, and he talked about the attempts on the United States that have taken place since 9/11. He talked a little bit about the attempted attack last week at Fort Dix.

Yet I don't believe any of the media is paying any attention to that. It seems like every time the President talks about the threat, it just never makes the television networks.

That is very troubling to me, because after 9/11, the President said we are in a world war against terrorism, and it may go on for a long, long time. It may go on for more than my tenure in office. It may go on for decades.

When you are fighting a war of terrorism like that, you have to be resolute of purpose. There's no question that the war that's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan has been very trying on the American people, but this is a war against terrorism, and we must be resolute of purpose.

This week on the Internet, al Qaeda had put out a new message to possible recruits for them around the world. I would like to read to you what was on the Internet.

It says, al Qaeda has a new opening graphic for its propaganda tapes, the U.S. Capitol, that's this place right here, under attack. His quote, ``The Islamic State of Iraq . . . March Towards Washington,'' reads the headline in English superimposed over a digitally created scene of the U.S. Capitol under attack in the introductory sequence of one tape released on the Internet this week.

Another from al Qaeda's ``as Sahab'' production arm announces, ``Holocaust of the Americans in the land of Khorasan,'' and shows an image of the U.S. Capitol. They introduce a short clip of al Qaeda fighters.

``This is a disturbing trend,'' says Laura Mansfield, an Arabic expert who monitors jihadi videos on the Internet. ``Recall that in January of 2006, Osama bin Laden said that plans for attacks in the U.S. were in progress,'' Mansfield told the Blotter on ABCNews.com. ``It may be that this new imagery is designed to motivate terrorist activity in the U.S., but it is certainly intended as a recruiting tool and perhaps intended to reassure al Qaeda's jihadi followers that they haven't forgotten their goal of an al Qaeda attack on Washington, D.C.,'' this city.

I don't tout television shows very often, but occasionally I urge my colleagues to watch something that I think is important. I just say to my colleague, I understand that tonight on the O'Reilly show on Fox Network, he is going to talk about a poll that was taken among Muslims in the United States. There are approximately 6 million Muslims in the United States, and I believe that 99 percent of them or 95 percent of them are very patriotic Americans. But in this poll they found that the Muslims between the ages of 18 and 29, approximately around 20 percent of them, are sympathetic to the terrorists who kill themselves, blow themselves up in an attack on American targets. This is a very disturbing poll that was taken.

This is a very trying time for Americans and for this country. I urge all of my colleagues to remember what the President said after 9/11. Remember, this is a world war against terrorism. Remember what I just read here that was on the Internet, that their ultimate goal is to attack Washington, D.C., and remember that there is a growing number of young men in America, Muslims, who are very sympathetic to the terrorists who blow themselves up.

We need to make sure that the American people understand the gravity of this situation. To back down to the terrorists now would be a big mistake. It's very important that we stay our ground in Iraq and throughout the world and send a message to the terrorists that we will not surrender and we will not be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentlelady speak a moment ago about some of the statements made about Majority Leader Reid in

the Senate, and she condemned people for criticizing him for what he said about the war being lost. But I haven't heard anybody over there say anything good about the President, who is trying to protect us against terrorism around the world, which is emanating from the Middle East and al Qaeda. Al Qaeda are the ones that are running the opposition to the United States troops over there right now.

We were attacked by al Qaeda. We were going to go to war to stop terrorism against al Qaeda. And nobody is saying anything good about the President, who is trying to protect this country, and if we say one thing about the majority leader on the other side we are supposed to be condemned. I don't understand it. I just don't understand it.

Thank you for the time, Jerry, I really appreciate it.

I have talked about this before with my colleagues over there. Al Qaeda is the enemy. They are the ones that attacked us on 9/11, attacked the USS Cole, our embassies in Africa, and they have said they want to destroy us.

The military leader of the terrorist group in Iraq today is the al Qaeda leader. They want to drive us out of Iraq and defeat us. They want us to turn tail and run so they can continue their attacks on the free world, especially the United States of America.

I just don't understand this. You say you want to redeploy. That means withdraw. You say that you want a fair end to this war. You say that you want a timetable for withdraw.

We didn't do that in World War II. It was a world war against terrorism. Adolph Hitler killed 6 million Jews in the ovens. This is a world war. They have told us in no uncertain terms what they want to do. They are the enemy, and we are going to withdraw?

I just don't understand it. I don't understand my colleagues. We cannot do that. They aren't going to go away. They will blow themselves up holding a baby in their arms. They will do anything to defeat us.

Al Qaeda, remember? This President said this war may go on for a long time because they want to destroy us. He didn't put a timetable on it; nor should we.

Al Qaeda, they blew up the World Trade Center; remember? They killed over 3,000 people and flew into the Pentagon; remember? They want to destroy us; remember? They are in charge of the military operation over in Iraq now; remember?

And you want to withdraw? If you don't fight them there, where are you going to fight them? Are you going to fight them in New York? Are you going to fight them in L.A.? Are you going to wait until they blow up Indianapolis? Where? If not now, when?

Madam. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a group of twenty outstanding Hoosier students, Ben Anderson, Lauren Bowser, Austin Brady, Kristin Buckingham, Jesse Hawkins, Kirk Higgins, Chris Hill, Tiernan Kane, Nika Kim, Ryan Landry, Julie Lux, Rachel Morris, Jeff Neufer, David Ostendorf, Ryan Puckett, Taylor Schueth, Matt Stein, Amy Thomas, Aleks Vitolins, and Edward Wolenty and their teacher Jill Baisinger.

These students participated in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution competition here in Washington, DC April 28-30, 2007. After winning both the state and district competitions the group competed against 50 other schools and achieved honorable mention and placement in the top ten. These students competed against a class from every state in the country and demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental ideals and values of American constitutional government.

We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution is an annual competition in Washington, DC in which students participate in a mock- congressional hearing. Every team has six units of three or more students and each is responsible for one particular area of Congressional expertise. The students arrive prepared to give speeches in response to formal prompts and then testify as constitutional experts before a panel of judges. More than 1,200 students participate each year in the national competition.

The program is administered by the Center for Civic Education and is the most extensive of its kind, reaching more than 28 million students in elementary, middle and high schools. The Students from Hamilton Southeastern High School have made their fellow Hoosiers very proud and I wish them all the best in their future pursuits.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much and I thank the whip for allowing me to go at this time.

Let me just say I remember my Democrat colleagues after 9/11. They, along with us, were one voice saying we're going to go after these terrorists, no matter where they are; no matter how long it takes, we're going to get them.

The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, the Cole, our barracks. They've attacked us many times. They attacked us once before at the World Trade Center. And al Qaeda has attacked in France, England, Spain, Indonesia, and elsewhere.

Now, the leader of the military wing of the terrorists in Iraq is al Qaeda. He's the guy that's going to lead the fight to make Iraq an Islamic State, a jumping-off point for terrorism around the world, al Qaeda, the same ones that attacked the World Trade Center and these other things.

I can't understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, knowing al Qaeda is in charge over there, the military wing of the terrorists, knowing that they want to destroy us, knowing that Osama bin Laden said he wants to destroy America, that you want to pull out, that you want to tell them exactly when you're going to leave.

We're going to start moving in 4 months. We're going to be out of there in 12 months. You want to cut our troops off at the knees, and do you think al Qaeda is not going to be happy about that? What do you think Iran is thinking right now? What do you think Syria is thinking right now? What do you think al Qaeda is thinking right now? They're thinking we don't have the guts to go get 'em, and so they're encouraged.

Al Jazeera was mentioned just a minute ago. That paper has got all kinds of articles saying we're going to get out, and you guys are giving them all the information they need to know that they can prevail if they wait us out. If they do, we're going to have more terrorist attacks here in America. They're waiting for us to get out so they can focus all their attention on the United States and our allies.

We must not do this, and that's why we should sustain the President's veto.