Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding me the time.

I would also like to address my good friend from Washington, also Mr. Hastings, as well as my friend from Connecticut sitting behind Mr. Hastings, because I heard his statement earlier which reflected the statement of the gentleman representing the minority on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address these concerns, legitimate concerns, that have been raised, and explain why I think you would agree that what we are doing today is not only appropriate and proper, but well-justified.

There was a white-tie dinner at the White House last night. The country, particularly Virginia, is celebrating the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown settlement. But these six Indian Tribes are the reason why those English settlers were able to survive. They showed them how to survive. They sheltered them. They taught them how to grow the plants that were native to North America. They took care of them. Subsequently, when the English settlers got on their feet, they displaced these Indians, took their land and treated them pretty badly.

Finally, in 1677 there was a treaty signed with King Charles II. There was no American government at the time. It was the only government that could sign a treaty. It is the oldest Indian treaty in existence today. It continued, that treaty, but the implementation of it did not. The English government, in other words, its settlers here, violated that treaty at every opportunity, diminished these tribes and took their land.

Then, to compound this situation, and to understand why this is a unique situation beyond the 400th anniversary, in 1924 the Commonwealth of Virginia passed what was called the Racial Integrity Act. It was sponsored by a white supremacist who had alliances with the Nazi government in Germany, we understand. It was a very bad time in American history.

This law allowed the Commonwealth of Virginia to destroy the documents that proved the existence of these Native American families. They legally went into the courthouses and destroyed the birth records, they destroyed everything that identified them as Native Americans, and that is why there is a unique situation here. They don't have the documentation that they would need to present to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

This is compounded, of course, by the fact that this recognition process is almost impossible. We wouldn't want to wish it on our worst enemy, to have to go through what Native American tribes now have to go through. It is demeaning and deliberately frustrating. And they were told, well, you might get recognition, but certainly not in your lifetime. These Native Americans have been mistreated by this country.

Now we have compromised. You could say we have unfairly treated them again, but it is the only way to get this recognition through in time for the celebration of the Jamestown settlement.

We said, we are not going to treat you like other Native American tribes. You are not going to be able to have

gambling, to have casinos, to even play bingo. We are going to prohibit it in this legislation, just to reassure people who are concerned about gambling, and understandably, given all of the corruption that has occurred, Jack Abramoff and so on. I don't have to get into all that. We made the compromise, and they reluctantly agreed to it.

Then, even though they have 500 acres that everyone agrees is theirs that should be put into trust, we are going to hold back and require all of the environmental processes and so on to be gone through by the Department of Interior. Whatever that administrative process is, they have to wait and go through all of that in order just to have their own land put into trust. Another compromise.

We have compromised in every way we could. That is the reason for the closed rule. We have talked to everyone that appeared to have any opposition.

Mr. Wolf had legitimate concern about gambling. We tried to bring this to the floor before. He has blocked it. I can understand his concern. But this is a unique situation. We have addressed it. We have addressed that issue on gambling. Mr. Wolf now supports the bill, he has told me.

Mr. Young supports the bill, because he has have looked at it extensively. I don't believe my good friend from Connecticut is on the Natural Resources Committee and may not have participated in those discussions, all of those compromises that have led us to this point.

But I think if you look at the justice of this situation, if you look back at the truth of what has occurred to these Indians, you have to come to the conclusion that this is a unique situation. This is justified. In fact, this is urgent.

There are some representatives of the tribes here today. They have been so frustrated, cynical even, disappointed that the Congress won't understand what they understand and what they would like to be able to pass on to their children.

The only people that would ever educate them and their ancestors were Christian missionaries. They were forbidden to go to public schools. They were forbidden to have jobs. They couldn't get their children out of hospitals if they called them an American Indian because they would be subject to a year in prison.

I don't want to go into all of this, because I would like to put this behind us, because it is a very sad chapter of American history. Hopefully that chapter is about to end and a new chapter will begin with this legislation.

That is why I would ask my colleagues, approve this legislation. Do the right thing. Do it in time, so we can honestly celebrate with the people in Jamestown and with these tribes.

These tribes deserve recognition. They deserve to be able to have the kind of pride that they have merited through their persistence. They are extraordinarily patriotic, loyal to this country, honest and obedient. They are good people. Let's pass this legislation.

I would ask my friend from Connecticut to listen to my response to the points that he just made because I know he is a fair man. And when he considers the fact that, first of all, the Narragansett Tribe was recognized in the 1990s with a similar prohibition, and they don't gamble.

This particular tribe, they were raised by Christian missionaries. They believe gambling is a sin. They could be operating bingo parlors down the street today. They don't because they believe it is wrong to do so. They don't want to gamble.

But they are unique, and I would say to my friend, in 1912 through 1946, the Bureau of Vital Statistics in Virginia systematically erased all reference to Indians in all public records. That is unique. That hasn't happened in other States. The Governor of Virginia recognizes these tribes. They have been recognized for hundreds of years.

And the fact is, we are not bringing this legislation up all of a sudden now.

This legislation we have been trying for 8 years to get through; 8 years I have sponsored it. But these Indian tribes didn't have any money to influence the process.

The Racial Integrity Act of 1924, and I go back to this, as embarrassed as I am about the fact that it passed the legislature of Virginia, required all persons to register as ``white'' or ``colored'' in the language of those days, and it made it a criminal offense for Indians not to so register. That is why they were eliminated in the State. It is what a historian called a paper genocide. That is why this is a very unique situation. It is not all of a sudden. For 8 years, we have been trying to pass this legislation. The Governor recognizes they exist, and it is not about gambling.

It is understandable you would assume it is about gambling. It is not, and we have examples of other tribes that are not gambling today that have similar prohibitions. So I would say to the gentleman, please do the right thing. Read the bill carefully, and I trust you will support it as a result.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

In this case, we are recognizing six. There was one tribe in the 1990s, the Narragansett Tribe, a similar prohibition against gambling was instituted. They don't gamble.

This is about recognition.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I didn't use the term ``outrage,'' but I do I think it is unfair. If I were a Native American member of any of these six tribes, I would feel badly that I wasn't treated the way other Native American tribes have been treated. It is a matter of pride and sovereignty, so you can choose not to gamble, not to have Congress say, we don't trust you; we are going to prohibit you from gambling. But it is not their intent to gamble.

If the gentleman would continue to yield, I again thank my friend and thank you for being able to communicate in this fashion.

The fact is that they have tried for 8 years to get recognition. But when you say that they are bypassing the process, the reason the process doesn't work is, in this case, the Commonwealth of Virginia made it legal to destroy all of the documentation that would have proved their existence. It was legal under the Racial Integrity Act. They went in and destroyed every reference to them.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

First of all, it is six tribes. The Governor of Virginia recognizes them, and the Commonwealth of Virginia has recognized them since it did away with the Racial Integrity Act. Senator Allen when he was Governor recognized them because they do exist.

Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my very good friend Chairman Rahall. He has shown a lot of courage and also caring and sensitivity to the situation that confronts these particular Indian tribes. I see my good friend Mr. Scott from Virginia, as well, who will speak to this and my good friend, the ranking minority member, Mr. Don Young; and I thank him for stepping up on this, too. I know that his words are deeply felt, and his support is deeply appreciated.

I also want to compliment the staff on both sides. They have done the research. They have provided the accurate information; and without that, there would be a lot of misimpressions that would be going around the floor that could defeat this bill; but the facts are on our side, and that is because particularly the very good, hardworking staff has made sure that the facts have become public.

Let me share some of those facts with you. The argument is going to be used that these tribes should go through the regular process at the BIA, and the argument will be made that this just opens it up to gambling and there is going to be another issue in terms of the corruption that is inherent within casino gambling and so on.

The fact is that it would be virtually impossible for these Virginia Indian tribes to provide the documentation that the Bureau of Indian Affairs requires. This is a unique situation that does not apply in other States because other States did not make it legal to go into courthouses, local courthouses, throughout the State and destroy the very documentation that is now necessary.

Now, of course, the Governor of Virginia and all the previous Governors, including Senator Allen who specifically recognized these Indian tribes when he was Governor, they have all acknowledged there is no question these Indian tribes exist. In fact, they have the oldest treaty that has been in existence in the United States, 1677, signed with King Charles II.

But, of course, that was before there was an American government; and, as a result, ironically, we haven't specifically recognized these Indians, because they have the oldest treaty. But these were the Indians that enabled the Jamestown settlers to survive.

Here we are, the Queen is at the White House, and we are having all this pomp and circumstance, and the very Indians that enabled it to happen have not been recognized by our government and, in fact, have been treated to some of the worst injustices across this land. From 1912 to 1946, their documents were deliberately destroyed.

In 1924, there was a Racial Integrity Act passed by a white supremacist, Dr. Walter Plecker. He was head of the Department of Vital Statistics, very politically powerful. And that, in effect, made it a crime to be identified as an Indian. You had to check a box ``white'' or ``colored'' throughout the State in the parlance of that time.

My friend and colleague from Virginia knows what I mean, and he believes it, because he knows Virginia history. Many of our colleagues, though, might not believe that this could happen; and, yet, it did. It was a penalty of a year of imprisonment for identifying oneself as an American Indian. So they don't have the documentation. Bureau of Indian Affairs would say, yes, we would recognize you, there is no question you exist, but it won't be in your lifetime.

Well, 400 years. Isn't this time? Now, obviously, there has been a lot of intermarriage, but the fact is, there are records, and we can produce those records. But we don't have the time, and it doesn't seem to be fair to force these Indian tribes through a process that may fail only because of governmental action, a grossly unjust governmental action.

So gambling is not an issue. These Indian tribes, even though they should certainly be on a par with all other Indian tribes, have compromised, have accepted language that prohibits them from being able to gamble, even bingo. The State gets an enormous amount of money from lottery, but they can't participate. They have accepted that. This is a matter of pride for these Indians.

This is a matter of pride. These Native Americans want to be able to tell their children, and their grandchildren, and their grandchildren, in turn, their grandchildren, we were the ones that enabled the English settlement to survive. We have a proud tradition. We were recognized by the United States Congress.

Now, hopefully, at some point, the other compromise we have made in terms of putting land into trust, that will be rectified, too, but that's not going to be immediately put into trust. We compromised with the communities; we have gone through all of the possible procedures that might raise some objection to this.

Now, Members may come to the floor who, I suspect, have not read the bill, with some objection. I don't think it's a matter of bias, but it certainly is a matter of concern that there has been abuse on the part of some lobbyists working with Indian tribes. We understand that.

But, gosh, this is a unique situation. This is a matter of injustice that cries out to be rectified. This bill rectifies that injustice. Hopefully we can do it in time for the actual date of the English settlers landing at Jamestown. It's 400 years overdue.

Again, I thank the chairman, the ranking member, and I thank the Speaker for the time. In advance, I thank my colleagues for doing the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, if floor procedures were to permit, I would address the members of the six Virginia tribes seeking Federal recognition.

I would say that I know their quest has been a long struggle to assert their identity and their rights.

Despite centuries of racial hostility and coercion by the Commonwealth of Virginia and others, they have refused to yield their most basic human right and have suffered and lost much.

But, throughout the centuries you have retained your dignity and supported your people.

When it appeared that no one else would, when little was available, when even the doors of the public school house were closed to your children, you have never yielded to those who said you didn't exist.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Virginia tribes that win or lose today, you have already won by refusing to yield and by remaining true and faithful to who you are.

I would also say that it has been an honor for me to have helped carry this legislation.

While it is less than ideal, it moves you closer to the day our national government recognizes you exist.

Mr. Speaker, as Member of this chamber know, the crafting of congressional legislation is far from a perfect process. But, when it speaks, it speaks with the people's voice.

Today, I encourage my colleagues to speak and finally affirm that the Virginia tribes exist and deserve Federal recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 291, which supports the goals and ideals of National Peace Officers' Memorial Day to honor Federal, State, and local peace officers killed or disabled in the line of duty and calls upon the people of the United States to observe such a day with appropriate ceremonies and respect.

I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this resolution and support the recognition of May 15th as National Peace Officers' Memorial Day, a day dedicated to the recognize and pay tribute to more than 870,000 law enforcement officers throughout the United States, and those officers who are killed or disabled in the line of duty.

It is estimated that more than 56,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted every year, and 143 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in 2006. Of those 143 killed in the line of duty last year, we also lost two outstanding law enforcement officers, Detective Vicky Armel and Master Police Officer Michael Garbarino of the Sully Police Station of Fairfax County in Virginia.

Exactly 1 year ago today, on May 8, 2006, Detective Armel and MPO Garbarino were both shot and killed when a suspect using a hunting rifle opened fire on them in the parking lot of the Sully District Station. Detective Armel died on the scene and MPO Garbarino died 9 days later while in the hospital.

Both officers gave a combined 40 years of service, protecting our country. They died heroically trying to protect their fellow servicemen. Today, they, along with all other peace officers, are being honored in our hearts and minds. This week, a monument will be unveiled at the Sully Police Station in Fairfax honoring Detective Armel and MPO Garbarino and a full memorial service is also planned.

Detective Armel and MPO Garbarino, along with the hundreds of thousands of other law enforcement officers that serve us or were injured or killed in the line of duty, deserve our support. We owe the thousands of men and women who put their life on the line the recognition and gratitude for all their hard work, tireless efforts and daily life threatening situations that they encounter, to protect and serve us. I urge my colleagues to vote for H. Res. 291.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 1867, which authorizes $21 billion in funding for the National Science Foundation over the next 3 years

The National Science Foundation (NSF) was created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, with a broad mission of supporting science, engineering and funding basic research across many disciplines. As the only agency dedicated to the support of education and fundamental research in all scientific and engineering disciplines, we must continue to be generous and fund the NSF at the necessary levels to remain at the forefront of discovery, learning, and innovation.

In 1952, the NSF began by funding 28 research grants--in 2005 the number has grown to well over 10,000. In 2005, the agency received 42,000 proposals for research, fellowships, and projects in science, mathematics, and engineering.

There have been more than 100 Nobel Prize Winners and thousands of other distinguished scientists and engineers that have conducted their groundbreaking research with funding from the NSF.

From successfully splitting the atom, to landing the first man on the moon, to mapping the human genome, it is because of our investment in science and technology that the United States can be credited for these accomplishments. The majority of the research supported by the NSF is conducted at U.S. colleges and universities and approximately 82.6% of its estimated research and development (R&D) budget for 2005 was awarded to U.S. colleges and universities.

Today, we live in a global society and must continue to invest in our research and development to ensure we remain competitive in this global society. Every year, China and India graduate 950,000 engineers in comparison to the 70,000 the United States graduates each year. We must adequately fund and support the NSF, in order to be internationally competitive and continue to make those cutting-edge discoveries that have forever changed the way we view innovation.

I thank Mr. Baird for bringing this legislation to the floor and encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 243, which calls on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Father Nguyen Van Ly, Nguyen Van Dai, Le Thi Cong Nhan, and other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience.

Mr. Speaker, as a co-sponsor of this resolution, I am extremely concerned and saddened by the resumption of repressive tactics of the Vietnamese Government. It was only six months ago that the State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom removed Vietnam from its ``Countries of Particular Concern'' list, a list mandated by the International Religious Freedom Act which we passed in 1998. However, despite their removal from this list, the Vietnamese government instead chose to resort to arbitrary arrests and detentions of religious community leaders and human rights activists.

Father Nguyen Van Ly, a founder of the Committee for Human Rights in Vietnam, was arrested for what authorities called, ``conducting propaganda activities to harm the security of state.'' Father Nguyen Van Ly has spent nearly thirteen years in prison for the fight for religious freedom and democracy in Vietnam. Just last month, two prominent Vietnamese human rights attorneys, Mr. Nguyen Van Dai and Ms. Le Thi Cong Nhan, were arrested for ``spreading anti-government propaganda.''

Mr. Speaker, the United States prides itself on the promotion of democracy, good governance, protection of human rights and religious freedom, and the advancement of the rule of law. We cannot look the other way when a ``Most Favored Nation'' is committing the grossest of human rights violations against its citizens. Congress cannot ignore the blatant disregard Vietnam is displaying towards its own people while it continues to detain and silence Vietnamese lawyers, democracy activists, and human rights advocates. As Vietnam aspires to integrate itself with the global economy, I believe it must also understand that the United States and the rest of the world is watching their actions and we condemn their atrocious digression and disregard for the most basic human rights.

Madam Speaker, two weeks ago, our Nation suffered an unspeakable tragedy when a deranged gunman indiscriminately killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA. Our prayers and thoughts are with the surviving victims, families, and the entire Virginia Tech community who are determined to not allow one crazed individual to ruin the school's Hokie spirit and strength. This horrific, senseless act was committed because a mentally ill individual could easily buy two handguns and as many rounds of ammunition clips as he desired. I cannot stress to you how important it is that we reauthorize the federal assault weapons ban, close the existing loopholes, and strengthen the background checks requirements.

I want to submit for the record a Letter to the Editor that was posted in the Washington Post on April 21, 2007. This letter was written by Jay Wind of Arlington, VA, and Robert Weiner of Accokeek, VA. I agree with their contention that now is the time for Congress to address gun control and get these semiautomatic weapons off the streets.

[From the Washington Post, April 21, 2007]

Reflections After the Killings

(By Robert S. Weiner and Jay Jacob Wind)

As a national political public affairs consultant and the

father of a Virginia Tech student who knows five of the dead

and was best friends with one of the first two shot, we are

outraged and dismayed that congressional leaders of both

parties are running for cover from handgun control after the

worst gun violence in American history. Instead of using this

sad opportunity to stop such shootings by barring handguns,

as other civilized countries do, Congress and the White House

are pandering to the politics of the National Rifle

Association because of potential votes in swing states.

Why are our political leaders not speaking out against

handguns instead of asserting that this is not the right time

for such a debate? In unarmed Britain, fewer than 100 die a

year from handguns. America is still the Wild West, with an

average of 30,000 gunned down annually.

In September, the youngest Wind daughter will enter

Virginia Tech. She thought she would be safe, near her older

sister. It's time for Virginia's leaders--and the nation's--

to act to prevent future massacres.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kate P. Moran of Alexandria, Virginia, upon her receiving the Commonwealth's Academy Recognition for Educators (CARE) Award,

The CARE Award honors outstanding educators from across the country who are working to enhance the lives of their students. CARE Award recipients are recognized for their unrelenting work to enhance the lives of the students they serve. Kate Moran, a Special Education Coordinator, was honored for her efforts to construct innovative ways to train special needs youth in Virginia.

Raised in Alexandria, Virginia Ms. Moran is a graduate of TC Williams High School. She went on to receive her Bachelor's of Arts in Theater from Catholic University of America, and received a Master's of Teaching in Special Education from University of Virginia. Currently a resident of Alexandria, Virginia Ms. Moran has taught in the Virginia school system for 6 years.

As a special education coordinator for TC Williams High School, Minnie Howard School, and the Secondary Training and Education Program, she has dedicated her career to educating students with learning disabilities, mental challenges, and health impairments. In her own words, she tries to ``meet the needs of students and families by making special education accessible to all types of learners.''

Ms. Moran's dedication to her special-needs students is unprecedented. Over the past 6 years she has made a lasting impression on her students giving them the skills and support to lead a fuller, more rewarding life.

I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Kate Moran and congratulating her on this distinguished achievement.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, when the President vetoed this bill, he said it was because he felt that decisions like this should be left to the military, not the politicians. But Mr. Speaker, the fact is that when the President declared that Iraq was part of the global war on terrorism, there was not one single military officer who agreed. That was a political decision made in the White House to go into this war. Had he listened to the military, we wouldn't be in this war.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that none of us have been asked to sacrifice anything in pursuit of this war. The sacrifice has fallen exclusively on the backs of our military and their families.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the 2,108th child was told that they will never see their mommy or daddy again because they will never return from Iraq. How many more children have to lose their parents before this policy is reversed, Mr. Speaker? 3,351 American soldiers have lost their lives. More than 24,000 have been seriously wounded. This past month, more than 100 soldiers lost their lives, the deadliest month on record.

Things are getting worse rather than better.

The British Broadcasting Corporation and the American Broadcasting Corporation just completed an extensive survey of Iraqis. It turns out that 82 percent have lost confidence in U.S. policy in Iraq, that 86 percent have lost a member of their household due to violence, and the majority feel that this policy is ineffective, and in fact, they were better off under Saddam Hussein than under the American occupation.

Mr. Speaker, the State Department just reported that the number of terrorist incidents has gone up by 25 percent, most of them in Iraq.

This policy has been a failure. I urge a rejection of the President's veto of this bill. This bill will set the course that the American people are demanding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word and to address the House for 5 minutes in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my very strong support for the bill that Mr. Rahall, the Chair of the Resources Committee, has brought to this floor because it restores a longstanding prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros.

This amendment that we are currently debating is designed to defeat the substance of this bill. The reality is that this is not a bill that costs the Treasury money, but it does cost our country something of great value.

At the turn of the 20th century, some 2 million wild horses roamed freely in the wild. But by the 1950s, just half a century, their population had dwindled to fewer than 20,000. The population went from 2 million to 20,000. Ninety-nine percent of these majestic creatures were taken off the face of the American continent, and many of them were being inhumanely captured by profiteers who would slaughter them and then sell their meat for pet food and human consumption in European and Asian restaurants.

So, after enough awareness and concern, Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 that protects wild horses and burros on Federal lands from such atrocities. But then in the 108th Congress, under different leadership, longstanding Federal policy that protects wild horses from being sold at auctions and subsequently shipped to slaughter plants was reversed.

Last year, two Texas plants and one in Illinois slaughtered nearly 105,000 horses for human food, mainly for European and Asian consumers. I think it's time to end this senseless for-profit massacre, really, of the symbol of the spirit of the American West.

Animals are given into our care, and we ought to treat them with some greater respect than we do, particularly in the case of horses.

I believe that a generation from now we will shudder at how recklessly we treated these animals which are so symbolic of the spirit, the strength, the stamina of this country. In the event of survival, so many of them face neglect and abuse today, and that is the argument that is raised. But that is not an excuse not to pass this legislation nor to implement a more humane policy, because this policy is inhumane at every step in the process, from how they're purchased at auction, to their transportation to the slaughterhouse, to how they are killed.

Many of the horses that are transported to the slaughterhouse are bought by what are called ``killer buyers'' at auction. These unscrupulous buyers prey on the trust of horse owners who believe that their horse is being bought by a good family and will lead a comfortable life. They are unaware that they are being misled by professional slaughterhouse agents, with their companion animal being sent to a very painful death.

The reality of the slaughtering process is difficult and uncomfortable for many of us to hear, but the suffering begins during the transportation of horses to the slaughterhouse. They are shipped with no food or water or any ability to rest. Often due to overcrowding and slippery floor surfaces, the horses fall and they are trampled during transportation. If they survive the trip to the slaughterhouse, the horse's suffering needlessly continues. Due to their cautious nature, many of these horses are not properly stunned before slaughter. Many are completely conscious when they have their throats cut. Simply put, this is not in the American tradition.

Despite what some of my colleagues will have you believe, the practice is not needed to control the number of horses in the United States. California banned horse slaughter in 1998, and since then there has been no corresponding rise in cruelty or neglect cases.

There has even been a 34 percent drop in horse theft since the ban went into effect.

The fact is that the American public wants to protect horses and is horrified that they are being slaughtered for use as food in other countries. Poll after poll shows that 70 percent of Americans believe that we should end the slaughter of horses. They are right, we should end this slaughter, today. And that is why we should pass this bill and defeat the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, last week the 2,100th American child had to be informed that they will never see their daddy or mommy again because their parent was killed in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, our military families deserve a policy worthy of their sacrifice. They deserve better. This war is going to turn out to be one of the worst military, political, economic and moral blunders in American history.

I heard my colleague refer to 9/11. We now know that we were brought into this war through deliberate deception and the politics of fear. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, wouldn't allow al Qaeda into his country. In fact, he wasn't trying to get nuclear weapons. He had no weapons of mass destruction. All those mobile labs didn't manufacture chemical weapons. Nor is this war being paid for with Iraqi oil.

And yet, you want us, 4 years later, to believe the very same people that brought us into this fiasco. When do you start to lose your credibility? After we have had 58,000 soldiers killed as in Vietnam? We are up to 3,300 now. About 25,000 seriously wounded. And how can you stand before them and tell them that this fiasco was worthy of their sacrifice?

The government that we are supporting doesn't go outside the Green Zone in Baghdad. They don't serve their people. In fact, many of its ministers are corrupt. That is the reality of our policy in Iraq.

And the fact too is that if the government we are supporting had the opportunity, they would turn Iraq into a Shi'a theocracy. Is that really worth our military families' sacrifice? The answer is no.

Support this rule and vote for this supplemental.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding me the time.

Just a few points about Rachel Carson and Silent Spring and the profound transformational effect that that book had on our society.

She was a Federal employee. She worked for the predecessor of the Fish and Wildlife Service. She was recognized, even as a child, as an outstanding writer. But she saw something that she knew was wrong, and she dedicated her life to changing the future for subsequent generations of Americans and really changed the world in terms of its view of pesticides.

At that time it wasn't just that pesticides were being poured all over farms but in our own residential neighborhoods. I can remember, I am old enough to remember, the big clouds of pesticides, and we would run in and out of them, and we would follow the pesticide truck on bicycles, and we had no idea this was poisonous stuff that was being put into our lungs, our atmosphere. And yet at that time the pesticide industry came up with a doctor, he was on television, everybody watched him as he said that she was absolutely wrong. There was no substance to her allegations; that if people

listened seriously to her, it would cause widespread disease and poverty all over the world.

And he said that the scientific evidence shows that there is no harm to these pesticides, these toxic chemicals. One might refer to that when we look at some of the other trailblazers who had the courage to speak up, despite those who too readily condemn them because they are making a profit from current conditions. Climate change, endocrine disruptions and the like. She had the kind of courage and intellect and goodness of spirit to change the world. I am very pleased that she is getting a little recognition from the Congress today.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Virginia for yielding to me.

As the sponsor of this legislation, I also want to thank the Democratic leadership for bringing it to the floor, because, Madam Speaker, sexual violence is an epidemic in this country, it is a threat to our public health and our public safety that demands our attention. One in six women and one in 33 men in the United States will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime. This is the highest rate of any country publishing statistics on sexual assault. A woman is raped in this country every 2\1/2\ minutes. We must do more to stop that. Responding to sexual assault must start with prevention.

The roots of sexual violence are cultural. A study of American high school students found that the majority of girls and three-quarters of boys thought that forced sex was acceptable under some circumstances, including when a woman had had past sexual experiences or when a boy spent a lot of money on the girl. Statistics like this make it tragically unsurprising that 70 percent of assaults are perpetrated by someone that is known by the victim.

Fifty-five percent of rapes, the majority of rapes, occur in the home of the victim or a friend, relative or acquaintance.

We must begin with prevention, because the consequences of sexual violence are so severe and because it is a crime whose impact is felt disproportionately by those least able to protect themselves: the young, the disabled,

the impoverished. In addition to suffering the physical effects of these terrible acts of violence, a third of victims suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder, a third seriously consider suicide, and 13 percent actually attempt it. While we hope and work for a day when sexual violence might be eradicated completely from our society, we must also deal with the consequences of these crimes, working to provide assistance to victims and aggressively prosecuting offenders.

National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month is dedicated to increasing the public's understanding about sexual violence in our society. This effort can help communities support rape and sexual assault survivors, victims and their families, as well as the individuals and agencies that provide rape crisis intervention and prevention services throughout the year.

More than 1,000 rape crisis centers nationwide educate their communities about the prevention of sexual violence and provide services to victims. In Virginia, for example, these centers serve approximately 3,000 victims of rape every year. In my district, the SARA Program at the Alexandria Office on Women supports survivors throughout their healing process, through hotline counseling and support groups and innovative programs like ``Living Out Loud,'' a performing arts program for survivors of sexual violence looking to find new joy in life after recovering from rape or sexual assault. The person who founded that is an inspiration to everyone and brings back lives that have been so profoundly and adversely affected by this experience.

Madam Speaker, National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month is a chance for us to pause and consider the enormity of the impact of these crimes on our society and the status of our efforts to end it. I commend these public health, social services, and law enforcement professionals working in our communities to respond to sexual violence and those educators and advocates working to prevent it, and I encourage my colleagues to stand with us in rededicating ourselves to efforts to end these crimes on our streets, in our schools and in our lives.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine how more tragic life could be than to be the parent of a child and be told that their father or mother is not going to ever see them again, that he or she was killed in Iraq. This is the month of military families where we recognize military families, and the best thing we could do is to say 2,100 children having been given that information is enough, but this is also the anniversary of the Columbine massacre.

At the very time when we are offering our condolences for more than 30 people being slaughtered at Virginia Tech. While it is certainly appropriate to grieve with those parents who thought they were sending a child to a nurturing, secure learning environment, only to find that their child's life was cut off before they could realize their potential, it is even more appropriate that we act and respond to these tragedies, to try to prevent them, because we know unless we can reduce the proliferation of firearms in our society, that this will continue to happen time and time again.

Our words of condolences after a tragedy will be hollow unless we can stand up before the fact to the gun lobby and to those who think that we can continue to offer grievances and not change the situation.

Mr. Speaker, we need to renew the assault weapon ban. We need to end the gun show loophole. We need to restrict handgun purchase to no more than one per month. We need to stop these tragedies from recurring again and again and again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, the D.C. Voting Rights Act.

For too long, the residents of our Nation's Capital have been without out a full voice in Congress.

The District of Columbia is home to over 570,000 residents. It has a larger population than Wyoming, which is represented by an at-large member in the House and two Senators.

The men and women of the District of Columbia pay their taxes, both to the Federal Government and the District. They salute the American flag at Nationals, Wizards, Caps and Redskins games. And they serve or have served in the Armed Forces. D.C. is home to over 44,000 veterans. In Iraq and Afghanistan, four brave men have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Yet despite being an integral part of the fabric of our Nation, D.C. continues to be denied a vote in Congress.

Today we are considering compromise, bipartisan legislation coauthored by my friends and colleagues Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Representative Tom Davis. From his position on the Government Oversight Committee Congressman Davis has spent considerable time and attention on issues affecting the District. And there is no stronger advocate for her constituents than the gentlewoman from D.C.

I compliment the bill's sponsors for crafting a thoughtful approach and a clever compromise that grants Utah an at-large representative to balance any potential partisan division. It keeps this proposal bipartisan and improves its prospects for favorable Senate action. I hope the White House will rethink its current concerns and join our bipartisan coalition to affirm the District's right to a vote.

Some who oppose this legislation have stated that it raises constitutional concerns. But, as was stated in a recent op-ed by the Republican D.C. Councilwoman Carol Schwartz, no less conservative scholars than former solicitor general Kenneth Starr, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Patricia Wald and Georgetown Law Professor and author of the USA Patriot Act Viet Dihn have stated that giving the District a vote is in fact, constitutional.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Washington, DC are as much red-blooded Americans as anybody living in the 50 States.

They deserve to have their voices heard in the halls of Congress, they deserve a representative who can vote on their behalf as this body debates matters directly affecting their country and therefore, they deserve to have this legislation passed today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act.

For too long, the residents of our Nation's Capital have been without a full voice in Congress.

The District of Columbia is home to over 570,000 residents. It has a larger population than Wyoming, which is represented by an at-large member in the House and two Senators.

The men and women of the District of Columbia pay their taxes, both to the Federal Government and the District. They salute the American flag at Nationals, Wizards, Caps and Redskins games. And they serve or have served in the Armed Forces. DC is home to over 44,000 veterans. In Iraq and Afghanistan, four brave men have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Yet despite being an integral part of the fabric of our Nation, DC continues to be denied a vote in Congress.

Today we are considering compromise, partisan legislation coauthored by my friends and colleagues Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Rep. Tom Davis. From his position on the Government Oversight Committee Congressman Davis has spent considerable time and attention on issues affecting the District. And there is no stronger advocate for her constituents than the gentlewoman from DC.

I compliment the bill's sponsors for crafting a thoughtful approach and a clever compromise that grants Utah an at large representative to balance any potential partisan division. It keeps this proposal bipartisan and improves its prospects for favorable Senate action. I hope the White House will rethink its current concerns and join our bipartisan coalition to affirm the District's right to vote.

Some who oppose this legislation have stated that it raises constitutional concerns. But, as was stated in a recent oped by the Republican DC Councilwoman Carol Schwartz, no less conservative scholars than former solicitor general Kenneth Starr, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Patricia Wald and Georgetown Law Professor and author of the USA PATRIOT Act Viet Dinh have stated that giving the District a vote is in fact, constitutional.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Washington, DC are as much red-blooded Americans as anybody living in the 50 states.

They deserve to have their voices heard in the halls of Congress, they deserve a representative who can vote on their behalf as this body debates matters directly affecting their country and therefore, they deserve to have this legislation passed today.

I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding, and I appreciate the fact that this resolution has come to the floor.

It is difficult to imagine a more heartbreaking moment than to have a family receive a call from the university, where they thought they had sent their child to a secure, nurturing, learning environment, only to find out that their child's life has been cut off before any of their potential could be realized. What a horrible loss. And to think that more than 30 of those calls have had to take place over the last 2 days.

This is a time for grieving, for trying to console. But, Mr. Speaker, as important and appropriate as it is to grieve after the fact, I think it may be even more appropriate for this body to stand up before the fact, because we know that this type of tragedy, perhaps not in as large a scale, but this type of tragedy will happen again. Whether it is in the workforce or on a college campus or a high school campus or on the street, innocent victims will be mowed down. And it happens more often in our country than in any other civilized nation, than in any other civilized nation on this planet. And the reason, Mr. Speaker, is because it is simply too easy to obtain a firearm.

If you are a criminal or mentally deranged or simply emotionally upset, virtually anyone can go to a store, even a retail department store, and buy a weapon of mass destruction. That is what has happened here and will happen again. And I know that the National Rifle Association is able to brag that it controls the gun control agenda now from the White House. And the majority of Members of Congress are not going to stand up to the NRA. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, I think we have a responsibility, particularly at moments like this when we are so acutely aware of the carnage that the proliferation of weapons throughout our society creates. When we are aware of the tragedy that this laxity causes, this lack of courage to stand up to gun manufacturers and say it is time, Mr. Speaker, no matter how politically difficult it might be, to try to reduce the number of weapons in our society. I'm not talking about those that are meant for hunting. People in Canada have all kinds of guns, but their rifles are used for hunting. They are not used for stalking and killing other human beings.

It is the proliferation of handguns, the kinds of guns that were used in this tragic incident and the ammunition clips that should be banned under the assault weapon legislation we let expire that have to be brought under control. And it is we, the people's representatives, who have to stand up and do something about this so that it doesn't have to occur again. As appropriate as it is, as I said, now to grieve with those families and to offer condolences, it is more imperative that we stand up before the fact, before another such tragedy occurs because of our lack of political courage.