Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to offer an amendment that would strengthen current State Department policy regarding the export of .50-caliber sniper rifles. Under this amendment only official government entities would be allowed to purchase these weapons through the export process. The language of the amendment would simply prevent export to any nongovernmental entity; in other words, the arms dealers that bought 25 of them for al Qaeda and the representatives of the IRA and the KLA.

The .50-caliber sniper rifle is in a class by itself. A weapon of war, the Army Handbook on Urban Combat states that the .50-caliber was designed to attack both fuel tanks and other impenetrable targets. It is considered able to penetrate all but the heaviest shielding material from up to a mile away.

This high-powered antimateriel weapon has even been touted by its manufacturers in advertisements that it is capable of disabling or destroying a modern jet aircraft. I quote from Barrett Firearms Manufacturing. In their advertisement, they say, ``The cost- effectiveness of the .50-caliber sniper rifle cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than 10 U.S. dollars can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft.''

I should repeat that because it is hard to believe. But despite this unparelleled potential for damage, including the threat posed to railcars carrying hazardous materials and civil aviation, the .50- caliber is easier to obtain than a handgun and no less available than a common shotgun.

Governor Schwarzenegger, who recently signed a law banning the .50- caliber in California, stated that this gun is ``a clear and present danger to the public's safety.''

These guns are sought after by terrorists, warlords, drug smugglers, and other individuals looking to use the .50's exceptional power, accuracy, and distance for terrorist and criminal purposes.

There have been any number of substantiated reports that al Qaeda, the IRA, and the KLA have purchased a number of these guns in recent years. There is an arms race taking place just south of the border in Mexico where drug cartels are employing .50-calibers in a bloody turf war that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people caught up in the crossfire.

The ``60 Minutes'' TV show has reported at length on this issue. In their most recent piece, they profile an Albanian American gunrunner named Florin Krasniqi. Mr. Krasniqi details how he has coordinated the export of .50-calibers from the U.S. to arm the Kosovo Liberation Army in their guerilla war to break away from Serbia. The reason the .50- caliber was his weapon of choice, he stated simply, ``You could kill a man from over a mile away. You can dismantle a vehicle from over a mile away.'' And they are so easy to buy.

If we are not going to deal with the danger that .50-calibers pose to the American public, let us at least prevent the export of these weapons of terror to foreign terrorists. Restricting exports of .50- calibers is necessary because, unlike most items controlled under the U.S. Munitions List and comparable international control lists, firearms are frequently licensed for commercial resale, increasing the likelihood that they will end up in the hands of our enemies.

Mr. Chairman, this is a human rights issue, and it is an issue of protecting our national security. We need to pass this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just to respond to the points that were made, first of all, I agree that our soldiers like the weapon. I want them to continue to be able to use it. And this, of course, does not restrict their usage. I just do not want it to get into the enemies' hands. And I think that the gentleman does not want terrorists being able to buy these. Al Qaeda has purchased 25 of them.

To respond to the gentleman from Iowa when he said that any number of guns could disable a commercial jet aircraft, to complete the quote, it can disable a modern jet aircraft from over a mile away.

That is the point of it. These are unparalleled weapons. I am not trying to restrict them in the United States. They can have these U.S. clubs for .50 caliber guns. I just do not want them sold by arms dealers. We know that is what is happening, and they are getting into the hands of our enemy.

In a day when we see reports about people being arrested on public property because they were photographing public buildings, on the one hand, and then on the other hand we are allowing these weapons to be sold to terrorists? No. It is okay to sell them to a government, but not to these private individuals who are going to turn around and sell them to the terrorists.

There are certain things that we need to adjust to after 9/11. We are in a war against terrorism. Why would we go along with arming the opposition? So I think much of the argument that has been made supports our contention that we ought to ban the export of these to nongovernmental entities.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why, without passing the Maloney amendment, we punish millions of women throughout the Third World. Our annual $34 million contribution could prevent 2 million unintended pregnancies; 800,000 induced abortions; 4,700 maternal deaths, and most of them are young girls that have no control over their lives; and 77,000 infant deaths. That is what we should be doing. This should not be about China. This should be about the Third World.

Offered By: Mr. Moran of Virginia

Amendment No. 26: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Moran of Virginia

Amendment No. 31: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate National Hunger Awareness Day and to honor the Arlington Food Assistance Center, which is located in my congressional district.

National Hunger Awareness Day was established to help inform individuals, communities, corporations and policy makers that hunger is a severe domestic issue and deserves our critical attention.

The Arlington Food Assistance Center's sole mission is to feed the hungry. This important action allows their clients to make other necessary purchases, such as paying for rent and utilities, without having to sacrifice their health and nutritional needs.

Despite the fact that Arlington County is one of the wealthiest areas in the country, plenty of local residents do not have enough to eat. The Arlington Food Assistance Center, AFAC, seeks to remedy this problem by distributing bread, vegetables, meat, milk, eggs and other food items to those in Arlington who are in need. The Arlington Food Assistance Center currently distributes approximately 1100 bags of groceries each week to over 900 clients, nearly half of whom are children. Each week,

families with one to three members receive one bag of food and families of four members or more receive two bags of food--amounts that are expected to supplement a week's meals.

AFAC obtains surplus food at a minimal cost from the Capital Area Community Food Bank and at no cost from local bakeries, supermarkets, farmer's markets, food drives and private donors.

I would like to commend the staff and volunteers of the Arlington Food Assistance Center who work hard to provide needy families in Arlington with groceries each week.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Conor Michael O'Rourke of Arlington, Virginia. Conor has not only achieved the rank of Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts of America; he has pursued his accomplishments with a sincere commitment to the fundamental ideals of improving our community. As a member of Troop 50 in the National Capital Area Council, Conor has exemplified the finest qualities of leadership and citizenship in earning Boy Scouts' most prestigious award. He is currently a junior at Bishop Denis J. O'Connell High School in Arlington, Virginia and is the older son of Mary Anne and Michael O'Rourke.

At Troop 50, Conor has provided leadership in a variety of positions. He has led his troop as Patrol Leader (twice), Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, and High Adventure Assistant Crew Chief. In addition, he served for several years as Den Chief, in which he was a role model and guide to a group of Cub Scouts at St. Thomas More School in Arlington.

As a Boy Scout, Conor has trekked through the mountains of New Mexico on horseback, explored underground caves, sailed the Florida Keys and went on numerous camping trips. He has earned 28 merit badges and four religious awards, including the Boy Scout Ad Altare Dei. He is truly an exemplary Scout.

For his Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project, Conor directed three dozen volunteers, who donated over 140 hours of labor to the Arlington County Department of Parks and Recreation for the construction of a new park trail.

Because of his dedication and service to the community, I have great expectations for Conor--he will be among the young men who leads our Nation through the 21st. Century. Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Conor Michael O'Rourke for achiving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout, and wish him luck on all of his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Betty B. Michaliga, a resident of Virginia's 8th Congressional District

that I am proud to represent. Ms. Michaliga has contributed greatly to our high quality of life in Northern Virginia. Specifically, she has distinguished herself with exceptionally meritorious achievements in public service to this Nation by serving the United States Army for over thirty-four years.

In 1971, Ms. Michaliga began her superior career as a United States Army Civil Service employee in the Headquarters, United States Army Corps of Engineers. Because of her demonstrated abilities, she moved in 1983 to the Army Secretariat in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Housing), Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment). Currently Ms. Michaliga is a Program Analyst responsible for developing and monitoring the legislative process and Congressional reporting requirements for Army installations.

Throughout her career, Ms. Michaliga has provided outstanding advice, and sound professional judgment on significant issues that affected both the Army and the Congress. Her actions and counsel were invaluable to Army leaders as they considered the impact of important issues, and her dedication to accomplishing the Army's mission has been extraordinary. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Michaliga has been a truly outstanding career civil servant and will be missed by the United States Army.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney); the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt); and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

What has become of us as a country, selling these horses off for horse meat to be eaten on the other side of our oceans?

The wild horse is an icon of American history. The gentleman from Iowa asked what is the difference between a horse and a steer and a hog? The horse is an icon along with the bald eagle. What is the difference between a bald eagle and a pigeon or a turkey? And if you do not know the difference, we cannot explain it to you.

Shakespeare once said that ``Horses are as full of spirit as the month of May and as gorgeous as the sun in midsummer''. Does everything have to be converted to the bottom line? There are so many alternatives to slaughtering these beautiful creatures that are on public lands. We used to have 1 million at the turn of the century. We are down to 35,000 wild horses on public lands. That is sad and wrong.

We have responsibility over these beautiful creatures. They ought not be cut up in such an inhumane way, and shipped overseas for people who want

to eat horse meat. That is not what we are about as a country. There are so many other alternatives.

We can use animal contraception methods. We could reopen over 100 herd management areas that the Bureau of Land Management has closed. We could start centers such as the one I saw this weekend, 61 horses brought from the wild West for adoption. They came from Nevada and Wyoming and California, beautiful creatures. People in the east coast are adopting them.

There are so many things we could be doing rather than selling these beautiful creatures for horse meat. We are not just about dollars and cents. We are about the things that made our country great. The wild horse is one of those things. It inspires poetry; and if my colleagues do not understand that, I guess we can't very well communicate why this is so important to us. But I trust the majority of this Congress knows what we are talking about.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas, my friend and colleague, for yielding me this time.

I would like to bring to the subcommittee's attention and to all of the Members of the House an issue that falls under the jurisdiction of the Military Quality of Life Subcommittee, and that is the Department of Defense's security standards for buildings. I do not think that these standards really meet the test of scrutiny when applied to cost effectiveness nor to mission accomplishment. The Department of Defense has issued standards without checking with the Congress, without having any hearings and I think without fully assessing what the cost and operational impact will be.

These building security standards preclude the Department of Defense from leasing any office space in a metropolitan area because they require a setback of anywhere from 82 feet to 148 feet from the street. Under these newly issued requirements, buildings cannot have underground or rooftop parking. They cannot have retail activity on the ground floor. They basically cannot be accessible to the public or have reasonable traffic and parking plans in operation.

We have been working in Northern Virginia in concert with the Pentagon for years to get the Department of Defense employees to their work in a

cost-efficient manner and to be able to meet the Pentagon's needs.

Now they say none of your buildings qualify. Well, I am not going to go into this just for my own self-serving purposes, but I do think that when DOD issues a mandatory requirement affecting tens of thousands of people that its consequences ought to be fully considered. In this case, it is a mandate that has been imposed unilaterally, resulting in the displacement of over 23,000 Defense Department personnel in Northern Virginia. It is going to affect additional thousands of people around the country.

But beyond that, it is going to require hundreds of millions of dollars to build new buildings with this enormous setback from the street, and no one else is going to want to use these buildings. The cost premium of building these buildings that meet the prescriptive DOD standards is so excessive that no other activity is going to be able to afford the cost of these buildings. So we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars spent excessively to build buildings that will soon become outmoded by technology and common sense.

The General Services Administration has come up with an alternative, what is called a performance-based standard, as opposed to DOD's prescriptive-based standard, that provides just as much security, but they use traffic management, they harden the building, make the windows shatterproof, and move the most sensitive activities to the interior space. They use technology, they use a lot of common sense and judgment, and they accomplish the same purpose and still they can locate buildings in metropolitan areas at much less expense. They just built a building in New York that meets all of the building security standards, much less expensive than DOD wants but just as secure from terrorist attack.

So what I am suggesting is that this subcommittee look at this matter, look at the cost implications, consider whether there may be better ways of accomplishing the same security objectives. This DOD requirement is based upon protecting ourselves from a truck bomb carrying an arbitrary figure of 200 pounds of TNT, whereas a truck can carry 1,000 pounds of TNT. Furthermore, there are so many other ways a building could be attacked that these security standards don't address.

I would be happy yield to my friend, to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, would the gentleman consider some report language, requiring some feedback from the Defense Department on cost implications and alternative ways of accomplishing the same security objectives?

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend very much and look forward to fixing this situation in a fiscally efficient and operationally effective manner.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 22nd anniversary of Children's Hospice International, a ground- breaking, non-profit organization based in Alexandria, Virginia.

Since 1983, Children's Hospice International (CHI) has been a champion of children with life-threatening conditions--and their families--by calling for the U.S. healthcare system to do more to meet their medical and emotional needs.

In 1983, only four of 1,400 hospice programs in the United States were willing to accept children.

Since then, great progress has been made--and now, aided by the efforts of Children's Hospice International, 450 of about 3,000 hospices include child-specific services.

But CHI's work is far from done. The standards and training it has developed for pediatric hospice programs need to be universally adopted by hospice, palliative care, and home care programs. CHI is also working to include the hospice perspectives in all areas of pediatric care and education.

Of the 10 million children in the United States who are living with a serious chronic condition, each year about 54,000 will die without hospice services--and another 1.3 million children's lives could greatly benefit from this care.

CHI is seeking to eliminate the roadblocks in private and public insurance programs that prevent these children and their families from receiving the full range of services they need.

Historically, hospice and reimbursement guidelines--in Medicaid and most private plans--require that patients forego all life-saving care before they can be admitted to hospice, and that the patient be within the last six months of life. CHI has worked with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to facilitate State implementation of CHI PACC programs that will reduce the impact of these requirements on children and families.

These restrictions simply do not work with patients in pediatric care.

We know that the most critical time for children and family members-- when they need intensive support and guidance that hospice and palliative care programs provide--is at the point of diagnosis.

A parent should never have to choose between hospice care and the hope for a cure. And, because of the unpredictable course of many serious childhood illnesses, it is often very difficult for doctors to determine when a child is within six months of death.

Since 1997, CHI has worked with CMS to set up the Program for All- Inclusive Care for Children and their Families (CHI PACC).

Unlike traditional hospice/palliative care models, a CHI PACC program provides a continuum of care for children and their families from time of diagnosis, with hope for a cure, and through bereavement if a cure is not attained.

This program will allow states to receive federal reimbursement for a more coordinated service package than is generally provided under Medicaid, including counseling for children and families, respite care, and bereavement services. States operating CHI PACC programs through the Medicaid Home and Community-Based Waiver authority will also be able to serve children in families who earn too much to typically qualify for Medicaid.

With Congressional support, a total of 16 states are already benefiting from CHI PACC. Six states have their own CHI PACC Medicaid program in development. These are Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, New York, Utah and my state of Virginia. In addition, the New England Region is also working toward implementing CHI PACC to cover four states--Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. The Colorado program will also cover a region, providing services to patients in six additional states--Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming.

While the CHI PACC model creates a core set of standards and principles have been developed, the model itself is flexible, allowing states to tailor-make different approaches to running the program. Currently, about 30% of the children who have life-threatening conditions qualify for Medicaid. All of these children and perhaps many more will benefit from this model of care.

And with the support of my good friend, Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania, the Department of Defense is working to adopt the CHI PACC model for its health care system. Children's Hospice International is a living memorial to Ensign Alan H. Armstrong and his shipmates lost aboard the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans during the conflict in Vietnam. Armstrong is the brother of CHI Founder Ann Armstrong-Dailey.

The goal of all of these efforts is to prove the effectiveness of the CHI PACC model so that it can be adopted universally--through Medicaid, S-CHIP and private insurers.

Projections from the states developing CHI PACC programs indicate that they not only expect these programs to be budget neutral, but they hope they will actually save the taxpayers money.

Since 1983, Children's Hospice International has provided new hope to the millions of children with life threatening conditions and their families.

It is in recognition of these efforts that I want to express my personal gratitude for the work of Children's Hospice International-- and to congratulate them on their 22nd anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also submit for the Record, a poem by young Mattie J.T. Stepanek, a New York Times best selling author who passed away last summer, after a valiant fight with dysautonomic mitochondrial myopathy. Mattie volunteered for many years to be CHI's spokesperson--he is a hero and inspiration to us all CHI PACC is a living memorial to Mattie.

A New Hope

I need a hope--a new hope.

A hope that reaches for the stars, and That does not end in

violence or war.

A hope that makes peace on our earth, and That does not

create evil in the world.

A hope that finds cures for all diseases, and That does not

make people hurt, In their bodies, in their hearts, Or

most of all, in their spirits.

I need a hope--a new hope, A hope that inspires me to live,

and To make all these things happen.

So that the whole world can have A new hope, too.

--Mattie J.T. Stepanek, 1999.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which will expand the federal policy and implement stricter ethical guidelines for this research.

Embryonic stem cell research is necessary in discovering the causes of a myriad of genetic diseases, to testing new drug therapies more efficiently on laboratory tissue instead of human volunteers, and to staving off the ravages of disease with the regeneration of our bodies' essential organs.

President George W. Bush's policy on stem cell research limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cell lines that were derived by August 9, 2001, the date of his policy announcement.

Of the 78 stem cell lines promised by President Bush, only 22 are available to researchers.

Unfortunately these stem cell lines are aged and contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain. According to the majority of scientists, if these stem cell lines were transplanted into people, they would provoke dangerous viruses in humans.

What is even more disturbing is the fact that there are at least 125 new stem cell lines, which are more pristine than the lines currently available on the National Institutes of Health registry, which are ineligible for federally-funded research because they were derived after August 9, 2001.

This restrictive embryonic stem cell research policy is making it increasingly more difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act does not change the current policy on the use of federal funds; this measure simply seeks to lift the cutoff date for lines available for research.

H.R. 810 will also strengthen the ethical standards guiding the federal research on stem cell lines and will ensure that embryos donated for stem cell research were created for the purposes of in vitro fertilization, in excess of clinical need, would have otherwise be discarded and involved no financial inducement.

Contrary to what opponents have been saying, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will not federally fund the destruction of embryos.

H.R. 810 is clear that unused embryos will be used for embryonic stem cell research only by decision of the donor. No federally-funded research will be supported by this measure if the embryos were created and destroyed solely for this purpose.

In February 2005, the Civil Society Institute conducted a nationwide survey of 1,022 adults and found that 70 percent supported bipartisan federal legislation to promote embryonic stem cell research.

Let public interest triumph over ideological special interests. Public interest is best served when the medical and the scientific community is free to exercise their professional judgment in extending and enhancing human life.

I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a teacher who has made an impact on our community through selfless dedication and commitment to her students. Ms. Cynthia Dunn Kearly is a special education teacher at Douglas MacArthur Elementary School in Alexandria, Virginia. But to her students and their families, she is much more than that. An educator with gifts of creativity and passion, Ms. Kearly serves as an inspiration for what great instructors can offer.

At Douglas MacArthur Elementary School, Ms. Kearly is regularly asked to take students with special needs and foster in them confidence and success. Her work with students has not only earned her the respect of parents and her colleagues, but has also won her numerous accolades locally and nationwide. As an educator in the Alexandria City Public School system, Ms. Kearly was a recipient of the Harry Burke Award for Outstanding Performance in Special Education. This honor has been bestowed on many great teachers and Ms. Kearly's selection follows perfectly in this tradition.

Additionally, Ms. Kearly's exemplary work is being recognized nationally as well. She is one of three teachers nationwide to be awarded the 2005 Commonwealth Academy Recognition for Educators (CARE) Award. The CARE award recognizes outstanding educators who have made significant contributions to leaving no child behind in their local communities. The focus of the award is to highlight teachers who work with students that have organizational, attention and learning challenges. To her coworkers and supervisors, there is little doubt that Ms. Kearly is a worthy recipient. The Superintendent of Schools for the City of Alexandria has said about her that ``She truly exemplifies the kind of professional who should be recognized and honored for her great work with special needs students.''

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have Ms. Kearly teach within Virginia's Eighth Congressional District. She is transforming lives with her selfless dedication to serving young people in our community. I often remind friends and neighbors that good teachers are among our greatest assets in Northern Virginia. For this reason, we must take opportunities to encourage our best and brightest to commit themselves to this service, but also to thank the men and women already giving so much of themselves.

Madam Chairman, let me share with you two recent experiences that confirm why we should support the Slaughter- Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of joining NEA chairman Dana Gioa at the Folger Theater to help judge young high school students in a poetry recitation contest. As one of the judges, I had to pick a winner, but I can tell you there were no losers. It was plainly evident all were winners. Each student provided a masterful performance, had presence and demonstrated a clear and impassioned understanding of the work he or she presented from some of the English language's best poets.

It was a memorable evening. But as much as I enjoyed it, I know it left an even stronger impression on the student and the families and friends who joined them. That evening at the Folger Theater brought us all to a common point of a shared experience where barriers and pretenses were cast aside and humanity and understanding prevailed.

Last week I had a conversation with a retired school teacher who volunteers as a docent providing school tours at the National Gallery of Art. She was upset because of a decision by the gallery to suspend the volunteer-led tours for a year while a new program is developed. It didn't make sense to me and I agreed to help.

During our talk, she mentioned how art at the gallery had touched a young student she had led. He was a recent immigrant who had come from a very troubled land. His English was limited and broken but he was able to say to her that the tour had helped calm his inner turmoil and as he put it, ``helped make some of the hurt go away.''

Art touches people in ways words cannot describe. The dividend this Nation receives from the Endowment for the Arts far exceeds the investment we make with the limited Federal funds.

In Virginia, the Wolf Trap Performing Arts Center has received NEA grants for their nationally recognized artistic and education programs. In addition to year-round performances, Wolf Trap offers a variety of education programs both locally and nationwide. Its primary education program, the Wolf Trap Institute for Early Learning Through the Arts, places professional performing artists in preschool classrooms nationwide. In classroom residencies, these artists use drama, music and movement to teach basic skills and encourage active participation and self-esteem in the earliest stages of learning. Wolf Trap Institute Artists also conducts workshops and presentations throughout the country to demonstrate to teachers and parents how the arts can bring new life to learning and literature.

As we fight for education funding and standards, how can we look past the significant contribution that performing arts organizations like Wolf Trap are making across the country? This is a time when we must embrace this type of unique programming.

A modest increase in funding for the arts and humanities can make a difference creating new opportunities for hundreds of arts and humanities organizations and bringing the organizations out into the communities.

When the NEA budget has been cut, we have seen its dramatic effect on the national arts community and specifically on arts education programs developing at community centers and in our schools. Now is the time when we must invest in the cultural lives of our citizens and in our children's futures.

I cannot fathom how a Nation as rich and prosperous as ours could not find it in its heart to provide a $15 million increase, $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and $5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. We could eliminate all funding for the endowments tomorrow, and the arts and humanities would survive.

That's not the issue.

The grants NEA provides don't make or break most theater productions, studio exhibitions or symphonic performances. What NEA does with its grants is to ensure that these performances, exhibits and productions are introduced to a greater share of America.

Support the arts, support the NEA and the NEH, support the Slaugher- Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the amendment to the Department of the Interior appropriations bill being offered by Mr. Rahall and Mr. Whitfield to help save a national treasure--the wild horse. The wild horse is known throughout the world as a symbol of the American west, and we should be doing everything we can to protect it.

At the turn of the 20th century there were more than one million horses roaming the vast lands of our west, however by 1971 that number dropped to approximately 60,000 due to the actions of their main predator--humans. Public outcry and the work of a group of citizens lead by Wild Horse Annie forced Congress to find a solution and pass the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Protection Act to protect the wild horse. Throughout the years this law has been eroded, and currently, there are only 35,000 wild horses living on our lands today. Current law will only make this number decrease more rapidly.

I was saddened to learn about the provision in last year's omnibus appropriations bill that would allow the sale of any wild horse that has been rounded up and is more than ten years old. Because of this provision, at least forty-one wild horses have needlessly been slaughtered. If we do not pass this amendment to ensure that no tax dollars are used for any sale of wild thousands more could lose their lives.

There is no need for this senseless slaughter. There are other options that we can explore rather than killing this majestic animal. The Bureau of Land Management could reopen over one hundred herd management areas or use animal contraception methods to keep the size of the herds manageable. There is simply no reason for these horses to be slaughtered for use as meat in other countries.

The horse is more than just an animal to our country. It is a beloved literary figure, a character in a movie or television show, a symbol of adventure, a friend of the cowboy, and an important part of our history. William Shakespeare once stated that horses were, ``As full of spirit as the month of May, and as gorgeous as the sun in Midsummer.'' I can say it no better and encourage all of my colleagues to join me and support the Rahall-Whitfield amendment and help save the wild horse.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 196, I was delayed in traffic. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee for his success last week on legislation to improve the first responder grant program and again today for bringing bipartisan consensus legislation to the House floor.

He has crafted a good bill that deserves our support. As good as the bill is, however, I must rise in opposition to the rule. I am troubled that my colleagues Mr. Barrow and Mr. Markey and Mr. Oberstar were blocked from offering their amendments concerning rail safety to this important legislation.

If there is one lesson we should learn from the events of 9/11, it is that our enemies are fighting an unconventional war against us.

With a few zealots and even fewer resources, terrorists can manipulate our own resources and use them against us. On 9/11 aviation fuel and four commercial aircraft were turned into missiles carrying incendiary explosives.

Hardening the cockpit door, establishing new protocols to screen passengers, and a number of other measures are a prudent response to deny terrorists the use of commercial aircraft as a weapon.

I am afraid, however, that we are not being as proactive as we could or should be at preventing other commercial resources from being used as weapons that could be turned against us.

Representatives Barrow, Markey, and Oberstar have crafted thoughtful responses to a threat that has not been fully addressed: Rail security and the transportation of hazardous cargo on our rail system. It would be a national tragedy if we had to wait until another attack similar to Madrid to occur in the United States in order to commit the resources necessary to properly secure our rail and transit systems.

The measures needed to address transit security differ from aviation, but this should not be used as a justification for not providing an infusion of additional funds to address already identified high priority needs. The focus with aviation is strictly on deterrence: stopping an event from happening.

For transit and rail, deterrence is only one part of the strategy, additional resources are also needed to mitigate the impact of a potential terrorist attack and hasten the recovery after an attack. Allocating additional resources towards improving response and recovery times can save lives and lessen the economic consequences of an attack.

With the Madrid bombing, the bombs went off on multiple trains over a 10-15 minute period. Enhanced detection capabilities, communications equipment and redundancy in critical operating control functions could allow for a quicker shutdown and evacuation of a passenger rail transit system exposed to multiple attacks thereby significantly reducing the causality rate.

Transit and rail systems cannot afford to be shut down for months or even weeks following a biological attack. The economic consequences to a major metropolitan region would be devastating, not to mention the impact on the Federal Government if an attack occurred in Washington, DC. Yet, no funds have been allocated to perform a comprehensive decontamination demonstration project in a transit or rail environment.

Mr. Chairman, a 30-ton chlorine tank rail car, if ruptured, could kill thousands of people unfortunate enough to be within a few miles downwind of the attack. The railroad industry has a good safety record, but that ignores the fact that those safeguards do not assume someone is purposely trying to rupture these rail cars.

Local emergency responders in urban areas with potential targets of key infrastructure and national icons understand this threat, but are limited on what they can do to prevent an attack. Should they patrol hundreds of miles of track and rail yards or take some measures under some circumstances to reroute hazardous traffic around what we know are high probability targets?

Today, there still is no clear understanding of what hazardous material security plans have been developed. If they exist, they are not being shared or discussed with the very people, local officials and emergency response planners, who have the best information on the local geography, vulnerabilities and potential set of targets. Today, local officials are being told by the railroads and the Department of Homeland Security to ``trust us.'' I get

nervous when someone I don't know tells me to ``trust'' them.

The laws on the books today did not envision hazardous cargo as a weapon of mass destruction, and under current law interstate commerce trumps local ordinances to suspend or redirect hazardous cargo.

This presumption is now being tested in the courts. Congress should not defer to the courts on this important and weighty issue. I think we can craft a responsible resolution, but denying an important floor debate on this issue is wrong.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference committee report. But, Mr. Speaker, the American people whose sons and daughters are fighting this war and the senior military officers who are directing this war deserve to know what the White House will consider to be success in Iraq.

Now, this conference committee report includes language that would require the administration to fully evaluate the situation in Iraq and provide the Congress with measurable, achievable criteria, including the following: an assessment of the number of troops it will take to secure the peace and how those troops would be rotated; key measures of political stability, such as ratification of a national Constitution and permanent national elections now scheduled for next year; the estimated strength of the Iraqi insurgency and the extent to which it is composed of nonIraqi fighters; the operational readiness of Iraqi military forces, including the type, number, size, and organizational structure of Iraqi battalions that are capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations independently; and the readiness of Iraqi police forces to perform all duties now being undertaken by coalition forces; as well as the viability of economic sectors that are crucial to Iraq's economic recovery, as measured by unemployment levels, utility availability, and oil production rates.

The fact is that our long-term presence in Iraq will only give our enemies in the region a greater ability to recruit terrorists and build public support for violence. That is the opposite of our objective there. I do think it is past time to lay out for the American people what is our strategy for success. This language that is included in the report will require the Secretary to report no later than 60 days after the enactment of the supplemental and every 90 days thereafter. That is progress.

We support our troops. We have to complete this mission, but we also need to work together. The fact is, the American people whose sons and daughters are fighting this war do not have the ability to require this of the administration, nor do the senior military officers. It is our responsibility, and I am glad that this Congress is committed to performing that responsibility. On balance, it is a good bill, and I support it.