Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2892, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010.

While the bill provides vitally necessary funds to secure our nation's safety, it also contains a troubling provision regarding people who are currently detained at the Guantanamo Bay facility. This provision would prohibit the use of any funds in the bill to provide any immigration benefits to any Guantanamo detainee. Examples provided by the bill of such benefits include ``a visa, admission into the United States, parole into the United States, or classification as a refugee or applicant for asylum.'' The language does include the proviso that nothing in this provision prohibits detainees from being brought into the United States for prosecution.

Now, I want to prosecute and punish anyone who has sought to harm the United States or is responsible for attacks on the United States and its people. But, we do not know that everyone in Guantanamo fits into this category. There are likely people still imprisoned at Guantanamo today who are there, not because they are a threat, but because our government can not figure out what to do with them. As you know, the Bush Administration already released many people from Guantanamo who were wrongly detained there and our courts have ordered the release of others who apparently were not linked to any terrorist organization and pose no threat to the United States. There were, and possibly still are, innocent people being detained by our government at Guantanamo Bay.

It is shameful for our country to deny a visa to an innocent person who we have determined is no threat to the United States, who the United States wrongly imprisoned for years, who may be prosecuted if returned to his own country, and who the United States may not be able to send to any other country. Frankly, if they are innocent of any crime and pose no threat to the United States, they should be allowed to come to the United States. In addition, I do not see how we can deny them asylum if we determine they have a legitimate fear of persecution if sent anywhere else.

Because the Homeland Security bill provides such critical funding to first responders all over the country, and especially to my city of New York, I can not justify voting against it. Funding for these services is desperately needed.

However, I want to warn my colleagues about the dangers of reflexively adding provisions to every appropriations bill that may end up further harming innocent people who were mistakenly imprisoned by our government. If you want to make a political point that you oppose terrorists, fine. But, you have to allow for the fact that until we know for sure that all of the people remaining at Guantanamo are terrorists, it is not right to punish everyone who is there just to make a political point. We have a moral obligation to do better.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a sad day when the House has to impeach a Federal judge. Yet, today that is our constitutional duty.

Impeachment is a power that Congress rarely uses; both because it is rare that a Federal judge will so abuse his position that impeachment is required, and because it could affect the independence of the Judiciary. The Constitution reserves this extraordinary remedy for extreme cases. This, regrettably, is one of those cases.

The task force that was established by this House to inquire into whether Judge Kent should be impeached has recommended the articles of impeachment that we are considering today.

We want to commend the members of the Task Force and the Chairman, Mr. Schiff, for their independent, diligent and thorough investigation. The evidence they've assembled is copious and sobering. They've made a strong case that impeachment is both appropriate and necessary.

First, Judge Kent has pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and has been sentenced on his conviction to 33 months in prison.

As part of the plea proceedings, Judge Kent signed a statement in which he admitted and described the conduct that constituted the obstructive conduct. He adopted this signed statement under oath before the court at the time of the plea.

In this signed statement, Judge Kent admitted making false statements to a Special Investigatory Committee of the Fifth Circuit about allegations of sexually assaulting court employee. In that same document, he also admitted having ``nonconsensual sexual contact'' with two subordinate court employees.

Two of the articles of impeachment allege that Judge Kent sexually assaulted these two women. His admissions that he had nonconsensual sexual contacts with the women is, indeed, a powerful one. Any unwanted sexual touching can be considered a sexual assault, so Judge Kent, by his own words, has come close to admitting that he assaulted the women, the only remaining question being the extent of the assault, and that question has been addressed by the sworn testimony of the women before the Task Force detailing Judge Kent's repeated abuse of his authority by coercing nonconsensual sex at the price of retaining their jobs.

In short, the executive branch may prosecute a Federal judge for violation of the criminal laws, and the judicial branch may punish that Federal judge upon his conviction, but only the Congress can remove a Federal judge if it determines that his behavior renders him unfit to hold his office.

In circumstances such as these, where Judge Kent misused the power of his office to undermine, rather than to uphold, the law, and where he abused his power as a Federal judge by sexually assaulting subordinates and lying to the Fifth Circuit Investigatory Committee about that, our duty to impeach is clear.

For these reasons, I intend to vote in favor of each of the articles of impeachment now before the House. I urge all the Members of this House to do likewise.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule and preprinted in the Congressional Record on June 15.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which I offer with Representatives Mike Michaud and Carolyn Maloney. The amendment increases by $5 million the funding for the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program and offsets that by a corresponding decrease in general operating expenses in the Office of Justice.

Unlike eyewitness testimony and other circumstantial evidence, DNA evidence provides scientific accuracy and assurance. It has resulted in the conviction of countless perpetrators of violent crimes and has freed hundreds of innocent people.

It is incredible that we can identify the guilty and exclude the innocent with certainty with just a little biological evidence and a scientific test. The problem, of course, is that you actually have to collect that biological evidence, do that test, and record that information. If you do not, the power of DNA evidence is unrealized.

Unfortunately, there is a backlog in the hundreds of thousands in the analysis of DNA evidence. This backlog includes untested samples from convicted offenders and from crime scenes, including rape kits.

When such a powerful tool as DNA evidence is unused, we must act. For years I have worked to reduce the DNA backlog and helped pass legislation to do just that. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program provides grants to States to collect DNA samples from offenders and crime scenes, including rape kits, to analyze those samples and to expand DNA laboratory capacity. That money is making a difference, and we must ensure that it continues to be available.

Congress provided $151 million to the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program for fiscal year 2009 and reauthorized the program at this level through fiscal year 2014. Unfortunately, this bill cuts this by $5 million for the coming fiscal year to $146 million, and my amendment would restore it to 151.

While I understand the budgetary constraints faced by the Appropriations Committee, this program must

not be reduced when these grants mean protecting the lives of millions of innocent Americans and reducing the number of sexual assaults and rapes.

I want to thank my amendment cosponsors, Representatives Michaud and Maloney, for their help. I urge all Members to support the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in closing I want to thank Chairman Mollohan for accepting the amendment, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for not opposing it, and I want to encourage all Members to support this important increase in funding so we can reduce the DNA testing backlog, we can put guilty people behind bars, we can free innocent people, we can prevent future rapes and sexual assaults, and make our country safer.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 529 and to condemn in the strongest possible terms the shooting yesterday at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, a just society has no place for acts of violence, and such acts deserve our strong condemnation. It is a terrible tragedy any time innocent people are terrorized or murdered, and we must always speak out against such senseless conduct.

Yet the shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum was uniquely horrific, and deserving of special repudiation, for it threatened an entire group of people. It was the entire Jewish community which was the target of the deranged shooter, Mr. James Wenneker von Brunn. This hateful man has long held vicious anti-Semitic and white supremacist views, and tragically yesterday he acted on this demented outlook.

It is all the more disgusting that Mr. von Brunn carried out his evil act at the Holocaust Memorial Museum. It is there that we honor the millions of Jews and other victims of the Nazi Holocaust. It is there that we educate thousands of people each day about this genocide, with the goal that it never be forgotten and never happen again. Committing an act of anti-Semitic violence at such a hallowed place is gross beyond words.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 529 rightfully condemns the vicious shooting that took place yesterday at the Holocaust Memorial Museum. It also urges the American people to join us in condemning this horrific event, offers the condolences of the House of Representatives to the family of Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns, and reaffirms our commitment to further the mission of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, let me close by thanking Representative Ron Klein for sponsoring this resolution and repeating my emphatic denunciation of the horrific shooting. I also want to take this opportunity to offer both my personal condolences to the family of Officer Johns and my appreciation for his heroic actions and those of the other museum employees.

Offered By: Mr. Nadler of New York

Amendment No. 46: For ``Violence Against Women Prevention

and Prosecution Programs'' for Jessica Gonzales Victim

Assistants, as authorized by section 2001(b)(13) of part T of

the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42

U.S.C. 3796gg(b)(13)), and the amount otherwise provided by

this Act for ``Department of Justice--General

Administration--Salaries and Expenses'' is hereby reduced by,

$5,000,000.

Offered By: Mr. Nadler of New York

Amendment No. 31: Page 45, line 1, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

Page 45, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

Page 45, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

Page 56, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Page 58, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Page 58, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Career Gear. In June of 2009, Career Gear is celebrating its 10th Anniversary by hosting its Capital PerSuit Awards Dinner in New York,

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which expresses the sense of Congress that we should continue working with the states of the former Soviet Union to see that immigrants from those states now in the United States are paid their government pensions that they earned while working in the former Soviet Union.

The United States has bilateral agreements with many of the nations to address cross-country government pension coverage. While these agreements can structure and coordinate such pension coverage in different ways, the important point is that under most circumstances government pensions are treated with reciprocity. In other words, with respect to countries with which we have arrangements, those countries pay the pensions that they earned while working in those countries to citizens of the United States who now live here. And by the same token, we pay Social Security to Americans who are now citizens of a foreign country if they earned the Social Security while working here.

We do not have such arrangements with any of the states of the former Soviet Union--with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and so forth. This is critically important because millions of people had no choice but to flee the repressive former Soviet Union in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Several hundred thousand of these people now live in the United States and were forced to renounce their citizenship and their rights of citizenship in the Soviet Union in order to be allowed to leave. Thousands of these people live here, and in spite of having worked 30 or 40 years and earning pension rights in the states of the former Soviet Union, they do not receive pensions from any of the successor states.

So this amendment simply is a sense of the Congress urging the State Department to continue trying to negotiate such arrangements with the states of the former Soviet Union so that the former citizens of those countries who now are citizens of the United States and live here can receive the pensions they earned while living in Russia.

This should be a no-brainer. It simply urges the State Department to continue efforts to negotiate such arrangements with those states, as we have with many other states. I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Berman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

I simply want to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Berman, and the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for supporting this amendment. I know of no opposition. I urge everyone to vote for it. It is the fair and right thing to do, so I hope everyone will vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 505) condemning the murder of Dr. George Tiller, who was shot to death at his church on May 31, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 505, which condemns the murder of Dr. George Tiller, who was shot to death at his church on May 31. The resolution also offers the condolences of the House of Representatives to Dr. Tiller's family. I know that Dr. Tiller and his family are in the thoughts and prayers of every Member of the House today.

I want to commend our colleague, the distinguished chairperson of the Rules Committee, my fellow New Yorker, Ms. Slaughter, for introducing this resolution.

It is imperative that the House of Representatives speak with a united voice in condemning this crime. It is a sad reminder that medical personnel are still at risk from armed extremists who are willing to resort to deadly violence in order to advance their causes even when they cloak their cause in the language of life. There can never be room in a free society for the use of deadly violence to advance a cause. It is against everything this country stands for. I have no doubt there isn't a single Member of this House who would disagree.

This resolution renews our commitment to the American principle that tolerance must always be superior to intolerance and that violence is never an appropriate response to differences and belief.

As deplorable as this murder was, it was all the more reprehensible because the victim was targeted as he was leaving church. In the past 10 years, 38 people have been murdered in their place of worship and 30 more have been wounded.

Dr. Tiller was a controversial figure. He was the target of threats and even a prior shooting because of his dedication to providing needed, if unpopular, services. He was murdered solely because of the work he did. The continued violence directed at abortion providers, including doctors and the people who staff their clinics, is well- known. Bombings, shootings, vandalism, and harassment all serve to warn women and their health care providers that they may pay a terrible price if they choose to avail themselves of their rights under the Constitution.

This was not the first time a health care provider was similarly targeted. I am sure every Member of this House and every decent American, however they may feel or whatever they may believe on the question of abortion, will insist that this and every other question must be decided by our legal, constitutional, and democratic processes and not by murderous violence. I am sure we all condemn those people or groups who espouse or excuse domestic terrorism.

But while violence has long been directed at the clinics and the people who work there, this time the killer chose, in addition, to invade the sanctity of the Sabbath. Murderous intolerance is never justified; even so, the idea of bringing death and mayhem to a house of worship strikes all people as particularly reprehensible. These acts include the murder of an Illinois pastor in the pulpit in March of this year; the murder of an Ohio minister in November of last year; the murder of an usher and a guest during a children's play in a Tennessee church in July of last year; the murder of four family members in a church in Louisiana in May 2006; and the shooting of a worshipper outside a synagogue in Florida in October 2005; not to mention the attempted bombings of two synagogues in Riverdale in the Bronx just a few weeks ago. Whether these acts of violence target one individual or an entire community of faith, we must all join together and speak out against them.

I urge all of my colleagues to stand up to those who would bring their reign of terror into a house of worship and those who would seek to change American law by violence and unconstitutional means to express their opprobrium of this conduct by supporting this resolution condemning the murder of George Tiller and extending the condolences of this House to the members of Dr. Tiller's family.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chairperson of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Does that mean the gentleman has declined his right to a closing?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution condemns the murder of Dr. Tiller. It condemns the murder of people who are murdered in church and places of worship. It condemns the practice, and it has become a practice, of seeking to change the laws of this country, of seeking to intimidate women from availing themselves of their rights, of their constitutional right to an abortion, of intimidating doctors from availing themselves of their constitutional right to perform medical procedures that are legal and that they believe are moral by threats of murder and mayhem.

I was glad to hear Mr. Smith say that the pro-life movement is nonviolent, and I'm sure that most of it is. But, unfortunately, it is clear that there are some people, a small minority, who believe themselves part of the pro-life movement who are not nonviolent. And these people have engaged in such conduct and have murdered several providers of abortion simply for doing what they believe to be the right thing, what I believe to be the right thing, and, more importantly, what the law allows them to do, and to intimidate other people from doing this.

This resolution, which I trust every Member of this House will vote for, says that we do not believe in trying to change the law by violence. We do not believe in domestic terrorism, defining ``terrorism'' as an attempt to change the law through murder and violence and mayhem. We believe in constitutional processes. And if every single one of us does not believe in that, then we have no moral superiority over the terrorists that we condemn around the world.

So I trust everyone will vote for this resolution to express our horror of what was done in this instance, to express our belief that social change, if necessary, will be brought about by peaceful democratic debate and by votes, not by bullets, and that this country stands for the evolution of law by debate and by consideration and by democratic means. I urge everyone to vote for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 515) condemning the murder of Army Private William Long and the wounding of Army Private Quinton Ezeagwula, who were shot outside the Army Navy Career Center in Little Rock, Arkansas, on June 1, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 515 rightly condemns the murder of Army Private William Long and the wounding of Army Private Quinton Ezeagwula, who were shot outside the Army Navy Career Center in Little Rock, Arkansas, on June 1, 2009.

This dastardly attack on two young Americans who were simply standing outside the Armed Forces Recruiting Center where they worked should shock the conscience of all Americans.

Private Long, who was 23, was murdered. Private Ezeagwula, who is 18, was wounded. They had answered their call to service and were willing to lay down their lives for their country, but the deadly attack came here at home, not on a field of battle halfway across the world.

There are more than 1.4 million Active members of the Armed Forces protecting America, and more than 1.2 million Reserve members. There are more than 8,000 Army and Army Reserve recruiters, and more than 7,000 Navy recruiters, serving at more than 1,500 military recruiting stations and centers in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Europe. Each one of these men and women are courageous patriots who deserve our support, and this deadly attack is nothing short of dastardly.

This resolution offers the condolences of this House to the family of Private Long, expresses our hopes for a full recovery for Private Ezeagwula, and urges that the perpetrator or perpetrators of this senseless shooting be brought to justice.

I want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), for introducing this resolution. It is an appropriate statement of what I note to be the views of every Member of this House. At a time like this, it is important for all of us to stand together to support our men and women in uniform and to speak with one voice against violence directed against them.

I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Well, I won't take that, but I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we ask every member of our armed services--2.6 million men and women in the Active and Reserve forces--to be willing to lay down their lives for our country in defense of our freedom, if need be, and they are willing to do that. And every time, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else around the globe, a member of our armed services is killed in action there is a grieved family, a lover, a wife, a husband, a mother, a father, a son, a daughter for all of these who are grieved and whose loss can never be made up. And we sometimes, except on Memorial Day, forget about that. And this happens all the time, too often, and we don't think about it too much. We ought to think about it because our freedoms are dependent on it; our way of life is dependent on it. And none of us would be here enjoying our freedoms if it weren't for the willingness of our sons and daughters to do what they have to do to keep us safe and free.

This resolution does not address all of that; it simply addresses two members of our armed services, one of whom was killed and one of whom was severely wounded. But the difference is that they weren't in a combat zone; they were murdered and wounded here at home, supposedly in a safe place. And it illustrates that even here at home not everyone is safe.

So this resolution mourns the death of Private Long and the wounding of Private Ezeagwula, and it extends our condolences to the family of Private Long and our wishes for the best recovery to Private Ezeagwula. It is little enough that we can do, but it is really all we can do at this point. It says we are grateful. It reminds us of the sacrifices that are made.

I appreciate Mr. Franks' introduction of this resolution. I urge everyone to support it. And as with the resolution I spoke of earlier today, I cannot believe anyone will not support it. So I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 515) condemning the murder of Army Private William Long and the wounding of Army Private Quinton Ezeagwula, who were shot outside the Army Navy Career Center in Little Rock, Arkansas on June 1, 2009, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Arizona if he is prepared to yield back at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Authorization Act (HR 2200). For the most part, this bill is a good bill. However, it contains a troubling provision extending the deadline to screen 100 percent of air cargo on passenger planes bound for the United States.

Each year, over 6 billion pounds of cargo are transported on passenger planes within, or to, the United States. Almost half of this amount, 3.3 billion pounds of cargo, is carried on passenger planes that originate in foreign countries bound for the United States. There is no active requirement that this cargo be screened for explosives. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed legislation to strengthen aviation security, but it failed to address this glaring loophole.

Just two years ago, Congress finally passed legislation implementing all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations (H.R. 1 in the 110th Congress), requiring 100 percent screening of air cargo by August 2010. Even though this deadline is more than a full year away, Section 201 of H.R. 2200 as reported by the Committee appears to grant TSA up to an additional two years from the date of enactment of this bill to screen inbound cargo for explosives. It makes no good sense to provide an extension a full year in advance of the current deadline.

We must not wait to impose security measures until cargo reaches the United States. If we wait to check for a bomb on a plane when it arrives in Newark, or Miami, or Los Angeles, it may be too late. Congress recognized this and intentionally set a deadline for screening all air cargo abroad. We will have to reach international agreements to implement the requirement, and in some cases that could be challenging, but it is precisely for this reason that Congress set an aggressive deadline. It has been almost eight years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. We should have implemented 100 percent air cargo screening years ago. Only with vigorous oversight can we be sure that all stakeholders involved finally take action on this vital national security measure.

The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA) and Families of September 11th also oppose the inclusion of this provision. We search little old ladies' shampoo bottles. Certainly, we can screen cargo in the belly of the plane for explosives.

I am also concerned about Section 405 of the bill, which would require that any person detained at the Guantanamo Bay facility on or after January 1, 2009 must be placed on the no-fly list. As the Distinguished Chairman has made clear, ``regardless of the nature of the disposition'' of their case. This provision could lead to extremely bizarre results. For example, a person who was cleared of any wrongdoing, and who has been shown to be not a threat to the United States, would still be required to be placed on the no-fly list. Where is the sense in that? We now know that most of the people who have been held at Guantanamo at one time or another were not a threat, and were not in fact guilty of engaging in hostilities against the United States. There are people still imprisoned at Guantanamo today who are there, not because they are a threat, but because our government can't figure out what to do with them. The Uigers, who are viewed as terrorists only by the repressive regime in Beijing, would be labeled as terrorists and added to the no-fly list. Is that the policy we want on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre?

I must reluctantly vote ``no'' on final passage.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Susan J. Spungin. In March of 2009, the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) awarded the M.C. Migel Medal to Dr. Spungin at their Josephine L. Taylor Leadership Institute in Washington, DC.

The M.C. Migel Medal was established in 1937 by the late M.C. Migel, the first chairperson of the American Foundation for the Blind. The award was created to honor professionals and volunteers whose dedication and achievements have improved the lives of people who are blind or visually impaired. It is the highest honor in the blindness field.

This year's recipient, Dr. Spungin recently retired from her position as Vice President of International Programs and Special Projects at the American Foundation for the Blind, and as Treasurer of the World Blind Union.

An internationally renowned expert on the education and rehabilitation of individuals who are blind or visually impaired, Dr. Spungin joined AFB in 1972 as a national specialist in education. In this capacity, she identified nationwide issues affecting blind, deaf- blind, and severely visually impaired children and youths, and worked in partnership with schools, agencies, state departments of education, universities, the federal government, and other organizations to resolve those issues. Additionally, she was instrumental in shaping the American Foundation for the Blind's research and policy work, specifically, its national programs in the areas of early childhood development, aging, employment, rehabilitation teaching, low vision, orientation and mobility, and career education.

Dr. Spungin's leadership and influence within the field of blindness and vision impairment are evident in her many publications and workshops, lectures, and keynote speeches she's presented around the world; in her mentorship of newer leaders in the field; and the awards and honors she has received and the enormous respect and reverence that greet her wherever she goes.

Dr. Spungin's forty-four years of distinguished work on education and rehabilitation of blind people in national and international arenas is commendable and fully deserving of the commendation of the M.C. Migel Medal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly support the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009, H.R. 2346.

A lot has changed since we last voted on supplemental spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American people have spoken and we have elected a new President who has promised to end the conflict in Iraq. The President ordered a full review of our military policy and announced a firm date for the removal of combat troops from Iraq--August 2010. It is not as early as I would have liked, but he has announced that the end is in sight and he will draw that conflict to a close. This bill is consistent with that plan to safely redeploy our troops out of Iraq.

I am, however, deeply concerned about our plans for Afghanistan. Immediately following the attacks of September 11, 2001, I fully supported the initial war in Afghanistan. I support our efforts to destroy terrorist training camps and to pursue and defeat Al-Qaeda wherever it may be. I support providing the military equipment and support to our troops that they need to ensure their safety.

I am more concerned, frankly, with the problem of mission creep. It is one thing to seek to ensure that Al-Qaeda cannot use sanctuaries in Afghanistan to plan attacks on the United States. It is quite another to seek to remake Afghanistan. I doubt very much that we will be able to eradicate their poppy crops, end corruption, and ensure equal rights for all in Afghanistan. Nor is it our job to remake Afghanistan.

I am voting for this bill today, because it provides the funds for an orderly withdrawal from Iraq to an Administration I trust to arrange such an orderly withdrawal as soon as possible. It also supplies funds for aid to Israel, for combating HIV/AIDS, for combating the swine flu, and for many other worthwhile projects. But I want to be clear. I will not support an open-ended long term commitment in Afghanistan. I am concerned that the goals may very well be too ambitious, too vague, and too costly--in lives and treasure--for our country. I will continue to monitor the situation closely, and I will oppose funding for unrealistic mission creep.

I do not take these votes lightly, and these votes do not occur in a vacuum. As circumstances both on the ground and, quite frankly, within the United States government change, each vote for military funding must be considered on its own merits. At this point, with a new Administration here in the United States and with the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan particularly dire, I have decided to vote in favor of the Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly remarkable New Yorker, Dr. Joel M. Levy, as he retires from the YAI/National Institute for People with Disabilities Network (NIPD).

After forty years of dedicated service and leadership on behalf of people with disabilities, Dr. Levy helped grow YAI/NlPD from a small and struggling agency into one of the nation's leading providers of services for people of all ages with developmental and learning disabilities.

Dr. Levy played a key role in transforming the field of disabilities and dramatically improving the lives of thousands of individuals and families.

Dr. Levy's inspirational efforts helped create innumerable opportunities for those with developmental disabilities to experience greater independence, productivity and joy through community living, meaningful employment and volunteer activities. Furthermore, he has ensured that people with disabilities have access to quality physical and mental health care.

And because of his commitment, Dr. Levy has positioned YAI/NIPD as an internationally acclaimed professional organization renowned for its conferences, training materials, research and publications in this field.

In the course of a long and distinguished career, Dr. Levy has given hope to people with developmental and learning disabilities and their families.

On behalf of myself and all New Yorkers, I thank Dr. Levy for his years of service to people with disabilities and their families and wish him a happy and healthy retirement.