Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I submit clarification of my vote on rollcall No. 503 the Hensarling Amendment No. 6, to H.R. 2997. I mistakenly voted ``nay'' when I intended to vote ``yea.''

Part C Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Campbell

Madam Chair, I come to the House of Representatives to encourage my colleagues to support and fund an urgent national security priority--the creation of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, also known as NBAF.

From a rancher feeding his cattle this morning in Washington, Kansas, to a family sitting down for supper tonight here in Washington, D.C., Americans need to know that the United States is prepared to handle an outbreak of dangerous animal disease that could harm our country's economy and our food supply.

Our nation's current animal disease research center, located at Plum Island, New York, is well over 50 years old and can no longer meet our needs. With today's threat of bioterror attack, as well as the threat of natural and accidental outbreaks of foreign animal diseases, it is clear that more research capacity is needed. NBAF is needed to concentrate our efforts to assess disease threats to livestock, wildlife and humans, and to develop the vaccines and countermeasures against these threats. A modern, safe animal disease research laboratory is critical for protecting our country.

After years of study and a rigorous selection process, in January, the Department of Homeland Security unanimously chose to build NBAF at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas. DHS found Kansas State University to be the best fit for this critical mission. Kansas was chosen because of the State's existing biosecurity research infrastructure, skilled animal science workforce, strong citizen support, and large cost-share contribution. At the time, NBAF was expected to be completed by 2015.

Despite the fact that there has never been stronger need for accelerated animal disease research, I am incredibly disappointed that NBAF may now be delayed. The President requested $36 million in 2010 for NBAF design and construction. I have concerns that this investment is inadequate for moving forward with this security priority. But as the House today considers H.R. 2892, the FY 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, it appears that even the President's requested funding amount may not be provided. Citing safety concerns with researching foot and mouth disease, FMD, on the mainland, the spending bill provides no funding for NBAF. In addition, the bill requires yet another FMD risk analysis.

As a Member of Congress who represents a large agricultural district, I understand the importance of determining the risks associated with conducting FMD research, whether on an island or in the middle of the country. What we know is that studies by experts at DHS and elsewhere say that FMD can be safely studied on the mainland, as it is done in other countries like Canada, just across our northern border. Modern biocontainment technology has eliminated the need for locating this work on an island, like we did decades ago. The same state-of-the-art research methods and facilities allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research dangerous human diseases in the city of Atlanta. While I understand the risk associated with the research of any dangerous disease, it should not blind us to the risk of inaction. The bottom line is that if we do not build NBAF and increase our capacity to combat diseases, our country will be less safe.

The research that will be performed at NBAF is critical to secure America's food supply and protect our agricultural industries from animal disease outbreaks. A modern facility that can respond to outbreaks is urgently needed and must remain a top priority for the U.S. As the appropriations process moves forward, I strongly encourage my colleagues in Congress to fund and support NBAF.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, there is an assertion, a story around Congress today that with the adoption of the Peterson amendment, the negotiations between the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and the chairman of the Commerce Committee, that this bill somehow now becomes acceptable, something advantageous for those of us who represent rural America. I can assure my colleagues, Republican or Democrat, who come from rural America and who represent agricultural interests that nothing could be further from the truth. While the Peterson amendment substantially improves the bill, at least modestly improves the bill, the end result is nothing but something that is disadvantageous and negative for rural economies.

Agriculture had thought at one point in time there would be something they could gain from sequestering carbon in the soil, and yet this bill still provides no assurance that the EPA--not the Department of Agriculture, but that the EPA will allow that to occur. If they would, then the Department of Agriculture is involved; but once again, agriculture is not even mentioned in this bill in regard to offsets.

In addition to that, the electric cooperatives are still disadvantaged. If you come from rural America, the allowances that this bill allows are advantages to those who live on the west and east coasts, and yet those of us who represent some of the poor areas of the country, we will be transferring our income and wealth to those coasts.

This bill, in my opinion, is a jobs bill, as indicated by the gentleman from

Massachusetts, but it is a jobs elimination bill. This bill creates a significant competitive disadvantage for American small business and agriculture as we try to compete in the global economy in which other countries do not abide by these caps, rules, or regulations.

I would assert that during my time in Congress there is no piece of legislation that will be more damaging to the future of rural America, to the future of small farms and businesses than the bill that is before us today. This bill--a jobs bill, as described by the gentleman from Massachusetts--is a job elimination bill, not a job creation bill. I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, who come from the Midwest, who come from rural America to vote ``no.''

From its very beginning in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, has been forced upon Members of Congress with little time to consider the significant and potentially damaging consequences of this legislation.

On June 12th of this month, the Committee on Agriculture, on which I serve, held a 7-hour hearing to review this bill. We quickly learned that there is little solid economic analysis on how this legislation will affect our economy. Preliminary evidence makes it clear it will increase the cost of energy and, with it, the cost of everything we use in our lives on a daily basis.

We do know that the Congressional Budget Office has said this bill will raise government revenue by $846 billion over the next 10 years. In everyday terms, that means a huge tax increase. $846 billion, however, is just the beginning.

H.R. 2454 is permanent, and after the 10-year period analyzed by the CBO, free carbon allowances are phased out, auctioned carbon allowances are phased in, and total allowances are reduced. This means that future generations will be forced to pay much more than that indicated in the initial 10-year budget estimate.

Although billed as cap-and-trade, in reality Waxman-Markey is a cap- and-tax bill. Instead of government directly levying a tax, this legislation disguises that tax as a carbon allowance auction that subsequently requires electrical generation companies, petroleum, and other biofuel refiners, manufacturers, and others to collect the tax through increased costs.

The consequences go far beyond the price and our ability to turn on the lights in rural America. Kansans, who

must always travel great distances to work, to school, and to receive their medical care, will pay disproportionately compared to those who have shorter distances to travel and can use public transportation.

Some had hope that agriculture and rural America would actually benefit, somehow be made whole under this legislation. Under Waxman- Markey, this clearly is not the case.

Despite great potential for agriculture to sequester carbon, agriculture is not mentioned once in the section that defines offsets. Instead, H.R. 2454 directs the EPA to define the world of carbon offsets. This will lead to few benefits for farmers and ranchers and will allow the EPA to further intrude upon our farms.

EPA has consistently made harmful decisions that fail the test of common sense. Unless agricultural offsets are expressly defined and sole authority is given to the Department of Agriculture, farmers will never see benefits from this legislation.

But even if those offsets are defined and USDA is given that authority, it is difficult to see how agriculture will overcome the increased cost of inputs caused by this cap-and-tax system. In the best case scenario under Waxman-Markey, a farmer could mitigate 10 to 50 percent of the cost of the legislation. In the worst case scenario, farmers and ranchers could find themselves unable to access the carbon offset market at all and be forced to bear the full cost of this legislation. Either way, any hope for profitability in agriculture is bleak.

I am especially concerned about the livestock sector. Unlike crop farmers, ranch operations and feed yards have few opportunities to accumulate carbon - offsets.

Much emphasis has been placed upon our Nation's economic recovery since the market collapse of last fall. This bill is almost certain to destroy any chance of economic recovery if enacted in its current form.

Congress should be allowed to obtain sound technical and economic analysis and address this legislation's many, many, many flaws. If further legislative debate is denied, then we must do what common sense demands and defeat this bill. Congress rarely gets things right when we have ample time to properly consider policy changes, but it has never made good decisions when rushed by arbitrary timetables.

Congress should abandon the current pace set by the Speaker of the House. Otherwise, Members of Congress will have abdicated their responsibilities and farmers and ranchers, rural America, and in fact, the entire country will suffer the consequences.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2847, the Commerce,

Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010:

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Moran

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Agency/Account: DOJ, COPS Law Enforcement Technology

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Dodge City Police Department

Address of Requesting Entity: 110 W. Bruce St., Dodge City, KS 67801

Description of Project: I have secured $200,000 for the Dodge City Police Department Equipment and Technology Upgrade Project. Funding will be used for a variety of equipment and technology upgrades that includes crime scene mapping and surveying upgrades, building security and safety cameras, and training room upgrades.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Moran

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Agency/Account: DOJ, COPS Law Enforcement Technology

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Liberal Police Department

Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 2199, Liberal, KS 67905

Description of Project: I have secured $200,000 for the Liberal Police Department Equipment Upgrade Project. The department is in serious need of some upgrades to current equipment including portable and car radios, mobile vehicle recorders, firearms, and holsters. Their current radios are between 7 to 10 years old and are beginning to deteriorate. Patrol vehicles are equipped with mobile vehicle recorders which are 6 to 7 years old and have started to deteriorate as well. Funding will be used for the City of Liberal Equipment Upgrade Project to help remedy this situation.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Moran

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Agency/Account: DOJ, OJP-Byrne Jag Program

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Hutchinson Police Department

Address of Requesting Entity: 210 W. 1st, Hutchinson, KS 67501

Description of Project: I have secured $200,000 for the Hutchinson Police Department Emergency Response Team Equipment Upgrade Project. The Hutchinson Police Department is in great need of upgrading their tactical team equipment to include funding for new tactical body armor, helmets, weapon systems, cell disrupter, surveillance equipment and throw phone. Funding will be used to upgrade these much needed items.

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to announce the sad passing of Dr. Bob Frederick, a distinguished Kansan and exceptional human being.

Dr. Frederick served as athletic director at the University of Kansas for 14 years, the second longest tenure in the school history, and a period during which the Jayhawk athletics achieved 32 conference championships and generated 41 Academic All-Americans, the latter of which I'm sure meant the most to Dr. Frederick, as that is the kind of person he was.

Dr. Frederick felt most concerned about the well-being of student athletes. First as a coach and later as an athletic director, he showed that concern as he personally took an interest in the students at Kansas University that were also engaged in the intense dedication that it takes to be a college athlete today.

While very competitive by nature, he was as gracious in defeat and as much a class act as any athletic director there ever was. For Dr. Frederick, the bottom line was not about winning but, rather, about improving and advancing the lives of young men and women.

Dr. Frederick loved Kansas. As part of the university for 35 years, beginning with his bachelor's and master's degrees and walking onto the basketball team to his years of serving as assistant basketball coach, athletic director, and finally as administrator and assistant professor, it is clear Dr. Frederick and Kansans were meant for each other.

Dr. Frederick is perhaps best known for his bold hire of then-unknown assistant basketball coach Roy Williams in 1989. Williams, who would achieve the winningest decade of any first-time head coach in NCAA history, said of Dr. Frederick, ``He is the finest gentleman I've ever known in my life.''

A basketball coach himself at Russell and Lawrence High Schools, as well as Coffeyville Community College in Kansas, Dr. Frederick was cherished on all sides of our great State. I wish to offer this tribute to an outstanding gentleman, Dr. Bob Frederick, and express my sincere condolences to his wife, Margey, and his four sons. My thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened by the news of yesterday's shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum and express my condolences to the victim's family.

It is unfortunate that, even in today's world, there are still individuals who choose to deny the tragic events of the Holocaust. In the face of those who adhere to hatred, we must continue to stress the importance of knowledge over ignorance, with the hope that we can prevent future tragedies such as this.

And that is just what the Holocaust Museum strives to do. Each year, some 2 million people from around the world visit the museum where they are confronted with a record of the horrors of the Holocaust so that no one can deny its existence. The museum not only reminds us of the atrocities of the Holocaust, but it shows us what happens when hatred, intolerance, and ignorance are allowed to direct the actions of men. The museum calls each one of us to recognize the humanity in all people, regardless of our differences. Its role in educating visitors about the responsibilities each individual has and its efforts to promote tolerance, understanding, and acceptance continue to be needed.

I wish to express my condolences to the family, friends and coworkers of Stephen T. Johns. The outstanding courage demonstrated by Mr. Johns and all those who serve to protect citizens should not be taken for granted. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

This week we are experiencing Iran's presidential election. While the election is noteworthy, it will probably not have an impact on Iran's illegal nuclear program. Unlike in the United States, the President of Iran has minimal influence over the country's national security policies. Those decisions are controlled by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, the unelected head of Iran's theocratic regime.

The supreme leader has vowed to continue Iran's nuclear program, and unfortunately we see evidence of this. Just last Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has sped up production of nuclear fuel and installed more centrifuges in advance of the election. Nuclear weapons experts say Iran now has enough centrifuge capacity to fuel up to two nuclear weapons a year.

Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons regardless of who is president. It would be a mistake for the Obama administration and this Congress to wait and see what direction Iran takes if a new president is elected because the course appears to be already determined. If we are going to engage Iran, we must do so right away, immediately, and back engagement with tougher actions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to express confusion and concern. For much of the week, I have tried to find an answer to the question about why automobile dealerships across the country are being closed. I thought maybe this week I would return to Washington, D.C., and find the solution, that someone would know and provide an explanation. I cannot understand how closing automobile dealerships, those who sell automobiles, is advantageous to the bottom line, the profit of General Motors or Chrysler. This can't be a market-based decision. There must be some political consideration that is ongoing to encourage these dealerships to be closed.

The closing of those dealerships is devastating to communities as well as the businesses that we are closing, and at the same time provide no economic improvement in the bottom line of our automobile manufacturers.

So, Mr. Speaker, I again ask those of my colleagues and those at the White House, the automobile task force, is it a political consideration that is occurring to encourage General Motors and Chrysler to disenfranchise their franchisees or is there some market-based decision on which this is based? And yet no one can provide that answer.

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, June 6, 2009 marks the 65th anniversary of D-day.

Sixty-five years ago, 150,000 Allied soldiers, many of them just teenagers, braved tumbling seas, inclement weather, waves of machinegun fire and millions of land mines to take a stretch of beach at a place called Normandy. The bravery and sacrifice of these young men began the Allied effort to liberate Europe from Nazi occupation during World War II. D-day signaled the beginning of the end for the brutal fascist regime bent on global domination, and the return of hope to millions across the world.

With the enormity and significance of D-day, it is often difficult for our minds to comprehend that such a historic undertaking was carried out by individual everyday Americans. However these individuals were not ordinary people. Rather, they possessed profound determination, courage and commitment to purpose and were led by extraordinary leaders with unrivaled character and unmatched vision.

No star shined brighter at this dangerous hour than one of our greatest Kansas sons, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Dwight D. Eisenhower, a boy from Abilene, Kansas, grew up to serve America as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces during World War II and later as our 34th President. During the most difficult days of World War II, General Eisenhower made the crucial and controversial decisions necessary for victory.

With the responsibility of Operation Overlord, the largest amphibious invasion in the history of the world, General Eisenhower was fully aware that weather would play a critical factor in the success of D-day and the safety of hundreds of thousands of troops. Under the full weight of these consequences, he elected to delay the massive undertaking by one day due to weather concerns. Faced with only marginally better weather forecast the next day, June 6, 1944, he ordered the commencement of the operation and took sole responsibility for this critical decision, a choice that ultimately determined the outcome of the war.

General Eisenhower's words to his troops on D-day are inscribed at the national World War II Memorial. He is quoted, ``You are about to embark on the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven for many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. I have full faith in your confidence, in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory.''

No one understood the historical enormity of D-day more than General Eisenhower. His sense of responsibility was profound. Following the successful landing at Normandy, one of Eisenhower's aides discovered a note that Eisenhower had scribbled before the invasion. It read, ``Our landings in the area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold, and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air, and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.''

In these current times of great national challenges, we need leaders who possess the same sense of responsibility.

I'm honored to serve as a Commissioner on the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission. The Commission was established by Congress in 1999, and it is charged with creating a permanent national memorial to our World War II hero and 34th President. Following a rigorous selection process, the commission has selected a world-renowned architect, Frank Gehry, as the lead designer for the memorial. The National Eisenhower Memorial will reflect Ike's great legacy and his optimism for America's future. It will illustrate his love of democracy and country, and his faith in international cooperation and understanding. In fact, his memorial will be the first to reach out to international visitors in their own languages.

President Eisenhower represents the best of Kansas and the best of America. This weekend, as we pause to remember those veterans who selflessly gave their lives for the cause of freedom on a foreign French beach 65 years ago, my hope is that we will reflect upon the principled leadership, conviction and commitment shown by General Eisenhower, a man who never forgot that his first responsibility was to lead a coalition to the best of his ability to victory. Indeed, we currently face tough

and uncertain times ourselves, but in these difficult times, it is important to remember President Eisenhower's words: ``America is exactly as strong as the initiative, courage, understanding and loyalty of our individual citizen.''

Imagine, if you can, living in a place so plagued by war and kidnapping that you have to walk up to 12 miles a day just to find a place to sleep at night that's safe. As Americans, I don't think we can fully grasp what that would be like. But, for thousands of children living in northern Uganda today, this is their daily commute. This is their life.

For fear of being abducted by rebel leader Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army, children living in rural homes and villages would walk to town centers to sleep where they could hope to be safe. The children were among the victims of a conflict that began in 1986, and that somehow still continues today in Uganda and neighboring countries.

Lacking support from the local population, Kony resorted to kidnapping children as young as 8 years old and conscripting them to his army. The children have been brutalized and forced to commit atrocities on fellow abductees and even siblings. The vicious initiations were meant to break the children's ties to their community and gain their loyalty to the LRA. More than 25,000 children have been abducted over the course of this 23-year conflict.

While many Americans first learned about this issue when they saw a film made by college-age students called Invisible Children, many more remain unaware of the violence and suffering happening half a world away. I was recently reminded of the severity of this situation when students in my hometown of Hays and the community of Sterling, Kansas, shared with me the latest news from this conflict.

In 2006, many were hopeful a peace agreement could be reached to allow a new generation of children to finally live a life free of fear. Although it appeared progress had been made, Kony

refused to sign the final agreement in 2008, and instead escalated his attacks. Since then, the LRA has killed more than 1,000, including more than 200 on Christmas Day. The LRA has also abducted more than 450 children during this time.

A few weeks ago, concerned citizens from around the world, in more than 100 cities, participated in an event called the Rescue to raise awareness about the conflict and call on their elected officials-- people here in this House of Representatives--to take action. Two of these events were held in my home State--in Wichita and Kansas City.

I'm here today to join my voice with the voices of those that participated in the Rescue and to call on Congress to support efforts to end the violence and to rebuild shattered lives.

People look to the United States to defend those who cannot help themselves, to free the oppressed, and to champion the cause of freedom. This Congress can be the voice for those who have none.

As Brandon Nimz, a student at Fort Hayes State University, who is active in raising awareness about this issue, said in a recent letter to the editor, ``In this time when the world does not look very kindly toward the United States, I believe we must show everyone that we're not driven solely by a need for power and influence--we do have a heart. Even though we will receive no political or economic gains by helping these defenseless villagers in the five affected African nations, it is the right thing to do.''

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, tonight let us show that America does indeed have that heart. Please join me in doing the right thing by taking action to help this conflict and protect the helpless.

The secret ballot is fundamental to free and fair elections--and they're the hallmark of the democratic process. Most every time Americans go to the polls to vote, they do so by the means of a secret ballot. Secret ballots protect the voter's privacy and allow the individual to vote his or her conscience without fear of reprisal from those who disagree with the voter's decision.

As a Nation, we celebrate when the citizens of other countries who were previously denied to vote in free and fair elections are finally able to do so. We watched with pride several years ago as Iraqis braved terrorist threats to cast their vote by secret ballot.

Mr. Speaker, if the secret ballot is used by Americans in local, State, and Federal elections, if the secret ballot is used by citizens of other nations for which American soldiers have sacrificed, don't American workers also deserve this fundamental right?

If you can ask Kansans, they will say, Yes, workers do deserve the right to a secret ballot election. A recent poll found that 65 percent of Kansans surveyed believe that the secret ballot should remain in use for union organizing.

Yet, despite the centrality of the secret ballot to our conception of fairness and public support for its use, many in Congress are pushing for the passage of legislation that would do away with this longstanding principle. In its place, the Employee Free Choice Act would allow unions to form if a majority of workers signed authorization cards--a process known as ``card check.''

Without giving workers the protection of a secret ballot, each person's choice would be known to others. It is not unreasonable to believe that those who choose not to sign authorization cards would be subject to intimidation and coercion.

While this should be reason enough to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act, the legislation is further flawed. Provisions within the legislation require a mandatory arbitration process that would allow the Federal Government to dictate contract terms on businesses if a first contract is not agreed to within 120 days. The contract would be binding for 2 years and would cover decisions that are best left to company leaders that understand the specifics of that business and are most familiar with the competitive forces that the business faces.

In these difficult economic times, the government-imposed and - written contracts would have an especially devastating impact on businesses that would further delay our economic recovery. Allowing the government to impose contracts on private firms and their workers would effectively allow the government to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.

The Employee Free Choice Act is bad for workers and bad for the economy.

Congress should reject this legislation and refocus its effort on initiatives that would protect the rights and privacy of American workers and strengthen the economy by creating conditions in which businesses can grow, prosper, and create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, in January, shortly after taking office, President Obama ordered the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base within the year. Up to 250 detainees who are suspects from the war on terrorism will be processed and moved, possibly to facilities located inside the United States. The U.S. disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is apparently one of the facilities under consideration to house these prisoners.

I have visited Fort Leavenworth, the city of Leavenworth, and surrounding communities. I have talked to city officials, local businesses, and State legislators. I have spoken to U.S. military officers and foreign military students attending the Army's Command and General Staff College located at the fort.

Simply stated, Fort Leavenworth is a poor fit for placing Guantanamo detainees. Fort Leavenworth is known as the ``Intellectual Center of the Army,'' where the leaders of our military and foreign militaries are educated. However, should these politically sensitive detainees be located at the fort, many countries will likely discontinue sending military students to America to be trained. This action would disrupt Fort Leavenworth's primary mission of military education. It would greatly impair a successful international military student program that has spread good will around the world for 100 years.

Additionally, our country should not make Fort Leavenworth's soldiers and their families and northeast Kansas unfairly bear this responsibility at the cost of their safety and economic well-being. The 3,000 residents who live on post as well as the residents of nearby communities would be living at a higher security risk. Since the fort has no major medical facilities, dangerous detainees would need to be transported to a local hospital or V.A. for medical attention. Local public safety officials are not capable of handling a terrorist incident or protests that may occur and would require greater resources. The need to increase security at the fort would likely close off citizen access to Sherman Airfield, the only public airport in Leavenworth, as well as stop rail and river barge traffic that runs to the post. These actions would have significant economic consequences.

Finally, the fort's disciplinary barracks lack the capability to house terrorist suspects. It is largely a medium-security facility for military prisoners. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade the disciplinary barracks to maximum security level and to construct the hospital, residential, and support facilities that would be required to house the additional prisoners and security personnel. As a small post surrounded by a civilian population, there is no room to grow.

Fort Leavenworth is clearly an unsuitable location. I am a sponsor of legislation introduced by my colleague of Kansas, Ms. Jenkins, to prevent Guantanamo detainees from being relocated there.

The decision to close Guantanamo Bay detention facility and relocate terror suspects should not be made recklessly. I'm troubled that the administration is seeking to move forward on Guantanamo despite the absence of a closure and relocation plan and despite the lack of congressional review. In their recently submitted FY 09 war supplemental request to Congress, they ask us for $80 million to close the Guantanamo detention facility to relocate prisoners, support personnel and services.

I join the gentleman from California, Representative Hunter, in asking the Appropriations Committee not to include this funding in the supplemental until we see a plan. Still lacking these details this week, I'm pleased to see that our appropriations chairman, Mr. Obey, announced his refusal to provide the funding.

This critical national security decision deserves critical thought. Detainees should not be moved where they do not belong. And detainees do not belong at Fort Leavenworth.

Mr. Speaker, for the past 61 years, the United States and Israel have enjoyed a strategic partnership based on shared democratic values, commitment to freedom, friendship, and respect. I rise today to recognize that relationship and congratulate the people of Israel on the 61st anniversary of Israel's independence.

In addition to congratulating the people of Israel as they celebrate their independence, H. Con. Res. 111, recognizes important events and people who have shaped this nation's history. While Israel's history is marked by proud accomplishments and successes, it is also peppered by instances when Israeli's had to defend their country from outside threats. Sadly, many threats still remain. As Americans join Israeli's in celebrating their country's independence, we should take notice of those threats and renew our commitment to addressing them.

No bigger, more challenging threat exists to Israel than that posed by Iran. Continuing to enrich uranium, Iran now has enough low enriched uranium that if further processed could produce a nuclear bomb. Such a development would be an existential threat to Israel. As one of Israel's closest friends and allies, the United States should take appropriate action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Congress can begin by approving H.R. 1327, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, and H.R. 1985, the Iran Diplomatic Enhancement Act.

By standing with Israel against Iran, we demonstrate the strength of the ties that bind our two nations. Again, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the people of Israel on the 61st anniversary of their independence and call on my colleagues in Congress to show their support for Israel by passing legislation that will pressure Iran into abandoning its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, I came to this House floor to address my colleagues and bring to their attention the danger that Iran poses to Israel. I shared with my colleagues some of the things that the Iranian leader had said about Israel to illustrate the seriousness of the threat.

Madam Speaker, the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has again spoken. Last week, at the opening day of the United Nations Anti-Racism Conference, the Iranian President was given a platform on which to spread racist and hateful views. In his address to the conference, he called Israel ``the most cruel and racist regime,'' said that Zionism ``is a paragon of racism,'' and said the creation of Israel was founded on ``the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust.''

While the Iranian leader's comments are disturbing in any context, it is even more troublesome that he would question the Holocaust on the day before we celebrated the Holocaust Remembrance.

It is hard to understand how the United Nations and so many other countries fail to take the Iranian threat seriously. It is more than ironic that the U.N. would give one who has denied the Holocaust and advocated for the destruction of Israel the opportunity to speak at a conference convened to combat hatred and racism.

Although the United States and a few countries had the sense to boycott the summit and thereby refuse to lend credibility to the conference and speakers like Ahmadinejad, too many nations continue to act with complacency.

Last Thursday, our Nation's leaders gathered in our Rotunda here in the Capitol for the National Commemoration of the Day of Remembrance to remember the 6 million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust. The theme of this year's events was, ``Never Again: What You Do Matters.'' That theme is a message for all of us to take very seriously.

When we say ``never again,'' we need to think about the current threats to peace and security and take appropriate action to prevent senseless violence. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is an existential threat to the people of Israel and a grave danger to the rest of the world.

Madam Speaker, the things we do do matter. It is time for us to join together and confront this Iranian threat.

Today, Israel celebrates its 61st anniversary of its independence; again, a day in which we ought to remember the threat that still remains. Congress can take action to address this threat by approving H.R. 1327, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, and H.R. 1985, the Iran Diplomatic Enhancement Act.

The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act gives States and local governments the authority to divest their assets from any company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. The other piece of legislation, H.R. 1985, would sanction any entity engaged in activities that contribute to Iran's ability to import gasoline or fine petroleum.

I am a sponsor of these bills, and I believe that sanctions will increase pressure on the Iranian regime to change course and abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The Days of Remembrance call us to soberly evaluate the changes to peace we face and take swift action as best we can to address them.

Madam Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to quickly approve the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act and the Iran Diplomatic Enhancement Act. ``Never again: What we do does matter.''