Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because it addresses one key problem, that the United States has not built a new refinery in America since the 1976 bicentennial, 30 years ago. Over 50 million Americans have moved to our country since then but no new refineries. We can expand gas supplies and lower prices at the pump while strengthening our environmental law through this legislation, and who doubts that we cannot make new refineries be cleaner than old refineries?

This bill stands for the principle that we should simply coordinate our laws, written in different decades by different Congresses, to yield environmental protection and more gasoline at the pumps.

The population of the United States is expanding. So should our ability to provide gasoline to Americans. We should do so, though, not at the expense of the environment; and this bill does not modify those statutes. It simply says the various Federal bureaucracies should all be coordinated in one place. It makes common sense and helps us reduce pressure at the pump.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the U.S. China Engagement Act of 2006 with Congressman Rick Larsen. The goal of our bill is to ensure American students and businesses are equipped to compete with China throughout the 21st century.

The U.S. China Engagement Act of 2006 provides grants for Chinese language instruction programs for American students, expands the U.S. diplomatic presence in China, and establishes new trade offices which support our U.S. exports to China, ensuring our small and medium size businesses are able to compete in Asia.

This legislation will help give our American students the tools to compete in a global marketplace. By one measure, China is now the world's second largest economy. According to the Asian Conference, 50,000 American students are studying Chinese versus 110 million Chinese students studying English. The U.S. China Engagement Act of 2006 will provide resources to primary, secondary and post-secondary schools so that all levels of our educational system can provide the proper exposure to the Chinese language and economy.

The U.S. China Engagement Act of 2006 triples funding to the State Department for public diplomacy in China and authorizes the creation of a new consulate and ten ``diplomatic presence posts'' in larger Chinese cities. It also increases the U.S. contribution to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, a 21 Member Organization whose goal is to promote free trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region. America must embrace a strong diplomatic partnership to increase the chance our children will enjoy a stable, economically prosperous and peaceful future with China.

Today, China produces more steel than the U.S.; it has more cell phone users and is building its own space station. Hundreds of U.S. companies from McDonald's to Motorola are heavily invested in the Chinese market. China has bought several airplanes from Boeing and Chinese purchases of other U.S. exports are climbing at a rate of 15 percent a year. At her present rate of growth, China's economy has the potential to become larger than America's. The U.S. China Engagement Act takes steps to help small and medium size American businesses enter the China market by increasing resources to the Foreign Commercial Service Office of the Commerce Department and creating new export promotion programs.

The U.S. China Engagement Act is an important step in addressing the most critical relationship of the 21st century. It is vital that Americans be prepared for this relationship. We must be prepared diplomatically, educationally, and economically. Our students must have the ability to both culturally understand our competition while also having the ability to communicate with them in their language. This bill will give American students and American businesses the tools to compete in the new and expanding market of China.

I want to thank my co-chair of the U.S.-China Working Group, Congressman Rick Larsen, for being the lead co-sponsor on this legislation. And I want to thank Senators Lieberman and Alexander who have a companion bill. I look forward to working with them on these important issues surrounding China.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my partner, co-chair of the U.S.- China Working Group, on this amendment.

I had the honor of serving on the Paul Simon Exchange Commission for the United States to look at his vision of having a million Americans study abroad. That is a very important goal, very worthwhile because of America's position in the world.

But, quite frankly, I think there are two language groups vital to the future security, to the economy, and to the diplomacy of the United States, and that is Arabic and Chinese. This amendment highlights that priority for the United States, for our future.

Obviously, we know with the global war on terror the importance of the command of the Arabic language. But we also see China rising and projected by the IMF on 19th Street here in Washington, D.C. to be the second largest economy on Earth. And it makes sense for the United States to place its highest diplomatic priority on relations with the number two economy of the 21st century, which is China.

Currently, we have reports that there are over 200 million people in China who are or have studied English, but in the United States the total number of Americans who are studying or have studied Chinese number just 28,000. We need to redress that balance to make sure that we have a full engagement with China, with her rising economy, with her very important diplomacy with regard to North Korea, Iran, et cetera, and obviously with military developments there.

So I thank the chairman for his support, and I commend my co-chair of the U.S.-China Working Group, because I think in the necessary funding of exchanges we should place a priority on these two language groups.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to ensure the federal government fulfills an important obligation to the families of servicemen and women in my district. In 1950, Congress established the Impact Aid program to assist school districts and communities that lose their property tax base because of the presence of the federal government. Though the program was fully-funded between 1950 and 1969, funding levels in more recent years have not kept pace with the amount required. I am happy that my Illinois Senators are introducing a companion bill to the same effect.

Due to a unique housing situation for the Great Lakes Naval Training Facility, Impact Aid funding should be higher in five of my school districts. This Naval base is located in North Chicago, one of the poorest school districts in my state. However, some service

members and their families live in housing the Navy obtained when Ft. Sheridan and Naval Air Station Glenview, located well away from North Chicago, were closed in the 1990's. These former bases are located within the boundaries of other school districts--districts that bear the economic cost of educating children from a base, but receive none of the economic benefits a base provides. Thus, it is vitally important that we both ensure North Chicago continues to receive heavily impacted payments for the benefit of students living there, and that the surrounding communities are more fairly compensated for their loss of property taxes.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot abdicate our responsibility towards our military families. I have already introduced a bill this Congress, H.R. 390, the Government Reservation Accelerated Development for Education Act (GRADE-A), to fully fund the Impact Aid program. However, the situation in my district warrants special attention. In order to ensure that our students most in need continue to receive necessary resources, I have introduced a new bill to help North Chicago remain qualified for heavily impacted payments, and Glenview and Highland Park receive fair compensation.

By passing this bill, the federal government will be fulfilling its responsibility to these communities, and giving our military families the support they deserve. I urge the local communities to continue to work to come to an agreement that most importantly, takes care of our students .

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Shays amendment because this continues the CAP program led by groups like Mercy Corps in Iraq who are able to operate with very low levels of security because they are so heavily supported by the local community.

This is a phenomenally successful program. The gentleman is exactly right.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair, and I want to particularly thank Mr. Obey of Wisconsin and our chairman, Mr. Lewis of California, for their work on this.

This amendment addresses a critical need in the drug war in Afghanistan. Since the U.S. coalition forces arrived in Afghanistan, Afghanistan has become the source of three-quarters of the world's heroin supply. We know what a failed state in Afghanistan leads to. In our new counternarcotic operations in Afghanistan, the United States is about to launch a major operation in the Helmand River Valley, where over half of the heroin crop is raised. In doing this, Afghan forces, including their police, will be hitting drug labs, and we need to collect critical information as those operations unfold.

This amendment would provide for critical tools on an aircraft already owned by the Drug Enforcement Agency to collect information on drug traffickers, and especially on kingpins who could be connected to terror. On this, I very much support the work of Chairman Wolf.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide this critical platform to give the tools necessary for Drug Enforcement Agency to be the most effective they can be against Afghan drug kingpins. We already have 120 dedicated drug enforcement personnel on the ground helping Afghan police to carry out this mission. Chairman Hyde, Chairman Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, and I have backed this amendment because we feel it is critical for DEA to have these tools now to apply the lessons learned in Colombia to build a success in the coming operations in Afghanistan.

It is also important to note that this House supported amendments to the PATRIOT Act, which now make it a crime to deal in heroin for the support of terror without the need to show a connection to the U.S. market. We have seen Afghan drug dealers and terrorists killing U.S. troops, including two from the 10th Mountain Division, and this tool and the legal authorities that the House just provided are critical in helping force protection and adding to the tools that we need to continue this conflict in the most effective way.

So with that, I urge adoption of this amendment. It is a modest addition to this bill and provides a critical tool that will very quickly, dramatically assist in DEA's operation in Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 16 I was unavoidably detained.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a bill to require all vessels, including those with no ballast water on board (NOBOBs), to undergo ballast water exchange before entering the Great Lakes.

Invasive species pose a dangerous threat to the Great Lakes. These creatures can cause irreparable ecological and economic damage to a variety of locations and industries. Although no federal agency accumulates such statistics comprehensively, an estimate by the American Association for the Advancement of Science put damage to the U.S. economy at $123 billion annually. We must do better to prevent the introduction of invasives into the Great Lakes environment.

One method by which these species enter the Great Lakes is through ballast water tanks. Current law requires ships carrying ballast water to undergo ballast water exchange to flush out invasive species before entering the Great Lakes from another port. However, 90 percent of all ships entering the Great Lakes have no ballast water on board. These NOBOBs are not subject to the same ballast water exchange laws, even though they still have ballast tanks. Invasive species often survive in the sediment at the bottom of these tanks. When these ships operate in the Great Lakes, they may add and then pump out new ballast water before leaving. This mixes with residual ballast water and sediments, and provides an unregulated pathway for the introduction of new invasive species when the ballast water is released.

In other words, the contamination begins.

We must not leave 90 percent of ships entering the Great Lakes untreated. This bipartisan legislation requires all ships with ballast tanks, including NOBOBs, to undergo ballast water exchange. In addition, the bill commissions a study of the effectiveness and environmental soundness of other ballast treatment options. The language fixes a current problem and works towards an even stronger solution for the future.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, while small, has enormous consequences for the health and safety of one of our national treasures. I am proud to introduce this ballast water legislation to significantly reduce the infiltration of invasive species into the Great Lakes.

Mr. Speaker, I support House Concurrent Resolution 341 condemning the Government of Iran for violating its international nuclear nonproliferation obligations and expressing support for efforts to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council. As co-chairman of the Iran Working Group, I am increasingly concerned about Iran's movement towards the brink of a nuclear showdown. In response to the historic International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, referral of Iran to the United Nations Security Council, UNSC, Iran retaliated by halting snap inspections by IAEA inspectors. There are even reports that Iran resumed uranium-enrichment at its Natanz nuclear plant, a process that had been suspended for two years following the disclosure of Iran's covert program. Iranian President Ahmadinejad warned that Iran could withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if international pressure increased over its nuclear program.

President Ahmadinejad repeatedly states that his nation will develop nuclear capabilities, and continually rebuffs efforts of nations such as Russia and the EU-3 in providing a way out of a conflict. Given the Iranian President's genocidal intentions of ``wiping Israel off the map,'' we cannot allow Iran to advance on its path towards a nuclear future.

The Congress must consider many options to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That is why I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 177, which calls on our allies and the U.S. to consider quarantining gasoline sales to Iran should the Iranians reject the international effort to end the nuclear impasse.

Despite being one of the world's top oil producing nations, Iran is highly dependent on foreign gasoline due to severe mismanagement of its domestic energy supply. The need is so great that the Iranian government regularly debates rationing gasoline to manage its short supply. An oil embargo on exports from Iran could hurt Western economies, but a gasoline quarantine on imports to Iran would fall heavily on Iran alone.

Now is the time for the Security Council to take strong action against Iran. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of House Concurrent Resolution 341.

Mr. Speaker, the State Department's Terrorist Rewards Program is one of the most successful and inexpensive programs against international terrorists.

As a staff member to Chairman Gilman, I drafted the enhancements to this program that made it a very successful program in the arrest of United Nations war criminals in Yugoslavia. Chairman Hyde, Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen, and Ranking Member Lantos joined me several years ago in increasing this rewards program to a total offer of $50 million. We also enacted more important reforms that authorize brand new newspaper, radio, and TV ads to increase the impact of this program.

Mr. Amil Sanzi killed Americans outside CIA headquarters before fleeing to Pakistan. Matchbox covers with his face on them provided the impetus for the key tip that led to his arrest, conviction, and execution. Uday and Qusay Hussein, the murderous sons of Saddam Hussein, were found and cornered by a tip from this program. Today, we are hunting down Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar, the leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban dictatorship.

I have conducted two official missions to the Afghan-Pakistan border where conventional wisdom has located the probable sites of the al Qaeda core leadership. I assessed this rewards program and proposed improvements to change its effectiveness. We found that the radio, newspaper, and TV ads in Pakistan are working. Under Richard Griffin, the Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security; Ryan Crocker, our very able Ambassador to Pakistan; and David Noordelas, a very able diplomatic security professional, we executed a $200,000 TV and radio campaign that led to dozens of new tips against leaders of the al Qaeda core.

We are about to relaunch this program, and it will be even more successful.

But there is one problem. Many officials in this part of the world make only $200 or $300 a year. This bill gives the President and Secretary of State the flexibility to authorize rewards for the arrest of the top, key, high-value targets: bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, people who lead al Qaeda and its war on Americans. We need this flexibility to grant such rewards.

The arrest of Osama bin Laden is a mission of near messianic importance to the American people, and we have a winner here in the rewards program. With the reforms the House passes today, we increase the odds that we will crush the al Qaeda core in some of the most remote parts of the Earth.

I want to thank Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member Lantos, and John Mackay of the International Relations staff for his particular help on this key issue that will add enhancements to one of the most successful anti-terror programs in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Conference Report to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. Earlier this evening, I voted in favor of the FY 2006 Defense Authorization bill because it was a good bill, unencumbered by controversial and non-defense related items.

I oppose this bill for several reasons. First, evidence indicates that this bill does not provide what Defense Department officials already know our forces will require in the field. Today, officials in our Army headquarters are working on a new request for money from taxpayers far in excess of what is provided in this Conference Report. Authoritative press accounts indicate that the Department has already identified ``urgent'' needs exceeding $100 billion above the amounts included in this legislation. This bill only provides half that amount. No doubt we will consider additional appropriations in the spring. We should have done it here and now.

Common sense would dictate that the Congress should include these funds in a bill not yet passed if the Army already knows its current funding request before Congress will fall far short of what uniformed Americans in the field need. It would appear that instead, we may pass this bill--already known to be inadequate to our needs--and then ask for more money under procedures that waive the budget and will automatically add every dollar in new appropriations to our deficit.

Deliberate and stable management of our defense budget demands better. So do our men and women in uniform. If we know they have urgent needs in the field, it is our duty to meet them.

I oppose this bill for another reason. The calm, stable administration of appropriations follows the rules of the House, precedent, and common sense. Our rules mandate that matters not germane to a bill be excluded. Hence, this should be a defense appropriations bill, nothing else. Our House rules normally exclude matters from final consideration that have not been attached to the bill in either the House or the Senate. That requires elected representatives of at least one chamber to review all matters for consideration in a House-Senate conference. This bill includes extraneous issues not related to the defense of the Nation. It sets a bad precedent that could bog down other defense bills with controversial, non-defense issues not considered by either chamber. This unusual procedure has prevented nearly all members of both the House and Senate from considering these contentious issues.

A key controversial issue included in this bill authorizes the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. It was not considered in either the House or the Senate bills. It is not germane to legislation making appropriations for national defense. Like many ``Green Republican'' members who support the protection of the Refuge, I oppose this bill

because it includes this controversial, unpassed and non-germane attachment to the Defense Appropriations bill.

This bill does not provide the full funding that the Army already knows is necessary for our troops in the field. The bill runs against House rules by including controversial matters not attached by either the House or Senate. It also has provisions totally unrelated to defense issues, opening the door for future defense bills to be slowed by unnecessary controversy.

Mr. Speaker, I have never voted against a defense authorization or appropriation bill. My record is still perfect having always supported all Defense Authorization bills. As a Member of Congress and a naval officer, I have dedicated a good portion of my life to our national safety. My hope on the coming vote tonight is that we can redraft this appropriations bill to add funds the Army already knows it needs while stripping extraneous and controversial provisions from the conference report.

When we do so, we should find a way to pass a defense appropriations final bill that does not open the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling and does not provide school vouchers to religious schools only because they are located in the Gulf Coast region.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 643, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, as elected officials, we hold ourselves to the highest standards. As Members of Congress, we pledge to defend the Constitution and uphold the laws of the United States. We are elected to serve the public trust. A breach of law by a Member of Congress is a serious offense that should have very serious consequences.

Taxpayers should not pay for the retirement benefits of a Member of Congress convicted of a felony. That is why I am introducing the Congressional Integrity Act of 2005, to restore trust in the Congress. It is joined by 12 other majority Members, moderates and conservatives for reform.

This important ethics legislation will lead us back to integrity in public life. The Congressional Integrity Act of 2005 would deny a congressional pension to any Member convicted and denied final appeal on a range of crimes directly related to their public duties, including bribery, including illegal compensation, including fraud, solicitation and tax evasion.

Mr. Speaker, similar legislation passed the House in 1996 by a vote of 391-32. It is time to finally pass this important reform.

Mr. Speaker, today I support H.R. 4340, The U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. Bahrain is an important political, economic and military ally, and in the years since 9/11, has been a valued partner in the War on Terror. The U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement will strengthen this key relationship and bolster the important reforms currently taking place in Bahrain.

Bahrain deserves special recognition for its military cooperation with the United States military. Since 1995, Bahrain has been home to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet. From this location, the 5th Fleet's area of responsibility encompasses 7.5 million square miles and includes the Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Indian Ocean. As a Commander in the Navy Reserve, I fully appreciate the value of Bahrain's willingness to host our fleet in this strategic region.

The U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement is also significant because it rewards Bahrain for its rapprochement towards Israel. Last month, Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheikh Muhammad bin Mubarak confirmed that his country decided to lift its boycott of Israeli products. In the face of the Arab League's efforts to intensify the boycott, Bahrain has taken a bold and symbolic step towards peace in the Middle East.

Bahrain has shown that it is committed to reform, and we are equally committed to joining with them with open markets. I proudly support this bill that expands trade bilaterally and moves closer to the vision of a peaceful, democratic, and freely trading Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for bringing this resolution forward, and especially a man that we all follow his leadership for the dignity of human rights and the individual, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, we founded the United Nations 50 years ago with the promise of ``never again.'' The Nazi Holocaust had just claimed 6 million Jewish lives, and we pledged to the civilized world that we would never again allow such a brutal genocide. Two years later, we fulfilled the first step in that promise by passing a plan for Palestine, granting the Jewish people a homeland of their own in a world that had sought their destruction.

How 50 years can change things. Today, the very institution which recognized and helped create the Jewish state works almost daily to make it a pariah in the world. The U.N. General Assembly has evolved into a relentlessly anti-Israel body, scapegoating the preeminent democracy in the Middle East for the bulk of the world's problems.

When Jews are murdered in shopping malls in Netanya or in pizza parlors in Jerusalem, the General Assembly is silent. When Jews stand up against terrorism and defend themselves, that is when the General Assembly erupts into condemnation.

There is now a chilling double standard at the United Nations that roots itself in the very ideology we defeated in Europe 50 years ago. It is rooted in a new 21st century anti-Semitism that targets the political manifestation of the Jewish people.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Israel once again face a threat of genocide and annihilation, they call it the existential threat, from the President of Iran who outlined his vision of a world without a State of Israel and highlighted his pursuit of nuclear power until that vision is realized.

The United Nations cannot sit by and allow that to happen. Now is the time to fulfill our promise, never again. We need to wake up now and see the United Nations for what it is, not what it was. What it is now, in part, is a corrupt and anti-Semitism organization. What it should become is a reformed body that fulfills the promise Mrs. Roosevelt set for it as a dream and a force for peace in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New Jersey for his leadership on this issue, and also thank the gentlewoman from Florida and the gentleman from California for bringing this key resolution to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the Record. On rollcall no. 597, I was listed as voting against H. Res. 500. This was an error and I intended to vote in favor of the resolution. I would ask that this clarification appear in the appropriate part of the Record.