Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity tonight. I want to thank my friend from Illinois for his compliment. It is truly appreciated, and I know it is shared on my side that I very much appreciate, Mr. Speaker, my work with my colleague from Illinois. I also want to point out that he is one of the Members here who simply does not talk about his patriotism but he practices it.

He is active reservist. He serves his country in uniform on a regular basis, as do his brother and sister reservists. I think he honors this institution and this country by his service, and I thank him for it.

I appreciate the work we have done in our Iran Study Group. The emphasis is on the word ``study.'' We think the country faces a truly perilous situation with the prospect of the mullahs who run the Iranian government obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have devoted ourselves to analyzing how this problem came about and to carefully analyzing how we might solve it.

Our intention tonight is to have a discussion of those solutions that would be based on diplomacy, and I look forward to having my friend from Illinois lead that discussion, and I will join it so I can complement his points as to how we can solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I want to explicate the nature of the regime of which he speaks. This Congress and our Presidents of both parties did not choose the terrorists label lightly.

This is a regime which has its antecedent roots in the holding of American diplomats hostage for 444 days, an image which we will not soon forget. It is a regime where people are imprisoned and tortured for dancing at wedding celebrations. It is a regime in which women who express their points of view are brutalized, assaulted and tortured in Iranian prisons. And perhaps the most striking piece of evidence as to the real nature of this regime is found in the run-up to the elections which are going to be held in Iran on the 17th of June, in 9 days.

1,014 people registered to be part of that election, to be on the ballot for this election, and the ruling council that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) made reference to under the Iranian system has the right to chose who goes on the ballot and who does not.

I say this again. If you want to run for office, you file your nominating petitions, and then a ruling council decides whether or not you are worthy to be on the ballot. Of the 1,014 persons who filed to be on the ballot on the June 17 election in Iran, six of them were permitted to be on the ballot by the ruling council, six people out of 1,014 people.

This is not a regime that can have a nuclear weapon. We have to start this discussion from the proposition that it is unacceptable for a regime of this dark nature to have a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank my friend. It is important to note that we have nearly a quarter century of active deception from the Iranian regime on this point.

As recently as 4 years ago, 3 years ago, in international forums, the representatives of this government were actively denying that they were in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. For nearly a quarter century, we were told by the Iranian regime that activities which appear to be nuclear in nature were for a domestic energy program.

Now, one must find it curious that a nation that is sitting on one of the largest supplies of crude oil in the world, that is an exporter to the States, whose main export is crude, would find the need for a nuclear energy program. That alone is a rather curious proposition; but putting that aside, we had a quarter century of deception until, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) says, in 2002 resistance leaders blew the whistle about the facilities at Arak and Natanz.

I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker, that there has been controversy in this Chamber about the existence of weapons of mass destruction and ideological views coloring that discussion. There is no ideological dispute here. There is factual understanding by the French, by the Germans, by the British, by the EU, by the U.N., by every objective party in this case. It is not in factual dispute that there is a nuclear program going on in Iran.

Since the disclosures that became public in December of 2002, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) just said, we had a 2-year process of inspections under the jurisdiction of the IAEA of the United Nations, and they confirmed the existence of plutonium, or rather of uranium, enrichment facilities. They confirmed the equipment and the infrastructure necessary to make the other parts of a reactor, including a centrifuge, that would lead up to the construction of a nuclear weapon.

So we want to be very clear tonight that what is in controversy is what will happen next with respect to development of this Iranian program. What is in controversy is what we ought to do about it. What is not in controversy is that the Iranians actively pursued a nuclear weapons program and that they actively deceived the rest of the world about that pursuit for a quarter of a century.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is truly a toxic combination of a dishonest regime that has actively deceived the rest of the world for a quarter century, the most lethal and deadly weapons known to man, and the ability to use those weapons both in a conventional and unconventional sense.

As the gentleman from Illinois' (Mr. Kirk) map shows very clearly, Iran tonight has the ballistic capability, has the ability to fire a missile that could cause nuclear havoc to U.S. troops in Iraq, in Kuwait, could cause the destruction of America's great friend in Israel. This is a real and present danger, but beyond the conventional danger is the asymmetric unconventional danger of the unconventional use of a nuclear weapon in an unconventional way: in a suitcase, in a rental truck, on a container being shipped into a port of the United States.

The risk that we are discussing tonight is not only the risk that one of the missiles that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) just described would rain down on U.S. troops in the Middle East or on our friends in Israel or in a friendly Arab state; the risk is that this risk could manifest itself in Times Square or in the Nation's capitol through the use of a nuclear weapon in an unconventional way. A toxic combination of a Jihadist regime, a 25-year record of deception, and the possession of this lethal technology is something we simply cannot countenance.

Now there have been efforts, intense efforts over the last 18 months or so to address this problem. I know that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) is going to outline them, and we are going to talk about how we support the intent of those efforts, how we are working through our working group to try to buttress the efforts, but how we believe that our country must be prepared both in the eventuality of the success of the negotiations or the failure of the negotiations in order to protect ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

I certainly share the view that the Israelis did peace-loving people around the world a huge favor in 1981 when they took out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor program. The first Gulf War in 1991 and the recent hostilities which endure to today would have looked very different and much worse had Saddam been able to proceed with that program.

It is tempting to exercise the so-called Israeli option this time, to condone an action by the Israelis that would solve this problem. It is tempting, but it is illusory because the nature of this program is literally subterranean. Much of the developmental activity of the Iranian nuclear program is underneath the Earth.

They are not easily penetrated or perhaps not penetrable at all by an air assault. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) has pointed out, in addition to the dubious prospects of success as a military proposition, there would be the unbelievable fallout of probably unifying the Iranian population against us and our Israeli allies and forfeiting what I believe is the best hope for a peaceful solution to this problem which would be voluntary, indigenous change led by progressive young Iranians who want to live in a country where they can speak and worship and vote and live as they choose. Running the risk of offending and alienating that block of forward-looking young Iranians would be a risk I do not believe we should bear.

As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) suggests, we need to resist the temptation of saying that the Israelis can once again take care of this problem as they did in 1981, because I do not think the record shows that. What we need to do is devise a robust, effective plan to sanction and leverage the Iranians toward a path of peace, rather than a path of development of nuclear weapons.

There is a sincere attempt led by the British and the Germans and the French to reach such a result. Most recently, that attempt has resulted in an agreement in November of 2004 which calls for the suspension of the Iranian enrichment program by the Iranians, an active inspection program by the United Nations, and then the extension of economic incentives so the Iranian economy may grow and prosper as a result of that proposition. There is hope that that will succeed. I hope it will succeed. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) does as well.

But the record must also show that since November of 2004 there have been at least three very serious problems reported with respect to compliance with the agreement. According to the IAEA, that is the United Nations arms inspection regime, Iran has limited IAEA access to two secret Iranian military sites, including a large complex at Parchin where suspected nuclear access may be taking place. Only two. The IAEA inspectors visited the site in January of 2005, but Iran has not allowed visits subsequently. So they have already begun to shut down the inspections.

Secondly, Iran is also alleged to have withheld information and conducted maintenance and other work on centrifuge equipment and uranium conversion activities. So there is centrifuge work continuing even though the official posture of the Iranian government is they have suspended nuclear weapons activities.

Finally, Iran is also beginning construction of a heavy water research reactor which could well be suited to plutonium production, and I would note for the record that discussions between our European allies and the Iranians do

not cover plutonium development of a weapon, they cover uranium enrichment. There are two major pathways to achieve a nuclear weapon. One is based on uranium, and one is based on plutonium. Even in its best day, this agreement is not addressing plutonium.

So to answer the gentleman's question directly, what should we do, we should anticipate what would happen if this agreement does not succeed, and we would define success as the abandonment of the nuclear weapons development program by the Iranians followed by a transparent inspection regime so the rest of the world could verify that it has not yet been restarted.

In order to do that, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and I believe, and I think Democrats and Republicans can come together and believe, that a robust and effective program of economic sanctions is what we need. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) has worked on one particular idea which I think has very strong merit and ask the gentleman to outline that.

Mr. Speaker, gasoline is the Achilles' heel of the Iranian autocrats. They have presided over such a dysfunctional country that they are in a situation where they sell crude oil in huge amounts to the rest of the world but import gasoline. Think about that. A country that is literally awash in the basic stuff that gasoline is made of cannot produce its own gasoline. Estimates go as high as 40 percent of the gasoline consumed by Iranian consumers is imported from other countries.

Now another measure of the importance of what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) is saying is this. Today when a citizen of Tehran fills up his or her tank of gas, they pay 40 cents a gallon. I wish I could go home and tell my constituents they were going to fill up their gas tanks for 40 cents a gallon. Obviously, it costs a lot more to produce gasoline than 40 cents a gallon in Iran, but this is such a sensitive issue for the population of the country that the Iranian parliament has voted, and as a matter of fact in January of this year the Iranian parliament voted to freeze domestic prices for gasoline and other fuels at 2003 levels.

Why did they do that? They did it because it would be so disruptive to the society and the economy to have a price shock that would reflect the true cost of a gallon of gasoline. If such a disruption occurred, it would shake the control, the iron grip the autocrats have over this country. They have identified their own weakness by freezing the price of domestic gasoline.

What the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) is suggesting is a surgical sanction. We are going to be I believe going to the U.N. Security Council in this calendar year. That is my prediction. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) may not share that, but as I see things unfolding. On June 6, Monday, the Iranians once again said they would voluntarily suspend their uranium enrichment program until more talks ensued with the Europeans.

The election I made reference to earlier, the one where 98 percent of the candidates or more were expelled from the ballot, if we can call that an election, will take place on June 17. The talks will resume at some point in Geneva shortly after June 17.

I truly believe, given the track record we have seen thus far, that a referral to the U.N. Security Council is very near. We have seen after a dozen years of frustration with Iraqi sanctions that the U.N. Security Council taking a vote does not do a lot in and of itself. They took a lot of votes against Saddam Hussein over the course of a dozen years, but people still suffered and died and nothing really changed.

The key question if, and I think when, we reach the point of the U.N. Security Council, is what are we going to be asking for? Simply passing a resolution that condemns the Iranians for deceiving the rest of the world, violating their responsibilities under the nonproliferation treaty and continuing with the development of a nuclear weapon is not going to do it. It is going to take a meaningful sanction.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) has laid out a very meaningful

sanction. He has wisely avoided the stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach of saying, if they have a few weapons, so what, they are a small country. I fear we would find out the ``so what'' would be very soon.

He has also avoided the risk to rush headlong into a military solution to this problem. Military action should never be taken off the table, never, but they should never be the first instinct or the first option. I believe what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) has outlined makes eminent sense, given the internal politics of Iran.

If Iran could only consume the gasoline that she produces domestically, one of two things would happen and they are both very disruptive to the regime. The first is that they would have to heavily subsidize the production that they already have internally; they would have to ration what people can use to hold the price down; and they would have to give up something else. Either food prices would rise, housing prices would rise, other energy prices would rise and the standard of living of the average Iranian would drop rather precipitously.

The other option would be to let the price of gasoline rise to meet the market curve of supply and demand, which I believe would cause chaos in that society. I believe that the hundreds and thousands of young Iranians who have taken to the streets in recent years want a change, and if the grip that their rulers have is weakened by the plan that has been set forth here, so be it.

The gentleman from Illinois said a few minutes ago about optimism, and he talked about Ukraine and about Libya and other countries giving up nuclear weapons. Another source of optimism I would daresay is this: If one went back and researched speeches made on this floor in 1985, if Members had stood and said, you know, within 6 years, millions of people in the Warsaw Pact countries are going to rise up and make changes within their countries without a violent revolution by simply demanding that change occur, they would have been hooted off this floor as being hopelessly naive and unaware of the way things really were.

I am not suggesting that Iran is like the Eastern European countries. I know the religion is different, the history is different, the culture is different. But I truly believe that human nature is not different. And I think that our 25-year-old students that we hear from in Tehran want the same thing that our constituents want and the same thing those brave Poles and Czechs and Germans and Ukrainians and Russians wanted, which is to live freely. And if we send a message that we will stand by them, I believe that they will be emboldened to try. And I think that the gentleman from Illinois' idea is not only an effective sanction but it is that powerful message.

I thank my friend. It is characteristic of the gentleman from Illinois that he is a creative thinker and someone who wants to problem-solve rather than score political points. Working with him has been a terrific experience and one that I look forward to continuing on this and other ventures.

I think there is broad consensus in this House and in this country between the two parties on two points. The first is that there is a real and present threat to our survival in the form of Islamic jihadist terror. September 11 is the most dramatic example, but there are others. I think there are scarcely any people who believe that is not a very serious threat.

Of course I did. And lost people I knew personally. I think virtually everyone in New Jersey did in some way.

The second point of consensus is that America should always first use its economic and diplomatic and spiritual creativity to work with our friends and solve problems. No one here wants to rush to military conflict. And when we do get in military conflict, that is when it can be divisive and, frankly, should be, that we should have vigorous debate. What I like so much about the gentleman from Illinois' idea is that it fully employs the diplomatic and economic creativity of our country, and I think it does rise to a spiritual level of what our relationship will be with our friends in Iran for years to come. This is a surgical sanction that uses the might of our private sector.

The gentleman from Illinois made reference to the insurance sector. It is very true that the insurance industry

is very unlikely to insure vessels that would run afoul of a quarantine of gasoline. And if the insurers will not insure the cargo, the cargo does not flow. If the cargo does not flow, you do not need a naval quarantine. Frankly, the economics work in that advantage.

Secondly, this is a recognition that we want to share in the success of our European friends. They deserve credit for bringing us to a point where the Iranians are at least taking the position that they want to suspend this program. They deserve credit for saying they are ready to go to the Security Council, our British and French and German friends, should that need become evident. So this is an extension of a friendship with our allies in Western Europe, and it is a way to build on the success that they have had without resorting to armed conflict but by using the creative, economic and diplomatic tools at our disposal.

Finally, I would say spiritually, I do not doubt that someday, my daughters are 12 and 10, Jackie and Josie, and I think someday they will go to Iran. I want them to go to Iran as exchange students or as performers or as athletes or as people to visit friends that they have met in college or graduate school. I do not want them to go there as soldiers. We cannot ignore the reality that a jihadist despotic regime is trying to get a nuclear weapon, and we cannot ignore the high probability they will use it in ways that will terrify the world. But understanding of that threat does not imply a rush to military action. Instead, it implies a thoughtful, constructive plan such as the gentleman from Illinois has laid out.

It is our intention to introduce a resolution that lays out the ideas behind the gentleman from Illinois' discussion tonight. We want to persuade both Democratic and Republican colleagues and the administration to be supportive of this idea. We want to show that it is a reflection of our partnership with our Western European allies. And we want it to succeed. It is my hope that it is never necessary, that the mere fact that this is being discussed will embolden progressive, freedom-loving Iranians to take matters into their own hands. But I think it is going to take more than that. And I think that the idea the gentleman from Illinois has sketched out is one that will work. It is pragmatic, it represents our best tools and values, and I look forward to supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed two votes on June 7, 2005. Had I been present I would have voted yea on rollcall 228 and 229.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the recipients of the 2005 Prosecutors' Office Awards. These remarkable individuals have helped build a safer community through their faithfulness and perseverance while on duty. The following are this year's awards and recipients.

A Commendation for Valor is awarded to an officer for an extraordinary act of outstanding courage, without regard for personal safety, while in actual combat with an armed and dangerous perpetrator. This year a Commendation for Valor will be awardbd to the following people: Officer Shay Sampson; Officer Melva Moss; Officer Buddy Camp.

A Commendation for Heroism is awarded to an officer for an act of outstanding courage, without regard for personal safety, which results in the saving of a life, or the futile attempt to save a life. A Commendation for Heroism may also be awarded to an officer who

makes an outstanding arrest while confronting an armed and dangerous perpetrator. This year a Commendation for Heroism will awarded to the following people: Officer Evelyn Carlin; Det. Wayne Matthews.

The Commendation for Merit is given to an officer who has demonstrated intelligent and valuable police service. This year the Commendation for Merit will be awarded to the following people: Det. Bret Johnson; Inspector Dave McClintock; Sr. Investigator Patricia Taulane; Police Officer Thomas Jeffers; Patrolman Kevin Koykka; Sgt. Paul Sims; Ptlm. William Hawkins, Jr.; Ptlm. Sean Plasket; Ptlm. Howard Dawson, IV; Ptlm. Don Stone; Ptlm. Thomas Farrell; Sr. Investigator C. DeCristofor; Investigator Edgardo Perez; Investigator Carlos Plaza; Det. Angel Ramos; Sr. Inv. Martin Wolf; Inv James Bruno; Det. Eric White; Det. Sgt. Michael Basileo; Sr. Inv. Ron Moten; Inv. Miguel Rubert; Inv. Felix Martinez; Sr. Inv. Steve Setlles; Det. Thomas Kalick; Sr. Inv. Diane Wilson; Det. Wayne Matthews; Sr. Inv. John Greer; Det. Edward Fallon; Det. Sgt. Christopher Leone; Inv. Michael Dougherty; Inv. Matthew McKeown; Inv. James Pisano; Inv. Robert Norcross; Inv. Fawn Ackerman; Inv. Catherine Fisher; Inv. Jim Dougherty; Sgt. W. Mahan; Inv. John Ellis; Det. Scott Beasley; Det. Michael Meyers; Sgt. Frank Gagliardi; Ptlm. Michael Williams; Ptlm. Keith Barrett; Sgt. Neil Larson; Inv. Amy Jewusiak; Inv. Mike Molle; P/ O Gary Badger; P/O Timothy Tedesco; P/O Robert Kempf; Off. J. Valszquez; Off. Parrish Powers; Off. Robert Chew; Off. Michael Fosler; Det. Kirk Williams.

A Letter of Commendation is awarded to an officer in recognition of police service, who is exceptional, and has served beyond the requirements of routine duty. This year a Letter of Commendation will be awarded to the following people: Inv. Janene Bahr; Det. Ken Nelson; Sr. Inv. Brian DeCosmo; Ptlm. William Lyons; Ptlm. Thomas Harchaw; Ptlm. Sean McGann; Inv. William Rummel.

A Citizen's Commendation may be awarded to any person who provides a significant contribution to the public safety through a specific act of outstanding courage, without regard for personal safety, which results in the saving of a life or the futile attempt to save a life. This year a Citizen's Commendation will be awarded to the following people: Ngoc V. Lee; Tracey Evans; Kim Belcher; Greg Parkill; Diane Schiavone- Loudon; Carlton Loudon; James Davies.

A Unit Citation is to be presented to any local, State of Federal Law Enforcement Unit, Agency, Department, Strike Force, etc. for outstanding performance and accomplishments made in the public interest. This year a Unit Citation will be awarded to the Camden Anticrime Partnership.

The Prosecutor's Service Award is given to any law enforcement personnel (officer or civilian) who, by personal dedication, thoroughness, competence, and a cooperative spirit, significantly facilitated the work of the Camden County Prosecutor's Office in the efficient and productive administration of justice. This year the Prosecutor's Service Award will be given to the following people: Timothy Kohlmyer; Sr. Inv. Kenneth Curcio; Asst. Pros. Mark Chase. Two special presentations will be made to Helmrich's Towing and Father Michael Manion for their support of the Prosecutor's Office and Camden County law enforcement.

The recipients of the 2005 Prosecutors' Office Awards have all demonstrated a strong commitment to advancing law enforcement in their community. All of these men and women have committed themselves to improve the quality of life for county residents by attacking crime at every level. I thank all those who have helped to create a safer America by their commitment to law enforcement, and encourage my colleagues to support them in the U.S. Congress. Together we can continue to create better and safer communities throughout the country.

A Letter of Commendation is awarded to an officer in recognition of police service, who is exceptional, and has served beyond the requirements of routine duty. This year a Letter of Commendation will be awarded to the following people: Inv. Janene Bahr; Det. Ken Nelson; Sr. Inv. Brian DeCosmo; Ptlm. William Lyons; Ptlm. Thomas Harchaw; Ptlm. Sean McGann; Inv. William Rummel.

A Citizen's Commendation may be awarded to any person who provides a significant contribution to the public safety through a specific act of outstanding courage, without regard for personal safety, which results in the saving of a life or the futile attempt to save a life. This year a Citizen's Commendation will be awarded to the following people: Ngoc V. Lee; Tracey Evans; Kim Belcher; Greg Parkill; Diane Schiavone- Loudon; Carlton Loudon; James Davies.

A Unit Citation is to be presented to any local, State of Federal Law Enforcement Unit, Agency, Department, Strike Force, etc. for outstanding performance and accomplishments made in the public interest. This year a Unit Citation will be awarded to the Camden Anticrime Partnership.

The Prosecutor's Service Award is given to any law enforcement personnel (officer or civilian) who, by personal dedication, thoroughness, competence, and a cooperative spirit, significantly facilitated the work of the Camden County Prosecutor's Office in the efficient and productive administration of justice. This year the Prosecutor's Service Award will be given to the following people: Timothy Kohlmyer; Sr. Inv. Kenneth Curcio; Asst. Pros. Mark Chase. Two special presentations will be made to Helmrich's Towing and Father Michael Manion for their support of the Prosecutor's Office and Camden County law enforcement.

The recipients of the 2005 Prosecutors' Office Awards have all demonstrated a strong commitment to advancing law enforcement in their community. All of these men and women have committed themselves to improve the quality of life for county residents by attacking crime at every level. I thank all those who have helped to create a safer America by their commitment to law enforcement, and encourage my colleagues to support them in the U.S. Congress. Together we can continue to create better and safer communities throughout the country.

Mr. Chairman, although I do not intend to oppose the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of our committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, although I would note that there are three interests that must be delicately balanced in this instance. The first is the need for our military institutions to have full access to recruit on every campus in the country and to do so in a thorough way; the second interest that has to be balanced is the academic freedom of our colleges and universities to make judgments about what they think should and should not happen on their campuses; and the third interest that has to be balanced is the right of students who are enrolled in ROTC programs, and other students, for that matter, to have a full range of employment options so that if they choose to go into the military, they are not denied that option because of a policy of their college or university.

This is a delicate balance that I think is being properly handled under present law. I would note that the amendment before the body is a sense of Congress resolution. It is one of the reasons I am supporting the amendment. It expresses, I think accurately, the sentiment of the Congress; but it does not disrupt the delicate balance under the law that we presently have today, which I think is wise and prudent.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and to the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and to the members of the staff for including in this en bloc amendment a proposal with respect to the retailers and distributors of model airplanes and model ships.

One way to express your patriotism and support for the military is to collect and assemble and build models of military craft and military vehicles. An unfortunate occurrence has happened in the last few years where the large defense contractors which received the right to build these materials are extracting royalties from the consumers who buy them. They extract those royalties from the distributors and the retailers. We would like to stop that practice.

These ships and planes are designed with public money. They are conceived of with public money, and we do not think the American public should pay for this twice.

I very much appreciate the fact that language that takes us in that direction has been included in the bill. Frankly, there is more work to do in my judgment concerning who is covered by the scope of the language but this is an important first step. It will promote patriotism for those who collect and build these models, and it will do so in a fair way to the consumer.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the staffs for making this possible.

I would ask for support of the en bloc amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I recently visited the Cranberry Pines School in Medford, NJ, where I met with a group of exceptional fourth graders. They expressed to me their interest in saving wild horses from being slaughtered. One exceptional young girl, Allison Morgan, wrote me a letter about this issue which I have included below. I encourage my colleagues in Congress to support this important cause.

Dear Congressman Andrews, Lately, I've been hearing things

on the news about how so many wild horses are being

slaughtered. You probably know that. You probably also know

that millions of people are concerned. Well, I'm one of those

people. I think wild horses deserve some help. Let's make

laws to save these spectacular creatures. Horses have rights,

too!

There are many reasons why we should protect the wild

horses. First, the wild horses have helped us in many ways.

We rode them in wars, and they helped us win those wars.

Also, Paul Revere rode a horse to warn us if the British were

coming by land or sea. If he had to walk, he'd be too late

for his message to matter. In addition, horses helped us get

mail across the country in the Pony Express. They helped

people all over the country communicate. Last, horses helped

us get places. Without them, we'd have to walk a long way.

Besides for helping us, horses deserve to be saved for

another reason. That reason is that they are animals too;

they deserve rights. First, horses never did things that

annoyed us. We kill these poor, innocent creatures. Second,

do you think animals want to die? Well, they don't; do you?

Third, we treat horses like dust in the wind. I bet you don't

want to be dust in the wind. Last, how would you like it if

horses started slaughtering us?

We've treated the wild horses horribly for so long, now

they are in danger of becoming extinct. First, people

sometimes kill wild horses just for fun. Next, in 1860 we had

two million wild horses. By 1970 there were only 17,000 left.

The horse population dropped dramatically then, it might do

the same now. Last, ranchers use wild horses to round up

cattle. Wild horses round up their herd all the time, so

rounding up cows is easy for them. They can guess where a cow

will move before it even turns. Domestic horses don't have

that ``cow sense.''

Horses are amazing animals and deserve to live. Without

them, so many things would be different. So please, make laws

to save these amazing animals--the wild horses.

Sincerely,

Allison M. Morgan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an exceptional young lady, Jean Katherine Elizabeth Cornell. Miss Cornell is a resident of Mt. Laurel, New Jersey in my district, and is currently in the seventh grade at Harrington Middle School. She is a member of the school's Student Council, and a talented singer in the First United Methodist Church of Moorestown's Youth Choir. Above all, she is a motivated and inspired young lady who is standing up for equal rights for all women.

Miss Cornell has been involved in the Alice Paul Institute's Leadership Program, and helped start the Alice Paul Institute Girls' Advisory Council. She is very active in her community, spreading Alice Paul's message of leadership and equality. She is helping to build support for the Equal Right Amendment by educating the public about this vital piece of legislation. This amendment to the Constitution would guarantee the equality of rights under the law for all persons regardless of gender.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud Miss Cornell for her contributions to her community, and to women everywhere. Her efforts are much needed in the struggle to close the equality gap between men and women. If there were more girls like Jean, our Nation would be a more just and equal society.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the point of order be rejected on grounds that the language my friend cites explicates and explains a limitation. This is a limitation amendment, and the language in the amendment simply establishes the scope of the limitation.

The test is not whether the limitation is difficult to figure out. The test is whether it imposes a new obligation. This language does not, and I would urge rejection of the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for bringing this issue to the attention of the House and my appreciation to Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for performing the kind of responsible oversight that our branch of government is accountable for.

The gentleman from New Jersey very accurately points out that the Deepwater program is an essential element of homeland security. The Coast Guard's mission has changed dramatically and justifiably since 9/ 11. For it to carry out that message, its aging and inferior fleet needs to be replaced with a 21st century fleet. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey for taking the lead in making that fleet a reality.

I understand that because of the constraints we are under under this bill, that he will not be able to go forward with his amendment at this time. I obviously support that decision. But I wanted the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) to know that I would be interested and willing to help in whatever efforts are necessary from this point on so that we can find the optimal and appropriate level of funding for this program so

that we can complete the modernization of the Coast Guard for its very essential new mission.

I again thank the author of the amendment and would urge continued cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day, a day on which we recall the atrocities committed during the Second World War, celebrate the liberation of these horrific concentration camps, and call for continued efforts to fight anti-Semitism around the world.

While 60 years have now passed since the end of World War II, and our Jewish brothers

and sisters from around the world have managed to become a remarkably successful and innovative people despite the horrors they were forced to face, it is imperative that we continue to remember the events of the Holocaust to ensure that future generations remain aware. The crime of genocide, which continues to be committed today as we have seen in Armenia, Rwanda, Sudan, and elsewhere, is one of the most reprehensible acts that can be committed by man. To attempt eradication of an entire population based on a misguided prejudice is absolutely vile, and the United States should do everything in its power to try and prevent such atrocities from happening in the future.

Today, we call to memory the atrocities of the Holocaust, while at the same time honoring those individuals that persevered despite them. The success of such Holocaust survivors as our dear colleague, Congressman Tom Lantos, serves to remind us that while the crime of genocide can take our lives and our freedom, it cannot and must not break our will and determination.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Record show that although I was recorded as having voted ``nay'' on the May 4, 2005 recorded vote regarding the motion to recommit H.R. 366 (rollcall 153), I intended to vote ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Wanda B. Ryan for her 41 years of outstanding service to the youth of Camden, New Jersey. She has shown tremendous dedication to our community, serving and living in Camden throughout her entire career.

Ms. Ryan has an amazing track record at the Washington School: she has not missed a day of school in her entire 41 year career! Since September of 1964, she has been there every day for her elementary school students, who have certainly benefited from Ms. Ryan's lessons, and have gone on to live more enlightened, fruitful lives. Her efforts have certainly benefited not only the students, but all those involved in the Washington School and its community.

Mr. Speaker, I celebrate the outstanding career of Wanda Ryan. She has certainly accomplished much throughout her time at the Washington School, and I applaud her steadfast commitment to her community and students. I wish her all the best in her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed nine votes on April 20th, 2005 because I was attending an important family event with my 12-year-old daughter. The votes were on amendments to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6). Had I been present I would have voted yea on rollcall Nos. 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 119.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 81, a resolution which condemns the crackdown on political dissidents that was orchestrated by the regime of Fidel Castro two years ago. Through this remarkable violation of human rights, the Cuban government arrested more than 75 journalists, labor union organizers, civic leaders, librarians, and human rights activists, and took them as political prisoners. On this occasion, it is important that we keep in mind the struggle in which our brothers and sisters in Cuba continued to be engaged--that is, the struggle for freedom and true democracy.

One of the many dissenters arrested in March 2003 was Mr. Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia, a pro-democracy activist in Cuba who has been jailed for his outspoken leadership in the Cuban democracy movement. Mr. Garcia is the regional coordinator for the Christian Liberation Movement in Santiago Province. Through this leadership position, he has moblilzed many Cuban youth for democratic change, and has focused on accomplishing the movement's chief objective: to unite citizens that are willing to defend and promote human rights and achieve changes in the Cuban society through peaceful means. Because of the efforts of determined individuals such as Mr. Garcia, the struggle for democracy in Cuba continues, and we should keep this in mind when considering any potential changes in United States policy towards Castro's regime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 81, and continue to voice their solidarity with Mr. Garcia and all other pro-democracy activists in Cuba as they continue their push for true freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the somber occasion of the

90th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, and to call upon the Administration to finally recognize this horrible crime for what it truly was, systematic and deliberate murder.

The Armenian Genocide began on April 24, 1915, and within 8 years one and a half million Armenians were tortured and killed. Tortures that the Armenians were forced to endure included forced labor, rape, kidnapping, and death marches under the guise of ``temporary relocation.'' A grave injustice was intentionally committed by the Ottoman Empire during these years, and it is imperative that we now stand up and demand that this injustice be officially recognized by Turkey, the United States, and the world.

The senseless crime of genocide is one of the most reprehensible acts that can be committed by man. To attempt eradication of an entire population based on a misguided prejudice is absolutely vile, and the United States should do everything in its power to try and prevent such atrocities from happening in the future. Only by explicitly defining genocide and ensuring that all cases of genocide throughout history are appropriately identified can we effectively deter this crime. Particularly at this time of heightened vigilance around the world, it is absolutely imperative that America take a strong stance against the most troubling of all terrorist acts, mass killings.

We can not forget Adolph Hitler's haunting remark to his military staff prior to launching the Holocaust: ``Who, after all, remembers the annihilation of the Armenians.'' Let us stand up as a country and let the world know that we do remember.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed nine votes on April 20th, 2005. The votes were on amendments to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6). Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, and 123. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 119.