Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and acknowledge the Wheatland Tube Company, headquartered in Collingswood, New Jersey, as a recipient of the National Outstanding Employer of Veterans Award from the American Legion and the Disabled Veterans of America. This award was presented on September 1, 2004 at the American Legion's 86th National Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.

The award, given to a select number of firms each year by the 2.7 million member American Legion, is designed to recognize ``an exceptional record in the employment of veterans,'' and committed efforts to give veterans consideration in employment and job training opportunities. Over the past several years, Wheatland has demonstrated considerable dedication to this cause, working closely with the Mercer County, Pennsylvania Career Link program to provide an accessible system through which veterans have access to employment, education and training resources.

No one is more deserving of assistance in securing employment than those brave men and women who give of themselves for the defense of our country. Their training, discipline, and resourcefulness serve as invaluable assets for companies across the country, and I am proud to recognize one such company in my district who has made special and notable efforts in the field. I congratulate the Wheatland Tube Company again and wish them best of luck in their future endeavors in this area and beyond.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment by my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Seventy-six years ago, the Congress passed and the President signed a law which says that if you work more than 40 hours a week, that you get time and a half for that additional time. With some carefully reasoned and well- thought-out exceptions since then, it has been the law for every American worker under every circumstance.

We have before us today the question of whether we should continue that very important principle. We should, and Members on both sides should vote in favor of the Obey amendment.

As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said a few minutes ago, there are officially 8 million Americans out of work as we meet this afternoon. Three million of those Americans have

been out of work so long they have exhausted their unemployment benefits. The price of health care has increased by 50 percent in the last 3\1/2\ years. This administration will be the first administration since that of Herbert Hoover that has lost more jobs than it has created.

Mr. Chairman, 2.45 million workers in manufacturing plants around the country have seen their jobs go overseas or south of the border, probably lost forever. The price of heating your home, driving your car, and educating your children rises, and the squeeze on the middle class intensifies.

So what issue does this Congress and this administration confront? The issue we confront is taking income away from 6 million people. These are not 6 million people who are at the high end of the American labor force.

In the debate on these regulations, we have heard this is about highly skilled, highly compensated people. Not the case. The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan objective arm of this institution, did an analysis of the people who will be affected by these overtime regulations. Nearly 70 percent of the workers who will be affected by these regulations make less than $1,000 a week. Nearly 70 percent of the people affected by these rules are making less than $50,000 a year. This is the middle class we are talking about. It is the working middle class. It is nursery school teachers, short-order cooks, people who work in the shoe department of a retail store. Their biggest problem, with all due respect, is not that they are getting too much income; it is that they are not getting enough, and they are not getting enough to pay the bills that their family needs to pay.

These overtime rules will adversely affect 6 million American workers. If there are going to be changes to the overtime rules, they should be debated here. They should be voted on by the people's representatives, not by the appointed people who work in the Department of Labor.

The Obey amendment will suspend these rules. It will protect the overtime rights of more than 6 million American workers. It will leave in place the existing overtime rules as it affects those workers, and it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the authors of this overtime policy change, overtime is not a gift from America's employers; overtime is the right of America's workers. In order to protect that right and to do what is right, I would urge my friends, both Republican and Democrat, to vote ``yes'' on the Obey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in strong support of the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). I think most Americans, Mr. Chairman, would be shocked to know that information about their pension which they own is not available to them at the same time it is available to a government agency.

When the President speaks about Social Security, he is fond of talking about trying to create accounts which are private property of citizens so that we can know what is ours. Pensions are already private property of citizens. When one contributes to a pension fund, or their employer contributes on their behalf to their fund, they own it. But under the present law, one of the more remarkable laws that we have on the books, if the pension fund that one's employer sponsors is in trouble, if it looks like it is going to be unable to pay benefits because its costs are exceeding its revenue, and it looks like the fund might crash so that the Federal Government, under the jurisdiction of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, will have to step in and make the pension fund whole, the law says that one's pension fund has to tell the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that it is in trouble, and it has to disclose the nature of that trouble. So this government agency gets this information about one's pension fund being in trouble and their check being in jeopardy. Believe it or not, there is a statute that says once this government agency has this information that a person's pension is in trouble, it cannot tell him.

We do not understand that. We think if someone works for a company, and is counting on their pension being delivered, and has contributed to that pension, and has had the employer contribute to that pension, and the pension is in jeopardy so much that the trustees of the fund have to report that trouble to a government agency, we think that the citizens, the pensioners themselves, have a right to know.

That is what the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) amendment does. It prohibits the administration, prohibits the executive branch, from enforcing this secrecy law. One's pension should not be held secret from them if they are an employee or a citizen or a future pensioner. That is what this says.

It is my understanding that, as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said, in fact, the administration supports this change, wants this information to be made public.

I do not believe this is a partisan issue. I think that responsible Members on both sides of the aisle would understand that if their pension is in trouble, they ought to have a right to know it, not later after the pension fund has failed and they do not get their check, not after it is too late to do something about it, as was in the case of the Enron and WorldCom employees, but now, as soon as it is timely, so they can do something about it.

So if the Members believe, as I think people on both sides of the aisle do, that someone's pension is their property, and if they believe, as I think people on both sides of the aisle do, that they have the right to know about the dynamics and phenomena happening about one's own property, and if they believe that some government agency has the right to know what is going on with their pension and they should, too, if they believe those things, then they ought to vote for the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) amendment. It is an

idea that is supported, to my understanding, by the administration. I hope it would be supported by both sides of the aisle here. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Joal E. Wolf. Lieutenant Colonel Wolf distinguished himself as the Commander of the 3401st Military Intelligence Detachment and Chief of Staff of the Iraq Intelligence Task Force and Iraq Working Group of the Joint Staff at the Defense Intelligence Agency from April 2001 to May 2004. Lieutenant Colonel Wolf led daily operations in providing cutting-edge and time-critical assessments and trend analysis on military activity in and around the Iraqi theater in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Lieutenant Colonel Wolf's leadership ensured over 4,000 tasks were completed efficiently and delivered timely to senior military and civilian leaders in the Department of Defense, White House and Congress. These intelligence products contributed significantly to the shaping of our national security policy and military planning, especially in the areas of infrastructure, economics, war crimes, sensitive site exploitation, anti-Coalition militants, weapons of mass destruction, and Coalition force protection. Lieutenant Colonel Wolf led his detachment to eclipse a bold 200 percent increase in production and in creating the Iraqi ``55 Most- Wanted'' deck of cards. For his service, Lieutenant Colonel Wolf was awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal on May 28, 2004.

In addition to being a fine military officer, Joal is also my brother-in-law and a small business owner. Joal is the proud son of Mrs. Phyllis M. Wolf, a veteran of the United States Army, and the late Dr. Alan E. Wolf, who was also a veteran of the United States Army. My relation to Joal has allowed me to closely follow his selfless service and better understand the sacrifices that thousands of reservists and Guardsmen are making in the war against terrorism. I am personally grateful to Joal and all of the brave men and women in our military who are making tremendous sacrifices to serve our Nation during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, July 20, 2004, marked the 30- year anniversary of Turkey's invasion and occupation of Cyprus. Since 1974, United States policy on the Cyprus problem has been unsuccessful in its efforts to influence an agreeable resolution to this division. On May 1, 2004, Cyprus became a member of the European Union of families as a divided and occupied nation, its northern part being under illegal Turkish military occupation. The potential reunification of Cyprus is at a critical juncture. The Greek Cypriot ``no'' vote of 76 percent and the Turkish Cypriot ``yes'' vote of 65 percent is strong evidence of the unfair and unbalanced nature of the current version of the Annan Plan. If the yes and no votes had been close to the 50-50 mark, it might be argued that the plan is fair and balanced. At this point, however, no reasonable person can make such an argument. Accordingly, the United States and the United Nations must re-examine the key provisions of the Annan Plan in an effort to remedy the deficiencies that now plague the plan and obstruct the potential reunification of Cyprus.

One deficiency of the Annan Plan is its failure to demilitarize Cyprus. There is no need for Turkish or Greek soldiers to remain in Cyprus. The United States should insist on full demilitarization now. The final Annan Plan actually provides for the permanent presence of 650 Turkish troops on Cyprus with the right of ``intervention'' by Turkey, a guarantor power under the 1959-1960 London Zurich agreements. With Cyprus now a full member of the EU, there is no need for Britain, Turkey or Greece to remain as guarantor powers.

Quite inexplicably, the Annan Plan does not provide for the immediate demilitarization of Cyprus. It provides for the gradual withdrawal of Turkey's 35,000/40,000 troops over 14 years with 650 remaining permanently. Earlier versions of the Plan did not authorize any Turkish troops to remain.

There is no security problem for the Turkish Cypriots. The opening of the Green Line for crossings in Nicosia since April 2003 has allowed Greek and Turkish Cypriots to interact on a regular basis, and this period has passed without major incident.

As long ago as July 25, 1978, former Republican Senator Bob Dole proposed demilitarization on the Senate floor during the Senate debate on the amendment, which passed, to remove the remaining arms embargo on Turkey. Dole voted against lifting the embargo and noted that ``[n]egotiations between the two communities have remained stalemated over the presence of the Turkish occupation force.'' He stated:

The great need for demilitarization of Cyprus, involving

withdrawal of both Greek and Turkish forces, must be

stressed. . . . Once demilitarization of Cyprus is achieved,

then the intercommunal talks between the Greek and Turkish

Cypriot communities over the territorial and political

settlement will proceed much more smoothly. This must be the

goal of all parties: to achieve demilitarization of Cyprus as

soon as possible.

It is beyond dispute that this aspect of the Annan Plan would actually serve to decrease stability and security on the island because it fails to fully demilitarize Cyprus at the same time that it also affirms intervention rights for Turkey. These provisions of the Annan Plan must be changed if the plan is to be accepted by both parties, and carried out to successfully achieve a peaceful, unified Cyprus.

Mr. Speaker, as the Administration continues to negotiate with the government of Libya regarding the U.S. sanctions that still remain in place, it is vitally important that the interests of the Pan Am 103 victims' families be kept in mind.

As all of my colleagues surely recall, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, devastating numerous families throughout the country. For over 15 years, the families of the 270 victims, including 189 Americans, have waited for justice. Given that the Libyan government has admitted responsibility for this horrific attack, the sought-after justice must include a substantial penalty to be paid by this government. To this end, an agreement was reached whereby the Libyan government is to pay each family a substantial sum, in stages, as certain criteria are met.

In order for the next stage of compensatory damages to be released to the families, the United States must lift two executive orders, one which has frozen Libyan assets in the U.S., and another which prohibits Libyan airflights to and from the U.S. A deadline has been set at the end of this month, and if these executive orders are not lifted by that date (and there is no extension of this deadline), then the families will not receive this portion of the compensation, and it will be returned to the Libyan Government.

Let me be clear, the families are not concerned with the money. Rather, they want to ensure that the Libyan government is fully punished for the attack that claimed the lives of their loved ones. I wish to also state that the families are not necessarily advocating for all of these sanctions to be removed. If the U.S. decides as a matter of policy that they want these sanctions to remain in place permanently, they will support this decision. What the families do not want to see happen, however, is for the deadline to pass, thereby denying the families their just compensation, only to have the sanctions lifted a short period later. The Pan Am 103 families have waited far too long to be left standing in the cold, and they should not be made to watch justice slip away.

The State Department and the Administration are to be commended for their efforts in these negotiations thus far, and I urge them to keep the Pan Am 103 victims and families in mind as they proceed towards further resolution.

Mr. Speaker, 6 million Americans are about to lose their right to overtime protection, police officers, firefighters, preschool teachers; and I believe that a majority of this House is ready to vote against that proposal and is ready to restrain that proposal from becoming law.

I have, Mr. Speaker, to commend the majority because they have found a new way to subvert the will of the majority. On two occasions what the majority has done is permit a proposition to come to the floor, lose, as they did in the case of the Medicare vote, lose as they did in the case of protecting civil rights under an amendment to the PATRIOT Act, and then fix the result after they have lost.

This time they have come up with a new strategy. Because the majority knows it will lose this vote on overtime, they are prohibiting the vote from coming to the floor in the first place.

If the Labor-HHS appropriations bill were reported out of committee and brought to this floor, this House would get a chance to work its will and defeat this proposal that will deny 6 million Americans the right to overtime.

I say, Mr. Speaker, to the majority, bring it to the floor. Let the House work its will. Let the majority protect the rights of 6 million Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the students of Williamstown Middle School who have received the Principal's Award over the past two academic years. The Principal's Award is given to students who have earned straight A's for at least one academic quarter, clearly an accomplishment worthy of notice.

As these young constituents have already realized, the importance of education should never be underestimated. These students have clearly shown their commitment to education and academic achievement, and are well on their way to becoming our nation's future leaders. I wish to congratulate these individuals for their firm dedication to learning, and urge them to continue along this path.

During the 2002-2003 school year the Principal's Award was received by the following sixth graders: Sequia Adams Ferebee, Jennifer Annarelli, Brittany Arnold, David Barbalace, Kevin Bargeron, Victoria Becker, Jordan Bonder, Gillian Bradley, Krista Butler, Ashley D'Ambrosio, Nicholas Davis, Francesca Dougherty, Tiffany Fanelli, Sarah Fauvell, Kayla Gennarelli, Daniella Genovese, Nicole Goldsmith, Chelsea Grahamslaw, Courtney Grim, John Lafferty, Daniel Lang, Matthew Leonardis, Dena Mahoney, James Maldonado, John McCormick, Kevin McDonough, Kimberly Nothstein, Staven Ray, Victoria Rocco, Jody Salvatore, Timothy Schipske, Jaclyn Stewart, Nicholas Stola, Katie Trotter, Chris Whipple, Ashley Wilkinson, Gabrielle Wurdarski. In the seventh grade the following students received the award: Erika Abel, Kristen Antonelli, Rachel Brown, Krisitin Capasso, Grace Ann Charles, Arielle Dibling, Christina Fuscellano, Amber Hassan, Meeghan James, Jocelyn Jengehino, Amber Kane, Brian Kelly, Amanda Kimer, Brittany Kubat, Brian Lallier, Mandy Lei, Denay Morrison, Christine Oagaro, David Ofosu-Appiah, Daniel Palieri, Brielle Sneed, Michelle Talnagi, Frances Ulmer, Megan Wadsworth, Mark Washko, Tara Weeast, Collin Whipple. Eighth grade recipients included: Justin Abraham, Adam Brinkman, Heather Butler, Hollie Butler, Jamie Dougherty, Shady El Damaty, Eric Flinn, Angela Forjohn, Douglas Fuscia, Amanda Gregory, Lisa Guarrera, Josh Haynes, Anne Inacay, Robert Knecht, Sandra Lamplugh, Christopher Lewandowski, Anthony Lopez, Nicholas Marella, Anthony McCullough, Michael Mueller, Joseph Obraczewski, Frederick Powell, Niccolo Reggente, Kacey Richards, Sarah Sottile, Anthony Stola, Gerard Tigue, Michael Torres, Heather Vischoric, Amanda Williams, Arielle Williams, Laura Williams.

During the 2003-2004 school year the following students of the sixth grade received the award: Emilie Albert, Douglas Blankenship, Amanda Branda, Stephanie Bradley, Jessica Bullman, Jamie Cattell, Mia DiFilippo, Amber Endres, Mariel Enriques, Caitlin Graham, Jospeh Gratton, Brandon Harner, Amy Harrington, Juliet Jengehino, Ashley Jones, Sarah Kee, Sean Kryston, Shannon Listman, Rachel Maiorano, Jessica Martinez, Robert Mele, Carly Moffa, Briana Molino, Nicholas Randazzo, Gabrielle Richardson, Jade Richardson, Christopher Rotella, Corrie Sellers, Veronica Shevlin, Jacob Sprengle, Caitlin Stewart, James Stewart, Jennifer Stief, Andrew Sudler, Amanda Tran, Alexander Vickers, Keyanah West, Alyssa Worstall. Seventh grade recipients included: Brittany Arnold, David Barbalace, Jordan Bonder, Gillian Bradley, Michelle DeCraene, Francesca Dougherty, Tiffany Fanelli, Sarah Favell, Danielle Genovese, Robert Giarnone, Jr., Courtney Grim, Jason Irlieh, Charlotte Kirkby, Kelli Kleinsmith, John Lefferty, Daniel Lang, Dena Mahonery, Kevin McDonough, Kimberly Nothstein, Sheeaa Rastogi, Steven Ray, Tanya Roberson, Victoria Rocoo, Jody Salvatore, Nicholas Stola, Katire Trotter, Crystal Uzdevenes. Recipents in the eighth grade were: Keleofa Bernard, Kristin Capasso, Grace Ann Charles, Jamie Curran, Christina Fuscellaro, Antonio Inacay, Brian Kelly, Michael Kessler, Amanda Kimex, Melissa Kortman, Julian Magner, Daniel Palmieri, Julianne Smith, Sharon Sudarsanan, Magan Wadsworth, Mark Washko, Tara Weeast, Collin Whipple.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives join me in recognizing the Principal's Award recipients of Williamstown Middle School. Their accomplishments are truly deserving of national commendation.

Mr. Speaker I was not present on July 12, 2004, due to a train and bad weather. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on Holt Amendment to the Legislative Appropriations bill (rollcall 359), ``no'' on the Hefley Amendment to the Legislative Appropriations bill (rollcall 360), ``yes'' on the Motion to Recommit (rollcall 361), and ``yes'' on final passage of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill (rollcall 362).

Mr. Chairman, I thank my very gracious friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, the story of boys and girls living on the street and starving to death in our culture is a matter of fiction. It is the story of Oliver Twist. But for huge numbers of people in the world today, it is not a matter of fiction; it is a matter of fact. Seventy percent of the world's population lives in countries where the per capita income in 1 year is equal to what Americans make in a month. Seventy percent of the people live in desperate poverty, and many of those people live in countries where the debt owed by those countries to Western lending institutions is huge.

I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their initiative in the Millennium Challenge Account. By putting $1.25 billion into debt relief for these struggling countries, this is not only an act of human mercy; it is an act of economic intelligence that will benefit our own country as well as the people living in these very troubled and destitute countries.

So I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) in the majority. I thank my dear friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), in the minority. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The Chair would announce that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) has 7 minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lorraine Cephus of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and to celebrate her outstanding achievements as a runner.

Lorraine was an avid high school athlete, playing softball and running track. She only began running seriously in her 30s after her two children were born and while her husband Louis, an Army colonel, was stationed in Germany.

At 74 years old, the grandmother of two runs an astonishing six miles everyday. She has completed countless marathons, logging over 100,000 miles. Since 1976, she has completed 28 consecutive Marine Corp Marathons, the only women to ever accomplish this feat. While she competes in other races around the country, the Marine Corp Marathon has special significance to her, as the race passes Arlington National Cemetery where her beloved husband Louis is buried. Every year as she runs past the cemetery, Lorraine salutes and says a prayer for her late husband.

People in her community know Lorraine not only for her extraordinary athleticism but for her friendly nature and sunny disposition. May she continue to serve as an inspiration to all of us to live a healthy and active lifestyle for many years to come.

I congratulate Lorraine on her spectacular accomplishments, and wish her the best of luck as she trains to compete in her 29th Marine Corps Marathon this fall.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for his leadership and hard work on this bill. I congratulate him, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and all those responsible for the passage of this very important bill.

One of the most frustrating failures of local government is when there is a traffic fatality at an intersection and the residents of the community say, for years we have been warning that there was going to be a fatality at this intersection. How come you did not put a traffic light or a stop sign up before? Why did it take a fatality to get government to pay attention?

This is a massive and serious equivalent at the national level of whether we should prevent the traffic accident by putting up the signal ahead of time. Although this bill is not perfect, it recognizes an issue that is not much talked about today but is very much looming on the horizon as a potential catastrophe for the country. As the gentleman from Texas said very eloquently just a few minutes ago, perhaps the most ominous and destructive terrorist attack that could occur on this country would be a terrorist attack using a biological weapon. Unlike chemical weapons, unlike radiological weapons, even unlike nuclear weapons, the threat of a bioweapon is not localized because very often a bioweapon uses as its carrier a human being. So the spread of a bioweapon attack will not be limited to a discrete local area. It will likely be spread throughout the country and throughout the world. This makes it even more urgent that antidotes that could cure those exposed to the attack or prevent people from being sickened or killed by the attack, that these antidotes be developed as rapidly as possible.

I am particularly pleased that the committees involved worked with us to include in this bill language that will protect the interests of companies that begin the process of developing an antidote and then have their contract terminated for convenience because a better idea comes along from another vendor. It is a very important provision that will permit these investors in research to recover the funds that they put into the contract.

Let me express three concerns about the bill, and I hope that we return once this is made law to improve these areas. One is what the gentleman from Texas talks about, particularly with respect to mutant or new strains of bioweapons that would not be handled by the antidotes developed under this bill. We need a much more rapid and focused effort to deal with those mutant or new strains.

Second, I am very concerned that the liability provisions in this bill are not sufficiently protective of the companies that would step forward to address the need to create these Bioshield defenses. I am not at all convinced that the immunity is broad enough or dependable enough. Time will tell.

If the immunity is not broad or dependable enough, we are going to have to revisit that issue.

Finally, I am concerned, to the extent that funding under this bill is discretionary and not mandatory, the financial rewards that are necessary to induce a company to step forward and participate in this process may not be certain enough. An investor is not going to take a risk unless there is a guaranteed return. I think this bill takes a step in the right direction, but I am concerned it does not go far enough.

I wholeheartedly support this bill. I am honored to have been a part of writing and pursuing the bill. I hope that the products produced as a result of this bill are never used. That would be the real measure of success. But, God forbid, if the day comes when they need to be used, let us be prepared. Let us not look upon ourselves and say, why did we not take action in the peaceful days before the attack when we had a chance to do so?

This legislation is long overdue. I enthusiastically support it. I would ask colleagues on both the Republican and Democratic side to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question so that we may consider and support the McGovern amendment.

What happened here yesterday was not an affront to the members of the minority. It was not even an affront to the 140 million people that we represent. It was an affront to the tradition of this institution that says that rules should reign over personal agendas.

We all come here believing passionately in the rightness of our cause, and we fight passionately for victory for our causes. But we have learned that when we lose that fight, the right result is to come back tomorrow and fight again. When you lose, Mr. Speaker, the right result is not to wait until you can win by manipulating the rules. That is just plain wrong. And it has become a malignant practice here in this House.

When we considered the Medicare legislation, probably the most important legislation this Congress will consider, the vote was held open for more than 3 hours because the majority lost the vote. And during those 3 hours, the majority took advantage of whatever leverage it had, and some of that leverage is now the subject of an investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It took advantage of every piece of leverage it had to alter the outcome of the vote.

Yesterday, on a very significant vote regarding the civil liberties of the people of this country who go to a library or a bookstore, the majority lost the vote and was unwilling to settle for that response.

We have a tradition in this institution and in this country. You fight fiercely for the things in which you believe; but when you lose, you lose, and the remedy is to come back tomorrow and fight again. The remedy is not to bend and subvert the rules so that you do not lose.

Our party lost the majority in this House a decade ago because there was a perception that we had subverted some of those rules. You, my friends in the majority, are in danger not only of losing your majority, but you are in danger of jeopardizing something far more important, and that is a basic understanding in this country that we all play under the rules.

Do not sacrifice the integrity of this institution again for some short-term, hallow political victory.

Vote against the previous question and adopt the McGovern amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize the newest inductees and two-year members of the National Junior Honor Society of Bell Oaks Upper Elementary School in Bellmawr, New Jersey. These students have earned this recognition due to their excellence both inside and outside the classroom, and they should be proud of their accomplishments.

The National Junior Honor Society was established in 1929, 8 years after the establishment of the National Honor Society. Both organizations were established to recognize outstanding students who demonstrate excellence in the areas of Scholarship, Leadership, Service, and Character. Students are expected to demonstrate proficiency not just in their classroom studies, but in school activities and community service as well. Each of the recent inductees and current members of the Bell Oaks National Junior Honor Society is to be commended for their dedication to knowledge and service.

On May 24 at 7 p.m. Bell Oaks Upper Elementary School inducted the following 7th Graders: Caitlin Concannon, Charles Dyer, David Funk, Breelynn Hammerle, Jake Huffner, John Ippolite, Maryam Jamil, Erica Lopez, Jacob McGranaghan, Stephen Miles, Joseph Newsham, Priyanka Patel, Charles Robinson, Mark Unger, Judith Wallen, Brett Walren, and Lidia Wilczynska. The 8th Graders inducted were Justin Borrelli, Bryan Cheeseman, Donovan Ortiz, Ashley Parker, Steven Sheehan, and Christopher Todd. The National Junior Honor Society Two Year Members are as follows: Michael Anthony, Hinnah Aslam, Lorin Barry, Joshua Bloomquist, Laura Buonpastore, Lauren Burmylo, Anthony DiLolle, Edward DiMattesa, Nicholas Fishman, Danielle Landis, Brittany Magnin, Michael Malason, Meghan Mitchell, Sean O'Donnell, Stephen Paul, Brittney Rehrig, Amanda Roop, Blair Rundsmom, Matthew Salvano, Jessie Sibiski, Thomas Teschko, and Britney Yocum.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating each of these students on their dedication to scholarship and commitment to community service. Their enthusiasm for learning and helping others is admirable, and I am certain that they will continue to excel in these areas and remain leaders in their community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address some dangerous and potentially harmful conjectures that have been made by some of our colleagues in Congress regarding the reasons for going to war with Iraq.

Our decision to go to war with Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision. The record shows that at various times the defeated Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons and desired to possess nuclear weapons. Failure to oust Saddam Hussein would have put the American people at a grave risk.

Some have questioned the quality of intelligence that U.S. policy makers received prior to the start of the war in Iraq. I agree that this is a matter of grave importance that requires a complete and full public evaluation. Any faulty intelligence on such grave matters is a serious problem. If we are relying on the same potentially faulty intelligence to protect the lives of our troops still serving in Iraq, or to consider military action elsewhere in the world, that is a dangerous risk to our security and a grave flaw in our foreign policy decision making processes. While these matters are investigated, however, it is crucial that we do not recklessly suggest alternate reasons that the war was pursued.

Some Members of Congress have made statements claiming that the true reason for this war was to move along the Administration's plan to secure a peaceful Israel. These statements are baseless, and quite divisive. While Israel, like the rest of the World, will surely benefit from a stable, democratic Iraq, this war was not entered into for Israel's benefit. Granted, a democratic force in the region will be welcome by the Israeli government, but a stable Iraq will be no means ensure an end to the dangers faced by our allies in Israel. Suggesting that the United States waged this war solely to advance its Middle East policies will only serve to increase the anti-Semitism that already permeates the area, and potentially increase the violence that the Israeli citizens have been forced to endure for years. It is true that, prior to the commencement of the War with Iraq, President Bush stated, ``A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations

in the region.'' I fully agree with this statement, and feel that it is important to recognize that the spread of freedom and democracy in the region is of great benefit to the entire world, not just Israel. The spread of democracy will directly lead to the spread of peace. There has not been one instance in modern history where a democratic government has gone to war with another democratic government--not one. Achieving such a peaceful existence is of monumental importance to the United States, Israel, and all other nations opposed to violence and terror tactics.

While I certainly do not expect each of my colleagues to agree with me on the question of whether or not we should have entered this war, I do urge all Members of Congress to think carefully about the potential effects that their statements may have, both on the war and on other subjects of a sensitive nature.