Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with much sadness that I rise to recognize a teacher and friend, Sona Polakowski. She succumbed to cancer on September 15. I join ber husband Bob, her daughter Jen, her son Mark, her family, friends and admirers in mourning her loss and in celebrating her life.

Born in Jersey City, NJ, Sona resided in Lawrenceville, NJ for the past 35 years. A graduate of Seton Hall University, she was project director for math and science at the Lawrence Township Board of Education. Sona was a member of the New Jersey Education Association, National Science Teachers Association and Congregation Brothers of Israel.

For the past 15 years, it has been my privilege to work with Sona to improve children's education. Her cheerful determination was her most apparent characteristic. She gave hundreds of teachers the confidence and knowledge to teach science; and, most of all, she shared her determination. Her effect on others will remain with thousands of students for generations to come. She will be missed by me, my staff, and the many teachers and others with whom she worked.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my growing concern about the situation in Sri Lanka. I have followed the state of affairs in Sri Lanka for a long time, and it is clear to me that the current level of violence threatens to return the country to open civil war.

The renewed violence and rising death toll in Sri Lanka is troubling to me and many residents of my congressional district. They shared with me their apprehension about the growing levels of violence and I share their commitment to establishing a lasting peace in Sri Lanka.

That is why today I wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking her to appoint a special envoy for Sri Lanka. I attach that letter. The appointment of a high level official with the ear of President Bush will ensure that our government is focused on doing everything in its power to bring a lasting peace to the people of Sri Lanka. Further, naming a special envoy will ensure that there is a U.S. government official solely dedicated to fostering cooperation between the two parties and working to establish a mutually agreed peace. This envoy also must have a clear mandate to monitor human rights violations on the ground and ensure that international humanitarian laws are observed by all parties.

It is my hope and prayer that the violence will end and that the parties in Sri Lanka will return to the peace negotiations. America must remain committed to fostering peace in Sri Lanka and working with the international community to bring an end to the current conflict. The people have endured civil war for too long. Our Nation must do everything it can to foster a lasting peace in Sri Lanka.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, September 21, 2006.

Hon. Condoleezza Rice,

Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Rice: I am writing to urge you to appoint a

special envoy for Sri Lanka because I am deeply troubled by

the situation on the ground there. This summer brought an end

to the negotiated permanent ceasefire, which had been

generally observed since 2002. The renewed violence and

rising death toll in Sri Lanka are a grave risk to the

fragile peace process and threaten a return to open civil

war.

News reports indicate that recent heavy fighting has

resulted in hundreds of deaths and the displacement of more

than 200,000 people in Sri Lanka. Parties to the conflict are

not the only ones suffering. As you know, The Sri Lanka

Monitoring Mission (SLMM) recently investigated the murder of

17 aid workers, and the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights made clear just this week that ``there is an

urgent need for the international community to monitor the

unfolding human rights situation.''

Naming a special envoy for Sri Lanka would further

emphasize our government's commitment to creating a lasting

peace. It is essential that the U.S. envoy be a high-level

official with the ear of President Bush and you. The envoy's

mandate should be clear and must include efforts to increase

monitoring of human rights violations.

The citizens of Sri Lanka have endured civil war for too

long. We must do everything we can to foster a lasting peace

for the country. Again, I request that you appoint a special

envoy for Sri Lanka to help bring peace to the country.

Sincerely,

Rush Holt,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, for 6 years now, the middle-class families in the United States have been sold out by the leadership here in Washington.

Wages are worse than stagnant. Families are paying more for energy, health care and education, and yet real household income for working- age families has declined every year of the Bush administration, dropping nearly $3,000 in real terms. Personal debt is at the highest in many years, and America's debt has climbed 50 percent, to more than $28,000 per person since Bush took office, and will double to more than $11 trillion.

I wonder if Americans realize that Republican leadership has stubbornly and consistently refused to accept Democratic calls to have pay-as-you-go budgets. The Democratic leadership would take our Nation in a new direction and begin to repair the economy for regular middle- class American families.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to object strongly to the voter disenfranchisement proposal before us.

According to the Election Assistance Commission's comprehensive Survey of the 2004 election, there were more than 197 million voting- age American citizens at that time. According to the Brennan Center for Justice in its September 2006 voter identification study, as many as 10% of eligible voters do not have, and maybe will not get, the documents required by strict voter ID laws. Thus, the very first thing this bill will do is disenfranchise as many as 20 million eligible voters.

Who are these 20 million voters? The poor. The elderly. The disabled. Persons of color. Native Americans. Students. Why would anyone vote in favor of disenfranchising these citizens?

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was an imperfect bill, but it did reach a bipartisan compromise on voter identification. HAVA's already- existing requirements for voter identification and the integrity of voter registration rolls go on for pages. Among the requirements:

States must make ``a reasonable effort to remove registrants who are ineligible to vote from the official list of eligible voters;''

Voter registration applications may not be ``accepted or processed'' unless they include an applicants driver's license number or, in the case of voters who don't have one, ``the last 4 digits of the applicants Social Security number;'' or, in the case of voters with neither, a ``unique identifying number'' assigned by election officials;

First time voters who registered by mail and did not present ID must show photo ID at the polls when they vote.

Voters can't get around that requirement by voting absentee--first time voters who registered by mail and did not present ID must send a copy of a photo ID with their mail-in ballot.

And HAVA provides for criminal penalties for violations for the foregoing--``any individual who knowingly commits fraud or knowingly makes a false statement with respect to the naturalization, citizenry, or alien registry of such citizen . . . shall be fined, imprisoned [for up to five years], or both.''

The measure before us is a solution in search of a problem. The Department of Justice (DOJ), in its ``Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity for 2004,'' reported that at the end of 2004, the Public Integrity Section had approximately 133 election crime matters pending nationwide. That is an average of just over two cases per state for the entire year--hardly an avalanche. In addition, most of the cases described in the report concerned campaign finance violations, not voter fraud. Only one described a vote-buying scheme, and none referred specifically to non-citizen or double voting. On the other hand, the same Report noted that a total of 1,213 public officials had been charged with corruption in 2004, that 1,020 of them had been convicted of corruption, and that 419 cases remained pending. In other words, according to the DOJ's own findings, the problem of corruption among public official is at the very least ten times worse than the problem of citizens cheating in elections.

Meanwhile, other studies have found that instances of double voting and voting using another's identity are virtually non-existent.

Washington State--a study of 2.8 million ballots cast in 2004 showed that only 0.0009 percent of them reflected double voting or voting in the name of deceased individuals.

Ohio--a statewide survey found a mere four instances out of more than 9 million votes cast where ineligible persons voted or attempting to vote in 2002 and 2004--a rate of 0.00004%.

Georgia--(which recently passed one of the strictest voter ID laws, which was subsequently struck down); Secretary of State Cathy Cox stated that in her ten-year tenure, she could not recall one documented case of voter fraud involving the impersonation of a registered voter at the polls.

I have introduced legislation, the Electoral Fairness Act of 2006 (H.R. 4989), that would require that all voters, upon being duly registered, be issued a durable voter registration card at no cost to the voter, ``which shall serve as proof that the individual is duly registered to vote'' at the polling place which services the individual's address. The bill would preserve HAVA's existing voter ID requirements, but add no more, an the voter registration cards would serve strictly to protect voters who are removed from the voter rolls wrongfully or erroneously.

My legislation would protect the 1.2 million voters who were, in fact, wrongfully denied access to a regular ballot in 2004 when they

showed up at polling places. The legislation before us, in the absence of meaningful or documented justification, would leave those 1.2 million voters in jeopardy of wrongful disenfranchisement and add 20 million more to the pile. In the name of solving a problem that is evidently a tiny problem these legislators--at great expense to individuals and to states--would add requirements that will turn away legitimate, deserving, honest voters. This is poll tax, pure and simple, and I urge my colleagues to vote it down.

Groups Opposing H.R. 4844

A. Philip Randolph Institute; ACORN; Advancement Project;

Aguila Youth Leadership Institute; Alliance for Retired

Americans; American Association of People with Disabilities;

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP); American

Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union of

Arizona; American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial

Organizations (AFL-CIO); American Federation of State, County

and Municipal Employees; American Immigration Lawyers

Association; American Policy Center; Americans for Democratic

Action; Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Consumers Council;

Arizona Hispanic Community Forum; Arizona Students'

Association; Asian American Justice Center; Asian American

Legal Defense and Education Fund; Asian and Pacific Islander

American Vote (APIAVote); and Asian Pacific American Labor

Alliance, AFL-CIO.

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; Center for

Digital Democracy; Common Cause; Computer Professionals for

Social Responsibility; Concerned Foreign Service Officers;

Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Consumer Action; Cyber Privacy

Project; Democratic Women's Working Group; Demos : A Network

for Ideas & Action; Electronic Privacy Information Center;

Emigrantes Sin Fronteras; Fairfax County Privacy Council;

Friends Committee on National Legislation; Hispanic

Federation; Hispanic National Bar Association; Interfaith

Worker Justice of Arizona; Intertribal Council of Arizona;

Japanese American Citizens League (JACL); La Union Del Pueblo

Entero (LUPE); Labor Council for Latin American Advancement;

and Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; League of United

Latin American Citizens; League of Women Voters of Greater

Tucson; League of Women Voters of the United States; Legal

Momentum; Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational

Fund; National Association for the Advancement of Colored

People (NAACP); National Association of Latino Elected and

Appointed Officials Educational Fund; National Center for

Transgender Equality; National Congress of American Indians;

National Council of Jewish Women; National Council of La

Raza; National Disability Rights Network; National Education

Association; National Korean American Service & Education

Consortium; National Urban League; National Voting Rights

Institute; Navajo Nation; New York Public Interest Research

Group, Inc./NYPIRG; Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA

Foundation; People for the American Way Foundation; and

Project for Arizona's Future.

Protection and Advocacy System; RainbowPUSH Coalition;

Republican Liberty Caucus; SEIU Local 5 Arizona; Service

Employees International Union (SEIU); Sikh American Legal

Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF); Somos America/We Are

America; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; The

Multiracial Activist; The Rutherford Institute; Tohono

O'odham Nation; Transgender Law Center; U.S. PIRG; Unitarian

Universalist Association of Congregations; United Auto

Workers; United Church of Christ Justice & Witness

Ministries; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church

and Society; United States Student Association; United

Steelworkers; UNITE-HERE; Velvet Revolution; William C.

Velasquez Institute; and YWCA USA.

Mr. Chairman, can you, or another member, tell me why we are considering this legislation? Why when we have the largest prison population in the world, why when we have one of the worst recidivism rates in the world, why when we have enormous expense from crime and imprisonment, and why when America's historic and ethical attitude towards crime is based predominantly on a redemptive view of human nature, why are we doing this?

Mr. Speaker, last month President Bush signed into law the so-called Pension Protection Act. I opposed this legislation because it fails to address America's retirement security crisis--in fact, it accelerates the move away from defined-benefit pension plans and it makes it easier for companies to eliminate pensions or dump their obligations onto the backs of taxpayers. It also treats the pensions of CEOs and top executives as more sacred than those of workers.

The Federal Government should ensure that, after 30 years of service, workers will receive the pensions that they have been promised and that they have earned. Unfortunately, this bill does not live up to that responsibility. I opposed this legislation when it originally passed the House, and I had hoped that its shortcomings would be addressed in conference. I am disappointed that Democrats were excluded from the conference committee. This exclusion was a disservice to all American workers who will not benefit from their knowledge and experience in the subject.

Unfortunately, the shortcomings of the House bill were not addressed in conference. Far from protecting pensions for American workers, this legislation will allow companies to under-fund plans by simply promising to increase the contributions in future years. As the financial obligations on these companies grow, however, they will likely freeze or terminate pension plans, as they no longer make business sense to continue.

Some provisions blatantly discriminate against workers in favor of executives. The legislation allows plans that are only 60 percent funded to continue increasing the lavish benefits that executives enjoy. However, a plan must be 80 percent funded before employees can get any additional assistance. It is fundamentally unfair to hold these two groups to two different standards.

Most troubling to me is how American workers and retirees are increasingly being told, ``You are on your own.'' As President Bush continues to advocate privatization of Social Security, and more and more companies convert their defined-benefit pensions to defined- contribution plans, retirees are having the rug pulled from under their feet. We have failed to apply the lesson that broad-based economic security facilitates sustainable growth, innovation, and productivity.

America's employees deserve retirement security. President Bush should have signed a bill that would protect employees, discourage companies from freezing or terminating their plans, address the financial shortfall at the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, and treat all employees equally.

Although the ``Pension Protection Act'' is now law, our commitment to employees who are so integral to our economy is not fulfilled. As we come off of Labor Day, I urge this body to assure the financial security of American employees through policies that achieve economic growth that is broad-based, not concentrated at the top of the income ladder.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of health information technology, which holds great promise for reducing medical errors, lowering costs, expediting diagnoses and treatments, and facilitating quality care. However, I must oppose this legislation due to the complete lack of a mechanism for safeguarding patient privacy, opening up the dangerous possibility of identity theft or personal infringement.

Estimates vary as to the amount of money that health information technology will save our healthcare system, but it could surely be in the tens of billions of dollars. Making health information accessible electronically by health care providers with the proper clearance would improve the quality of care by getting providers to patients' medical history quickly and efficiently. This would reduce medical errors, increase patient satisfaction, and decrease the number of lawsuits.

Unfortunately, the bill that the House passed will not accomplish any of these goals. Providers do not have access to any funding assistance, which they will need to purchase health information technology. We should be making grants and loans available to physicians so that they can take advantage of the promise of health IT, realizing the promise of improved care.

A larger problem is that this bill will jeopardize the privacy of medical records. We have all seen the unconscionable and irresponsible loss of sensitive personal information by federal agencies like the Veterans Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Department of Transportation. This loss of personal information is a breach of trust by the federal government. Passing this legislation without reasonable privacy safeguards will only put patients at greater risk.

We should be doing more to protect the patients' names, medical history, and financial information. Unfortunately, this legislation abdicates that responsibility. The Rules Committee even disallowed consideration of amendments to accomplish that reasonable and important goal. Whereas the Senate worked on a bipartisan basis to pass a comprehensive and responsible bill, the House has wasted an opportunity to improve healthcare and reduce costs for all Americans.

I support health information technology, and I believe in the promise that it holds. Unfortunately, I cannot support legislation that makes American patients more likely to have their personal information stolen and their privacy violated.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California.

Like every American, I spent the past week reflecting on that terrible day 5 years ago. I too attended a number of memorials and observances during the week. We came out of 9/11/2001 mourning with the families, praising the first responders, and vowing to catch and punish those responsible and vowing to do everything possible to prevent a recurrence.

For the families affected, well over 100 in my district in central New Jersey alone, the pain will never go away. The hole in their hearts and their lives is mirrored by the void that remains at Ground Zero, and that in part is what I wanted to talk about, the unfinished work in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

Today, Congress, following the President, has veered off course. We have engaged in a war with an undefined enemy, undefined objectives and no plan for success. We have suffered a tremendous loss of American life, money and international prestige, the latter almost entirely self-inflicted. We have alienated and embittered traditional allies, some of whom believe we might even attack them at some point in the future, and we have given our enemies, unfortunately, ample material with which they can recruit new terrorists.

The families left behind on 9/11 made a clear request of us: make Americans safer from terrorism. We have not taken those specific steps, even though we should have taken them.

What are those specific steps? Well, my friend from Ohio, the majority leader, and the chairman, they know. Every Member knows. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission worked hard and well and presented a specific list on everything from securing our borders to screening shipments in ports.

By the way, the list did not include a suggestion that we invade Iraq.

The commission gave these specific recommendations, a blueprint on how to protect Americans. Not long ago, the 9/11 Commission gave the government about two dozen inadequate grades for failing to take those specific steps to protect Americans.

So instead of self-congratulatory and divisive resolutions, let us have an up-or-down vote to implement each of their recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, because of a briefing in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I was absent for rollcall vote 414 on an amendment by Congressman Towns. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''. I ask that this statement be placed in the correct place in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res 384, recognizing and honoring the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated, the first intercollegiate fraternity established for African-Americans.

From the first literary fraternity, Phi Beta Kappa, founded in 1776 at the College of William and Mary through the subsequent development of social fraternities starting with Kappa Alpha in 1825, college fraternities have sought to foster close friendship and personal development.

In the early 20th century, Black students were often excluded from the social organizations at many colleges and universities. Alpha Phi Alpha was founded in 1906 at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, to provide associations and support among African-American students. With its cardinal principles of ``Manly Deeds, Scholarship and Love for All Mankind,'' over 175,000 men have been initiated into the fraternity and there are now over 700 chapters worldwide. Among its membership are a number of prominent figures such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesse Owens, Thurgood Marshall and our colleague Charles Rangel.

Aside from the lasting friendships that many young men have found within the fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha has dedicated itself to a number of philanthropic programs. Alpha works closely with organizations such as Head Start, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the NAACP and Habitat for Humanity. Alpha Phi Alpha has also created a number of its own programs such as the Go-To-High-School, Go-To-College program and ``A Voteless People is a Hopeless People.'' Alpha Phi Alpha also submitted the request for The Washington, D.C. Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation which was authorized by President Clinton in 1998.

Alpha Phi Alpha has two chapters in and around my district in central New Jersey, the Sigma Xi Chapter at Monmouth University and the Delta Iota Chapter at Rutgers University. I am proud of the role they play in enriching their surrounding communities.

From its origins as a social network for African-American college students to its continuing philanthropic efforts, Alpha Phi Alpha is indeed worthy of recognition and I am proud to stand in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Oman Free Trade Agreement (OFTA).

The Bush administration has again presented the Congress with a flawed trade agreement. I support vigorous international trade, but it should also be fair trade.

The inadequate labor provisions in this agreement are almost identical to those contained in the flawed Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), which I opposed. After the contentious vote on DR-CAFTA, the United States Trade Representative said he would address the concerns we raised in future agreements. Unfortunately nothing has changed.

OFTA does little to improve the poor protection for workers in Oman. The labor provisions in this trade agreement are lackluster, and will be very hard to enforce. This trade agreement asks Oman only to meet the lowest possible dominator of labor law. We can and we must do better.

Currently, Oman labor laws do not provide for the freedom to associate or the rights to organize and bargain collectively, the most fundamental of workers rights. There are no protections for workers who want to strike in Oman, and there are no independent unions. Oman has said it will change, but it does not have to. These promises should be included as requirements in this agreement, not in unenforceable side letters.

As I have said before, international trade is not just inevitable, it is a good thing. It has enormous potential to raise standards across the globe, disseminate technology and encourage economic growth. But lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availability is not the single goal of trade. Trade should also lift the global standard of living. Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities; they are also about what constitutes acceptable behavior in workers' rights, environmental matters, intellectual property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who produce them. Like the DR-CAFTA and Bahrain Free Trade Agreements, the Oman Free Trade Agreement does not pass these tests. The agreement before us fails both parties: it will not help either America's or Oman's workers.

Each new trade agreement entered into by the United States ought to be closely scrutinized, and ought to include the strongest enforceable worker rights and environmental safeguards attainable. We know how to craft such agreements, for example the U.S.-Jordan Agreement of 2000 was a fair and good agreement. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has abandoned that successful format and pushed ahead with a trade policy that only looks at the bottom line, rather than the workers who produced the goods or the environment they live in and rely upon for sustainable growth.

We need to go back to the successful format that incorporates American values into our trade agreements. This would ensure that U.S. companies and employees are not forced to compete with countries that have no or weak labor laws, poor working conditions, and a willingness to debase the environment for the short term. The people of all countries lose in such a ``race to the bottom''.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support OFTA or other flawed trade agreements.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 5682. I do this reluctantly, because I am a strong supporter of India. But I cannot turn my back on my life's work on nuclear non-proliferation.

Prior to coming to Congress, I worked at the U.S. Department of State as an arms control expert. I spent each day there trying to reduce the threat our nation faced from proliferation of nuclear weapons. I also learned first hand how effectively the international non-proliferation regime monitors existing nuclear states and prevents sensitive nuclear technology from falling into the wrong hands. I also worked for 10 years at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory to research and develop fusion energy, because it would be an abundant source of energy that would not lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

I am also a lifelong supporter of India. In fact, I first traveled to India more than 30 years ago. When I came to Congress, the first caucus I joined was the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans. Since then, my interest in India and my respect for its citizens have only grown. That is why I believe it is essential that our nation increase its cooperation with India.

India is our friend and a strong ally. The ties that bind our nations go to the core of our democratic values. India is the world's largest democracy, she possesses a vibrant economy, and she has an unwavering commitment to ending terrorism. America is fortunate to have an ally that shares our common vision and we need to grow our relationship by increasing cooperation on other economic, educational, and security concerns. But I have strong reservations about making individual exceptions in our nation's laws for nuclear export to India or any other state.

The non-proliferation regime we have is far from perfect, but it has proven to be remarkably successful in deterring the spread of nuclear material. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 is the centerpiece of international nuclear nonproliferation structure. The NPT ensured that today we are dealing with only a handful of problematic states, such as Iran, rather than the dozens of nuclear states that might have existed otherwise. These historical successes highlight the essential role that the international non-proliferation regime has played and why it must not be undermined.

The United States was instrumental in creating the NPT, and now is not the time to stop our leadership on this important issue. The United States should not send the wrong message to the global community. We must continue to be a leader on nuclear non-proliferation if we hope to prevent Iran, North Korea, or others from acquiring nuclear weapons.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, both President Bush and Senator Kerry agreed on one thing: nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism are the gravest threat that our country faces. The threat of nuclear terrorism is underscored today because of the recent actions of Iran and the continued work by North Korea to develop nuclear technology.

That is why we need to be doing more to strengthen and support the international nuclear non-proliferation structure, not weaken it. Some non-proliferation experts have raised concerns that this bill would violate Article I of the NPT. Additionally this bill would create an exception to the rule, and thereby create a new rule.

I have been impressed by India and I do believe that she has been one of the most responsible nuclear states in the world. And unlike her neighbor, India has not engaged in wholesale proliferation of nuclear technology.

The bill before us today would make changes to the Atomic Energy Act which would allow for the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology and material to India. This would be the first time the conditions for nuclear cooperation in the Act were changed for an individual state. We should not make these changes lightly. We need to understand the implications of what we are doing for the international nuclear non- proliferation regime.

As well, we must also be clear. This is not the final vote the House will take on this important issue. Under the provisions contained in this bill, Congress will again have to review and vote to support nuclear cooperation once the final text of the cooperation agreement is finalized. For that reason, I remain unsure why Congress is considering or approving these significant changes to our nuclear non-proliferation structure. The Nuclear Suppliers Group still needs to give its approval to this proposed nuclear cooperation agreement. As well, India needs to complete its negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency on a new safeguards agreement. These are not just minor points, not just iotas in the agreement. They are central to the issue. What would be wrong with waiting for the final text to be negotiated and these important steps to be taken before we change our nation's laws to allow for nuclear material transfer?

That said, I remain troubled that providing nuclear technology to India would create a double standard. Historically, the United States has only provided nuclear technology to states that are parties to the NPT. This bill would allow for cooperation with India, despite the fact the India has not signed or ratified the NPT, and had previously developed a secret nuclear weapons program.

Additionally, I am worried that this legislation does not require India to cap or even limit its fissile material production. The United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, and France have all publicly announced that they are no longer producing fissile material for military use. Even China is believed to have stopped producing fissile material. Without a requirement to limit fissile material production, the United States is tacitly endorsing further production. We should not help any state in the world increase its stockpile of nuclear weapons, especially at a time when we are reducing our own stockpile.

I am also concerned that this legislation does not require that all of India's nuclear reactors be placed under international safeguards. That means that some of India's reactors will be used for military purposes and kept outside safeguards and the nonproliferation regime. The whole purpose of safeguards is to ensure that fissile material is not diverted to build nuclear weapons secretly. We need full scope safeguards on all of India's reactors to ensure that U.S. technology or nuclear material is not being diverted for military purposes. In effect, we would be giving approval to the existence of undeclared, uninspected production of fissile material.

Further, India is not required to classify her new reactors as civilian rather than military. Some have argued that nuclear cooperation is needed to help meet India's growing energy needs. If that is the case then every single new reactor should be civilian energy producing facilities. We should be doing more to discourage India from expanding her military nuclear program, rather than making it easier.

This bill makes some improvements on the legislation that the Administration submitted, and I am glad that some of my colleagues who share my concerns tried to improve it. Yet, even with these changes I do not think it wise to shred one of the few nonproliferation instruments we have. I am sorry that before they came to us the Administration did not negotiate a better agreement which would not jeopardize decades of nonproliferation work. I am also sorry we have not approached this matter to obtain the active partnership of such a respected and important country as India in the effort to prevent nuclear proliferation around the world. India teamed with us and other countries could be a most influential leader in reducing the threat of nuclear weapons around the world. I remain convinced that nuclear cooperation could be achieved with India, however this is not the proper way to do so.

For these reasons, I cannot support this bill which would undermine the NPT and our nation's long history of nuclear nonproliferation. I would oppose this deal if it was with any country outside of the NPT because I would have the same concerns. But I also know that despite my vote on this bill it will be approved by wide margins. I hope I am proven wrong, that this bill will not undermine our nation's nonproliferation efforts, but I regret that I cannot see how that can be.

Mr. Chairman, there will be a time when the history of the spread of nuclear weapons of mass destruction is written and we will look back and see when the last thread of the nuclear non-proliferation regime was shredded. We can all talk at length about the details of this cooperative agreement. We can talk about what a good friend India is and how responsible they have been. We can talk about the so-called reality of an imperfect ability to control the militarization of nuclear reactions. But the history will say that with this agreement the world lost the last bit of an international tool to control the spread of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The regime will have been killed. All we will have left is our ability to jawbone with our allies and threaten our enemies. Countries will work out whatever deals they can, two by two. This is a very dangerous moment.

If we really believe that nuclear proliferation and loose nukes are the greatest threat to world peace and security, as I do, then we should be holding on to every tool we can find to prevent that threat. We should also be working with India to strengthen the nuclear non- proliferation regime, not collaborating with India to destroy it.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I rise in support of S. 203, the National Heritage Act, which includes designation of the Crossroads of the American Revolution in New Jersey as a National Heritage Area.

What a great and important story we have to tell our children, that we have to tell the world: the story of our War of Independence. And the land, the houses, the bridges and so much of New Jersey today tell that story.

As many of my colleagues know, New Jersey is often referred to as the crossroads of the American Revolution. For a number of reasons, thousands of troops crisscrossed the State and fought on our soil. The State's strategic location between the British stronghold of New York and the rebel capital in Philadelphia meant that New Jersey, New Jersey citizens, were at the crossroads. In fact, New Jersey had more military engagements during the Revolutionary War than any other State.

Although historians may know this, some of us are working hard to make sure that the role of New Jersey during the Revolution is understood more broadly. Some of the most important events of the war, especially the pivotal battles of Trenton and Princeton, took place in New Jersey.

New Jersey has hundreds of remnants of the war today surviving, including over 250 National Register Revolutionary War sites that are included in this heritage area designation covering 15 counties. Many traces of our Nation's Revolutionary War heritage still exist: mines, mills, encampment sites, battlegrounds, and barracks. Some of the sites include the Hunt House, in

Hopewell, New Jersey, the first headquarters of General Washington as he chased the British from New York to Pennsylvania; or the old barracks in Trenton, where the troops were housed; Rockingham House, where General Washington wrote his farewell message to the troops; or a road through the woods, now long abandoned, on which the soldiers marched to the battle of Monmouth; the Sandy Hook Lighthouse, which was the guardian of New York Harbor and used by both British and American armies.

The list goes on and on, and that is why this designation of a heritage area is so important for New Jersey. Most notable in our history books, of course, is the famous crossing of the Delaware by General Washington and his men. What happened at the crossing of Delaware is a story that must be told again and again so all generations will know this military feat and the new life it gave to the American Revolution.

By the winter of 1776, the War for Independence was going badly. General Washington and his Continental Army had experienced defeat after defeat and retreated to Pennsylvania for the winter. It was brutally cold and morale was low. Many were losing faith in the leadership of General Washington. By late afternoon on Christmas Day 1776, over 2,400 troops began to cross the icy water of the Delaware. The weather made the operation difficult. The troops were forced to fight their way through blinding winter weather.

The sleet and snow proved too much for two of the divisions to the south, and General Washington's troops made the attack alone. Against all odds, Washington and his soldiers completed the crossing, marched silently to Trenton, with cannon, and on Christmas night arrived taking the Hessian garrison completely by surprise. This engagement, followed by the pivotal Battle of Princeton, has been called ``the beginning of the winning.''

Military engagements were fought throughout New Jersey, and they gave the first glimpse to the world that the American people might succeed in this fight for independence. In New Jersey, also, there was the crossroads of ideas. There were people loyal to the Crown and those who were loyal to Adams and Washington and the other revolutionaries. The difference was contested within families, in towns, and on farmsteads. New Jersey really was at the crux of the Revolution, the crossroads of the American Revolution.

I became involved in this effort to establish the Crossroads when I first came to Congress in 1999. And with the guidance and leadership from historians and planners, champions of open space preservation, such as Dr. Ted Stiles, I developed the concept of this heritage designation. I sought the assistance of my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), and we were able to see the passage of legislation that would direct the Park Service to conduct a feasibility study of the region.

We passed this feasibility study with flying colors, obtaining an enthusiastic report from the Park Service that New Jersey had a rich history and many surviving remnants of the War of Independence that make the region a fine candidate for a heritage area. Since the study, many State legislators, local governments, and other organizations have endorsed the idea of establishing the Crossroads of the American Revolution Heritage Area.

After the initial findings from the National Park Service in August 2002, Representative Frelinghuysen and I introduced the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Act. Finally, today, we have it before us on the floor of this body.

Establishing this heritage area is an important way to preserve the historic remnants that will allow the telling of New Jersey's role in the building of this great Nation. It combines historic preservation, environmental protection, education, recreation, open space acquisition, travel, and tourism. The creation of the heritage area means a great deal for all of these organizations, private and public, in New Jersey that are working in all of these areas to acquire open space, to provide for recreation and education and environmental protection.

Community leaders and local governments who care deeply about preserving open space and protecting historic sites will work with the local management agency to achieve these goals. The National Heritage Area will be, I think, important for the education not just of the children of New Jersey but for the people of this country. Everyone should know what New Jersey brought to the American Revolution, and preserving these sites and tying them together under this theme will certainly help in this endeavor.

Our current Governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, before he left Capitol Hill, succeeded in carrying this through the other body across the Capitol, and I want to thank all of those involved over the past years that have been instrumental in designating the Crossroads of the American Revolution Heritage Area. I see no better way to honor New Jersey and the people who were instrumental during the American Revolution than by establishing this heritage area.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Buyer and Mr. Filner, for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. I would also particularly like to thank Mr. Brown of South Carolina, my partner in this bill, for all of his help in moving the bill through Congress.

Madam Speaker, our Nation was built by citizen soldiers, whom all too often we fail to repay for their service. We should be giving them employment opportunities, the opportunities they deserve. By virtue of their discipline, their work ethic, their clear thinking, veterans make outstanding employees; and we should be doing all we can to help them find jobs, and yet we know veterans return from the field and have trouble breaking into the workforce.

This bill is an affirmation of the commitment of Congress to encourage all employers, government at all levels, nonprofits, trade associations, and the private sector, to think of veterans when making hiring decisions. The bill itself calls upon the President to proclaim an annual Hire a Veteran Week and to use the occasion to remind all employers of the value of hiring veterans.

Let there be no doubt, the need for a renewed national focus on veterans employment is real. If you look at the Bureau of Labor statistics, for example, and take the age cohort of 18 to 24 years old, you will find among veterans recently returned from the front, unemployment is at 18.7 percent compared with 9.9 in the general population in that age cohort. The data about women actually are worse. And these aren't simply numbers. These are men and women who put on our country's uniform to protect each and every one of us. We can and we must do what we can to help them find good-paying jobs, to use their skills to contribute to our society.

This is especially true now with our country at war in multiple theaters of operation, as we are minting new veterans every day. For them to make a successful transition from military to civilian life, their employment, their job training, their readjustment needs must be a top priority for our country. I would ask my colleagues, how could we tolerate a high unemployment rate among veterans, higher than among the general population that has not served in uniform?

As the original GI bill showed us, when we invest in our veterans, our society reaps the rewards many times over. The same philosophy should guide us as we seek to help veterans obtain and sustain meaningful good-paying jobs in their civilian lives.

This bill is a step in that direction.

Again, I thank the ranking member and the chairman of the committee and Mr. Brown for their help.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the chairman and ranking member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, Mr. Buyer and Mr. Filner, for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. I also want to thank my colleague and partner on this bill, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, for all of his help in moving this bill through the Congress.

Our Nation was built by citizen-soldiers, but too often, we fail to repay their service properly by giving them the employment, education, and other opportunities they deserve. By virtue of their discipline, work ethic, and clear thinking, veterans make outstanding employees, and we should be doing all we can to help them find good jobs that benefit them and their families.

This bill is an affirmation of Congress's commitment to encourage all employers--government at all levels, nonprofits, trade associations, and the private sector--to think of veterans first when making hiring decisions.

The bill itself calls upon the President to proclaim an annual ``Hire a Veteran'' week and to use that occasion to remind all employers of the value of hiring veterans. I hope the President acts on this legislation swiftly, because the need for a renewed national focus on veterans' employment is real and urgent.

According to the most recent U.S. Labor Department data, in August 2005, 20- to 24-year-old veterans had an unemployment rate of 18.7 percent compared with their nonveteran counterparts. For all of 2005, the annual rate was 15.6 percent for 20- to 24-year-old veterans compared with 8.7 percent for nonveterans in that age group.

These aren't simply numbers; these are men and women who put on our country's uniform to protect each and every one of us. We can and must do more to help them find good-paying jobs that allow them to build a career and a life in the Nation they served and protected.

This is especially true now, with our country at war in multiple theaters of operation and with tens of thousands of new veterans being created every year. For them to make a successful transition from military to civilian life, veterans' employment, job training, and readjustment need to be a top national priority.

As the original GI bill showed us, when we invest in our veterans, our society reaps the rewards many times over. The same philosophy should guide us as we seek to help veterans obtain and sustain meaningful, good-paying jobs in their civilian lives. This bill is a first step in that direction, but we need to do more. We need to ensure that within both the DoD and VA budgets, we devote the necessary resources to transition assistance, job retraining--where necessary-- and related activities that help veterans in their search for civilian careers.

Again, I thank my friends, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, and California, Mr. Filner, for their help and support in securing passage of this bill today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 921, which condemns the recent attacks against the State of Israel and supports her right to defend herself. The United States has no closer ally in the Middle East and, at this difficult and troubling time, it is essential that the United States maintain its steadfast commitment to Israel and all her people.

Today, my thoughts and prayers are with Israel, her brave citizens, the captured soldiers, and all the innocent people on both sides of the border with Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. It is important that America supports Israel as she defends herself against the deadly and destructive acts of terrorists. Those who committed these heinous attacks must know that they will not succeed in destroying the State of Israel, nor will they diminish the spirit of the Israeli people.

Each day brings more rocket attacks from Hezbollah that target innocent civilians in northern Israel. These attacks must be stopped, and to do so Israel has the right to go after the Hezbollah terrorists who launch them from southern Lebanon with the assistance of Syria and Iran.

Despite the commitment and good faith efforts made by Israel to build a lasting peace in the Middle East, the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah engaged in unprovoked attacks on Israel and kidnapped three of her soldiers. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, but Hamas responded with violence. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, but Hezbollah responded with terrorism. These terrorist organizations are killing innocent Israelis despite every attempt to demonstrate their genuine commitment to peace.

I hope that this crisis ends soon. In fact, I think it would be beneficial if the United States helped to arrange a cease fire, but Israel will and should maintain control of her own security. The experience of the last weeks reaffirms the right of nations to defend themselves against acts of terrorism, especially by organizations that are part of sovereign governments. But there are other lessons for those who do not live in the Middle East.

First, when there are opportunities to support moderate governments, we must do so. Part of the reason Hezbollah is still in south Lebanon is because it is backed by Iran and Syria, while the government of Lebanon was left without similar strong backing from the international community, including the United States.

Second, we must also remember the fact that extremism incubates in societies ravaged by poverty, hopelessness and humiliation. We cannot eliminate terrorism simply by suppressing terrorists. We must also lift up the societies and groups upon which terrorists rely for their recruitment.

And third, when confronting terrorists, every effort must be made to protect the civilians around them and prevent destruction to civilian communities. We cannot win the battle of ideas and prevail in the fight against extremism if the people we are trying to lift up are reduced to living in rubble.

Madam Speaker, the bible recounts many miracles performed by God. And miracles seemingly have helped Israel flourish since its independence. As the first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion once said, ``in Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.'' I still strongly believe in the dream that has become the wonderful reality of Israel.

I urge my colleagues to support Israel and to support this important resolution.