Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 160, a resolution recognizing the importance of the Juneteenth anniversary celebrations held nationwide on June 19. On that date 140 years ago, Union forces arrived at Galveston, Texas, bringing news of the Confederate surrender and enforcing, finally, President Abraham Lincoln's two-and-a-half-year old emancipation of the slaves. The ensuing celebration quickly became an annual event, spreading west to Seattle, north to Minneapolis, and east to Portland, Maine. In my own state of New Jersey, Juneteenth is celebrated at churches, community centers, and family picnics across the state.

I strongly support H. Con. Res. 160, which recognizes the significance of the Juneteenth anniversary and proclaims the sense of Congress that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future. I rise to honor the celebration, and to honor the myriad contributions that African- Americans have made to American society in the years before and since. As inventors, teachers, firemen, soldiers, doctors, and statesmen, African-Americans have honored this country with their service and dedication. The longevity of the Juneteenth celebration is an enduring testament to the virtue of celebrating diversity.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I must also rise today to recognize the struggle that still faces us. Juneteenth evokes in all of us thoughts of a dark chapter in our Nation's history, and reinforces that which we already know: the struggle for equality is far from over. The joyous celebration of the emancipation of the slaves of Galveston, Texas, serves to remind us all of the need to remain committed to the justice, and freedom.

Today, Juneteenth is the longest-running celebration of the end of slavery in the United States. Its durability alone illustrates its significance. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, and for all the reasons above, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 160.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time, and I also thank the chairman and the staff for putting together in a congenial atmosphere a good bill.

There are some good features to the bill, and I am pleased that it gives the new Director of National Intelligence the authority and resources necessary for him to succeed, and I am also satisfied that the bill gives the intelligence community 100 percent of the funds that it needs for counterterrorism programs. I am encouraged by the bill's emphasis on human intelligence and the recommendation to create a multilevel security clearance system that will allow the intelligence community to harness the power of America's diversity.

More must be done, however, to encourage the use of open source, or public, information. Last year we gave the intelligence community an urging to increase its collection, analysis, and use of open-source information. And I look forward to working with the DNI to move these efforts forward.

I am also pleased that the bill advances our foreign language training efforts within the intelligence community, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to strengthen our language capabilities throughout the Federal Government.

I do want to express serious concern about a couple of matters. First, the administration's recommendations to close or realign military bases has the potential to disrupt vital intelligence expertise. Bases like Fort Monmouth, in my home State of New Jersey, play critical intelligence roles that have not been taken fully into account in the process. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for urging the Director of National Intelligence to evaluate the effect of base realignment on our Nation's intelligence capabilities, and I will include their letter at this point in the Record.

House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence,

Washington, DC, May 26, 2005.

Ambassador John Negroponte,

Director of National Intelligence, New Executive Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Ambassador Negroponte: During the markup of the Fiscal

Year 2006 Intelligence Authorization bill, Members of the

Committee raised questions about the potential impacts that

the Defense Department's Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

Commission recommendations could have on the nation's

intelligence capabilities. The Members believe strongly that

such impacts should be factored into the final decision

process.

Many intelligence programs, for example, are dependent on

subject matter experts made up of military personnel,

government civilians, and contractors. These people form the

analytic depth and breadth of the Intelligence Community, as

well as much of the core of its engineering, scientific and

technical expertise. Based on past BRAC experiences, we can

logically assume that many of the intelligence personnel that

would be affected by the latest recommendations could refuse

to uproot their families and relocate. The Intelligence

Community depends on this intellectual capital, and we should

well understand how the resulting loss of these people would

affect intelligence activities and, thereby, the nation's

security.

The BRAC recommendations could affect the nation's

intelligence capabilities in many other ways. Accordingly, we

want to ensure that these intelligence-related impacts be

considered in the deliberations that result in the final BRAC

decisions. We believe that your position as the Director of

National Intelligence puts you in a unique position to best

understand and, accordingly, respond to these potential

impacts.

Therefore, we ask you to evaluate the affects of base

realignment and closure on the nation's intelligence

capabilities. We further ask that you provide the Committee

with the results of your review no later than the date that

the President provides his final approval and certification

of the BRAC report to the Congress.

Sincerely,

Peter Hoekstra,

Chairman.

Jane Harman,

Ranking Member.

Madam Speaker, I also express my deep disappointment with the decision of the Committee on Rules to disallow a moderate and reasonable amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) that would have mandated the creation of a 9/11-style commission to investigate how the executive branch has handled detainees. We need that investigation, and we can do some of it within the committee; but we do need a public 9/11-style commission.

Madam Speaker, I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This bill appropriated $408.9 billion for the Department of Defense. This included a $45.3 billion appropriation for the ongoing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am pleased that this bill helps keep our faith to our service members by providing them with a much needed pay increase. It authorizes a 3.1 percent across-the-board pay raise for our active duty and reserve troops. This is the seventh consecutive year that Congress has provided a pay raise for our men and women in uniform. This will help to reduce the pay gap between average military and civilian pay.

I am glad that this bill does not fund the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. While I understand the threat that certain underground bunkers or facilities may pose, creating these weapons would only serve to undermine our global counterproliferation goals. Moving forward with a new generation of nuclear weapons would send a simple message to Iran, North Korea and other emerging or potential nuclear-armed states: ``We want new nuclear weapons, and you should, too.'' I am glad this program has thus far been rejected and I will continue to oppose any efforts to fund it.

The bill also provides $416 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, to help prevent the nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union from falling into the hands of terrorists or others who would wish to do us harm. I am pleased that we are providing more than we did last year for this important program, but we have a lot of work remaining to do, and I regret that we did not provide more money to help secure, dismantle and eliminate WMD's and WMD facilities.

I am glad that after three years, we have finally started to fund the ongoing operation in Iraq and Afghanistan through the normal legislative process. I believe we should not be funding military operations that are foreseen

through emergency supplemental appropriations, as we have done in the past. We have soldiers in the field, and we know that we'll be continuing military operations against al Qaeda and its surrogates for the foreseeable future. The bridge funding provided for Iraq and Afghanistan in this bill recognizes this.

I am, however, concerned by some of the provisions contained within this bill.

First, I am deeply troubled that this bill again contains funding for missile defense. Under this bill, $7.6 billion would be appropriated for ballistic-missile defense programs within the Missile Defense Agency. The total includes funding for the initial deployment of a national missile-defense system based in Alaska and California. Not only has this program continually failed to work even under less-than- real-world test scenarios, but it is a dangerous system that could jeopardize our national security.

While I support providing our troops in harm's way with the best equipment possible, I am troubled by the ever increasing human toll the Iraq war is inflicting on our nation. Last week, some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle introduced legislation calling for the withdrawal of American forces, and a clear majority of Americans understand that things are badly off track in Iraq.

Indeed, there is good reason to believe that the centerpiece of the Bush administration's exit strategy for Iraq--the program to train and equip the Iraqi security forces to take over the domestic security mission from our troops--is in grave peril.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for making the arrangements for this evening and for everyone who has joined in this testimonial to the work of Peter Rodino.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), who has served on the Committee on the Judiciary.

I thank the gentleman for those good words. Peter Rodino offered many of us kindness and generous, wise counsel, and that is why we are here tonight, not just celebrating one aspect of his career, but the totality of this career of this great public servant.

And I would now like to recognize my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I thank the gentleman for putting in context much of Peter Rodino's life and interpreting the message for us even today.

You know, I am told that Chairman Rodino prayed that the Judiciary Committee could exhonorate Nixon, but he discovered that the evidence allowed nothing other than the articles of impeachment.

He was not vindictive. He was dutiful. And it was important that he did not go into this with a blood thirst, but with actually a deep love for the country.

I now would like to recognize another of my colleagues from New Jersey, from a neighboring district, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

I thank the gentleman for those fine comments. There are some words running through the discussion tonight that we hear over and over again: fairness, dignity, patience, caution, incorruptibility, judiciousness, courtesy, strength, a sense of duty. Those are some of the words that I think can describe Peter Rodino who gave so much to this country over the years and from whom we can draw so much even today.

Now I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her words from the perspective of the Committee on the Judiciary and joining us in paying tribute to the Honorable Peter Rodino.

Representative Rodino served the United States and the people of New Jersey faithfully, and that is a good word to use, for 40 years, and we mourn his loss and celebrate his contributions, and try to extract lessons for today for ourselves, for America, from his service.

He was relatively unknown to the public outside of New Jersey before the Watergate hearings, which led to the

resignation of the President. His professionalism and fairness and dedication to the rule of law characterized what he did, and he was able to demonstrate throughout those hearings the characteristics that thrust him into the kind of prominence that he neither sought nor coveted.

The genius of the American government, as created by our founders over 200 years ago, is that our government is self-correcting. It is a self-correcting system, and Peter Rodino, who carried a copy of the Constitution with him every day of his professional life, understood that. At a critical time, he helped that ingenious machine, that ingenious mechanism work. It does not work by itself. It works if we make it work. It works if we believe it works.

Peter Rodino served as the chair of the House Judiciary Committee during one of the most disappointing and politically divisive times in our history. As we have heard tonight, he was tasked with the unenviable job of officiating the Nation's second impeachment hearings of a sitting U.S. President. It was not obvious that he would get that job.

Most observers expected these potentially vitriolic proceedings to be characterized by partisanship and animosity and grandstanding. Peter Rodino did none of that. He would have none of that. He brought an honest and workmanlike demeanor to this difficult job. As the son of a workman, maybe workmanlike is the right word here.

Peter Rodino led a bipartisan group of lawmakers to approve three articles of impeachment in July of 1974, and the conduct of his Judiciary Committee really was a silver lining in a dark cloud.

Tonight, we have heard words like ``unlikely'' or ``improbable'' and ``unexpected'' hero. Well, maybe a better word is ``untested'' in the public forum, but we should not forget what sort of person this was. He had enlisted in the Army, served in north Africa and received a rare battlefield promotion to captain. He was no slouch. Earning the Bronze Star, he came home and practiced law and then ran for Congress.

It is important to understand that he did not just suddenly rise to the occasion. He had studied and he had thought, but even he recognized that when he was given the gavel for the impeachment hearings, he was not yet ready. He said he had not even questioned a witness in direct examination in 30 years because he had been serving in the legislature, but typical of his workmanlike manner, he studied. He read this enormous Watergate record. It was already enormous by that time. Three times over he read the history of the impeachment and the trial of President Andrew Johnson. He studied the writings of the political philosophers, all this in preparation for the impeachment hearings. In fact, he worked himself to exhaustion.

He hired a staff of 105, including some bright young lawyers, and he began to steel himself so that when the pressure came to modify the hearings, to accelerate the pace, to show a little partisanship, he never backed down. He knew where he was, and it is, I think rightly, what he will be remembered for best.

His political legacy extends far beyond that tumultuous time. He worked tirelessly and successfully to defeat ill-advised constitutional amendments that would have criminalized abortions or disallowed organized school prayer or prohibited school integration through busing. He fought tirelessly for civil rights for all Americans. He was one of the main congressional sponsors of civil rights legislation and principal author of fair employment practices legislation. He was instrumental in extending the Voting Rights Act. The impact of this legislation that he participated in is enormous.

We should not forget his representation, the representation he brought to the people of New Jersey's 10th District. Despite evolving demographics and four decades of social change, it was a tough time in Newark. Peter Rodino's dedication to his constituents never faltered. It was not by accident that he was reelected through 40 years.

Since his death, Peter Rodino has received some of the attention he deserves. We are tonight remembering the way he guided Congress and the country through a tremendously difficult period in our political history.

Even until recently, into his nineties, he remained active at Seton Hall, looking after the interests of students and, yes, the citizens of New Jersey. We all frequently got phone calls from him suggesting this or that that would be beneficial to the people.

Tonight especially I think serves as a reminder that our self- correcting system of government works because Americans believe it does and because Americans rise to the occasion, each occasion.

We may think that Peter Rodino lived in a different era and his life has little relevance, his service has little relevance for us today, but perhaps the lesson is that we, that all Americans, are called or will be called to do our civic duty.

Peter Rodino prepared himself for that, accepted the duty unflinchingly, distinguished himself, distinguished this body, distinguished America through his service. It is right that we should recognize him tonight.

To close, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), my colleague who put this together for this evening and to whom we also owe gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 32 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at 9 a.m., for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, as the middle class continues to feel squeezed by an economy that is creating few jobs, it is time that President Bush and the Republicans here in Congress admit that their economic policies are not working.

Democrats in the House have a plan that will lift the incomes of working families and bring the unemployment rate down. Instead, Republicans are passing legislation to meet the needs of their corporate special interest friends and the wealthy, not ordinary, Americans.

Legislative choices show values. The fact is, Democrats, historically, have a better record of creating jobs. After 5 years in office, President Bush has yet to create his first net job. At this same period, President Clinton had created 11.9 million jobs.

Oh, you can say the economy is fine, but honesty requires that you admit it is fine for the very wealthy.

You can blame people's problems on economic cycles or terrorist attacks or foreign influences, but excuses are not jobs.

The Democratic approach works and has worked historically.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Obey amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Science, State Justice, Commerce appropriations bill, and to voice my specific concerns about the funding level for the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program.

I was deeply concerned when President Bush earlier this year proposed gutting State and local law enforcement assistance grants by $1.4 billion in his fiscal year 2006 budget--a 46 percent cut from last year. While the Appropriations Committee restored $1 billion from those proposed cuts, the fiscal year 2006 Science, State Justice, Commerce appropriations bill before us today still cuts these grants by $400,000 from last year's funding levels.

That is why I support Ranking Member Obey's amendment. This amendment would provide an additional $410 million for State and local law enforcement, including COPS grants, and restore them to the fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. To do this, Representative Obey reduces the size of the tax cut for millionaires by only $2,053. These millionaires will still get a $138,816 tax rebate. That is all we need to do to restore these cuts. That small tax cut repeal would fully fund these important programs at last year's levels and help keep our streets safe. That is a tradeoff that is worth making, and one, I would suggest, that even the top of all taxpayers would support.

Concerning the COPS program, this bill allocates only $520 million for it. Again, I am glad that the Appropriations Committee has restored a part of the destructive cuts that the President originally proposed. But we should be doing more. The COPS program has been remarkably successful over the last 10 years. According to the Department of Justice, every $1 we spend on COPS grants contributes to a decline of 10 violent crimes and 27 property crimes per 100,000 residents. Yet rather than increasing funding for this effective and important program, this bill actually would cut $80 million from the COPS program. This is the wrong thing to do. It is the additional police officers that the COPS program helps local towns and cities hire, who are on the front lines of reducing crime and also protecting our homeland.

The COPS program has provided law enforcement agencies in my district and across the Nation with critical funding to fight and prevent crime. In my district, communities in Hunterdon, Monmouth, Mercer, Middlesex, and Somerset counties have received more millions of dollars in funding to help put additional police officers on the street. In 2004 alone, four towns in my district--Lawrence Township, Monroe Township, Spotswood Borough, and West Windsor Township--received almost $380,000 to fund various law enforcement programs. This money helped Monroe Township hire three additional police officers, and helped upgrade the law enforcement technology of Spotswood and West Windsor. Overall in 2004, New Jersey communities received COPS grants totaling $9.5 million and were able to hire 40 additional police officers. That is 40 cops on the beat who would not have been there without this important Federal program. Since 1994, the COPS program has helped fund 4,806 additional officers in New Jersey alone. This has made a big difference for the local towns and communities in New Jersey.

The creation of the COPS program was a breakthrough in law enforcement. By funding additional officers, critical technologies, and valuable training, COPS has been a catalyst for the revolutionary shift to community policing. But too many police departments are experiencing increases in the troubling indicators of violent crimes.

At a time when we are asking our cops to do more to reduce crime and protect our homeland from potential terrorist related threats, we are giving them less funding to do so. Just look at the largest 44 metropolitan police departments. Of them 27, yes 27, have actually been forced to reduce the size of their police departments. That means that there are less police officers on the beat and more crime on the street.

COPS and community policing have put us on the right track. Crime is at its lowest levels in more than a quarter of a century. The police chiefs and sheriffs in my district consistently tell me that we could have never achieved this much without the additional officers and technology funded under the COPS program. I just do not understand why we are not supporting this effective program appropriately.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to give up the progress we have achieved in crime reduction over the last 10 years. The COPS program has been vital to our local communities. Our police departments can only do so much with the resources they are given. We should do everything we can to increase, not cut, the funding of the COPS program. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the reinstatement of funding for the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program. The 7(a) program provides crucial support for small businesses around the country, and funding should be restored immediately.

Central New Jersey has always worked hard to strengthen its position as a national leader in technological and economic innovation. For decades, the state's small businesses have led this charge, escorting communities toward independence and inspiration.

Without consistent governmental support, though, small businesses will falter and stagnate. And without consistent small business support, local communities and economies will suffer. We owe it to the state's small businesses to restore funding to the SBA's exceptional 7(a) program.

Consider that one new job is created for every $33,000 that SBA's 7(a) program guarantees. And consider that in just the past decade, SBA has approved over four hundred thousand loans, for more than $90 billion. You

can do the math: that's a total of 2.7 million new jobs in just the last ten years. But with the lack of appropriations in FY2005, the average origination fees on small business loans doubled, creating between $1,500 and $3,000 in new costs for the average small business owner. The inevitable result is less small business access to capital, less expansion, less hiring, and less economic development.

In the past decades, we've all seen that many of the country's strongest local economies are sprouting in areas famous worldwide for their technological prowess: California's Silicon Valley; North Carolina's Research Triangle; Boston's Route 128 Corridor. Central New Jersey's growing high-technology community--Einstein's Alley--belongs squarely on that list. Establishing a center of technological innovation in central New Jersey will guarantee New Jersey's continued future as one of the greatest states in the Union. Without support from the state's small businesses, though, such a technological center could never evolve.

Strengthening New Jersey's economy and reinforcing its role as an innovation leader will benefit all New Jersey residents. A research- based economy will require regional improvements in transportation and telecommunications infrastructure, which will help reduce traffic and produce more efficient transportation options for us all. A research- based economy will require a larger tax base, which will drive down individual tax rates. And a research-based economy will demand quality schools and livable communities, in order to attract the best and the brightest entrepreneurs and employees to our region.

Central New Jersey has long lived and thrived on the frontier of scientific and technological innovation. Einstein's Alley will be home to vibrant communities, cutting-edge companies, and productive workers whose unique assets and shared vision attract new, innovative industries and create many more good jobs to add to what we already have. None of that will be possible, however, without extensive small business support. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge every Member of this body to vote to restore the SBA's 7(a) program to its FY2004 funding level.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about H. Res. 27. H. Res. 27 would withdrawal the United States from participation in the World Trade Organization. I did not support a similar resolution five years ago, and I do not support this resolution today,

International trade is not just inevitable, it is a good thing. We live in a world today where more people can afford ever cheaper goods. But lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availability is not the single goal of trade. Trade done right helps lift the global standard of living and works to protect the irreplaceable environment we inherited. Trade is about values. I want to make sure the United States not only exports our-world class agriculture, but also our respect for the natural environment and enforceable labor laws. We should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who produce them.

That is why we must use the WTO to address these labor and environmental concerns. But if we walk away from the WTO, we won't be able to address any of these issues, Where else can we give voice to issues of child labor or environmentally destructive practices of some industries? The WTO--imperfect as it may be--is the forum that we, along with the other members of the international community, established to enforce trade rules and more importantly allow for an open dialogue on the trade issues that concern us.

We need to realize that even if there are legitimate problems with the WTO, and I agree that some exist, the solution is not to unilaterally withdraw from the WTO. Withdrawing from the WTO would not help to solve any of these problems. Not one. We cannot stop trade, and we cannot end the global economy. What we can do is work within the World Trade Organization to address these concerns. We should not allow any others to dictate to us about what is in our national interest, but we must recognize that we cannot accomplish our national goals in isolation from the rest of the world. We can only work to protect American workers from anticompetitive practices of foreign countries from within the WTO, not by sitting on the sidelines. We should be working with our trade partners and with the WTO to enforce our existing trade rules. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union address on February 27, 2001, President George W. Bush stood in these very chambers and correctly stated, ``No senior in America should have to choose between buying food and buying prescriptions.'' Unfortunately, two years later, Congress passed a bill that did not solve that problem.

The Medicare Modernization Act fails to protect the eligibility of low-income seniors for other Federal assistance programs. The statute mandates that use of the transitional discount drug cards will not affect eligibility for Federal assistance programs, like food stamps. However, such protection is not extended to the permanent prescription drug benefit, which will be fully implemented on January 1, 2006.

On May 4, 2005, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) notified potential beneficiaries of the Medicare low-income subsidy that they may qualify for extra help paying prescription costs. However, this potential extra help comes with a caveat: If you qualify for extra help, your food stamps may decline. Recipients of the minimum food stamp benefit will see their benefits end.

It is unconscionable to offer a ``low-income subsidy'' that is contingent on beneficiaries forgoing another necessary commodity. The lowest income seniors should not have to choose between getting help with their expenses for prescription drugs or food.

Today, I introduced H.R. 2746, legislation that would fix this problem with the Medicare

Modernization Act. It is a simple correction that extends to the permanent drug benefit the same protection for Federal assistance program eligibility provided in the transitional drug benefit. I encourage Members to support this bill.

Congress and the Bush Administration have repeatedly affirmed that low-income seniors should not have to choose between food and prescription drugs. Our actions as a body have not lived up to that commitment. Congress should act quickly to fix this flaw in the Medicare Modernization Act so that the most vulnerable among us are not faced with an impossible choice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 282, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives regarding manifestations of anti-Semitism by United Nations member states and urges action against anti-Semitism by United Nations officials, United Nations member states, and the Government of the United States.

As we commemorate the invasion of Normandy this week, it is important to remember that the evil the world was fighting then persists today. Recent accounts of anti-Semitic assaults are reminiscent of those encountered before and during World War II. In the suburbs of Antwerp, Belgium, four youths were assaulted on their way home from their Jewish school by a group of men yelling anti-Semitic insults. One of the students was stabbed and seriously injured. In Toulon, France a synagogue and a community center were set on fire. In Dusseldorf, Germany, an ancient Jewish cemetery was desecrated with swastikas and SS symbols. In the United Kingdom, a Jewish woman was beaten severely by three of her neighbors because her mail was written in Hebrew, and they suspected her of being Israeli.

The United Nations and the international community must act swiftly and address this immediate threat. The United Nations and world leaders must shake themselves out of indifference and rise above political considerations that have blinded them to the magnitude of rising anti- Semitic assaults. The international community must remember its commitment to prevent a recurrence of horrors the world witnessed 60 years ago and take meaningful actions to combat this rise in anti- Semitism.

In the last few years, the United Nations and Secretary General Kofi Annan have begun to formally recognize and address this rise in anti- Semitism. Just last year, the United Nations sponsored a conference on anti-Semitism and for the first time the United Nations General Assembly's Third Committee adopted a resolution that condemns anti- Semitism.

Although these recent actions by the United Nations are positive steps, I believe that the United Nations must do more to combat this evil. The United Nations should first begin within its own organization and end the practice of tolerating hateful rhetoric. The United Nations must go further in condemning member nations and United Nations officials that use anti-Semitic language. Additionally, the United Nations should acknowledge the detrimental effects of anti-Israel resolutions and work towards reducing their frequency.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation and to remain committed to combating the evil of anti-Semitism.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to elaborate very briefly on the preceding remarks. We are talking about a time when men and women are risking their lives in the field, facing roadside bombs and mortar fire from insurgents. They need help and support from back here in the United States, from our bases, from places such as, as my colleague from New Jersey was talking about, Fort Monmouth, for example.

We are not looking so much for the data on what is the implication of base closing and realignment on local economies. We are looking for the data on how the Pentagon intends to provide for the needs of the men and women in the field today, tomorrow and next year, how they will make up for any loss of capability that results from realignment and transfer of personnel.

In order to have a conscientious evaluation of what is being proposed here, we need the data. It is as simple as that. I applaud the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for offering this amendment and demanding that we get the information that we need to do our job.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I rise in support of it.

We could go through a list of all of the problems that will be created, but let me just paint a picture here. At Fort Monmouth in New Jersey, there are really the best people in the world, mostly civilians, engineers, scientists, procurement specialists, providing communications, surveillance, tracking friendly forces and unfriendly forces, providing equipment, services, software that men and women in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan need and use every day. Thousands of jobs will be sent elsewhere.

Now picture this: A commander in Iraq places an emergency call back to the U.S. The insurgents have changed the electronics in the roadside bombs, the IED devices, and they need new electronics to detect and disarm them. The reply, ``I am sorry, that guy does not work here anymore. We are in the middle of realignment and we have not hired his replacement yet.''

Repeated 5,000 times, ``That guy does not work here anymore,'' that is what is at stake here. The gentleman from Arkansas says there is never a good time, there are no bad bases; this is a terrible time.

I can talk about the economic impact of moving jobs away from Fort Monmouth or to some other place. That is not the point. There are soldiers in the field. We are to look after their safety and effectiveness. The Secretary of the Army himself said before the BRAC Commission this past week that they have concerns whether those civilians, those experts with security clearance, with advanced degrees, with specialties, will make the move. How many years of reduced capability can we tolerate while we have men and women in the field?

This is a terrible time to proceed. Let us admit that we have gotten off on the wrong track, slow it down and look after the interests of the people in the field.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment to the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Authorization bill offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bradley. Like my friend from New Hampshire, I believe that the current BRAC round should be delayed and the process re-evaluated. Let me explain why.

At the BRAC hearing on May 4, BRAC Commission Chairman Anthony Principi and several other Commissioners asked Defense Department witnesses whether they had taken into account the need to house troops returning from Europe and other overseas locations as part of the BRAC evaluation. The Pentagon's witnesses assured the Commission that, yes, the department had indeed factored the returning troops into the equation, and that the proposed BRAC list would reflect those planning assumptions.

The next day--the very next day--Mr. Al Cornella, Chairman of the Overseas Basing Commission, issued a statement in which he said in part:

Our review leads us to conclude that the timing and

synchronization of such a massive realignment of forces...

requires that the proposed pace of events for our overseas

basing posture be slowed and re-ordered. Such a step is of

paramount importance in addressing quality of life issues for

70,000 returning American military personnel plus their

families. Schools, health care and housing need to be in

place at domestic receiving bases on the first day troops and

their families arrive home.

Mr. Cornella went on to note that ``The interagency process has not been fully used in the development of the Department's plan'' and that ``The Commission notes there has been almost no public discussion of this multi-billion dollar process that affects the security of every American.''

In other words, DoD had failed to truly factor in the return of American forces from overseas into the BRAC equation . . . and the Overseas Basing Commission isn't the only independent body to question the Pentagon's BRAC criteria.

On May 3, the Government Accountability Office issued a report on the methodology used by the Pentagon in the BRAC process that states the Defense Department ``did not fully consider the impact of force structure changes underway and the planned restationing of thousands of forces from overseas bases.''

Mr. Chairman, we know the day is coming--and I pray that it's sooner rather than later--that those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will be coming home. The Overseas Basing Commission and GAO are warning DoD and the Congress that we must ensure that any changes in our domestic basing structure do not leave these troops and their families with no place to call home. That's reason enough to delay the current BRAC round, but there are others.

The Defense Department will not submit its report on the Quadrennial Defense Review--the QDR, as it's known, is the Department's method of examining of America's defense needs from 1997 to 2015--until at least the first quarter of 2006, after the current BRAC round has run its course. Several BRAC Commissioners have questioned the wisdom of

proceeding with the current BRAC round before the QDR report has been delivered to Congress. I would argue, as others have, that this is another example of putting the proverbial cart before the horse. How can DoD restructure its forces for the future--including its domestic and overseas bases--when its primary blueprint for the future is still a work in progress?

For my part, I've also discovered a BRAC-related planning issue that the Pentagon does not appear to have addressed. Nowhere in the hundreds of pages of BRAC reports that DoD has thus far made public will you find a single reference to the difficulty in getting properly qualified scientists and engineers the security clearances they need in a timely fashion.

Why is this important? At the May 18 BRAC hearing on the Army's portion of the proposed BRAC list, Army Secretary Francis Harvey said, ``I won't sit here and tell you that we expect all the people from Fort Monmouth to move to Aberdeen Proving Ground . . . I won't sit here and tell you that that's not a concern.'' Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the vast majority of the skilled scientists and engineers who have current security clearances won't move to Aberdeen Proving Ground or anywhere else. Their lives, their families, their research centers are all in New Jersey--and we can say the same thing about any other community with a military installation that employs a large number of skilled civilian specialists with security clearances anywhere in the country.

Every day at Ft. Monmouth, the talented engineers, scientists and technicians--working in secrecy--are providing the latest intelligence and communications technologies to our troops in the field, including the roadside bomb jammers that have become so very important in our struggle against the insurgents in Iraq. If we allow the Pentagon to play the BRAC equivalent of musical chairs with our critical research and development assets in wartime, we will lose thousands of skilled, trained, and cleared intelligence and communications specialists that we will not be able to replace for years. That's an unacceptable risk in wartime, Mr. Speaker, and for that reason and the other, strategic reasons cited by the Overseas Basing Commission and GAO, we need to terminate the current BRAC round. Let's restructure our military for the 21st century, but let's do it right, and minimize the risk to our warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, I urge adoption of the Bradley amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we will be hearing a great deal today about the humane and helpful and hopeful research of embryonic stem cells. This is an advance similar to advances in past years of blood transfusions and organ transplants. And to be fair, some patients do not want to take part in blood transfusions and organ transplants for personal reasons.

However, for most Americans, embryonic stem cell research falls well within public ethical standards. It is something that we should be supporting.

We will hear from some today that cord blood and adult stem cells hold promise. Not nearly so much promise as embryonic stem cells. Supporting cord blood research at the expense of supporting embryonic stem cell research is like buying a Schwinn bicycle to travel across the country. Potentially useful, but it is not likely to get us there.

This is something that is well within the public ethical norms. We should be supporting H.R. 810.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns with the Army Corps of Engineers and my hope that language included in this bill will rein their disregard for Congressional requests.

I concur with the committee's expressed dissatisfaction with the Army Corps managing of water projects and their excessive transfer of funds between projects. Many of us have long been frustrated with the Army Corps is their mishandling of projects throughout the Nation. Although Congress authorizes and appropriates specific projects, the Army Corps repeatedly ignores these guidelines and sets their own priorities. This has resulted significant delays that further distress the communities near these uncompleted projects.

In the 12th Congressional District, the environmental restoration of Grover's Mill Pond is a most egregious example of the Army Corps disregard for congressionally mandated projects. Located at the site made famous by Orson Wells' ``War of the Worlds'' radio broadcast, Grover's Mill Pond is not only a historic site, but it is a recreation destination within West Windsor Township and a vital link in the Township's stream corridors and watershed area. Years of sediment build-up and runoff from the watershed have caused the pond to become overrun with aquatic weeds and algae.

This pond in its current condition is not only an eyesore for the community and the residents that live near it, but gives off an unpleasant odor in the summer. Completion of this project is long overdue, and could have been completed had the Army Corps not transferred almost all of the $500,000 that was specifically designated by Congress for this project. Thankfully, the committee has once again designated funding for this project, and I expect that the Army Corps will follow Congressional designation and not once again shortchange my constituents in favor of a project they deem more worthy.

Unfortunately, other unfinished projects in my district such as McCarter's Pond and Rogers Pond did not receive additional funding in this bill. I am hopeful that the strong and clear direction the committee has given the Army Corps in this bill will force them to complete such projects in the future and encourage them not to create such unpleasant situations in the future.

I thank the committee for their desire to assist my constituents and this nation by providing additional funds for unfinished projects and expressing their severe dissatisfaction with the Army Corps management of water projects. I hope this legislation will serve as an important step in reforming this agency and ensuring that our communities receive the environmental restoration assistance they desperately need.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent New Jersey, one of the few States that devotes its own resources to embryonic stem cell research.

To help us understand this humane line of research, let us look at in vitro fertilization. Several decades ago, many people raised concerns about this procedure; everywhere there were attacks using the term ``test tube babies.'' But today there are 400,000 young people who are the products of in vitro fertilization, and in every case, there are eggs, fertilized eggs, that were not brought to full-term birth.

But people do not condemn the use of IVF. And just as we do not place ethical burdens on the children who were conceived through IVF, we should not place ethical burdens on the millions of Americans suffering from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, et cetera.

I am hoping that several decades from today, we will look back and find ourselves thankful that we came to a humane, prudent conclusion. Embryonic stem cell research will have yielded new ways to diagnose, treat, and cure tragic diseases.

I urge my colleagues to support the humane H.R. 810.