Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Today I rise to support an amendment that hopefully will be seen as a common sense amendment. It deals with H.R. 2744, more specifically with the Food Stamp Program aspect of it, and simply says that we should be complying with the Immigration and Nationality Act when we pass this legislation. The amendment is common sense because it simply says that we should always abide by current Federal law.

As it stands right now with regard to current Federal law, 8 USC 1183(a), it states that an affidavit must be filed by a sponsor of an alien who is in this country legally today. This affidavit of support is a legally binding guarantee on the part of a sponsor that the immigrant that is in this country that they are sponsoring will not become a public charge of this country. That is, that they will not become dependent on welfare. And it is limited for a period of 10 years or until that person becomes a citizen, whichever comes first. This ``public charge'' requirement is nothing new. It goes all the way back to our immigration policy way back in 1880.

Secondly, with regard to current law, current Federal law states that this affidavit is enforceable against the sponsor of the immigrant by any Federal Government or State, or political subdivision thereof, or any other entity that provides any means-tested public benefit. This means that the sponsor and not the U.S. taxpayer is to be the individual that is responsible for the alien. It also requires providers of these benefits to seek reimbursement from the sponsors and even allows the government to sue for noncompliance.

Just a side note here of interest, there is another law currently on the books in this country, 8 USC 1227, and it makes it clear that aliens who are in country who do become public charges within 5 years of their entry into this country that they are actually subject to deportation in some cases.

The amendment that is before us simply says this: It simply states that no funds appropriated in this Act under the Food Stamp Program will be spent in noncompliance of current Federal law. This amendment is simply about enforcing current law. If one does not like the current law that goes all the way back to 1880, they certainly have a right to try to change that, but that should be done in another piece of legislation and not through this vehicle. So by not supporting my amendment, they are publicly admitting on the floor in the United States that our laws elsewhere on the books are not to be complied with.

I will just end with this: Yesterday, a group of constituents was in my office from a group called Bread for the World, and they came to emphasize the fact that people in this country are going hungry and that there is not quite enough money in the Food Stamp Program today, in their opinion, that it is not adequate to provide all that is needed. So, under such circumstances, we should not be adding to the incentive for other people to become part of this program and become public charges to the taxpayer.

I, therefore, conclude by saying I urge of all my colleagues to support this common sense amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the comments, and if we can be provided with some evidence that the Department is, in fact, complying with the law, that would be greatly appreciated. It is our understanding that currently aliens who are in this country under this program who have a sponsor are, in fact, receiving food stamps under the current law and that there has been no effort whatsoever, ever, in any cases to go after and reclaim those funds from the sponsor in the case. So I would be appreciative of that information at a later date or now if the gentleman has it.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the seminal question that we address is, should Americans be using their tax dollars to fund research that kills a living human embryo? My answer to that is an emphatic ``no.''

It is our duty to ensure that we spend our money on things that work, and there are no therapies in humans that have ever successfully been carried out using embryonic stem cells. And that is really what this whole debate is about, paying for what works and paying for it in a way that is consistent with the morals of our taxpayers.

Look, even the President and CEO of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, a group that is a strong supporter of destroying human embryos for research, he said, ``There have been more promising results in adult stem cells than there have been in embryonic stem cells.'' He predicted that their foundation would soon be spending more on adult cells research than embryonic research.

Private organizations like these are choosing to use their research dollars on what works, adult stem cells research. Washington must also spend its money efficiently on what works, while representing the values of the taxpayer.

I urge a ``no'' vote on Federal funding for killing living human embryos.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the one question that I get when I go back to my district is, what is it that the Federal Government and Congress spend all their money on, and some of the things that we hear about sometimes is excess of spending in various areas.

One of the things that raises the ire of a lot of people is when they hear about trips by Members of the executive branch and others going overseas for maybe notable and worthwhile causes, but in excess of the number of people that we really need to send there. We have heard examples in past Congresses, and we have raised this amendment in past Congresses when we heard about 100, 150, 200 members of the executive branch going over for various causes.

We present an answer to this problem by saying that whenever an agency decides to send someone overseas for a trip, we should limit the number of Federal employees that go. My amendment will do that very simply. It will limit the number of Federal employees that are sent to international conferences funded under this bill to 50.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment.

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

Offered By: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 60th anniversary of the United Nations, it is appropriate that we look at its original mission and evaluate whether the United Nations has accomplished what it was set out to do.

The U.N. charter states in part that its purpose is to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among Nations; to achieve cooperation; and to promote and encourage respect for human rights. But, unfortunately, if we look at the U.N.'s record on these issues, we see that they have failed on every account.

Firstly, the U.N. has not maintained international peace and security. In fact, since 1945 there have been over 300 wars and over 22 million people have died in those wars. The only two times that the U.N. has ever supported intervening to stop hostilities was the Korean War, when the Soviet Union had boycotted the Security Council meeting, and the first Persian Gulf War.

In fact, the biggest threat to the civilized world today is terrorism, and the U.N. has failed throughout its existence to develop a clear definition of what terrorism is even.

Another main mission of the U.N. is to promote and encourage human rights and equal rights throughout the world. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights is the primary body to get that job done.

However, such countries as Cuba, Sudan and China, all of which have long histories of violating human rights, sit on that commission. In fact, several years ago, Libya, with its terrible human rights record, was selected to serve as chairman of that human rights commission.

In regards to the U.N. fulfilling its mission of solving international problems of an economic, social and cultural character, recent reports by the Heritage Foundation, the Freedom House, and The Wall Street Journal all indicated that a majority of the nations that are in the U.N. are neither politically nor economically free nations.

These general problems with the unaccountability of the U.N. lead me to one of the biggest problems and biggest scandals in the history of the U.N. and that is the Oil-for-Food scandal.

Right after the first Gulf War, this was put in place. The Oil-for- Food program was created to help those people in that country get the food and supplies that they needed. However, Saddam Hussein used the money to advance his own weapons and military programs as the poor people continued to be plagued by starvation and disease.

By allowing the corrupt Saddam Hussein regime to manipulate the Oil- for-Food program and bribe officials from other countries around the world, more than $21 billion was stolen by Hussein at the very expense of the people that the program was designed to help, the Iraqi poor.

The U.N. has continuously denied access to the papers that would help us to get to the bottom of this. That is perhaps one of the most troubling problems with the Oil-for-Food program, the lack of cooperation by the U.N., lack of cooperation to help us all get to the bottom of what really went on. They have denied us access to papers, and they have also denied us access to the people who were involved and shielded them from responsibility.

The U.N. claims to be addressing these concerns by establishing the Volker Commission to investigate the allegations. However, it has been stated by a member that Volker has close ties to the U.N. and also to Secretary General Annan, as well as other conflicts. He has been accused of down-playing Kofi Annan's involvement in the scandal in his most recent interim report, and it was just 2 weeks ago that two of his top investigators on that very commission resigned because they felt that the report was too soft on Annan.

Volker is continuing to block congressional investigations by demanding that those committees return relevant documents and not allowing the investigators that resigned to testify before Congress.

I think that this behavior by the U.N. and its investigating committee is totally indefensible and cannot be tolerated. Kofi Annan's complete lack of humility, contrition, and acknowledgement of any wrongdoing should be disappointing to the entire world; and it is for that reason that I support suspending all U.S. funding to the U.N. until they agree to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigations into the Oil-for-Food scandal.

Another ongoing scandal at the U.N. that has not received as much press is the human rights violations in the Congo. U.N. peacekeepers in the Congo stand accused of committing 150 major human rights violations. They are accused of raping and forcing prostitution on hundreds of refugees, many of them children. These barbaric acts raise serious questions of the ability of U.N. oversight on their very own peacekeepers.

The United States has contributed over $750 million towards that Congo peacekeeping mission since 2000. So the U.S. taxpayers at home, I believe, should know where their money is going and should know that the U.N. is doing its job to make sure that the people over there are protected.

All these problems that I have mentioned just now lead back to the very point that I am trying to make here tonight, that there is a lack of oversight and accountability by an international body that claims to represent the moral conscience of the world, and this should not be tolerated. As the largest financial contributor to the United Nations in the world, the United States is the one country in the best position to demand these reforms.

Tomorrow, we are expecting an extremely important vote to take place on the other side of the Capitol. A vote ``yes'' there will be a vote for U.N. reform, but a vote ``no'' will be a vote against U.N. reform. I certainly hope that that other body will vote in favor of U.N. reform.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security is in major trouble, hundreds of thousands of Americans still I need the opportunity to obtain health insurance, and much more work must I be done to secure our ports and borders.

Yet the Democrats must have all those important issues solved because they are wasting all their time playing politics and making unsubstantiated accusations against United States House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay.

Like their stance on most important issues, facts seem to matter very little to most Democrats. They have done nothing to help create jobs in this country. Nothing to help lower the cost of health care, nothing to help root out waste, fraud and abuse of the people's money, and to date, have not presented one plan to save Social Security.

Yet they make politically motivated, unsubstantiated accusations without any evidence against Majority Leader DeLay and because they know that an investigation would clear his name, they are now putting up road blocks for the Republicans on the Ethics Committee to do their job.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, your constituents need more from you than this. Voters sent you here for a purpose; I don't think these childish games are what they had in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and remember the 90th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, the mass killings and forced exile of countless Armenians in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. The suffering that befell the Armenian people in 1915 is a tragedy for all humanity, which the world should not forget.

In the years since, descendants of Armenian immigrants have clung to their identity and have prospered across this nation and throughout the world. The United States is fortunate to be home to an organized and active Armenian community, whose members contribute and participate in every aspect of civic life.

By properly recognizing the atrocities committed in 1915, we honor America's historic leadership and remind the world of the democratic and humanitarian values on which our country is founded. In this period of heightened international conflicts, this message is most timely.

The United States must never allow crimes against humanity to pass without remembrance and condemnation. As U.S. efforts to aid victims of genocide continue, it is imperative that we pay tribute to the memory of others who have suffered and to never forget the past.

Mr. Speaker, today I extend congratulations and thanks to Ms. Peggy Stewart, a teacher at Vernon Township High School in Sussex County, New Jersey. Ms. Stewart, who teaches and resides in the Fifth Congressional District, was selected from nominees across the state to receive the 2004-2005 New Jersey Teacher of the Year award.

This week, Ms. Stewart and other distinguished teachers from around the country are in Washington to be recognized.

Since she began teaching at Vernon Township High School in 1991, Ms. Stewart has received numerous awards and citations for her excellence in the classroom. She's been noted in ``Who's Who Among America's Teachers,'' and was recognized as a premier humanities instructor by the New Jersey Council for the Humanities.

In selecting Ms. Stewart for this honor, the New Jersey Board of Education cited her individualistic approach to her students and her persistence in creating well-rounded experiences to develop her students' sense of citizenship.

I want to congratulate Ms. Stewart of Vernon Township High School for being selected for this prestigious honor. She is a credit to New Jersey and a credit to our many outstanding educators.

Historian Henry Adams said, ``A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.'' We know that Ms. Stewart's work to engage young adults and encourage their development as informed, involved and thoughtful citizens will benefit our community for generations to come. Today, I am honored to join in the applause for one of the Nation's great teachers--Ms. Peggy Stewart. We are grateful for your dedication to providing New Jersey children with an outstanding education.

Mr. Speaker, today I extend congratulations and thanks to Mrs. Ashley Rothbard Berk, a teacher at Travell Elementary School in Ridgewood, New Jersey. Mrs. Berk was selected from among 600 nominees to be a recipient of the prestigious 2004 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching.

The Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching was established in 1983 to recognize the outstanding science and mathematics teachers, kindergarten through 12th grade, in each state and the four U.S. jurisdictions. Today, the White House award is recognized as the Nation's highest commendation for elementary and secondary math and science teachers.

After an initial selection process at the state level, a national panel of distinguished scientists, mathematicians and educators reviews the extensive application packets of the state finalists and recommends the teachers who will receive a Presidential award. Mrs. Berk is the sole awardee from New Jersey.

Mrs. Berk was recognized for teaching her students fractions, decimals and percentages using a technique to reach different types of learners: the visual, auditory, verbal and kinesthetic. She developed the method in an effort to make sure students in her fifth-grade class were operating at their optimum learning ability.

Mrs. Berk says she fell in love with teaching right away, and her devotion to ensuring her students are learning is evidenced in this award. The award also brings more than prestige to the winner; as an awardee, Mrs. Berk also receives a $10,000 grant for her school.

I want to congratulate Mrs. Berk of Travell Elementary School for being selected for this prestigious honor. She is a credit to New Jersey and a credit to our many outstanding educators.

To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, the greatest teacher makes others believe in greatness, and they leave a lasting mark on the lives around them. Today, I am proud and honored to join in the applause for one of the nation's great teachers--Mrs. Ashley Berk. We are grateful for your dedication to providing New Jersey children with an outstanding education.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the New Jersey State Law Enforcement Officers Association. Since 1938, the New Jersey Law Enforcement Officers Association and its members have worked to keep New Jersey safe from criminals and have sought to recognize those officers who go above and beyond the call of duty.

Our law enforcement officers risk their lives daily by placing the safety of others before themselves. We must never forget the sacrifice of our fallen officers who have given all to protect our families and communities.

Our local law enforcement officers are now a part of the front line in the battle to keep America safe from terrorist threats and on a daily basis confront the specter of further attacks. We must recognize the crucial role our local law enforcement plays in the War on Terror and provide them the support they need to keep us safe.

The New Jersey State Law Enforcement Officers Association, in recognition of the importance of coordinating law enforcement, numbers Federal, State, County and Municipal Law Enforcement agents in its membership. By working together professionally and with the association, our law enforcement officers can easily share information about criminal threats.

Our thoughts and prayers are with our law enforcement officers and with their families. We owe a great debt to those who work to keep us safe and it is only fitting that Congress recognize the work of these guardians of peace.

Mr. Chairman, before I begin, let me just say that in addition to rising in support of this amendment budget, I also rise to support the efforts of the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) that he has done to move us in the right direction with the budget that he has released.

It was just a short time ago that I had the opportunity to finish reading a book by Chuck Colson which is entitled ``How Now Shall We Live''. And it is a title that is an intriguing title. It is a question that we really should all ask ourselves all the time. How shall we conduct ourselves in our private lives, in our lives with our families and our lives in our community, in our lives in our society, and it is really a question that every Member of Congress should be asking ourselves every day as we come down to the floor.

Now, with families, how shall we live. Well, we ask our families to do a simple thing, to live within our means. Families have many ways that we can be spending our money, on trips, on schools, on property, on houses and fancy cars. But at the end of the day, a responsible family knows it has to spend no more than it takes in at the end of the year and must live within its means because if it does not what will the family be doing but simply passing that financial burden on to their children and their grandchildren.

So Congress really has to set an example, and I guess you could say in a way we have been setting an example for years. But we have been setting a terrible example for families for years, and it is about time that we set a good one.

I serve on the Budget Committee, and if you ever come to those meetings you will see, from the other side of the aisle especially, their ways to live within our means is to increase the means by increasing the revenue by raising taxes, and they just did it last week again.

I have never had anyone explain to me how we improve the economy by taking more money out of the family budget and sending it down here to Washington so that we can spend it. So raising taxes obviously is not the answer to living within our means. It is spending less.

Just like families who have lots of things that we can spend money on, Congress has lots of things that we can spend money on and if you come to the budget meetings you will see. Every agency, every department, every program that comes before us, they all say the same thing basically, that they want more money to spend.

As a matter of fact, if you sat on a budget hearing last year you saw the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who, where we put charts up on all the time of these various things, spending requests and what have you, the gentleman from Minnesota asked a question. He said, could you put up a chart behind us of all the agencies, all the programs, all the departments that have ever come before us to ask for their program, for their department to spend less money. And we all looked at the chart, and there was nothing on the chart, because no one ever asks for less money in Washington because we know we always spend more.

So I am rising in support of the bill sponsored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) because it moves us in that right direction. It moves us in the direction of spending within our means. And how does it do it? Not really hard at all. One of the things it does is it limits our spending on nonsecurity discretionary by reducing the spending by 2 percent. 2 percent. Many families have to do that all the time. It is not a heavy lift to reduce our spending in that area. We should be able to do the same thing.

The second area is by reducing the growth in mandatory spending from 6.4 to 6.1 percent. We are still increasing spending there by almost twice the increase in the inflation rate, but we are just lowering the curve a little bit.

So how now shall Congress live? We shall live as families have to live, within their means. And this bill sponsored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) does do that.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the question before us today, I believe, is how now shall we live within the confines of the budget that we have to deal with? Shall we live within the boundaries that we have set for ourselves and set an example for our generation today and the future, or should we ignore those boundaries that we have imposed upon ourselves and spend in excess?

Right now we are in the process, as we know, of doing the budget for next year, the 2006 budget. We are setting up the framework of what we will be spending for next year. And so I think it is fitting and appropriate that we look at the supplemental today and the amendment that I have presented to see whether or not we will fit within that budget confines, whether or not we will fit within that area or, instead, will we exceed it and say that a budget really is nothing more than a charade and not explain exactly what we will be spending for any point in time.

Let me just say that I applaud the chairman, and I applaud the members of the committee for doing what they said they would do as has been reported in the paper. To use the chairman's own words, they have taken the President's proposal and scrubbed it thoroughly for many points that they thought appropriate to remove from that spending proposal. My question, though, is, can we do a little bit better? Can we go a little bit further? Can we do exactly what we ask families to do back at home?

Think for a moment. What would a family do today if they faced emergency expenditures like we are looking at in the supplemental right now, families who maybe have to see extra car payments or medical expenses? What would a family do? A family would probably have to do what we should be doing right here, and that is limit our spending elsewhere, reduce some other unnecessary spending so that we have that money for the emergency spending.

If we look in the supplemental, there are a number of points in there that have already been raised by others. I will just point to one of them, the aid for tsunami victims. That started at $35 million, went up to $150 million, then $350 million, and now we are looking at $950 million. Some would question whether we can even spend all that before the end of this fiscal year. As a matter of fact, I spoke with people from the World Bank and they said that they are not even sure where the money would all be going to. They do not have an exact figure as to what we should be spending on long-term needs, so we can question whether or not we should be spending that money.

But given that we can argue that back and forth, let us take that as a given that we should spend the entire $950 million for tsunami relief. I would ask this, as we stand here before the world as a body saying that we are going to do the charitable thing and give money to the tsunami victims, are we really exercising any charity there when we, in fact, say, we're not going to be paying for it, we're asking our kids and our grandkids to pay for it in excessive spending and deficit spending in future generations?

Again, I applaud the chairman for the good start that they have done in this committee by scrubbing the budget and trying to find some offsets. I would simply say, can we not do a little bit better and find completely all offsets for all of the spending that we are doing, aside from the military defense spending, for all the excessive spending in the bill? It is around $4 billion. How much would it really come out to be? If you are looking at the budget that we have right now that we are living under, $2.5 trillion, and you are trying to find savings or offsets of around $4 billion, that is only two-

tenths of 1 percent. I would ask, can we not find two-tenths of 1 percent of waste, fraud and abuse in the entire fiscal budget that we are operating under right now? I think we can.

We ask families to do it for their budgets, we ask businesses to do it for their budgets, I think we can find that entire amount of approximately $4 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse in the entire budget, offset it, and then we can truly stand before the world and say that when we are making charitable contributions to the tsunami relief victims, that it is truly coming from this generation and not being passed on to future generations.

I shall end where I began. How now shall we live? We shall live within the means, by the parameters that we have set down upon ourselves. We shall live within the budget that we have set for ourselves and not outside that budget.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I should have stepped in before the gentleman stood up to say, in light of knowing the rules of the House, that I was about to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it is expected that the People's Republic of China will enact its ``anti-secession'' law this March. Aimed at eventual reunification with Taiwan, this law will give China a legal basis to invade Taiwan. Clearly, this is a highly provocative law and will change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.

With the enactment of this law China claims jurisdiction over Taiwan and threatens to use force against Taiwan if Taiwan is found not actively working toward eventual unification with China. China will be Taiwan's sole arbitrator of any dispute between the two.

Mr. Speaker, by enacting this law, China is also challenging the letter and spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act, which says that ``any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means'' is ``of grave concern to the United States.'' Indeed, any unilateral effort by the PRC to determine the future of Taiwan challenges America's will to defend the Taiwan Relations Act. We must let the Chinese know that our commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act is total and unwavering. We will not allow China to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.

By imposing its form of government on the 23 million people of Taiwan, China tramples on the Taiwanese people's human rights and democratic ideals. Once again, we must not allow this to happen. In the Taiwan Relations Act we read, the ``preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan are . . . reaffirmed as objectives of the United States.'' We must let China know that we take human rights and democratic ideals seriously.

It is vitally important that the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress and the international community voice opposition to China's proposed ``anti-secession'' law. It is a vicious law that will adversely affect Taiwan and the Pacific region. It will upset peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and bring economic ruin to the whole area.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in voicing my strong opposition to China's proposed ``anti-secession'' law.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to recognize the loss of a New Jersey resident who served with dignity and honor as a soldier in Iraq. I join his family, friends and members of his community in mourning this great loss.

On Saturday, February 26, Army Private First Class Min S. Choi, 21, of River Vale, New Jersey died in Abertha, Iraq when an explosive device detonated near his military vehicle. Choi was assigned to the Army Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 6th Squadron, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia.

A resident of River Vale, N.J., Choi attended Pascack Valley High School. PFC Choi and his family emigrated to the United States from South Korea seven years ago. Following graduation in 2003, Choi enlisted in the Army because he wanted to serve his new country, and aspired to become a military officer and a United States citizen. His commitment to his adopted country and home humble us, and underscore how much we must treasure and protect the freedoms and democratic ideals of our great nation.

This loss causes us to reflect on the bravery demonstrated by our men and women in uniform as they carry out their obligations in the face of danger. When their Nation called them to duty to preserve freedom and the security of our neighbors, they answered without hesitation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere privilege to recognize the life of a proud soldier and heroic representative of the State of New Jersey. Army PFC Min S. Choi was an honorable defender of liberty and he deserves our gratitude and respect.

We remember those who have fallen not only as soldiers, but also as patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. May we keep their loved ones in our thoughts and prayers as they struggle to endure this difficult period and mourn the heroes America has lost.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to recognize the loss of a New Jersey citizen who served with dignity and honor as a soldier in Iraq. I join his family, friends and members of his community in mourning this great loss.

On Sunday, January 16, Army Spc. Alain L. Kamolvathin, 21, of Blairstown, New Jersey died in Baghdad, Iraq as a result of a vehicle accident. Kamolvathin was assigned to the Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 69th Infantry Regiment, New York, New York.

A resident of Blairstown, N.J., Kamolvathin attended North Warren Regional High School. Following graduation, Kamolvathin enlisted in the New Jersey National Guard to serve our great nation while also seeking out new educational and travel opportunities. His friends described him as a hardworking, intelligent person with a deep love and commitment to his close-knit family.

This loss causes us to reflect on the bravery demonstrated by our men and women in uniform as they carry out their obligations in the face of danger. When their Nation called them to duty to preserve freedom and the security of our neighbors, they answered without hesitation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere privilege to recognize the life of a proud soldier and heroic representative of the State of New Jersey. Army Spc. Alain L. Kamolvathin was an honorable defender of liberty and he deserves our gratitude and respect.

We remember those who have fallen not only as soldiers, but also as patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. May we keep their loved ones in our thoughts and prayers as they struggle to endure this difficult period and mourn the heroes America has lost.