Joe Crowley

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I hope that this amendment would also be received as reasonable and with cogent arguments. My second amendment made in order under the rule would allow for the equitable distribution of these medals between the majority and the minority. Since the 104th Congress, 24 gold medal resolutions became law. Using the process currently in place that has worked so well for us, the two parties in the House have evenly split sponsorship of these medals. Republican Members have sponsored 10 medals and Democratic Members have also sponsored 10 medals. In fact, this amendment probably makes more sense with Republican support in it than Democrats, as in the 108th Congress, five congressional medals were awarded and four of those were sponsored by Democrats, only one by a Republican. But I offer this amendment out of basic fairness for both sides. I, therefore, believe if we are to limit the number of gold medals and if we are to obtain the bipartisanship that has characterized the process, my amendment should be passed by the Chamber, my fear being that if we limit it to only four, then leadership will decide who will sponsor those four, and we in the minority may find ourselves on the short end of that stick. And that is why I offer this amendment. I hope that the Members will agree to accept this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the sponsor made compelling arguments that the amendment is reasonable. Therefore, one would conclude that if it is reasonable and compelling arguments are made that there would be bipartisan support for the amendment. Unfortunately, that is not going to be the case. I hope that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, though, do recognize that not only are there compelling arguments, that they are reasonable and that it is a reasonable amendment and therefore deserves to be voted in favor of. And I hope that my colleagues on the other side as well as my side of the aisle view it the same way. Mr. Chairman I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am disappointed that the chairman will not support this amendment. I think it is a reasonable amendment, one that I do not think in any way disrupts what the intention of the bill by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the sponsor, is, that is, to limit the number. We certainly are limiting the number in this amendment to six as opposed to what the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) would do per calendar year, which would be four. We are still limiting it to six. I think in the most recent history, we have not done more than six within a Congress. This again will help to free the hands of Members to introduce gold medal legislation for people who they believe are worthy of that great honor. I would just like to point out again that the Founding Fathers in their wisdom did not have as many people that they had to honor during that time. We have grown more than tenfold since the founding of this Nation. There have been many more events that have taken place since the Founding Fathers initially granted those initial gold medals, and I think that once again if we do not pass this, we will further be limiting our ability to ensure that those who are most deserving will receive this great honor. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. This amendment is a simple and fair amendment that would increase the maximum number of Congressional gold medals that Congress could award from two per calendar year to six per Congress, an increase of two medals per Congress. The reason for this amendment was best summed up by the Republican Rules Committee Member, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) last night during his questioning of Chairman Oxley. He had concerns that the bill in its current form would make members hesitate before introducing their own Congressional gold medal bills until late in the first year, waiting to see if others had more noteworthy recipients, then late in the first year rushing to introduce their bills and possibly missing the two medals in 1 year deadline due to the high threshold of needing two-thirds of the House as cosponsors, then forcing a larger number of congressional gold medal bills to compete for the two open slots in the following year. I too share some of those concerns and believe we can address this by passing this amendment. This would allow for the passage of six medals over the life of a Congress instead of two per year over the life of a calendar year. I believe that Members on both sides would prefer the flexibility of having more rather than fewer possibilities to award gold medals to citizens who deserve to be bestowed with one of our Nation's highest honors. But this higher number does not cheapen the medal because of the high threshold needed for consideration, two-thirds of the chamber. Foolish medal bills will not attract the support that they would need for consideration. Finally, this amendment is needed in the most practical purpose yet. In the last Congress we awarded five congressional gold medals. They went to Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain, Dr. Dorothy Height, President of the National Council of Negro Women, Jackie Robinson, the first Black player in Major League Baseball, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., posthumously and his wife Coretta Scott King, the civil rights icons, and posthumously awarded to the Reverend Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry and Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson, the leaders in our nation's efforts to desegregate public schools that led directly to the case of Brown versus the Board of Ed. Additionally, we granted six medals in the 106th Congress and six in the 105th Congress. In the 106th Congress we passed into law three Democratic sponsored bills and three Republican sponsored bills. They went to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Charles Schulz, John Cardinal O'Connor, Theodore Hesburgh, Rosa Parks. And in the 105th Congress two Democratic sponsored bills and four Republican sponsored bills for medals became law. Gerald and Betty Ford, the Little Rock 9, Nelson Mandela, to the patriarch Bartholomew, to Mother Teresa of Calcutta and to Frank Sinatra, introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). This amendment is about flexibility for Members, the ability to debate and consider legislation over the entire Congress just as we do with every other piece of legislation. It will not cheapen but rather enhance this most prestigious of American honors. In fact, the existing Committee on Financial Services rule requiring two-thirds cosponsorship of the House for a gold medal, which by definition represents broad- based bipartisan support, prevents the awarding of frivolous and undeserved medals to groups of individuals. I trust that two-thirds of the House represents a solid bipartisan consensus of the will of the House and therefore believe that this acts as a check on any effort to award medals to any groups of individuals who in the opinion of the House do not deserve such award. I urge the acceptance of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Something that is not often highlighted outside the hall is that there are actually friendships between Democrats and Republicans, and Mr. Oxley and I share that. I would like to point out for the record though that he is extremely partisan when it comes to congressional baseball, and I hope that next year he gives the Democrats an opportunity to have a win. Having said that, I have no objections to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY. Not to prolong the debate, either, because I know we want to move on, but since 1999 when we passed the Coin Act, there have been some concerns on our side of the aisle. I know that one of the amendments your side has accepted, or that was accepted in the Rules Committee, it remains to be seen whether it passes or not, that would evenly divide the number of gold medals, that did not exist in the coin bill that passed. Overwhelmingly it has been one side. In terms of bipartisanship, it has not been very bipartisan in terms of coins that have been established. According to our records, 15 out of the 16 coin bills that were passed were sponsored by Republicans. I do not think that is just going to happen under this legislation. That is also, I think, some of the fear in terms of changing the rules, for lack of a better word, on the gold medal has stirred up consternation on our side of the aisle. I offer that as well. I recognize that the minting of a coin is a way that we can bring recognition to individuals and to groups. I just do not think that we should be limiting ourselves as the House of Representatives and as a Congress in reducing our leverage or our ability to honor groups of individuals who have done incredible, incredible works on behalf of this Nation. I think that is what that provision of the bill will actually end up doing is limiting, tying our hands from honoring groups in the form of the Congressional Gold Medal. That is why I stand in opposition to that.

Mr. CROWLEY. If the gentleman will yield further, let me just make a point. I appreciate what the gentleman from Delaware has said. The reality is, though, a country of 300 million people, only 20 medals have been awarded in the past decade. That is not an awful lot of medals. The point that the gentleman is making is that it has been extraordinary when we have actually issued this medal to groups. Why are we now limiting ourselves; when it is extraordinary, recognized as extraordinary, why are we now officially and legally limiting the ability of Congress to issue this medal to groups? I do not understand that. We understand the process is hard. The gentleman has just said himself to get two-thirds of the Members of this House truly requires bipartisanship to get this done. This is not done, as I mentioned before, in a willy-nilly manner. There is great effort involved. I understand it. I remember when my friend from New York (Mr. Fossella) was doing this for John Cardinal O'Connor and the effort that it took to get both sides to get enough Members to sign onto that. I do understand the difficulties in that, but I hope the gentleman understands the appreciation that has been set forth by my testimony here today as well as my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) that sometimes, not ofttimes, it is not just individuals, but it is groups who are responsible for incredible, incredible events in this country and I believe are deserving of the Congressional Gold Medal. I hope that the gentleman would agree with that and we will have a motion to recommit that will, if passed, put this back to committee and will strike that language limiting it only to individuals.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize the significance of this medal, that it is not given out willy-nilly; that, as I mentioned before, it takes extraordinary measures to get enough support to get this medal passed. I recognize that the first person who received this medal was General George Washington, prior to him becoming President of the United States, when the country was brand new, when we did not have the richness of diversity and of events that have taken place throughout the history of our country ever since this first medal was given to George Washington; that we have grown as a Nation, in size and in stature; and that there have been many events that have occurred throughout our history since the striking of the first medal that have inured greatly to the advancement of our country that from time to time need to be recognized. That is what this medal gives an opportunity to do, both to individuals and to groups. Certainly General Washington was an incredible individual, someone who was deserving of the first medal that was ever produced, and I think he accepted that on behalf of all those men and women who fought for independence from Great Britain back during the War of Independence. But certainly we have grown in size, both in States, from Thirteen Colonies and States to 50 States, and the number of people in this country have grown incredibly since the founding of this Nation, and the events that have occurred throughout our history has certainly changed the shape of the distribution of this medal as well. I think that needs to be recognized and taken into consideration. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is the point I am trying to make. To say that the code talkers, and I am not saying the gentleman is suggesting this, but to suggest that they did not deserve the ultimate award, even as a group, for what they provided to the service of this country during World War II is just ridiculous. They certainly deserved as a group. Any one individual, no. There were multiple individuals who provided an incredible service to us. I would also point out that two is not individual. Two individuals makes up a group, to my understanding, and that would include Nancy and Ronald Reagan. That would include any husband and wife, including Dr. King and Coretta Scott King. That would preclude them from getting this medal in the future. That is my understanding of the legislation before us.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, would it be safe to say under regular order if this legislation were passed that the code talkers, under regular order, and that was an extraordinary provision made in the appropriations process, under regular order would they be eligible to receive this medal in the future if this bill were to pass?

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In listening to the sponsor in terms of the need for this legislation, one could intimate by the introduction that possibly medals were given out in a haphazard manner. I mentioned before it takes two-thirds of the Members of the House, the entire body, to introduce a gold medal for its consideration in the Committee on Financial Services, a bar that I believe is a very, very high bar and one that is not easily attained. I would also point out that limiting this to individuals, and again to reiterate, Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King were both issued the gold medal. They would not have gotten that medal under this legislation. Harry and Eliza Briggs, Levi Pearson, and Reverend Joseph Armstrong DeLaine were all issued the medal in one provision. As mentioned before, Nancy Reagan, along with President Reagan, would not have been eligible. Under the provisions today, they would have to get it individually. Betty and Gerald Ford, the Little Rock Nine, and Dr. Graham and Ruth Graham would not have received it either. I think therein lies a tremendous flaw. It also intimates that there may be too many of these gold medals given out. Who that received this medal in the past was not worthy of it? Was it Dr. Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King; was it Reverend DeLaine, Harry and Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson; was it Jackie Robinson; was it Dorothy Height; Tony Blair in the last Congress? In the 106th Congress was it Nancy Reagan; was it Pope John Paul, II; was it Charles Schulz, the great cartoonist? Was it Rosa Parks? Who amongst those was not qualified, who do we believe was not deserving of this medal. Therein lies the flaw in this bill. It actually limits us from giving to those who I believe are most deserving of recognition of this gold medal.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, an amendment was offered yesterday evening before the Committee on Rules that would have asked groups as well as individuals. We struck a portion of the language dealing with limiting this only to individuals. I would have asked, if that amendment had passed, would have enlarged the pool to groups as well. That was not passed in the Committee on Rules, and therefore we are here today working a bill that does not have that provision in it.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my disappointment that this legislation is not being offered under an open rule. In fact, the chairman of the full Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), who holds jurisdiction over this legislation, even requested during his Committee on Rules testimony last night a more open process for debate on this bill, and I thank the chairman for those comments. I would also like to take a moment to specifically thank and welcome our new Committee on Rules ranking member, my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who will serve as a true and tireless fighter for Democrats and our rights in the minority on the Committee on Rules over the next 2 years. Mr. Chairman, the bill we are debating today, H.R. 54, the Congressional Gold Medal Enhancement Act of 2005, while introduced in the previous Congress, was never debated in committee because no hearings were convened, and no markup was held. And given that the Committee on Financial Services has yet to even hold its organizational meeting for the 109th Congress, the committee has obviously not yet had an opportunity to consider this issue carefully. In my view, we are rushing to act on an issue that does not represent a problem. Having said that, Democrats are open to debating and voting on this legislation. In the last several Congresses, Congressional Gold Medals have been considered in the House under a well-established and a bipartisan process that works well. Regular order for consideration of gold medals involves the need, under the rules of the Committee on Financial Services, to gain the cosponsorship of two-thirds of the House before the legislation is considered in committee, a full two- thirds sponsorship of the House before it is considered in committee. The bar for consideration for gold medals is set relatively high for a reason: Gaining a two-thirds cosponsorship ensures that a solid bipartisan majority of the House is in full support of honoring a particularly noteworthy individual or individuals. Under the rule today, I plan to offer two amendments. The first amendment would raise the number of gold medals from two per calendar year to six per Congress, or an overall increase of two medals per Congress. This is especially key, as in the 108th Congress we awarded five Congressional Gold Medals. They went to Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain; Dr. Dorothy Height, president of the National Council of Negro Women; Jackie Robinson, the first black player in Major League Baseball; the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, posthumously, and his widow Coretta Scott King, the civil rights icons; and the posthumous awarding to Reverend Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry and Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson, the leaders in our Nation's efforts to desegregate public schools that led directly to the case Brown et al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka. My second amendment would provide for equitable distribution of gold medals between the majority and the minority. My amendments seek to maintain the spirit and process of bipartisanship that has characterized the House's consideration of gold medals, the highest honor that this Congress can bestow on an individual or group of individuals. It is my hope that the House will adopt these amendments to make this bill a better bill. Stating that, though, I am dismayed that the Committee on Rules refused to allow consideration of a key amendment that would strike a section of the bill that only permits the granting of Congressional Gold Medals to individuals. While I tend to agree with the notion that distributing what is an exceptional honor to too many individuals could devalue the symbolic worth of a gold medal, there are occasions when more than one person is justified to receive the medal for their honorable actions in tandem with others. In the last Congress, we enacted into law legislation awarding the Congressional Gold Medal posthumously, as I mentioned before, to Reverend Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry and Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson in recognition of their contributions to the Nation as pioneers in the effort to desegregate public schools that led directly to the landmark desegregation case of Brown v. The Board of Ed. In previous Congresses, the House has awarded gold medals to other groups, such as Native American Code Talkers, who were critical to the safety of allied communications during World War II; to the Little Rock Nine, the civil rights pioneers who led to the integration of our public schools; and to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, in honor of their contribution to our country. I fear that limiting gold medals to only individuals would also limit certain people from consideration who are most deserving of receiving one of our Nation's highest honors. For example, my good friend and Republican colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) offered an amendment in the previous Congress, which the House passed, to honor the officers, emergency workers, and other employees of the Federal Government and any State or local government, including any interstate governmental entity, who responded to the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and who perished in that attack on September 11 with a Congressional Gold Medal. This would not be possible if this bill passed. And I would hope that my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), will oppose this bill, because if it were to pass, it would put an end to any opportunity to present the Congressional Gold Medal to any of those heroes. Again, while I urge my colleagues to support my two amendments that were made in order, I am dismayed that this third amendment was not made in order. If this bill were already law, Congress would not have been able to issue the Congressional Medal of Honor to the Little Rock Nine or to the Reagans. I feel this is a serious oversight in the base of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution offered by my Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, congratulating the people of Ukraine for the fair and free election of a new President. I also commend and congratulate President Victor A. Yushchenko for his victory--and more importantly, his determination to see fair and free elections in this fledgling democracy. The world watched this race unfold--the poisoning of the democratic candidate, a stolen victory, and marches in the street by people hungry for freedom and for a better future for their children. The world witnessed true passion. We witnessed people expressing themselves and their will to live freely and democratically. We witnessed people determined to take charge of their nation's destiny and risk all to do so. We witnessed young and old, families and students, camping outdoors in the blistering Ukrainian cold to protest against a sham victory and demand true elections. What we witnessed was true everyday heroism. While we, the people of the world, witnessed victory--the people of Ukraine lived it, by forcing it. By rejecting tyranny and corruption and demanding equality and freedom, they brought about peaceful democratic regime change. And at the inaugural, an inspiring historical event itself, we saw the symbolic break with the past and a nation's hopes soar, as President Yushchenko released a dove--a symbol of peace--into the air to fly free. This dove rose into the sky much like the hopes of this newly free people, united for a better nation for themselves and their families. President Yushchenko represents the continued peaceful demand by people on every continent for self-governance and free market principles. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, and so many of my constituents, including Emil Eisdorfer of the Bronx, New York in welcoming President Yushchenko. I welcome the people of Ukraine into the family of democratic and free nations.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay homage and respect to my retiring colleague Congressman Cal Dooley of California. So much can be said of Cal, but he is a true leader in the Democratic Party. It was Cal who was at the forefront of the New Democratic Movement in our country. He saw the opportunity to say that the issues of business and the values of the Democratic Party are not in direct conflict. While he may not be the household name of a Bill Clinton--it is the ideas and organization of Cal Dooley that helped this country create a President Bill Clinton, a new 21st Century Economy and usher in a return of a Democratic Party disciplined to bring about economic benefits and quality for life changes for people while recognizing that Government is not always the solution. He was a true pioneer in creating the New Democrats in Congress and making them the powerhouse they are today--a respected organization of people who think outside of the box for real solutions to real problems to help real Americans. Cal was a leader in making our party more globally focused, encouraging free trade and recognizing the benefits to all parties of open economic borders. Whereas isolationism was in the past the default policy of Democrats, he worked to pry us onto a new path--a path of economic globalism. The result--the USA is an even stronger economic powerhouse than in the past. While the people of his district have been recognizing him and thanking him for his leadership on their issues for 7 straight terms now we in Washington are now realizing our loss to this Chamber and to the thinking of our Party. We thank you and we appreciate you and less, we are still listening to you.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sadness to pay homage and tribute to the life and memory of New York City Firefighter and Army National Guard Sergeant Christian Engeldrum of Edgewater Park, the Bronx, New York, who died serving his country in Iraq on November 29, 2004. Mr. Engeldrum was a proud member of the New York City Fire Department, most currently serving at Ladder Company 61 in Co-op City in the Bronx. Sargeant Engeldrum's service to our Nation began in 1986 when he joined the U.S. Arrny and later served with distinction in Operation Desert Storm. During his tenure in the Army, Sergeant Engeldrum earned numerous accolades for his service including the Southwest Asia Service Medal with Bronze Service, Army Service Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Army Lapel Button, Sharpshooter Badge, Parachutist Badge, Army Good Conduct Medal, Army Achievement Medal and the NCO Professional Development Ribbon. Upon completion of his military service, Sergeant Engeldrum joined the New York City Police Department, and, after successfully completing the Fire Academy in 1999, joined the Fire Department. He was assigned to Engine Company 89 in the Bronx. Moving through numerous fire stations Engeldrum was ultimately placed with Ladder Company 61 in the Bronx. His career in the Fire Department was as distinguished as his career in the Army, including his company's successful rescue of two civilians at a fire. Among his many accomplishments, Firefighter Engeldrum was also one of the first people to raise an American flag over Ground Zero after September 11, 2001. The events he witnessed that horrible day spurred him to re-enlist into the Army to fight for our Nation overseas and ensure our protection here at home. He was deployed to Iraq in November, 2004. While he left a wife and two growing sons behind, he volunteered so they could live in a safer country, a better world. Tragically, on November 30, he paid the ultimate price for his love of family and country when a roadside bomb exploded near his convoy outside of Baghdad. Firefighter Engeldrum was the first New York City firefighter to die in service to his Nation in Iraq. Christian Engeldrum is survived by his wife, Sharon who he met as a teenager selling Christmas trees at Engeldrum's Gas Station in the Bronx, as well as two sons, Shaun and Royce. Additionally, to make this sad occasion far more heartbreaking, his wife is now expecting another child. While this child will never get to know his father, may he always know that his father did not die in vain, but died to ensure the world this child is born into is one of safety, justice for all and free of terror. Christian was a patriot, and he loved this country, and died protecting it. Our City and our Nation owe him a true debt of gratitude.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I too want to rise in strong support of this resolution. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), my friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, for speaking in favor of this resolution. I also want to thank the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for introducing this resolution. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House recognizes an important turning point in World War II, the Battle of the Bulge. With the outcome of the war uncertain, American forces proved that neither bitter winter nor enemy fire could sway the resolve in the greatest battle of that war. I am most pleased we are moving expeditiously to recognize this critically important battle. The roughly 4 million World War II veterans who remain from the original 16 million are in the twilight of their years and 1,200 die every day. We are rapidly losing both our witnesses to history and the chance for many of us to thank them. And so we remember that great battles are won not with rhetoric, but by our soldiers on the battlefield. While we commemorate those soldiers who left behind families and careers during World War II to fight for freedom, we also honor those for whom adult life was just beginning, the young men of the 106th Infantry, whose average age was 22 years old. The determination, intelligence, and valor that General Eisenhower showed as military commander at the Battle of the Bulge would later be called upon in his service as President of the United States. We can only hope that our future leaders being tested today in the deserts of Iraq will have the same strength in war, but also a love for peace. Let me just talk about a couple of statistics from the Ardennes Offensive. It was the coldest, snowiest weather in memory in the Ardennes Forest on the Belgium-German border. There were over 1 million men, 500,000 Germans, 600,000 Americans, more than who fought at Gettysburg, and 55,000 British soldiers. There were three German Armies, 10 corps, the equivalent of 29 divisions. The American Armies had three armies, six corps, the equivalent of 31 divisions. There were 100,000 German casualties, killed, wounded, or captured, and 81,000 of our own American casualties, including 23,554 captured, and as the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) mentioned, 19,000 of our young men killed. There were 1,400 British casualties, including 200 killed, and 800 tanks lost on each side, along with 1,000 German aircraft. I might also mention something that even I knew, and my colleague knows as well, and he was born 18 years after this incredible battle, is the story of Major General Anthony McAuliffe, whom Hitler called upon to surrender Bartongre Garrison, and his response has been lauded and made known to millions of Americans throughout history. His response to Hitler was ``nuts.'' The United States and Luxembourg remain steadfast allies. As common members of NATO, our countries have cooperated on many issues, including peacekeeping during the first Gulf War and recent humanitarian aid for Iraq. Our friendship is historic, and more than 5,000 American soldiers, including General George S. Patton, are buried at the American military cemetery near its capital. Although an occasional critic of the United States, Belgium is still a solid ally and a member of NATO. The Belgian people continue to exhibit good will and gratitude for the Allied Forces that freed them from Nazi occupation. Today, they form a wealthy, prosperous nation possessing some of the highest levels of education, health, and well- being in the world today. When we look back on World War II, we see it was a battle against tyranny, against Fascism. The United States and her allies will always stand on the side of freedom and democracy and against totalitarian regimes wherever they are. Let this resolution and the Battle of the Bulge Memorial Marker in Arlington National Cemetery serve as a reminder for all those who gave their all, and also as a reminder that we should thank our veterans whenever we have the opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I wish to include for the Record the statistics I read off, which were provided via the Internet by John Kline, who was at the Battle of the Bulge. Battle Experience and Related Facts: Battle of the Bulge, December 16, 1944 to January 25, 1945 (By John Kline) On 16 December 1944 the Germans started their Ardennes Offensive. The 106th Infantry Division, in place of a salient jutting out into Germany were hit with full force. After three days of battle, two of the Regiments, the 422nd and the 423rd were surrounded. The 424th, south of the other two regiments, was able to withdraw and join with the 112th Regiment of the 28th Infantry Division. They formed a Regimental Combat Team and were successful in the oncoming days of January 1945 in helping counter the German attack driving the Germans back through the same area where the 106th had been in position in mid-December 1944. This German Offensive became known in the U.S. Forces journals as The Battle of the Bulge. battle facts The coldest, snowiest weather ``in memory'' in the Ardennes Forest on the German/Belgium border. Over a million men, 500,000 Germans, 600,000 Americans (more than fought at Gettysburg) and 55,000 British. 3 German armies, 10 corps, the equivalent of 29 divisions. 3 American armies, 6 corps, the equivalent of 31 divisions. The equivalent of 3 British divisions as well as contingents of Belgian, Canadian and French troops. 100,000 German casualties, killed, wounded or captured. 81,000 American casualties, including 23,554 captured and 19,000 killed. 1,400 British casualties 200 killed. 800 tanks lost on each side, 1,000 German aircraft. The Malmedy Massacre, where 86 American soldiers were murdered, was the worst atrocity committed against American troops during the course of the war in Europe. My division, the 106th Infantry Division, average age of 22 years, suffered 564 killed in action, 1,246 wounded and 7,001 missing in action at the end of the offensive. Most of these casualties occurred within the first three days of battle, when two of the division's three regiments was forced to surrender. In it's entirety, the ``Battle of the Bulge,'' was the worst battle--in terms of losses--to the American Forces in

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in deep disgust to speak about the ghastly attacks on three Egyptian Sinai resorts. It should be obvious to all of us that these attacks were perpetrated because we are entering the final days of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. The terrorists who committed these heinous attacks had one goal--that goal was to kill as many innocent Israelis as possible. The three terrorist attacks murdered at least 29 people and injured scores of others but unfortunately I fear the number of dead will rise as rescue teams search through the rubble. The international community to the fullest extent must condemn these attacks. It is time for the anti-Israeli elements within the United Nations to stop their one-sided resolutions and recognize that terrorism is a continuing threat to Israel and to the world. The nations who continually work to pass these anti-Israeli resolutions within the United Nations General Assembly--must stop their rhetoric and instead do something to stop these attacks. These nations can no longer be content by sitting on the sidelines and criticizing the actions of the Israeli government to protect their citizens. Instead, it is time for these nations to help the Palestinian people who seek a nation that is not lead by corrupt leaders who support terrorism. If these nations really want to see the success of the Palestinian people they will not only condemn these attacks, but they will finally begin to work toward ending terrorism and the attacks we see in the Middle East and around the world.