Bob Filner

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, today I honor the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians for receiving the ``Spirit of Cooperation Award'' by the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO. The Viejas Band, one of the remaining 12 bands of the Kumeyaay Indian Nation, has approximately 289 members living on the 1,600 acre reservation in the Viejas Valley, east of Alpine. The Viejas Band is recognized as a sovereign government by the United States, with which it maintains a government-to-government relationship. Only a few years ago, Viejas Reservation unemployment was as high as 80 percent. Today, as a result of revenues from tribal government gaming and other business enterprises, every Viejas tribal member has a job and no tribal members are on welfare. The band has built new homes, improved older residences, expanded the Tribal Government Center, and has constructed a community park, fire station, and a senior citizen center. In addition, the band has embarked on a multi-million dollar series of environmental projects to restore the reservation land, watershed, streams and wetlands. Gaming has created approximately 12,000 jobs, primarily for non-Indian residents of the San Diego Region. In 2001, the estimated payroll for gaming Tribes was more than $237 million, and employer-paid Federal and State payroll taxes are estimated to have been over $30 million. Viejas is a proud union employer and workers of the casino are part of Communication Workers of America Local 9400. Viejas is leading the way in bringing together communities and setting a great example of conducting business. Congratulations to Viejas on receiving Labor's 2005 ``Spirit of Cooperation Award.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, as California's border Congressman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I am amazed at some of the arguments supporting this amendment. Members who agree that we need more security on the border, yet every one of them voted for a budget that only had 10 percent of the border patrol increase that this Congress has authorized. So they talk about more border patrol, but they voted for a budget that did not include it! Mr. Chairman, I would not vote for an amendment that militarizes my colleagues' districts, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment aimed at militarizing my district on the California-Mexico border. We have a highly trained military. It is the best in the world, but it is not trained to perform domestic security duties. It is not trained to go on patrol in my neighborhood. It is trained to pursue and kill foreign enemies, not to check if visas have expired. We do need more border security, but we should give the border patrol the support they need to do the job. They are the professionals. Let us give them the critical manpower and equipment they need. Let us invest in 21st century technology. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) talked about a haystack. As our border patrol looks for the dangerous needle in the haystack, we can use technology to make that haystack smaller. Let us pass more support for the border patrol, let us pass comprehensive immigration reform. Let us allow the border patrol and other homeland security officials to focus on the real dangers to our national security. We must have a secure and efficient border, but do not confuse immigrants with terrorists, and do not send the Army into my neighborhood. The Goode amendment is bad!

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Hunter), for including my amendment in the en bloc amendment. My amendment would call for a study by the Secretary of Defense in conjunction with the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs on the feasibility of allowing veterans with a service-connected disability rating 50 percent or higher access to transportation on military aircraft on a space available, or Space-A, basis. Such a study is supported by the national organization, Disabled American Veterans. Space-A, of course, is used for government-owned or contracted aircraft where there is space available that is unused for the primary purpose of the flight. Currently, disabled veterans are not eligible for this Space-A travel solely on the basis of their disability. But other groups are, whether they are members of the uniformed services and their families, foreign exchange servicemembers on permanent duty with the Department of Defense, civilian employees of the Department of Defense stationed overseas, American Red Cross personnel stationed overseas. All these are eligible for Space-A travel. We should allow disabled veterans the same access to Space-A travel. From all indications, the Department of Defense would incur no cost by allowing disabled veterans access to this Space-A travel. We need to allow the seats which would otherwise go unused to be occupied by men and women who have been disabled in their service to our great Nation. Again, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for including the amendment in the bill.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the fourth national Prepare Tomorrow's Parents Month, the month between Mother's Day and Father's Day. This month is a time for teachers, parents and youth group leaders nationwide to promote parenting education and relationship skills classes for all young people. Prepare Tomorrow's Parents Month is being sponsored by a national nonprofit organization formed in 1995 called Prepare Tomorrow's Parents. Suzy Garfinkle Chevrier, founder and president of Prepare Tomorrow's Parents, says, ``Parenting is not a hobby. It is the most important work most of us will ever do. Let's not leave our grandchildren's future to chance.'' Is it not strange, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most important and difficult skills, raising children, goes untaught? Learning parenting skills is vital because the early experiences of children's lives impact their potential for learning and for mental health. We need to create better parents because neglected or abused children are especially prone to perpetuate this cycle when they become adults without resources for healthy parenting. An alarming number of children are at risk of being abused, neglected or otherwise poorly nurtured by inadequately prepared or nonsupportive parents. Inadequate parenting can contribute to teen pregnancy, depression, addictions, academic failure, delinquency and, later, criminal behavior. I imagine that the vast majority of adults in the United States believe that parenting and relationship skills should be taught. Yet few students now receive this instruction. School-based parenting education programs can help to prevent future child abuse and work to build healthy children by developing an understanding of child development in future parents and by providing parenting skills such as empathy, listening, problem solving and critical thinking. Regardless of how much detail the young people remember from their classes by the time they become parents, the instruction gives them a deep sense of the reality of parenting, of the sacrifices and demands as well as the joys. Prepare Tomorrow's Parents is a group working towards a society in which every child is well-nurtured and parenting is valued and undertaken by prepared adults. Parenting education for students is being taught successfully in many schools around the Nation, primarily through family and consumer science classes, but not enough young people, especially boys, participate in these elective courses. Expanding and requiring these classes will save many more current and future families much heartache. It will help us to help our young people succeed at being parents that will make them, their children and their parents happy, productive and proud. Finally, establishing parent education classes honors the work of mothers and fathers by teaching our young people what a complex effort it takes to raise a child. As well as learning new skills, they will begin to appreciate more and more the care they have received from their parents. Mr. Speaker, I thank Prepare Tomorrow's Parents for sponsoring Prepare Tomorrow's Parents Month.

Mr. FILNER

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

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I understand the point of order, and I appreciate the gentleman's advice and I hope he will stay interested in this topic. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I understand the point of order, and I appreciate the advice he gave me yesterday, and I will just take a few minutes today to make some important points regarding our border communities. This should be a simple and common-sense amendment to protect the air quality in border States without adding or subtracting appropriations from a single account in this bill. The amendment simply requires that power plants in northern Mexico that want to transmit electricity into the United States must meet U.S. air quality standards. Pretty simple. Many communities in border States, including many in my district (I represent the whole California-Mexico border) are literally under siege from air and water pollution from northern Mexico. Companies that wish to avoid American environmental regulations, but want to meet our energy needs in California and other southwestern States, are building power plants in Mexico directly across the border from American communities. Yet many of these power plants do not have to meet any of the American regulations, even though they are in the same air basins as towns on the U.S. side of the border. For example, companies that recently built power plants in Mexicali, which is right across the border from the Imperial County of California that I represent, have not funded any road paving projects and other clean air efforts that would be required to offset their pollution if they were a mere 3 miles to the north. In a place like Imperial County, which is plagued by the highest childhood asthma rates in the Nation, and limited public resources, these offset projects are needed to mitigate the public health problems that are worsened by the power plants. While the Mexicali plants have largely brought their emissions into compliance in response to this Congress' pressure, they have refused to pay for any mitigation projects. The Department of Energy, which acknowledges that Imperial Valley is in the same geographical air basin as the power plants in Mexico, have turned their backs on the residents of Southern California and approved the permits without requiring the companies to pave the dusty dirt roads or implement other clean air projects that would offset their pollution. The Department had the information and opportunity, but apparently did not feel obligated to fully protect clean air in Imperial County. I believe the Department should be obligated to require offsets because there are a dozen more power plants in northern Mexico on line right now. These power plants are now under no obligation to meet any U.S. standards despite sharing air basins with American communities. My amendment does not interfere with the Mexican Government's right to regulate pollution; instead, it prohibits the Department of Energy from using funds in this bill to issue permits for the transmission of electricity into the U.S. I urge adoption of this important clean air amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Stop the Theft of Our Social Security Numbers Act of 2005'' (H.R. 2518). Many of my constituents have alerted me to a serious attack on our personal privacy, and an insidious practice that has become known as identity theft. Amazingly enough, this theft is facilitated by a public agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, which aids and abets this theft not through the Internet or any high-technology means but through the U.S. Postal Service. By including our Social Security numbers on Medicare related mailings, the Department of Health and Human Services places thousands of Medicare beneficiaries at risk of becoming victims of identity theft. To combat this problem, I have introduced this bill which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from including our Social Security numbers on Medicare related mailings the department mails us every year. Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes of this decade. It creates a nightmare for those who become victims. Identity thieves make off with billions of dollars each year and each day more than 1,000 people are being defrauded. In fact, the Federal Trade Commission recently listed identity theft as the top consumer complaint. With just your name and your Social Security number, a thief can open credit lines worth $10,000, rent apartments, sign up for utilities, and even earn income. Your credit rating is ruined, you risk being rejected for everything from a college loan to a mortgage, and it is up to you to fix it all. Law enforcement will generally not pursue these identity theft cases. Having your Social Security card number on a Medicare related mailing puts people at a higher risk for identity theft. Mail that is lost or stolen with personally identifiable information like a person's Social Security number can be used by criminals to steal someone's identity and commit fraud. The Department of Health and Human Services has said that the health insurance claim number on Medicare related mailings is a variation of the recipient's Social Security number, not the actual number. This agency has noted that the number may be based on the Social Security number of a spouse or parent; however, more often than not, the number the agency uses is the person's Social Security number preceded or followed by a single letter of the alphabet. The agency has said that it has no immediate plans of stopping this practice. What more can the Department of Health and Human Services do to aid the theft of your identity? Give thieves and unscrupulous people your mother's maiden name? Not to long ago, we were experiencing the same problem with the mailing labels sent to us from the IRS. I was told that there was no way the IRS would change this practice. I found it incomprehensible that neither the agency nor its contractor would change a computer program for booklets that would be mailed out to millions of Americans all over our Nation. After I introduced a bill to require the IRS to stop putting our Social Security numbers on its mailings, the department finally found a way to stop this bad practice. Many commercial health insurance companies have already taken steps to remove Social Security numbers from their mailings as well as all other forms of client identification. Some States prohibit companies from displaying Social Security numbers internally and assign consumers unique numbers that would appear on Medicare cards. It is time for the Federal government to do its part to stop identity theft and help protect an individual's personal privacy. There is no excuse for leaving Medicare beneficiaries vulnerable to identity theft with a thinly disguised Social Security number on Medicare related mailings. My bill will force the Department of Health and Human Services to make this change to protect one of the most precious keys to our personal information, our Social Security number.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Chairman Boozman) for his great work on this very necessary item. I too rise today in support of the Servicemembers' Health Insurance Protection Act of 2005, a bill that we have heard will assure the men and women in active service that their private health insurance premiums will not be increased, nor will reinstatement be delayed when they return from Iraq or Afghanistan. The last thing these servicemembers need while they are at war is to worry about the details of their life after service, and health insurance, of course, being one of the most important. H.R. 2046 will ensure a smooth transition from health care under the military to health care in civilian life. This bill has support from the veterans service organizations around the country, as well as our Department of Defense. I think, as we have heard, in addition to the primary purpose of the bill, a technical change is included which will help many disabled veterans to use what is called their adaptive housing grant prior to their discharge from the military. This will expedite their release from hospitalization because they will not have to wait for changes to be made to their homes to accommodate their disability. This provision was inadvertently omitted when changes were made in 2004 in the Veterans Benefit Act, and I am glad that we are fixing this problem today. Congress must do everything it can to recognize and reward our brave men and women fighting today. Many are serving longer than they expected. Many are in danger each and every day. They serve with pride and with dignity. Let us honor their service by passing this legislation to treat them with the respect that they deserve.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I, too, represent an area where boating is a very important recreational activity, representing San Diego, California, with its wonderful bay, Mission Bay Park, and, of course, the Pacific Ocean, all as places where tens of thousands of people do their recreation; so I also support House Resolution 243. This is National Safe Boating Week. Over 70 million people this year will participate in recreational boating activities in the United States. Unfortunately, about 700 of them will die from boating accidents. National Safe Boating Week is always the week before the Memorial day weekend, the start of the summer boating season. The goal this week is to educate the public about what they can do to enjoy our Nation's waters in a safe manner. In my State of California, two-thirds of the deaths from recreational boating accidents will occur during these summers months. Mr. Speaker, safe boating begins before you even step in a boat by planning your trip and being safety conscious. The most important thing a boater can do to save their life is to wear a life jacket. That sounds simple; but in 2003, 416 boaters were drowned while not wearing their life jackets. Today there are Coast Guard-approved life jackets that are inflatable so you can easily sail and still be safe. Just as in driving a car, alcohol and boating do not mix. Do not drink and drive in a boat. Today there are over 17 million boats in our Nation's waterways. It is getting crowded, so everybody should know and follow the nautical rules of the road. If you are in a small boat, do not stand up. You could flip your boat, sending you and your family into the water. Mr. Speaker, these are simple, but they are a few of the basic tips that people should follow to have a safe and enjoyable time when they are boating. The Coast Guard, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and the National Safe Boating Council have boating safety education programs to help everyone learn how to boat safely. I encourage everyone to take advantage of these courses. If you follow their simple guidelines, you can have a fun and relaxing time while being as safe as possible. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in support of House Resolution 243. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, unfortunately I did not get a chance to offer an amendment with Mr. Reyes to provide an additional $10 million for a critical program in the Interior-EPA Appropriations bill. The funds would have been used for ``architectural, engineering, planning, design, construction and related activities in connection with the construction of high priority water and wastewater facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico Border, after consultation with the appropriate border commission.'' This is the section of the EPA's State and Tribal Assistance Grants program that funds the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF). The amendment would have transferred the $10 million out of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) $974.5 million appropriation. The USGS appropriation in this bill is currently $39 million more than the FY2005 appropriation, and $41 million more than the president's request. The border program, on the other hand, has been flat-funded at $50 million for several years. The record should reflect that we did not intend for the USGS's National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program to be impacted by the reduction in USGS's appropriation. NAWQA carries out very important work collecting and analyzing data and information in more than 50 major river basins and aquifers across the Nation in order to develop long-term information on streams, ground water, and aquatic ecosystems in support of sound management and policy decisions. This critical program would have been shielded from the $10 million cut in USGS appropriations. In Imperial County, California, the New River carries raw sewage from Mexico through the town of Calexico, and air pollution from Mexicali contributes to the worst childhood asthma rates in the state. A modest increase in funding for the BEIF would begin to improve the situation. The BEIF, which was established by the North American Development Bank to administer grant resources provided by the EPA, helps finance the construction of water and wastewater projects in the U.S.-Mexico border region. The objective of the BEIF is to make environmental infrastructure projects affordable for communities throughout the U.S.-Mexico border region by combining grant funds with loans or other forms of financing. It is designed to reduce project debt to a manageable level in cases where users would otherwise face undue financial hardship. We have seen what BEIF can accomplish when it has adequate funding. BEIF grants have played an important role in the successful construction of water conservation projects in the Cameron Irrigation District in Texas; a wastewater project in Heber, California; a wastewater collection and treatment project in Patagonia, Arizona; and a sewer system and wastewater treatment plant in the Salem and Ogaz communities in New Mexico. All projects supported by the BEIF must have a health and/or ecological benefit in communities on the U.S. side of the border. All projects must also be certified in a rigorous vetting process undertaken by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission. There is strong support for increasing BEIF funding. The bipartisan Border Governors' joint declaration last year called for a ``substantial increase'' in funding for the program. While many important programs in the Interior-EPA Appropriations bill have been shortchanged, the lack of funding for BEIF is particularly troubling. The border region is in desperate need of assistance. Communities in the border region struggle with some of the highest poverty rates in the Nation as well as air and water pollution--often originating in northern Mexico--that contributes to severe public health problems. The region lacks basic infrastructure, such as water and sewer service, that most of the rest of the country takes for granted. The neglect of these largely low-income and Hispanic communities, along with the dirty air and water they are forced to endure, represent a grave environmental injustice. According to the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, the border region includes three of the ten poorest counties in the United States and twenty-one counties that have been designated as economically distressed areas. The Commission also reports that approximately 432,000 people live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated, semi- rural communities that are characterized by substandard housing and unsafe public drinking water or wastewater systems. If the border region were made the 51st state in the Union, it would rank last in access to health care; second in death rates due to hepatitis; last in per capita income; and first in the numbers of school children living in poverty, according to the Commission The Good Neighbor Environmental Board, an independent U.S. Presidential advisory committee that operates under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, recommends restoring BEIF to its mid-1990s funding level of $100 million dollars. There are currently 105 certified clean water projects in the pipeline waiting for funding. Examples of the many certified projects that could be carried out in disadvantaged communities if the BEIF had an appropriate funding level include: Water/wastewater systems improvements in Brawley, California; a wastewater project in Nogales, Arizona; a solid waste project in Dona Ana County, New Mexico; and a water conservation project in Brownsville, Texas. Supporters of this amendment include the Border Trade Alliance, the Border Counties Coalition, Clean Water Action, National Council of La Raza and others. I will continue fighting to increase appropriations for the Border Environment Infrastructure fund and protect communities in the border region.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, as California's Border Congressman, I rise today to deliver a simple yet important message to this Congress about how we handle affairs on our nation's southern border. To my fellow Members of Congress, I implore you: Don't block clinics that want to help Mexican children with severe medical needs. Don't block border schools from hosting their Mexican neighbors. And don't block our tourism industry from welcoming Mexican field trips. Instead, join me in supporting the VISA Act! Prior to September 11, 2001, the Valley Orthopedic Clinic in Calexico, California treated low-income Mexican children who suffered from cleft palates or other maladies. In fact, over forty years, they treated 125,000 children! The Port Directors at the border selectively issued humanitarian visa waivers so that these children could briefly visit the United States without paying for an unaffordable $100 visa. Since September 11, Port Directors have ceased issuing these visa waivers. As a result, children have been blocked from receiving specialized medical attention, participating in educational exchanges between border schools and taking field trips to tourist sites in border states. That's why I have re-introduced the Visitors Interested in Strengthening America (VISA) Act (H.R. 2367). The bill gives Port Directors the discretion to issue humanitarian visa waivers to Mexican children making brief, pre-scheduled visits to the U.S. for medical, educational or recreational purposes. In addition to clearing the way for American doctors who wish to provide specialized care to Mexican children, this bill would boost the economy in the border region and strengthen cultural and political understanding with Mexico. The bill is identical to legislation that the Border Trade Alliance, National Council of La Raza, former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Jeffrey Davidow and others supported in the 108th Congress. I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting for this important legislation.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to introduce a bill to eliminate the Disabled Veterans Tax and to provide immediate concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation to all deserving disabled military retirees. The ``Immediate and Full Repeal of the Disabled Veterans Tax Act of 2005 (H.R. 2368) does exactly what it says--it eliminates the years of waiting before all disabled military retirees receive all the retired pay and compensation they have earned and deserve. For the past several years, our Nation's veterans waged a long and determined campaign to eliminate the Disabled Veterans Tax. As my colleagues know, we were partially successful. But only partially. The laws that we passed make veterans with a disability rating of 50 percent to 90 percent wait for ten years before their tax is completely eliminated. A great number of these veterans are elderly and, unfortunately, may not live to see that day. Even worse, fully two thirds of America's disabled veterans, with a rating less than 50 percent, have been left behind and will continue to be taxed as before--nearly 400,000 veterans! Despite the actions of Congress last year, the Disabled Veterans Tax is alive and well. Our Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently stated: ``On the battlefield, our soldiers pledge to leave no one behind. As a Nation, let it be our pledge that when they return home, we will leave no veteran behind. The Disabled Veterans Tax breaks that promise.'' Some of the veterans left behind include: A veteran of the Kuwait theater who had a below-the-knee amputation after being hit by a drunk driver while jogging near the Pentagon to maintain physical fitness. A retiree who cannot work on a family farm because of pain, numbness and osteoarthritis of both feet due to exposure to cold during noncombatant military service. A veteran who lost an eye when an air hose accidentally detached from an airplane being worked on and who cannot work as an airline pilot. A female retiree who has weekly panic attacks and chronic sleep disturbances as the result of a sexual assault which occurred while on active duty. My friends and colleagues, Congress did just okay by taking the first steps towards eliminating the Disabled Veterans Tax--I would give us a grade of C-, but we did not do A work. During my years in Congress, I cannot recall more than or two other issues on which I have received so many letters, e-mails and phone calls. Our veterans have been telling us that this is an important issue to them. They deserve that we do A work. I understand that there are costs to concurrent receipt. But I also understand that the now-disabled veterans did not hesitate when called to duty. Many have returned home with disabilities they have had to lived with ever since. How can we doubt the imperative that we keep our promise and give them what they deserve? They earned their military retired pay. They deserve their VA disability compensation. We cannot make them wait any longer for justice to prevail!

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to urge support of my legislation that recognizes and honors the service and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces. The first bill is H.R. 2369, ``Honor our Fallen Prisoners of War Act''. Currently, prisoners of war who die during their imprisonment of wounds inflicted in war are eligible for posthumous Purple Heart recognition. However, those who die of starvation, beatings, freezing or other causes are not eligible for the Purple Heart! This is not right! There should be no false distinction indicating more courage or more sacrifice by some who died and less by others. All POWs who died in service to our Nation should be eligible for Purple Heart recognition. H.R. 2369 will allow all members of our Armed Forces who die while a Prisoner of War, regardless of the cause of death, to be awarded the Purple Heart posthumously. This will apply to all wars, past and present. I am indebted to Rick and Brenda Morgan Tavares of Campo, California and to Wilbert ``Shorty'' Estabrook of Murrieta, California who brought this issue to my attention. Shorty survived the Tiger Camp death march during the Korean War and was imprisoned for over three years. Brenda's uncle, Corporal Melvin Morgan, died of starvation and beatings in 1950 at the age of 20 in Korea. Today, I am also introducing H.R. 2370, the ``In Memory Medal for Forgotten Veterans Act''. There are two groups of veterans who I believe need recognition beyond what they are currently receiving. The first are veterans who have died as a result of their service in the Vietnam War but who do not meet the criteria for inclusion on The Wall of the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, DC. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund has a program called ``In Memory'' which has raised money for a plaque that has been placed near The Wall. The plaque honors ``those who served in the Vietnam War and later died as a result of their service.'' No names are on the plaque, but all names are kept in a ``In Memory Book'' at a kiosk near The Wall, and families can order a copy. My bill adds to this fine recognition by presenting the families of these veterans with a medal, to be known as the ``Jesus Chuchi Salgado Medal'' to be issued by the Secretary of Defense. Chuchi Salgado was an outstanding individual, living in my Congressional district, whose exposure to Agent Orange ultimately led to his death. I would like to recognize his wife, Carla Salgado, as well as and Dan Santillan, who live in my Congressional District in California. Dan suggested the appropriateness of this bill. The second group of veterans deserving of the ``Jesus Chuchi Salgado'' medal are those who were exposed to chemical agents, ionizing radiation, or chemical and herbicide agents during their service in the Armed Forces. The medal would be presented to veterans who are still living or to their families if they have died. Thomas Barnes of Whittier, California requested that action be taken to commemorate and honor such veterans. I urge my colleagues to join with me in co-sponsoring and passing H.R. 2369 and H.R. 2370. It is critical that we honor and remember those who have fought so gallantly for our freedom!

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise to join with my colleagues in the recognition of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. The contributions of Asian Pacific Islander Americans throughout the history of the United States are widely known. One of the contributions that has never been properly acknowledged by the United States and by Congress is the part that was played in World War II by soldiers of the Philippines, a territory of the United States at that time. They were drafted in World War II by President Roosevelt. They did not say no. They fought bravely and gallantly, in the battles of Bataan and Corrigidor, and the bullets did not distinguish between those who were U.S. citizens at the time and those who were citizens of the Philippines. Death did not make a distinction. The participation of the Filipino soldiers was critical to the successful outcome of the war in the Pacific. We owe them a great deal. And yet, in 1946, the Congress said thank you, but no thank you. Congress withdrew the benefits that these brave men were promised. Although some positive steps were taken in the six decades since the war, we have not properly redeemed that promise. Congressman Cunningham and I have introduced H.R. 302, the Filipino Veterans Equity Act, and Senator Inouye has introduced a companion bill in the Senate, S. 146. These bills will complete the job and restore all the benefits that were rescinded by Congress. The passage of these bills will benefit the Filipino veterans in a substantial way. But, at a deeper level, these bills are also about restoring dignity and honor to these proud veterans. Sixty years of injustice burn in the hearts of the Filipino World War II Veterans and in the hearts of their sons and daughters. It is time that our nation recognizes their contributions, recognizes the injustice, and acts to correct it. To those who say that we cannot afford to redeem this debt, I answer that we cannot afford not to! The historical record remains blotted until we recognize these veterans. In passing these bills, we can make good on the promise of America.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, we are all committed to ensuring that our troops have the support they need to succeed in their mission and maintain high morale. As part of this effort, we have taken important steps to ensure that the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan can make free phone calls home to their loved ones. Last year, we passed a Defense Authorization bill that provided a $40 per month calling program to these soldiers. And our military hospitals have created adhoc programs, largely based on privately donated calling cards, to ensure that hospitalized troops can call home as well. In order to strengthen and expand these efforts, I have introduced the bipartisan ``Troops Phone Home Free Extension'' Act (H.R. 2366). This legislation would extend the calling program until the end of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. My bill would also extend the program to future contingency operations to ensure that our troops do not have to wait for the legislative process to catch up with their phone call needs. Finally, the ``Troops Phone Home Free Extension'' Act would extend the monthly calling card program to the wounded to ensure that the Federal government will provide the phone benefit if private donations are insufficient. I invite you join me in fighting to maintain the morale of our troops, support our military families and give our soldiers the benefits that they have earned through their sacrifice and courage. Please join me in co-sponsoring the ``Troops Phone Home Free Extension'' Act!

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for three bills that I have introduced to provide financial relief to women in our Nation. Both men and women will receive assistance from this legislation, but because women are often with less financial resources, they will particularly benefit. My first bill, H.R. 2127, the ``Fair Taxes for Seniors Act'', will provide a one-time increase in the capital gains tax exemption on the sale of a home for citizens who are 50 years of age or older. Passing this bill will give many seniors the additional money they need for nursing home care, medical costs, and other retirement expenses. The current capital gains tax exemption works well for younger people who often move from job to job, selling their homes. The current exemption works well for people who live in areas where housing prices are below average. But it is not working for individuals who have lived in one home for 20 to 50 years and have a capital gain that is much larger than the present exemption. In other words, it is not working for seniors who live in areas with higher housing prices, such as San Diego, California in my Congressional District. My bill doubles the current exemption by providing a one-time increase to $500,000 for a single person and $1 million for a couple that can be excluded from the sale of a principal residence for taxpayers who have reached the age of 50. Because they will be able to keep more, an added benefit is that family members and perhaps the government will be relieved of the burden of caring for these individuals as they grow older. My second bill is H.R. 2126, the ``Social Security Survivors Fairness Act'', legislation to provide Social Security widows' and widowers' benefits to people under the age of 60. Many of these survivors are women, women who have spent their life working in the home, raising their children, and supporting their husbands. They currently are allowed to receive Social Security widows' benefits, but to qualify they must be 60 years old. It is very difficult for many to find a job at their age if they have never worked outside their homes. Women in their late 50s who are dependent on their husbands' Social Security are left with no means of support if their spouses die. My bill would amend the Social Security Act to reduce from 60 to 55 the age at which an individual who is otherwise eligible may be paid widows' or widowers' insurance benefits. Finally, I have introduced H.R. 2125, the ``Continued Benefits for Injured Military Spouses Act''. Under current law, enacted in 1982, former spouses of military members or retirees are eligible for military medical benefits and exchange and commissary privileges if the military member had performed at least 20 years of military service, had been married for at least 20 years to one spouse, and 20 years of marriage and service were overlapping. This is known as the 20/20/20 restriction. Further legislation was enacted 2 years later to include additional former spouses under a 20/20/15 restriction. While this law recognizes the contribution and sacrifice of many military spouses who later divorced, there is a group who are completely left out through no fault of their own. Spouses who must leave a marriage through divorce due to documented abuse are often left with none of these benefits. Domestic violence and physical or sexual endangerment to the spouse or the children, proven by medical or counseling records, should be taken into account. Divorced because of this situation, the injured spouse should continue to receive benefits. H.R. 2125 will change the law to 20/20/10 only for these special circumstances, meaning that the military member would have been married for at least 20 years to one spouse, would have performed at least 20 years of military service, with 10 years of service and marriage overlapping. This change would allow an abused spouse to escape from a potentially dangerous marriage and still keep benefits. Most of our military members are honorable and good people. But, in the few cases where spousal or child abuse is involved, we must protect the families. I invite my colleagues to join me in support of military spouses who have found themselves in dangerous marriages, in support of fairer taxes for senior citizens, and in support of widows' benefits for surviving spouses who are 55 and older.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall, No. 149, on H. Con Res. 95, I was in my Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 147, I was in my Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I would voted ``nay.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 150, on H.R. 210, I was in my Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 148, I was in my Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, today I enter into the Congressional Record a report by the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) entitled, ``U.S. Policy Options for Iran.'' The IPC found that Iran presents a growing challenge to U.S. interests and values in a number of areas. The report examines the U.S. policy options for addressing these concerns and calls for change in Iran based on internal Iranian opposition. We need to foster greater awareness and dialogue in Congress about this critical situation. To that end, I urge my colleagues to review this report and join me developing an effective U.S. policy on Iran. U.S. Policy Options for Iran Prepared by: Iran Policy Committee (IPC) co-chairs Ambassador James Akins, (ret.) Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, USMC (ret.), CEO, wvc3, inc. Paul Leventhal, Founder and President Emeritus, Nuclear Control Institute Dr. Neil Livingstone, CEO, Global Options, Inc. Bruce McColm, President, Institute for Democratic Strategies and Former President, International Republican Institute Lt. General (ret.) Thomas McInerney Former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Captain Chuck Nash (ret.) President, Emerging Technologies International Lt. General Edward Rowny (ret.) Former Ambassador Strategic Arms Reduction Talks Professor Raymond Tanter Former Staff Member, National Security Council Major General (ret.) Paul Vallely, Military Committee Chairman, Center for Security Policy Executive Director: Clare Lopez Strategic Policy and Intelligence Analyst U.S. Policy Options for Iran: Executive Summary Iran poses six threats to American interests and ideals: Drive to acquire nuclear weapons. Continuing support for and involvement with terrorist networks. Aid to groups working against the Arab-Israel peace process. Disruptive role in Iraq. Expansionist radical ideology. Denial of basic human rights to its own population. With respect to these threats from Iran, Washington circles largely divide between two alternatives--those who favor engagement with and those who support military strikes against the regime Few favor regime change as an end in itself. While the Bush administration does not yet explicitly call for changing the regime, it advocates working with the Iranian people as opposed to the unelected theocracy in Tehran, which is an implicit policy of regime change. By calling for change in Tehran based on the Iranian opposition instead of the U.S. military, the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) highlights a third alternative: Keep open diplomatic and military options, while providing a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change. IPC joins the debate in Washington over Iran policy initiated by think tank reports on Iran--Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (TWI). In contrast to the thrust of such reports, IPC suggests that Iranian opposition groups ought to play a central role in U.S. policymaking regarding Iran. Comprised of former officials who have worked on the Middle East in the White House, State Department, Pentagon, intelligence agencies, Congress, and experts from think tanks and universities, IPC welcomes the occasion to support the Iranian people in pursuit of U.S. national interests. But continued designation since 1997 of the main Iranian opposition group, Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department assures Tehran that regime change is off the table. Removing the MEK's terrorist designation would be a tangible signal to Tehran and to the Iranian people that a new option is implicitly on the table--regime change. U.S. Policy Options for Iran Introduction `` . . . liberty in our land depends on the success of liberty in other lands . . . . So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture.-- President George W. Bush, Inaugural Address, 20 January 2005. ``As you stand for liberty, America stands with you.''-- President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2 February 2005. Using the theme of liberty in general from his Inaugural Address, President Bush refers directly to the Iranian people in his State of the Union Address. In so doing, he tacitly ``targets'' the regime in Tehran. The question is what means should the President use to decrease threats posed by Iran: Continued negotiations, including positive and negative incentives. Future military action. Support for the Iranian opposition. These options are neither mutually exclusive nor logically exhaustive; but they do reflect courses of action being considered in Washington. Because the Iranian regime's policies pose direct threats to national security interests and ideals of the United States Government (USG) and those of its allies and friends, Iran is on the front burner of American foreign policy. Consider these six Iranian threats to U.S. interests and ideals: Drive to acquire nuclear weapons. Continuing support for and involvement with terrorist networks. Aid to groups working against the Arab-Israel peace process. Disruptive role in Iraq. Expansionist radical ideology. Denial of basic human rights to its own population. The Iran Policy Committee (IPC) analyzes these dangers and makes recommendations to meet them. It is not the intention of the IPC to duplicate analysis already receiving consideration in policymaking circles; rather, this policy paper offers a distinct perspective and recommends a course of action that is different in key aspects from what has been proposed to date. IPC seeks to build upon the President's disposition to work with the Iranian people by broadening options for American policymakers regarding Iran. For too long, Washington has been divided between those who favor engagement with and those who support military strikes against the Iranian regime. The Committee stresses the potential for a third alternative: Keep open diplomatic and military options, while providing a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change. President Bush's 2005 State of the Union Address ignores the leadership in Iran in order to converse directly with Iranian people. And it is not his first time doing so; indeed, the President's radio address of December 2002 began the process of having a conversation with the people instead of diplomatic discourse with the regime. The IPC urges the administration to acknowledge the threat posed to American national security interests by the totalitarian theocracy in Tehran and to adopt a policy that proactively steps forward to defend those interests. Furthermore, the IPC believes that Washington should support the Iranian people in their efforts to participate meaningfully in a representative government that is responsive to their concerns; implicit in such support is the recognition that the Iranian people have the right to choose and change their own government, as they see fit. IPC joins the debate in Washington over Iran policy initiated by think tank reports on Iran--Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (TWI). In contrast to the thrust of such reports, IPC suggests that Iranian opposition groups ought to play a central role in U.S. policymaking regarding Iran. Themes running through these think tank reports include the following reasons for dissatisfaction with American policy toward Iran. Critics hold that U.S. policy is not well articulated because of bureaucratic differences; there are too many or too few carrots in relation to sticks; and American policy is not linked enough with Europe's approach to Iran. The reports view the threat of sanctions and force as well as the promise of diplomacy as complementary tools in the Western arsenal. At issue is the mix between negative and positive incentives, a formula for which there is little accord among transatlantic partners. While some place the burden on Washington to resolve Iran's nuclear proliferation activities and its state sponsored international terrorism, few place that responsibility directly on the Iranian people. With the possible exception of the CPD, there is too little acknowledgment of a role for Iranians in general and groups opposed to the regime in particular. As a result, there is a niche for the Iran Policy Committee to address Iranian threats from the perspective of encouraging the people to be principal agents change. Without the active participation of Iranians, moreover, regime change from the outside is unlikely to succeed. En route to her first overseas mission to Europe on February 3, 2005, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice held that the Iranian people should have a chance to ``change their own future,'' a statement IPC considers as a euphemism for regime change. Summing up the U.S. government's principal concerns with respect to Iran, Rice further stated that, ``The goal of the administration is to have a regime in Iran that is responsive to concerns that we have about Iran's policies, which are about 180 degrees antithetical to our own interests at this point.'' While the debate in Washington concerns whether to make explicit its tacit policy of regime change for Iran, the debate in the region is the race between two clocks--a diplomatic and a nuclear timepiece. On one hand, at issue is whether negotiations can slow down Tehran's march toward nuclear weapons status before Iran acquires such status. The Committee holds that the diplomacy is moving too slowly in relation to nuclear weapons progress. On the other hand, unless working with the Iranian people rapidly leads to regime change in Tehran, the pace of nuclear weapons development might leave Washington with what he Committee believes is the least desirable option of waging military strikes against Iran. Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program Regarding impact in the region, the nature of the regime in Tehran is of greater import than its nuclear weapons capability: An Iran with representative institutions with a nuclear weapons capability would not be as destabilizing as nuclear weapons in the hands of the unelected, expansionist theocracy. The best outcome is a freely-elected, representative government without nuclear weapons; only with such a government would such an outcome be possible. The nightmare scenario is that a nuclear weapons capability in the hands of an aggressive and repressive regime in Tehran raises the possibility that it could and would collaborate with transnational networks to carry out nuclear terrorism. In any event, of the six critical threats posed by Iran, its drive to acquire nuclear weapons is the first and most urgent. According to June 2004 testimony by Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton, defense experts in the United States strongly believe that Iran has a clandestine program to produce nuclear weapons. Speaking in January 2005, moreover, Bolton told reporters that Iran's repeated support for terrorism makes it particularly dangerous if Tehran were to acquire nuclear weapons. There have been new revelations about the rapid pace of Iran's nuclear weapons progress since 2002. It is known that Iran is developing its indigenous uranium mines; has built a uranium conversion facility at Isfahan in central Iran; is building a massive uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, which is designed to house tens of thousands of centrifuges plus numerous centrifuge production workshops, a heavy water production plant at Arak, and a laser enrichment facility. Revelations by diplomatic sources on February 3, 2005 suggest that Iran is testing components of its centrifuge rotors, despite a November 2004 pledge to freeze all such activities related to enrichment. That pledge led to an agreement among Iran's European interlocutors and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to put a hold on U.S. attempts to report Iran to the UN Security Council for violations of the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The new revelations deal a serious blow to any hopes that Iran intends to forego uranium enrichment en route to a nuclear weapons capability. In separate developments on February 3, a spokesman for the main Iranian opposition group charged that Iran has obtained materials and expertise to make neutron initiators (``triggers'') for an atomic bomb. A senior official of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), speaking in Paris, cited secret sources inside Iran's nuclear development programs. This person accused Tehran of conducting a secret program to develop a nuclear triggering mechanism using smuggled materials. He claimed that Iran has produced or purchased from abroad quantities of polonium-210 and beryllium, two elements required for building a ``neutron initiator,'' which is an integral part of a nuclear bomb. The facility where this work allegedly is taking place is a military installation on the outskirts of Tehran, known as Lavizan II. Remarkably, the IAEA has not inspected Lavizan II yet, nor does it appear to be pressing for inspections there, despite the site first being identified by the NCRI in November 2004. The NCRI has been instrumental in exposing Iran's secret nuclear facilities in the past. By relying on its network inside Iran of a member organization, the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), the NCRI revealed a number of significant nuclear sites including Natanz, Arak, Ab-Ali, and Lavizan. Despite the fact that Iran is a signatory to the NPT, Tehran has repeatedly violated its provisions and continues to play fast and loose with IAEA efforts to monitor compliance. The regime appears to be counting on the apparently inexhaustible patience of the IAEA and the Europeans, who have agreed to compromise after compromise with Iran, to avoid having the issue brought before the United Nations (UN) Security Council, as pursued by the United States. The longer this negotiation takes, the more time Iran has to engage in covert activities, enabling it to acquire fissile materials to build and test nuclear weapons. In other words, time is on Iran's side. The world cannot wait for proof ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' of an Iranian bomb. The risks of delay are too high. The international community should be prepared to act on the recent discoveries of evidence of weapons-related nuclear activities. Discoveries over the past two years, along with the revelations by Iranian opposition groups that Iran is developing a nuclear trigger, constitute ``clear and present evidence'' of illicit activities that, unless halted, may lead to bomb-making. The general view among the experts is that, if left undeterred, Iran is only one to three years away from producing a nuclear bomb. Indeed, there are reports from a secret meeting that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has ordered technicians to accelerate Iran's nuclear program in order to achieve nuclear weapons status by the end of 2005. There is a notion in certain policy circles that, if Iran feels threatened, the hard-line clerics will be further induced to go nuclear. They propose offering additional security assurances to Iran as an incentive to convince it to give up its nuclear weapons program. Given the nature and behavior of the regime, the more plausible argument is that unless they feel threatened, the Iranian clerical rulers will continue their nuclear weapons program on the assumption they can get away with it. Only the prospect of severe consequences threatening the very existence of the regime could induce them to forego nuclear weapons out of fear of the consequences. nuclear delivery systems: the iranian missile program Iran possesses one of the largest missile inventories in the Middle East. It has acquired complete missile systems and developed an infrastructure to build missiles indigenously. During military exercises held in September 2004, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards successfully test-fired a ``strategic missile,'' likely the Shahab-3 rocket, which reportedly has a range of up to 2,000 kilometers and is capable of carrying a 760-1,000 kilogram warhead. The Revolutionary Guards is officially armed with the Shahab-3 missiles. Taken in combination with Iran's drive to achieve a nuclear weapons capability, its continuing support for radical Islamist terrorist groups and avowed opposition to the existence of Israel, Iran's demonstrated capability to field an intercontinental ballistic missile raises much concern among defense officials of many countries. In December 2004, Iran's main opposition coalition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), uncovered a new missile program secretly pursued by Iran, as well as a program to develop a nuclear warhead. The new secret missile, produced at the Hemmat Missile Industries Complex in northeast Tehran, is named Ghadar, NCRI reported. North Korean experts are believed to be assisting the Iranian program at this complex. The Ghadar missile may have a range of 2,500 to 3,000 kilometers (1,550 to 1,860 miles). NCRI also reported that Iran has improved the guidance and control system of its Shahab-4 missiles, based on a system acquired from China. In late January 2005, a Ukrainian legislator alleged that Kiev sold nuclear-capable cruise missiles to Iran and China during the period from 1999-2001. The Kh-55 cruise missile has a range of 3,000 kilometers and is capable of carrying a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. In addition to Iran's nuclear weapons program and its advanced delivery system, a second threat posed by the regime is its support for and involvement with international terrorist networks. regime support for international terrorism The Islamic Republic of Iran is the world's number one state-sponsor of terror. It created Hizballah, supports al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Tehran operates at the heart of a network of terrorist organizations engaged in murder, kidnapping, bombing, and other atrocities calculated to sap the will of the United States and the West to resist. Iran's logistical, financial and operational assistance takes the form of providing terrorists safehaven, travel documents such as passports, weapons, training and technical expertise. Information reveals a pattern of operational contacts between the Iranian government and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization. These contacts include: joint planning of terrorist operations, military training of bin Laden operatives inside Iran and by Iranian IRGC and MOIS officers in Syria and Lebanon, financial assistance to clandestine terrorist and surveillance cells, false passports, and communications. The 9/11 Commission report documented in great detail the logistical, operational, and material support provided by Iran and Hizballah to al Qaeda. This report, released in July 2004, echoes the earlier federal grand jury findings about links between Iran and al Qaeda. The Commission's report stated that Iran's support of al Qaeda dates back to 1991, when operatives from both sides met in Sudan; by 1993, ``al Qaeda received advice and training from Hezbollah'' in intelligence, security, and explosives, especially in how to use truck bombs. The training took place in the Beka'a Valley, Hizballah's stronghold in Lebanon. According to the 9/11 commission report, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. Iran's support for al Qaeda has continued. Iran's Opposition to the Arab-Israel Peace Process Tehran was instrumental in the creation of Lebanese Hizballah, which formed in 1982 under the sponsorship of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who arrived in Lebanon as the vanguard of Khomeini's Islamic revolution. Iran continues to provide Hizballah with money, equipment, training locations, and refuge from extradition. Its overall financial support to Hizballah and Hamas totals tens of millions of dollars in direct subsidies each year. Iranian Designs in Iraq Demography and geography facilitate the impact of Iran's expansionist ideology. With a population three times Iraq's and a contiguous territory four times Iraq's, Iran exerts a naturally powerful influence on its western neighbor. Iraq's longest border is with Iran (over 900 miles), and the vast majority of the Iraqi population lives within a 100-mile distance from the Iranian border, placing it well within the sphere of Tehran's expansionist ideology. Shiite pilgrims began flowing once again after 2003 between the holy places in Iran and those in Iraq, especially the holy shrines in Najaf and Karbala. Iranian intelligence agents also flooded the country. They quietly and effectively set up a network of agents across Iraq, recruiting and training local village people, former Iraqi military officers, politicians, and young men to collect intelligence on Coalition forces and facilities. A long period of secular Ba'athist domination in Iraq punctuated by a savage eight-year war between Iran and Iraq countered Iranian political influence in the region. During this time, westward expansion of Iran's theocratic ideology declined. With the April 2003 collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime and ensuing breakup of existing security and border patrol forces, Iran seized the chance to spread its influence and launched a multifaceted military, intelligence, and political campaign in Iraq. Along with intelligence agents, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) also sent suicide bombers, money, and weapons to support insurgents fighting against Coalition forces in Iraq. Testimony and documentary evidence show that officials at the highest level of the Iranian regime have been involved with planning and providing support for terrorists and suicide bombers affiliated not only with the upstart Shiite cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, but with the forces of wanted Jordanian terrorist and al Qaeda associate, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Ba'athist loyalists as well. In late January 2004, an Iraqi terrorist leader captured in Falluja and accused of carrying out beheadings and deadly attacks, claimed that his group was linked to Tehran. In footage aired January 8, 2005 on the U.S.-run television channel, AI-Hurra, Ahmed Yassin, a leader of the Jaish Muhammed (Muhammed's Army) and a former colonel in Saddam Hussein's army, said two members of his group went to Iran in April or May, where they met a number of Iranian intelligence officials and Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei. Iranian officials provided money, weapons, and even ``car bombs.'' During December 2004, the Najaf police chief said that the commander of three terrorists arrested in connection with a car bomb that exploded in the holy city on December 26, had extensive connections to Iran's Ministry of Intelligence. Tehran also recruited over four thousand volunteers for suicide operations in Iraq in public ceremonies in Iran attended by prominent Revolutionary Guards commanders. Iranian intelligence services have pumped millions of dollars and hundreds of operatives into Iraq. In a press conference in October 2004, Iraq's national intelligence chief, Mohammed Al Shahwani, accused Iran's Baghdad embassy of recruiting elements for sabotage operations and assassinations of his intelligence agents. He said that documents showed Iran had a $45-million budget for sowing chaos in Iraq. At least 27 people working in the Iranian embassy in Baghdad were coordinating intelligence gathering operations and assassinations, the spy chief added. Iranian meddling is aimed at frustrating the emergence of a stable and representative government in Iraq and also at keeping the United States so occupied in dealing with the insurgency that it would have neither the will nor the resources to pressure Iran on the nuclear issue. In the months and weeks leading up to national elections in January 2005, both Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawar and Jordan's King Abdullah charged that Iran was heavily involved in attempting to influence the outcome to produce a Shiite dominated government similar to Iran's. In an interview with the Kuwaiti daily, Al-Qabas on January 6, 2005, Iraqi Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan accused the Iranian regime of ``interfering [in Iraq] with money, guns, and intelligence.'' With the apparent success of the Iraqi elections, Iraq has now entered a new phase. Only a day after the January 2005 elections, Iranian media and web sites claimed victory, comparing the Shiites' gain in the elections with the Iranian revolution that brought an Islamic system to power or with the rise of Hizballah in the Lebanese political scene in the Middle East. The first and most pressing post-election challenge is to ensure the selection of a representative National Assembly that would draft a modern, broadminded constitution for Iraq. The aim would be to reflect Iraq's Islamic soul but avoid a narrow formula for governance based solely on Sharia law. It is to be expected that Iran will seek to influence the members of the National Assembly and their drafting of this constitution. The makeup of the future interim government is equally important and might succeed to avoid Iranian dominance by seeking as diverse participation as possible from all sectors of Iraqi society. In the transitional period before the constitution comes up for a vote and a permanent government and military and security structure is in place, it will be critical to monitor Iranian efforts to influence the process. Expansionist Radical Ideology Iran's ``Velayat e-Faqih'' system poses both an immediate and continuing threat to neighbors because of its aggressive policy of expansion. This policy is evident in Iranian actions in Lebanon and Iraq, where calculated cultivation of terrorism is an inseparable characteristic of the theocratic system. Export of terrorism and extremism is an intrinsic attribute of Iran's theocratic system. Tehran's rulers believe their power lies in awakening the Islamic world to their Islamist ideology. Iran's leadership clearly believes the Islamic Republic's survival depends on the support of such a global force. Denial of Basic Human Rights to its own citizen The human rights situation in Iran has deteriorated severely over the past year. Ironically, the European Union's ``human rights dialogue'' has had the opposite effect from that intended because the regime has continued its suppression of the Iranian citizenry. In December 2004, the United Nations in a resolution criticized Iran for public executions, arbitrary sentencing, flogging, stoning, and systematic discrimination against women. The measure also condemned ``the execution of minors below eighteen years of age, and the use of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.'' It also rebuked Iran for discrimination against minorities, including Christians, Jews, Sunnis, and the Baha'is. Gender discrimination and violence against women in Iran continue to give cause for grave concern. The parliament has called for placing more restrictions on women's attire and on their social freedoms. Deputies have also called for segregating men and women at universities and for other limits on women's activities. The number of publications closed down and of people arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for the peaceful expression of their opinion has increased. While the human rights situation deteriorated in Iran, the public discontent has been on the rise. Political Dissent in Iran Over the past year, hundreds of anti-government demonstrations were held in Iran, further destabilizing the regime. Originating with complaints over municipal issues, a series of anti-regime demonstrations that erupted in 2004 in many provincial cities, such as Feraydoun Kenar, Boukan, and the earthquake-stricken city of Barn, reportedly targeted government buildings, vehicles, and security forces. In December 2004, students at Tehran University gave President Khatami an angry and humiliating reception when he admitted to the role he played in preserving the regime. They shouted, ``Shame, shame'' while calling him a liar and demanding his resignation. The anti-regime movement, partly derailed by the false expectations aroused as a result of the election of Khatami as president in 1997, has now gained a new momentum. The disillusionment of the population with Khatami took place in July 1999, when he failed to support a student demonstration that turned into a six -day popular uprising, spreading to 19 cities and shaking the foundations of the regime. In the midst of a bloody crackdown on the students, Khatami opted to stand by the establishment; many believe he may have ordered some of the crackdown himself. The opposition movement meanwhile continued its expansion, and since 1999, many student demonstrations and popular protests have rocked Tehran and other cities. In Search of a New Approach toward Iran: Options Some American policy advisors urge the administration to refrain from taking a hard line with Tehran because they interpret recent developments inside Iran as pointing to an impending collapse of the system, much like the Soviet implosion that led to the end of the communist regime in the USSR. Other policymakers advocate engagement with the ruling clerics in Tehran in order to solve controversial issues outstanding between the two countries. In a difficult atmosphere of diplomatic gridlock, internal and international ideological divisions, and faced with an unappealing slate of military options, the United States needs a broad set of options. This paper outlines a full spectrum of approaches toward Iran, beginning with diplomacy and moving through increasingly more coercive measures, culminating with an outright commitment to regime change. Diplomacy Proponents of the diplomatic approach hold that the United States has not offered enough carrots to Iran to address its security concerns. In addition, it is necessary to convince Tehran that it is in its own interests to abandon outlaw behavior, they contend. There are several carrots that might be offered to the Iranian regime in the hope that a good-faith demonstration by the West to an approach of engagement would elicit desired compliance with international norms of behavior. Most of these incentives have already been placed on the table. This diplomatic approach requires that Washington cooperate with Europeans to present a united front to the regime. With the example of U.S. resolve in Afghanistan and Iraq before them, the Iranian leadership might be persuaded to reach the appropriate conclusions, if the principal European interlocutors were to emphasize the limits of their ability to influence, much less control, American foreign policy decisions. In a version of ``good cop-- bad cop,'' the message would be conveyed that there are consequences for noncompliance that are beyond European ability to control. An effort to acknowledge the legitimacy of Iranian national desires for a civilian nuclear power program might provide Iran an opportunity to demonstrate its peaceful intentions, according to diplomatic approach. To enhance the acknowledged benefit of exchange programs that bring foreign students and business leaders to the United States for study and travel opportunities, Washington should look for ways to expand such exchange programs, consistent with the requirements of homeland security. Coercive Diplomacy A frank evaluation of the track record so far on attempts at diplomatic engagement with the ruling regime in Tehran must conclude that such an approach is not working and probably will not ever succeed, if not stiffened with more stringent measures. Such measures would begin exacting penalties from Iran if it does not comply. At the top of the list of penalties are economic sanctions, which will not succeed unless applied in concerted and cooperative fashion by all of Iran's major Western trading partners. Such sanctions would include oil; ban on airline travel; prohibition of financial transaction, bilateral or multilateral economic assistance, and general trade. Increased funding and strong congressional backing for radio and satellite television broadcasts into Iran would send the message that Washington wants to reach out to the Iranian people. Public statements of support from American officials in favor of imprisoned and exiled Iranian political leaders would be an encouraging sign of support for the people. The U.S. State Department can send a strong message of disapproval to the regime in Tehran by refusing to issue visas to its United Nations representatives that would permit them to travel beyond the immediate radius surrounding New York City (as occasionally has been done). In the same vein, the activities of Iran's diplomatic representation at the regime's interest section in the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington, as well as at the regime's UN mission in New York, should continue to be closely observed by the appropriate domestic intelligence and other agencies for possible unlawful activities that may include espionage, threat, intimidation, or unlawful lobbying with Members of Congress. Also relevant is a threat of action by an international tribunal for Iranian leadership crimes. It might charge the leaders with support for transnational terrorism and human rights abuses. This threat might be made tangible by bringing a legal case against Supreme Leader Khamenei. Most important of all, the United States must stay the course in Iraq to ensure that a moderate system takes hold, which is representative, committed to fairness for all Iraqis, and intolerant only of terrorism and violence. Helping the voices of moderate Iraqi Muslims to be heard and protecting them from intimidation by agents of Iranian terror should go a long way to encourage emergence of like-minded moderates within Iran. As efforts on the diplomatic front are under way, the United States should accelerate its outreach to the Iranian people, as part of the process to help them change their future. Destabilization Application of the diplomatic measures may not alter the regime's behavior on those issues of paramount concern to the international community, such as support for terror, pursuit of WMD programs, meddling inside Iraq, and violation of its citizens' human rights. If not, then Washington should be prepared to embrace a new option, short of direct military action, but which might have the best chance for success. The middle option would open a campaign of destabilization, whose aim would be to weaken the grip of the ruling regime over the Iranian people sufficiently that Iranian opposition groups inside the country and abroad are empowered to change the regime. To the extent that any or all of the foregoing diplomatic measures, coercive or not, are deemed useful, their application should be sustained during a destabilization phase. However implausible or unlikely to be taken seriously, an American call for Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei and his cohorts ``to return to the mosque'' might set the stage and be used as a point of departure for further negotiations. Such a call might give the international community a foundation upon which to build a case against the regime. The next stage of an American-led campaign to compel conformity to international norms of behavior would be to encourage Iranian opposition groups. This is an option that has never actually been on the table and has not been explored sufficiently; this option relies on the Iranian opposition to take the lead role in coordinating a campaign for regime change and establishing representative institutions. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters on her February 2005 European trip, ``The Iranian people should be no different from the Palestinians or Iraqis or other peoples around the world.'' That is, the people of Iran are not immune to the wave of democracy in the Middle East. In January 2005, six prominent members of the U.S. Congress, led by House International Relations subcommittee chair for Middle East and Central Asia, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), as well as Tom Lantos (D-CA), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Howard Berman (D-CA), Steve Chabot (R-OH), and Gary Ackerman (D-NY), introduced the Iran Freedom Support Act (H.R. 282), with more than 50 co-sponsors. It would provide U.S. assistance to independent broadcasts into Iran and to pro-democracy groups. The best-known of the Iranian opposition groups is the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK). Founded in the 1960s by college students, the MEK participated in the 1979 revolution against the Shah, but quickly fell out with Ayatollah Khomeini, who executed thousands of its members and leaders. Following the start of mass executions in June 1981, the group went underground, and many of its leaders fled to France from 1981 to 1986, after which the MEK took refuge in Iraq. While in Iraq, the group formed an army equipped with tanks, armored personnel carriers, and field guns, implementing cross-border attacks against the Iranian regime. The MEK network in Iran also carried out military operations against the Revolutionary Guards and other government targets. The MEK has represented a significant security threat to the Iranian regime ever since the end of the Iran- Iraq War and could continue to do so, were it released from its circumscribed status in Iraq. United States policy toward the MEK has been ambivalent and controversial over the years and reached a nadir in 1997, when the Department of State placed the MEK on its Foreign Terrorist Organizations list. This inclusion was primarily a goodwill gesture to Mohammad Khatami, the newly-elected Iranian president, whose administration was looked to with much hope for its reformist promise. Despite the State Department's accusations that the MEK murdered Americans in mid 1970s and supported the U.S. embassy takeover in Tehran in 1980--charges the organization denies--the MEK has not attacked or targeted U.S. interests since the 1979 Iranian revolution. Nevertheless, the State Department added the major political wing of the Iranian opposition, NCRI, to the Department's terrorist designation; previously, NCRI had operated in the United States as a legitimate, registered organization. Before surrendering hundreds of tanks and armored personnel carriers to the U.S. military, the MEK had notable mechanized and infantry capabilities. The fledgling Iraqi Army uses some of this equipment, since 2004. The MEK seems to have an impressive network in Iran, where it has been gathering intelligence on Iran's nuclear weapons program as well as its activities in Iraq. The MEK published a book detailing the particulars and pictures of nearly 22 thousand people--mostly associated with the MEK--executed for political charges by the Iranian government. There is sizable support among the exile Iranian community for the MEK, which often draws large crowds to its rallies and demonstrations in western capitals. the MEK's relationship with the u.s. military in iraq Months before the start of the 2003 War in Iraq, the United States' major concern was Iraq's eastern neighbor, and its perceived involvement in the conflict that might have complicated the situation in the region. Washington, therefore, offered to alleviate Iran's concerns by bombing and destroying the MEK, hoping to reach an accommodation with Iran in a post-Saddam Iraq. Days after the start of U.S. bombing of Saddam's forces in late March and early April of 2003, Coalition planes heavily bombed nearly a dozen bases belonging to the MEK, killing dozens of fighters and wounding many more. U.S. Special Forces worked out a ceasefire agreement with the MEK in April 15, 2003, once the MEK consolidated its forces in a few camps north of Baghdad. The United States decided in May 2003 to disarm the group, and confiscated 2,139 tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery pieces, air defense artillery pieces, and miscellaneous vehicles formerly in the MEK's possession. In August 2003, in what appeared to be a response to Iranian demands, the State Department acted to close down the offices of MEK associate groups in Washington. Tehran has been particularly sensitive to the MEK activities inside Iran and abroad, signaling that it takes the dissident group most seriously. European governments and some U.S. administrations have used the MEK as bait to improve relations with Tehran. In a similar vein, the November 2004 European Union nuclear agreement with Iran includes an EU promise to treat the MEK as a terrorist group, which addressed Iran's security concerns. Although it is difficult if not impossible to gauge the level of support MEK enjoys in Iran, this organization is indisputably the largest and most organized Iranian opposition group. There are nearly 3,800 of its members in Camp Ashraf, 60 miles north of Baghdad. Females constitute nearly a third of its rank and file. As of February 2005, the State Department still listed the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization, despite calls for its removal from the list by many members of the U.S. Congress and others. The MEK and other Opposition Groups Support of U.S. Interests The lack of viable intelligence about Iran continues to plague analysts and planners. As stated earlier, the MEK and NCRI revealed much of the information that has been verified about Tehran's nuclear weapons programs. In this respect, Washington might consider using intelligence made available from opposition groups as lead information, i.e., to be verified using independent means. A 16-month investigation by the State Department and other government agencies of the MEK members in Iraq culminated in the 2004 judgment that they were ``protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention,'' and that there was no basis to charge any of them with terrorist actions. At this juncture in 2005, therefore, a review of U.S. policy concerning the MEK and the overall Iranian opposition is in order. The designation of the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department has served, since 1997, as an assurance to the Iranian regime that the United States has removed the regime change option from the table. Removing the terrorist designation from the MEK could serve as the most tangible signal to the Iranian regime, as well as to the Iranian people, that a new option is now on the table. Removal might also have the effect of supporting President Bush's assertion that America stands with the people of Iran in their struggle to liberate themselves. In the same way that the United States was receptive to South African anti-apartheid leaders and the Soviet Union's anti-communist activists, Washington should invite prominent opposition figures both in Iran and in exile to the United States. They might meet with U.S. officials, Members of Congress, academics, think tanks, and the media. The European Parliament offered such an example in December 2004, when it invited Maryam Rajavi, the president of the NCRI to its headquarters in Strasburg, where she offered an alternative view to that of the Iranian regime. Tehran's angry reaction to this invitation served to highlight the effectiveness of such measures. As an additional step, the United States might encourage the new Iraqi government to extend formal recognition to the MEK, based in Ashraf, as a legitimate political organization. Such recognition would send yet another signal from neighboring Iraq that the noose is tightening around Iran's unelected rulers. In light of the MEK's status as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention and the continued protection that the U.S. military provides the group in Iraq, Washington has an opportunity to decide whether to return to the MEK its weapons, which would relieve responsibility from the American military for the protection of its camps and personnel. Such a move also would send an unambiguous signal to the Iranian regime that it faces an enabled and determined opposition on its borders. Iranian groups, whether domestic or internationally-based, which seek to broadcast or publish pro-democracy messages inside the country might be provided with equipment, facilities, funding, and support. Relatively modest expenditures on such purposes can spell the difference between a capability for such groups to get their message out to international publics and in Iran. The United States should make it official policy to protest publicly cases of human rights violations, crackdown on Iranian student demonstrators, and application of inhumane and degrading punishments, such as stoning to death, flogging, eye gouging, and amputation. Washington should be particularly vigilante in providing political and moral support to student demonstrators in Iran and hold Tehran accountable for the arrest and killing of students during anti-government demonstrations. Should the United States reach a decision to support an explicit policy of regime change in Iran, a Presidential Finding would be a necessary first step, enabling many activities by U.S. entities that cannot take place without such a finding. The United States should ensure that Iran understands that neither it nor the Iranian opposition will take any option off the table, if Iran remains unwilling to address adequately international concerns about its nuclear programs in particular. The goal is to ensure that democracy, tolerance, and the rule of law are established in an Iran that abjures use of WMD, terrorism, and threats against its neighbors. Bringing Tehran's flagrant non-compliance with the NPT before the U.N. Security Council would be an important first step. In Search of a New Approach: The Military Option ``We do not want American armies marching on Tehran,'' then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said in November 2004. Despite the official position of the administration, there are some who suggest that given the failure of the engagement option over the past quarter century and the urgency to counter the Iranian threat, Washington should adopt a military option. Despite its risks and implications, they are willing to absorb the costs and consequences. Proponents of strikes believe that United States interests are better served by taking preventive military action in the present than facing the future nightmare of a nuclear Iran with extensive regional dominance armed with the ideology of hate. Conventional force military options have a broad spectrum upon which to draw, which individually or collectively might evoke different results and/or responses from the Iranian regime. Air options include low-end, minimal-risk overflights of unmanned aerial vehicles into Iranian airspace for purposes of reconnaissance, psychological impact, testing of Iranian response and capabilities. In addition, maximum options consist of airstrikes by manned aircraft and drones as well as cruise missile attacks against targeted facilities, installations, bases, and command or research centers. Naval options range from low end overt open waters surveillance and harassment of Iranian shipping to maximum options such as introduction of major forces into theater and a full blockade of Iranian ports and waters. On one hand, ground forces options include a low-end approach of pressuring Iran through the buildup of conventional ground forces and supporting logistics capability along borders and at strategic locations within the region. On the other hand, there are high-end options, such as a well-planned, fully-coordinated and -executed ground assault into Iran. On one hand, Special Operations Forces options include low- end clandestine ground operations supported by air insertion/ extraction to acquire target information, emplace sensors or precision guidance beacons, or preposition arms/equipment for local insurgents. On the other hand, high-end options consist of direct action missions against pre-selected targets, link- up with indigenous forces to engage and attack government facilities, bases, and personnel. In total context, combinations of the various minimal to maximum options provide a wide array of choices that can exert significant impact on Tehran and influence the regime economically, diplomatically, and politically. Given the above capabilities, potential military options include: Limited Actions: Clandestine insertions of Special Operations Forces to acquire precision target information, emplace remote sensors, and preposition arms/equipment. Such actions offer the ability to gather unobtrusively more reliable information than currently available through other military means; these actions also might establish sustainability for future operations. But, such actions do not cause the regime to react as long as such actions remain clandestine and the regime unaware. There is the possibility of extremely negative reaction from various entities internationally and in Iran if such activity were compromised or uncovered. Moderate Actions: Limited naval blockade that overtly conducts surveillance and harasses Iranian flagged shipping; overt overflights of Iranian airspace by U.S. surveillance aircraft and unmanned platforms; limited buildup of U.S. forces, supplies, and equipment in friendly countries adjacent to Iran; stationing of U.S. Marine amphibious forces off the coast; overt equipping of Iranian dissident groups; limited precision strikes or special operations activities against known WMD targets or munitions factories. As such measures become increasingly visible to the international public, a negative reaction might occur from many quarters, including, of course, Iran, which would seek diplomatic support in world forums to oppose U.S. activities. Assuming the effectiveness of any actual military strikes that cause damage to Iran's WMD or other indigenous military capabilities, such offensive measures would degrade Iran's ability to employ/deploy its weapons against United States or other friendly interests. Outrage from some corners of the globe is to be expected; the possibility of loss or capture of some U.S. service personnel might create a new dimension to the problem; outright military action also might toughen the resolve of the Iranian regime and even turn some of the Iranian people against the attacking forces. Serious consideration must be given to the likelihood that under the extreme stress of being attacked, Iran might unleash Hizballah and other terrorist organizations around the world to launch terrorist attacks against United States and/or other friendly interests. The ultimate potential for pulling Washington into a full-scale military confrontation with Iran must be weighed before any military action, however limited, is considered. Maximum actions: Full-scale naval blockade, the landing of U.S. Marine Corps amphibious forces at strategic locations, introduction of airborne, Ranger, Green Beret, or SEAL forces to seize key objectives, and crossborder invasion by land forces. All these actions would be fully supported by preparatory airstrikes intended to disable and destroy command and control centers, anti-aircraft capabilities, as well as key military and logistics centers. Full-scale military invasion on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan would be a very serious step, embarked upon with only one ultimate objective in mind: the overthrow of the regime in Tehran and the forcible occupation of the country. In addition to the destruction of regular army, IRGC, and MOIS military units together with their armaments, such an invasion would also number among its objectives the elimination of Iran's WMD programs, and thereby, the ending of WMD threats from Iran. Full-scale military invasion of Iran, even if supported by an international coalition, would be likely to elicit outrage from many corners of the globe. An invasion would be likely to incur higher casualties and a much longer period of intense, widespread conflict than that experienced in Iraq. Given the size and population of Iran, a full-scale invasion would require a force several times the size of the force in Iraq; continued strain on the overall U.S. military structure and its available resources would affect long-term sustainability of any such operation and the overall ability of U.S. armed forces to respond to crises elsewhere. Conclusion: Recall the nuclear time clock that is ticking down as Iran drives to reach nuclear weapons capability. If the regime continues to prove intransigent with respect to fulfilling its obligations under the NPT, the international community may not have the luxury of pursuing only a regime change policy. The theocratic leadership in Tehran must know that they will not be permitted to achieve a nuclear bomb status. A military option, which could include limited strikes against Iran's nuclear program infrastructure, clearly would be a last option but must clearly be understood to remain on the table. Given the realities in the region and the fact that the United States continues to be engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, a full-scale military invasion is the least appealing of all the options on the table for dealing with Iran. Nevertheless, as the ultimate means of ensuring U.S. national security interests, such military action must remain unambiguously among the options at U.S. disposal. The moderate action option that includes limited military strikes would at best buy time while leaving intact or even enhancing the overall threat of the regime in areas like terrorism, opposition to the Arab-Israel peace process, and involvement in Iraq. Nevertheless, limited, precision military strikes, executed according to high quality targeting information with minimal collateral damage and casualties might not only set back Iran's nuclear program to a significant degree but likely would also help destabilize the regime. In addition, diplomacy pursued by the Europeans and several U.S. administrations has produced little tangible result over the past quarter century. And unless the potential for U.N. Security Council sanctions is on the table, diplomacy is likely to yield few results in the future. While keeping open diplomatic and military options, Washington should consider a third alternative, one that provides a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change. Appendix Iran Policy Committee (IPC)--Co-Chair Biographies James Akins, Ambassador (ret.): James Akins was U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Nixon administration. An internationally respected expert on Middle East and energy issues, Akins has been an active and outspoken proponent for a just resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and a prescient analyst of the Middle East peace process and Arab politics in general. Author Jean-Jacques Servan Schreiber has called Akins ``the westerner who knows the most about the Middle East and has the closest relationship of trust with its leaders.'' Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, USMC (ret.), co-founder of wvc3, inc.: Bill Cowan is an internationally acknowledged expert in areas of terrorism, homeland security, intelligence, and military special operations. A retired Marine Corps officer, Cowan spent three-and-a-half years on combat assignments in Vietnam. From 1989 through 1994, Cowan was involved in numerous operations in the Middle East in response to terrorist incidents and the holding of Western hostages in Beirut and Kuwait. He was directly involved in every facet of the Beirut hostages drama, including international negotiations leading to their release in 1991. In 1990, on behalf of a major New York law firm and working with former CIA Director Bill Colby, he organized and successfully conducted a series of operations resulting in the repatriation of a number of Western hostages from Iraqi- occupied Kuwait. Cowan is a FOX News Channel contributor and a co-founder of the WVC3 Group, a company providing homeland security services, support and technologies to government and commercial clients. Paul Leventhal, Founder and President, Nuclear Control Institute: Paul Leventhal founded the Nuclear Control Institute (NCI) in 1981 and served as its President for 22 years prior to becoming Senior Advisor and Founding President in June 2002. He prepared four books for the Institute and lectured in a number of countries on nuclear issues, including as Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Cambridge University's Global Security Programme. Prior to establishing NCI, Leventhal held senior staff positions in the United States Senate on nuclear power and proliferation issues. Leventhal was Special Counsel to the Senate Government Operations Committee and Staff Director of the Senate Nuclear Regulation Subcommittee; Leventhal was responsible for the investigations and legislation that resulted in enactment of two landmark nuclear laws--the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978. He also served as co-director of the Senate Special Investigation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident and Assistant Administrator for Policy and Planning at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Leventhal holds a bachelor's degree from Franklin and Marshall College and a master's degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Dr. Neil Livingstone, CEO, Global Options, Inc., an international risk management and business solutions company, headquartered in Washington. Livingstone is author of nine books on terrorism and national security topics and more than 200 articles that have appeared in such publications as The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal. He serves on numerous corporate and other advisory boards, and has appeared on more than 1100 television programs. He holds an A.B. from the College of William and Mary, three master's degrees, and a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. R. Bruce McColm, President Institute for Democratic Strategies and Former President, International Republican Institute: McColm is the President of Democratic Strategies, a non-profit organization committed to strengthening democratic processes abroad. For the past 25 years, he has been actively involved in the global movement toward democracy and has written extensively on political transitions in Latin America, Africa, and Central Europe. He has served on numerous boards of directors and acts as a trustee for various private foundations and advocacy groups. McColm served as president of the International Republican Institute, where he extended the organization's capacity to provide technical assistance on economic and political reform around the world, introducing the use of information technologies to democracy programs. Previously, McColm worked in a variety of capacities at Freedom House, a New York-based human rights organization and also was elected a member of the InterAmerican Commission of Human Rights by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS). McColm was educated at William College, Harvard University, and the University of Chicago. Lt. General Thomas McInerney USAF, (Ret.): General McInerney established his own consulting firm, GRTT (Government Reform Through Technology) in January 2000. Working with high-tech companies that do business with federal, state, city, and local governments, GRRT helps them introduce advanced technology into the private sector. From 1996-1999, Gen. McInerney was Chief Executive Officer and President of Business Executives for National Security (BENS), a national, nonpartisan organization of business and professional leaders, with headquarters in Washington. Prior to joining BENS, Gen. McInerney was Vice President of Command and Control for Loral Defense Systems-Eagan. He joined Loral (then Unisys Electronic Systems Division) in 1994, following 35 years as a pilot, commander, and Joint Force Commander in the United States Air Force. Gen. McInerney retired from military service as Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force and as Director of the Defense Performance Review (DPR), reporting to the Secretary of Defense. In that capacity, he led the Pentagon's ``reinventing government'' effort, visiting more than 100 leading edge commercial companies to assimilate their ideas about business reengineering. Gen. McInerney earned a Bachelor of Science degree at the U.S. Military Academy in 1959 and a master's degree in international relations from George Washington University in 1972. He completed Armed Forces Staff College in 1970 and the National War College in 1973. Gen. McInerney is a member of several Boards of Directors. Captain Charles T. ``Chuck'' Nash, USN (ret.) is the founder and President of Emerging Technologies International, Inc. (ETII). The company's focus is to understand military requirements and then actively search out and identify high leverage, emerging technologies that can be inserted quickly and inexpensively into tools for the U.S. military. Clients include government laboratories and commercial technology companies. Previously, Capt. Nash served as Vice President, Emerging Technologies Group, Santa Barbara Applied Research, Inc. For 25 years before that, Capt. Nash served as an officer in the U.S. Navy, accumulating over 4,300 hours of flight time and 965 carrier landings on nine different aircraft carriers as a Naval Aviator. He served in a variety of command positions with Naval Operations at the Pentagon and U.S. Naval Forces Europe and has filled billets with U.S. and foreign special operations forces in Turkey, Northern Iraq and elsewhere. Capt. Nash previously served on the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and on the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Expert Panel for the Supersonic Cruise Missile Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration. He was a sponsor and co-chairman of the OPNAV High Speed Strike Information Day, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (JHAPL). Currently, he serves on a number of Boards of Directors and is an advisor to the Chairman of the Board of Isothermal Systems Research, Inc. and to the President and CEO of Vision Technologies International, Inc. Capt. Nash earned his B.S. in Aeronautics from Parks College of Aeronautical Technology, St. Louis University and attended the National War College at Fort L. J. McNair in Washington. Currently a Fox News Channel Military Analyst, Capt. Nash frequently appears on the network to discuss military, terrorism and aviation issues. Lt. General Edward Rowny, USA (ret.): General Rowny began his military career following graduation from the Johns Hopkins University and the U.S. Military Academy, two Masters degrees from Yale University and a Ph.D. from American University. He fought in WW II, Korea, and Vietnam, commanding units from platoon to Corps size. Later, he served in the 1970s and 1980s as an advisor to the SALT II talks and as the chief negotiator of the START negotiations, with the rank of ambassador. From 1985 to 1990, he was Special Advisor for Arms Control to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. In 1989, President Reagan awarded him the Presidential Citizens Medal. The citation reads that Gen. Rowny is ``one of the principal architects of America's policy of peace through strength. As an arms negotiator and as a presidential advisor, he has served mightily, courageously, and nobly in the cause of peace and freedom.'' In 1991, Ambassador Rowny retired from government and currently consults on international affairs. Professor Raymond Tanter, Former Senior Staff Member, National Security Council: Raymond Tanter is Visiting Professor at Georgetown University, where he teaches courses on International Relations and Terrorism. Tanter is adjunct scholar at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and was scholar-in-residence at the Middle East Institute in Washington. He researched U.S. policy options regarding Iran at both think tanks. After receiving a Ph.D. from Indiana University in 1964, Prof. Tanter taught at Northwestern, Stanford, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Tanter was a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford and the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington and a Fulbright scholar, University of Amsterdam. In 1975, Tanter spent a month as scholar-in-residence at the American Embassy, Tokyo, lecturing on petroleum interruption scenarios, with special reference to the Middle East. In 1967, Tanter was deputy director of behavioral sciences at the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense and a member of the Civilian Executive Panel, Chief of Naval Operations, 1980-1981. He served at the White House on the National Security Council staff, 1981-1982. In 1983-1984, he was personal representative of the Secretary of Defense to arms control talks in Madrid, Helsinki, Stockholm, and Vienna. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Among Tanter's publications is Rogue Regimes: Terrorism and Proliferation, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997. Tanter is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Committee on the Present Danger, American Political Science Association, and the Iran Policy Committee. Major General Paul E. Vallely, USA (Ret.): General Vallely retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii. Gen. Vallely graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961, serving a distinguished career of 32 years in the Army. He served in many overseas theaters, including Europe and the Pacific Rim countries, as well as two combat tours in Vietnam. He has served on U.S. security assistance missions on civilian-military relations in locales around the world. Gen. Vallely is a graduate of the Infantry School, Ranger and Airborne Schools, Jumpmaster School, the Command and General Staff School, The Industrial College of the Armed Forces and the Army War College. His combat service in Vietnam included positions as infantry company commander, intelligence officer, operations officer, military advisor and aide-de-camp. He has over 15 years experience in Special Operations, Psychological and Civil- Military Operations. Gen. Vallely was one of the first nominees for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations under President Reagan and commanded the 351st Civil Affairs Command during the 1980s. He has served as a consultant to the Commanding General of the Special Operations Command as well as the Department of Defense Anti- Drug and Counter-Terrorist Task Forces. Gen. Vallely is a military analyst for Fox News Channel and is a guest on many nationally-syndicated radio talk shows. He also is a guest lecturer on the War on Terror and has just co-authored a book entitled The Endgame, Winning the War on Terror. Clare M. Lopez, Executive Director, IPC is a strategic policy and intelligence analyst with a focus on Middle East, homeland security, national defense, and counterterrorism issues. Based for the last five years in the private sector environment of the Washington metro area, Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), serving domestically and abroad for 20 years in a variety of assignments. Lopez served as a Senior Intelligence Analyst, Subject Matter Expert, and Program Manager for the Alexandria, VA firm, HawkEye Systems, LLC. Lopez previously produced Technical Threat Assessments for U.S. Embassies at the Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, where she worked as a Senior Intelligence Analyst for Chugach Systems Integration. During Lopez's CIA career, she served under diplomatic cover in various postings around the world, acquiring extensive regional expertise with a career focus on the former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans. She has served in or visited over two dozen nations worldwide and speaks several languages, including Spanish, Bulgarian, French, German, and Russian. Lopez began a study of Arabic in 2003 at the Department of Agriculture Graduate School before transferring to the Middle East Institute (MEI) in downtown Washington. Lopez received a B.A. in Communications and French from Notre Dame College of Ohio and an M.A. in International Relations from the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She completed Marine Corps Officer Candidate School (OCS) in Quantico, Virginia before declining a commission in order to join the CIA. Lopez is a Visiting Researcher and an occasional guest lecturer on counterterrorism, national defense, and international relations at Georgetown University. Lopez is a member of the International Association of Counterterrorism and Security Professionals (IACSP), Women in International Security (WIIS) and the Middle East Institute (MEI).

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, a gallon of regular gas in San Diego or Imperial Valley has been hovering around the outrageous price of $2.50, often reaching even higher. Even as the price per barrel of oil declines, the price at our local gas stations stays sky-high. Every time one of my constituents drives to work, drops a child off at school or drives away on vacation, hard-earned dollars go up in smoke. When our grocery stores have to pay more to get their groceries shipped in, they pass the extra cost on to their shoppers. What's the result? The whopping price of gas is choking our middle and working class--essentially levying a new tax when we can least afford it and boosting the profits of the oil companies! This is simply unacceptable. We must continue to fight to lower the price of gas and protect consumers. One year ago I called on the Bush Administration to take several steps to loosen the gas price noose, including suspending deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; requesting an investigation of market failures and lack of competition; blocking mergers that allow oil companies to manipulate supplies; and implementing strong fuel economy standards to put more efficient and environmentally friendly cars on the road and lower consumption. An investigation by the Federal Trade Commission in August was inconclusive, and the White House has failed to take any steps to rein in oil companies or reduce gas prices. The energy bill we are considering this week also fails to responsibly tackle this problem, instead offering the same favors to oil companies. In the absence of effective leadership, consumers remain at the mercy of the price- gougers. That's why I have now appealed directly to the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General to launch a broader investigation to determine whether the oil companies have engaged in illegal or anti- competitive practices that contribute to the high gas prices. Additionally, I am fighting for passage of legislation known as the Gas Price Spike Act, that would implement a windfall tax when oil companies collect excessive profits, provide a tax credit for fuel efficient vehicles, and offer federal grants to reduce mass transit fares. I call on Congress and the Administration to support me in these efforts to inject fairness and competition into the market and end price gouging at the gas pump!

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, this legislation takes our nation in the wrong direction and fails to meet our energy needs. This is a missed opportunity. We could have boosted our nation's commitment to renewable and efficient energy, thereby curbing our reliance on foreign oil, creating 21st century jobs, protecting the environment and providing affordable and reliable energy for America's families. We could have taken on the oil companies that are gouging all our constituents at the gas pumps. We could have fought for more hybrid vehicles, higher fuel economy standards and other 21st century technologies. But, instead, the Republican energy bill doles out favors to the oil, gas and coal companies, keeping our nation stuck in the 20th century. This bill allows the oil companies to rip up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This bill protects companies that have polluted our water with MTBE. We now know that GOP means gas, oil and petroleum! The Rules Committee blocked two amendments I would have offered to this bill. The first would have simply extended the tax credit for geothermal energy, giving energy companies the time they need to build geothermal facilities and actually use the incentive this Congress already approved. My amendment would have promoted the development of geothermal energy in Imperial Valley, California, and around the nation, creating good jobs and a source of clean, domestically- produced, environmentally friendly, reliable energy. Yet the Republicans on the Rules Committee shot down this common sense amendment, preventing us from even taking a vote on it. They also blocked my amendment to address another very serious issue we are facing in Imperial Valley--air pollution from power plants across the border in Mexico. In the 21st century, U.S. companies should not be able to skirt their environmental obligations by moving a few miles across the border! My amendment would have simply required power plants in the border region to meet our environmental standards if they wish to transmit electricity into the United States. In exchange for transmission permits from the Department of Energy, power plants in Mexicali, Mexico would have been forced to pay for projects in Imperial Valley to off-set the air pollution they are sending across the border into our communities. With the highest child asthma rate in California, Imperial County certainly needs the help, but the Republicans on the Rules Committee once again turned their backs on us. We will continue fighting for a better approach to energy in this Nation. We will fight for an investigation of the oil companies to determine if any wrongdoing has contributed to the sky-high gas prices. We will fight for a commitment to geothermal energy and other clean and renewable energy sources. And we will continue fighting for an energy policy that reduces pollution in the border region and around the country.