Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I would ask my friend from Connecticut to listen to my response to the points that he just made because I know he is a fair man. And when he considers the fact that, first of all, the Narragansett Tribe was recognized in the 1990s with a similar prohibition, and they don't gamble. This particular tribe, they were raised by Christian missionaries. They believe gambling is a sin. They could be operating bingo parlors down the street today. They don't because they believe it is wrong to do so. They don't want to gamble. But they are unique, and I would say to my friend, in 1912 through 1946, the Bureau of Vital Statistics in Virginia systematically erased all reference to Indians in all public records. That is unique. That hasn't happened in other States. The Governor of Virginia recognizes these tribes. They have been recognized for hundreds of years. And the fact is, we are not bringing this legislation up all of a sudden now. This legislation we have been trying for 8 years to get through; 8 years I have sponsored it. But these Indian tribes didn't have any money to influence the process. The Racial Integrity Act of 1924, and I go back to this, as embarrassed as I am about the fact that it passed the legislature of Virginia, required all persons to register as ``white'' or ``colored'' in the language of those days, and it made it a criminal offense for Indians not to so register. That is why they were eliminated in the State. It is what a historian called a paper genocide. That is why this is a very unique situation. It is not all of a sudden. For 8 years, we have been trying to pass this legislation. The Governor recognizes they exist, and it is not about gambling. It is understandable you would assume it is about gambling. It is not, and we have examples of other tribes that are not gambling today that have similar prohibitions. So I would say to the gentleman, please do the right thing. Read the bill carefully, and I trust you will support it as a result.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. In this case, we are recognizing six. There was one tribe in the 1990s, the Narragansett Tribe, a similar prohibition against gambling was instituted. They don't gamble. This is about recognition.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 1867, which authorizes $21 billion in funding for the National Science Foundation over the next 3 years The National Science Foundation (NSF) was created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, with a broad mission of supporting science, engineering and funding basic research across many disciplines. As the only agency dedicated to the support of education and fundamental research in all scientific and engineering disciplines, we must continue to be generous and fund the NSF at the necessary levels to remain at the forefront of discovery, learning, and innovation. In 1952, the NSF began by funding 28 research grants--in 2005 the number has grown to well over 10,000. In 2005, the agency received 42,000 proposals for research, fellowships, and projects in science, mathematics, and engineering. There have been more than 100 Nobel Prize Winners and thousands of other distinguished scientists and engineers that have conducted their groundbreaking research with funding from the NSF. From successfully splitting the atom, to landing the first man on the moon, to mapping the human genome, it is because of our investment in science and technology that the United States can be credited for these accomplishments. The majority of the research supported by the NSF is conducted at U.S. colleges and universities and approximately 82.6% of its estimated research and development (R&D) budget for 2005 was awarded to U.S. colleges and universities. Today, we live in a global society and must continue to invest in our research and development to ensure we remain competitive in this global society. Every year, China and India graduate 950,000 engineers in comparison to the 70,000 the United States graduates each year. We must adequately fund and support the NSF, in order to be internationally competitive and continue to make those cutting-edge discoveries that have forever changed the way we view innovation. I thank Mr. Baird for bringing this legislation to the floor and encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kate P. Moran of Alexandria, Virginia, upon her receiving the Commonwealth's Academy Recognition for Educators (CARE) Award, The CARE Award honors outstanding educators from across the country who are working to enhance the lives of their students. CARE Award recipients are recognized for their unrelenting work to enhance the lives of the students they serve. Kate Moran, a Special Education Coordinator, was honored for her efforts to construct innovative ways to train special needs youth in Virginia. Raised in Alexandria, Virginia Ms. Moran is a graduate of TC Williams High School. She went on to receive her Bachelor's of Arts in Theater from Catholic University of America, and received a Master's of Teaching in Special Education from University of Virginia. Currently a resident of Alexandria, Virginia Ms. Moran has taught in the Virginia school system for 6 years. As a special education coordinator for TC Williams High School, Minnie Howard School, and the Secondary Training and Education Program, she has dedicated her career to educating students with learning disabilities, mental challenges, and health impairments. In her own words, she tries to ``meet the needs of students and families by making special education accessible to all types of learners.'' Ms. Moran's dedication to her special-needs students is unprecedented. Over the past 6 years she has made a lasting impression on her students giving them the skills and support to lead a fuller, more rewarding life. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Kate Moran and congratulating her on this distinguished achievement.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, two weeks ago, our Nation suffered an unspeakable tragedy when a deranged gunman indiscriminately killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA. Our prayers and thoughts are with the surviving victims, families, and the entire Virginia Tech community who are determined to not allow one crazed individual to ruin the school's Hokie spirit and strength. This horrific, senseless act was committed because a mentally ill individual could easily buy two handguns and as many rounds of ammunition clips as he desired. I cannot stress to you how important it is that we reauthorize the federal assault weapons ban, close the existing loopholes, and strengthen the background checks requirements. I want to submit for the record a Letter to the Editor that was posted in the Washington Post on April 21, 2007. This letter was written by Jay Wind of Arlington, VA, and Robert Weiner of Accokeek, VA. I agree with their contention that now is the time for Congress to address gun control and get these semiautomatic weapons off the streets. [From the Washington Post, April 21, 2007] Reflections After the Killings (By Robert S. Weiner and Jay Jacob Wind) As a national political public affairs consultant and the father of a Virginia Tech student who knows five of the dead and was best friends with one of the first two shot, we are outraged and dismayed that congressional leaders of both parties are running for cover from handgun control after the worst gun violence in American history. Instead of using this sad opportunity to stop such shootings by barring handguns, as other civilized countries do, Congress and the White House are pandering to the politics of the National Rifle Association because of potential votes in swing states. Why are our political leaders not speaking out against handguns instead of asserting that this is not the right time for such a debate? In unarmed Britain, fewer than 100 die a year from handguns. America is still the Wild West, with an average of 30,000 gunned down annually. In September, the youngest Wind daughter will enter Virginia Tech. She thought she would be safe, near her older sister. It's time for Virginia's leaders--and the nation's-- to act to prevent future massacres.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Speaker, when the President vetoed this bill, he said it was because he felt that decisions like this should be left to the military, not the politicians. But Mr. Speaker, the fact is that when the President declared that Iraq was part of the global war on terrorism, there was not one single military officer who agreed. That was a political decision made in the White House to go into this war. Had he listened to the military, we wouldn't be in this war. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that none of us have been asked to sacrifice anything in pursuit of this war. The sacrifice has fallen exclusively on the backs of our military and their families. Mr. Speaker, this week, the 2,108th child was told that they will never see their mommy or daddy again because they will never return from Iraq. How many more children have to lose their parents before this policy is reversed, Mr. Speaker? 3,351 American soldiers have lost their lives. More than 24,000 have been seriously wounded. This past month, more than 100 soldiers lost their lives, the deadliest month on record. Things are getting worse rather than better. The British Broadcasting Corporation and the American Broadcasting Corporation just completed an extensive survey of Iraqis. It turns out that 82 percent have lost confidence in U.S. policy in Iraq, that 86 percent have lost a member of their household due to violence, and the majority feel that this policy is ineffective, and in fact, they were better off under Saddam Hussein than under the American occupation. Mr. Speaker, the State Department just reported that the number of terrorist incidents has gone up by 25 percent, most of them in Iraq. This policy has been a failure. I urge a rejection of the President's veto of this bill. This bill will set the course that the American people are demanding.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 243, which calls on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Father Nguyen Van Ly, Nguyen Van Dai, Le Thi Cong Nhan, and other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. Mr. Speaker, as a co-sponsor of this resolution, I am extremely concerned and saddened by the resumption of repressive tactics of the Vietnamese Government. It was only six months ago that the State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom removed Vietnam from its ``Countries of Particular Concern'' list, a list mandated by the International Religious Freedom Act which we passed in 1998. However, despite their removal from this list, the Vietnamese government instead chose to resort to arbitrary arrests and detentions of religious community leaders and human rights activists. Father Nguyen Van Ly, a founder of the Committee for Human Rights in Vietnam, was arrested for what authorities called, ``conducting propaganda activities to harm the security of state.'' Father Nguyen Van Ly has spent nearly thirteen years in prison for the fight for religious freedom and democracy in Vietnam. Just last month, two prominent Vietnamese human rights attorneys, Mr. Nguyen Van Dai and Ms. Le Thi Cong Nhan, were arrested for ``spreading anti-government propaganda.'' Mr. Speaker, the United States prides itself on the promotion of democracy, good governance, protection of human rights and religious freedom, and the advancement of the rule of law. We cannot look the other way when a ``Most Favored Nation'' is committing the grossest of human rights violations against its citizens. Congress cannot ignore the blatant disregard Vietnam is displaying towards its own people while it continues to detain and silence Vietnamese lawyers, democracy activists, and human rights advocates. As Vietnam aspires to integrate itself with the global economy, I believe it must also understand that the United States and the rest of the world is watching their actions and we condemn their atrocious digression and disregard for the most basic human rights.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word and to address the House for 5 minutes in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my very strong support for the bill that Mr. Rahall, the Chair of the Resources Committee, has brought to this floor because it restores a longstanding prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros. This amendment that we are currently debating is designed to defeat the substance of this bill. The reality is that this is not a bill that costs the Treasury money, but it does cost our country something of great value. At the turn of the 20th century, some 2 million wild horses roamed freely in the wild. But by the 1950s, just half a century, their population had dwindled to fewer than 20,000. The population went from 2 million to 20,000. Ninety-nine percent of these majestic creatures were taken off the face of the American continent, and many of them were being inhumanely captured by profiteers who would slaughter them and then sell their meat for pet food and human consumption in European and Asian restaurants. So, after enough awareness and concern, Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 that protects wild horses and burros on Federal lands from such atrocities. But then in the 108th Congress, under different leadership, longstanding Federal policy that protects wild horses from being sold at auctions and subsequently shipped to slaughter plants was reversed. Last year, two Texas plants and one in Illinois slaughtered nearly 105,000 horses for human food, mainly for European and Asian consumers. I think it's time to end this senseless for-profit massacre, really, of the symbol of the spirit of the American West. Animals are given into our care, and we ought to treat them with some greater respect than we do, particularly in the case of horses. I believe that a generation from now we will shudder at how recklessly we treated these animals which are so symbolic of the spirit, the strength, the stamina of this country. In the event of survival, so many of them face neglect and abuse today, and that is the argument that is raised. But that is not an excuse not to pass this legislation nor to implement a more humane policy, because this policy is inhumane at every step in the process, from how they're purchased at auction, to their transportation to the slaughterhouse, to how they are killed. Many of the horses that are transported to the slaughterhouse are bought by what are called ``killer buyers'' at auction. These unscrupulous buyers prey on the trust of horse owners who believe that their horse is being bought by a good family and will lead a comfortable life. They are unaware that they are being misled by professional slaughterhouse agents, with their companion animal being sent to a very painful death. The reality of the slaughtering process is difficult and uncomfortable for many of us to hear, but the suffering begins during the transportation of horses to the slaughterhouse. They are shipped with no food or water or any ability to rest. Often due to overcrowding and slippery floor surfaces, the horses fall and they are trampled during transportation. If they survive the trip to the slaughterhouse, the horse's suffering needlessly continues. Due to their cautious nature, many of these horses are not properly stunned before slaughter. Many are completely conscious when they have their throats cut. Simply put, this is not in the American tradition. Despite what some of my colleagues will have you believe, the practice is not needed to control the number of horses in the United States. California banned horse slaughter in 1998, and since then there has been no corresponding rise in cruelty or neglect cases. There has even been a 34 percent drop in horse theft since the ban went into effect. The fact is that the American public wants to protect horses and is horrified that they are being slaughtered for use as food in other countries. Poll after poll shows that 70 percent of Americans believe that we should end the slaughter of horses. They are right, we should end this slaughter, today. And that is why we should pass this bill and defeat the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, last week the 2,100th American child had to be informed that they will never see their daddy or mommy again because their parent was killed in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, our military families deserve a policy worthy of their sacrifice. They deserve better. This war is going to turn out to be one of the worst military, political, economic and moral blunders in American history. I heard my colleague refer to 9/11. We now know that we were brought into this war through deliberate deception and the politics of fear. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, wouldn't allow al Qaeda into his country. In fact, he wasn't trying to get nuclear weapons. He had no weapons of mass destruction. All those mobile labs didn't manufacture chemical weapons. Nor is this war being paid for with Iraqi oil. And yet, you want us, 4 years later, to believe the very same people that brought us into this fiasco. When do you start to lose your credibility? After we have had 58,000 soldiers killed as in Vietnam? We are up to 3,300 now. About 25,000 seriously wounded. And how can you stand before them and tell them that this fiasco was worthy of their sacrifice? The government that we are supporting doesn't go outside the Green Zone in Baghdad. They don't serve their people. In fact, many of its ministers are corrupt. That is the reality of our policy in Iraq. And the fact too is that if the government we are supporting had the opportunity, they would turn Iraq into a Shi'a theocracy. Is that really worth our military families' sacrifice? The answer is no. Support this rule and vote for this supplemental.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Virginia for yielding to me. As the sponsor of this legislation, I also want to thank the Democratic leadership for bringing it to the floor, because, Madam Speaker, sexual violence is an epidemic in this country, it is a threat to our public health and our public safety that demands our attention. One in six women and one in 33 men in the United States will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime. This is the highest rate of any country publishing statistics on sexual assault. A woman is raped in this country every 2\1/2\ minutes. We must do more to stop that. Responding to sexual assault must start with prevention. The roots of sexual violence are cultural. A study of American high school students found that the majority of girls and three-quarters of boys thought that forced sex was acceptable under some circumstances, including when a woman had had past sexual experiences or when a boy spent a lot of money on the girl. Statistics like this make it tragically unsurprising that 70 percent of assaults are perpetrated by someone that is known by the victim. Fifty-five percent of rapes, the majority of rapes, occur in the home of the victim or a friend, relative or acquaintance. We must begin with prevention, because the consequences of sexual violence are so severe and because it is a crime whose impact is felt disproportionately by those least able to protect themselves: the young, the disabled, the impoverished. In addition to suffering the physical effects of these terrible acts of violence, a third of victims suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder, a third seriously consider suicide, and 13 percent actually attempt it. While we hope and work for a day when sexual violence might be eradicated completely from our society, we must also deal with the consequences of these crimes, working to provide assistance to victims and aggressively prosecuting offenders. National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month is dedicated to increasing the public's understanding about sexual violence in our society. This effort can help communities support rape and sexual assault survivors, victims and their families, as well as the individuals and agencies that provide rape crisis intervention and prevention services throughout the year. More than 1,000 rape crisis centers nationwide educate their communities about the prevention of sexual violence and provide services to victims. In Virginia, for example, these centers serve approximately 3,000 victims of rape every year. In my district, the SARA Program at the Alexandria Office on Women supports survivors throughout their healing process, through hotline counseling and support groups and innovative programs like ``Living Out Loud,'' a performing arts program for survivors of sexual violence looking to find new joy in life after recovering from rape or sexual assault. The person who founded that is an inspiration to everyone and brings back lives that have been so profoundly and adversely affected by this experience. Madam Speaker, National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month is a chance for us to pause and consider the enormity of the impact of these crimes on our society and the status of our efforts to end it. I commend these public health, social services, and law enforcement professionals working in our communities to respond to sexual violence and those educators and advocates working to prevent it, and I encourage my colleagues to stand with us in rededicating ourselves to efforts to end these crimes on our streets, in our schools and in our lives.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding me the time. Just a few points about Rachel Carson and Silent Spring and the profound transformational effect that that book had on our society. She was a Federal employee. She worked for the predecessor of the Fish and Wildlife Service. She was recognized, even as a child, as an outstanding writer. But she saw something that she knew was wrong, and she dedicated her life to changing the future for subsequent generations of Americans and really changed the world in terms of its view of pesticides. At that time it wasn't just that pesticides were being poured all over farms but in our own residential neighborhoods. I can remember, I am old enough to remember, the big clouds of pesticides, and we would run in and out of them, and we would follow the pesticide truck on bicycles, and we had no idea this was poisonous stuff that was being put into our lungs, our atmosphere. And yet at that time the pesticide industry came up with a doctor, he was on television, everybody watched him as he said that she was absolutely wrong. There was no substance to her allegations; that if people listened seriously to her, it would cause widespread disease and poverty all over the world. And he said that the scientific evidence shows that there is no harm to these pesticides, these toxic chemicals. One might refer to that when we look at some of the other trailblazers who had the courage to speak up, despite those who too readily condemn them because they are making a profit from current conditions. Climate change, endocrine disruptions and the like. She had the kind of courage and intellect and goodness of spirit to change the world. I am very pleased that she is getting a little recognition from the Congress today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine how more tragic life could be than to be the parent of a child and be told that their father or mother is not going to ever see them again, that he or she was killed in Iraq. This is the month of military families where we recognize military families, and the best thing we could do is to say 2,100 children having been given that information is enough, but this is also the anniversary of the Columbine massacre. At the very time when we are offering our condolences for more than 30 people being slaughtered at Virginia Tech. While it is certainly appropriate to grieve with those parents who thought they were sending a child to a nurturing, secure learning environment, only to find that their child's life was cut off before they could realize their potential, it is even more appropriate that we act and respond to these tragedies, to try to prevent them, because we know unless we can reduce the proliferation of firearms in our society, that this will continue to happen time and time again. Our words of condolences after a tragedy will be hollow unless we can stand up before the fact to the gun lobby and to those who think that we can continue to offer grievances and not change the situation. Mr. Speaker, we need to renew the assault weapon ban. We need to end the gun show loophole. We need to restrict handgun purchase to no more than one per month. We need to stop these tragedies from recurring again and again and again.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, the D.C. Voting Rights Act. For too long, the residents of our Nation's Capital have been without out a full voice in Congress. The District of Columbia is home to over 570,000 residents. It has a larger population than Wyoming, which is represented by an at-large member in the House and two Senators. The men and women of the District of Columbia pay their taxes, both to the Federal Government and the District. They salute the American flag at Nationals, Wizards, Caps and Redskins games. And they serve or have served in the Armed Forces. D.C. is home to over 44,000 veterans. In Iraq and Afghanistan, four brave men have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Yet despite being an integral part of the fabric of our Nation, D.C. continues to be denied a vote in Congress. Today we are considering compromise, bipartisan legislation coauthored by my friends and colleagues Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Representative Tom Davis. From his position on the Government Oversight Committee Congressman Davis has spent considerable time and attention on issues affecting the District. And there is no stronger advocate for her constituents than the gentlewoman from D.C. I compliment the bill's sponsors for crafting a thoughtful approach and a clever compromise that grants Utah an at-large representative to balance any potential partisan division. It keeps this proposal bipartisan and improves its prospects for favorable Senate action. I hope the White House will rethink its current concerns and join our bipartisan coalition to affirm the District's right to a vote. Some who oppose this legislation have stated that it raises constitutional concerns. But, as was stated in a recent op-ed by the Republican D.C. Councilwoman Carol Schwartz, no less conservative scholars than former solicitor general Kenneth Starr, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Patricia Wald and Georgetown Law Professor and author of the USA Patriot Act Viet Dihn have stated that giving the District a vote is in fact, constitutional. Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Washington, DC are as much red-blooded Americans as anybody living in the 50 States. They deserve to have their voices heard in the halls of Congress, they deserve a representative who can vote on their behalf as this body debates matters directly affecting their country and therefore, they deserve to have this legislation passed today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. For too long, the residents of our Nation's Capital have been without a full voice in Congress. The District of Columbia is home to over 570,000 residents. It has a larger population than Wyoming, which is represented by an at-large member in the House and two Senators. The men and women of the District of Columbia pay their taxes, both to the Federal Government and the District. They salute the American flag at Nationals, Wizards, Caps and Redskins games. And they serve or have served in the Armed Forces. DC is home to over 44,000 veterans. In Iraq and Afghanistan, four brave men have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Yet despite being an integral part of the fabric of our Nation, DC continues to be denied a vote in Congress. Today we are considering compromise, partisan legislation coauthored by my friends and colleagues Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Rep. Tom Davis. From his position on the Government Oversight Committee Congressman Davis has spent considerable time and attention on issues affecting the District. And there is no stronger advocate for her constituents than the gentlewoman from DC. I compliment the bill's sponsors for crafting a thoughtful approach and a clever compromise that grants Utah an at large representative to balance any potential partisan division. It keeps this proposal bipartisan and improves its prospects for favorable Senate action. I hope the White House will rethink its current concerns and join our bipartisan coalition to affirm the District's right to vote. Some who oppose this legislation have stated that it raises constitutional concerns. But, as was stated in a recent oped by the Republican DC Councilwoman Carol Schwartz, no less conservative scholars than former solicitor general Kenneth Starr, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Patricia Wald and Georgetown Law Professor and author of the USA PATRIOT Act Viet Dinh have stated that giving the District a vote is in fact, constitutional. Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Washington, DC are as much red-blooded Americans as anybody living in the 50 states. They deserve to have their voices heard in the halls of Congress, they deserve a representative who can vote on their behalf as this body debates matters directly affecting their country and therefore, they deserve to have this legislation passed today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding, and I appreciate the fact that this resolution has come to the floor. It is difficult to imagine a more heartbreaking moment than to have a family receive a call from the university, where they thought they had sent their child to a secure, nurturing, learning environment, only to find out that their child's life has been cut off before any of their potential could be realized. What a horrible loss. And to think that more than 30 of those calls have had to take place over the last 2 days. This is a time for grieving, for trying to console. But, Mr. Speaker, as important and appropriate as it is to grieve after the fact, I think it may be even more appropriate for this body to stand up before the fact, because we know that this type of tragedy, perhaps not in as large a scale, but this type of tragedy will happen again. Whether it is in the workforce or on a college campus or a high school campus or on the street, innocent victims will be mowed down. And it happens more often in our country than in any other civilized nation, than in any other civilized nation on this planet. And the reason, Mr. Speaker, is because it is simply too easy to obtain a firearm. If you are a criminal or mentally deranged or simply emotionally upset, virtually anyone can go to a store, even a retail department store, and buy a weapon of mass destruction. That is what has happened here and will happen again. And I know that the National Rifle Association is able to brag that it controls the gun control agenda now from the White House. And the majority of Members of Congress are not going to stand up to the NRA. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, I think we have a responsibility, particularly at moments like this when we are so acutely aware of the carnage that the proliferation of weapons throughout our society creates. When we are aware of the tragedy that this laxity causes, this lack of courage to stand up to gun manufacturers and say it is time, Mr. Speaker, no matter how politically difficult it might be, to try to reduce the number of weapons in our society. I'm not talking about those that are meant for hunting. People in Canada have all kinds of guns, but their rifles are used for hunting. They are not used for stalking and killing other human beings. It is the proliferation of handguns, the kinds of guns that were used in this tragic incident and the ammunition clips that should be banned under the assault weapon legislation we let expire that have to be brought under control. And it is we, the people's representatives, who have to stand up and do something about this so that it doesn't have to occur again. As appropriate as it is, as I said, now to grieve with those families and to offer condolences, it is more imperative that we stand up before the fact, before another such tragedy occurs because of our lack of political courage.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Joseph Cameron Morgan, Evan Carlin O'Rourke, Christopher Anthony Piemonte, William E. Pierce, and Joshua Paul St. Louis of Alexandria, Virginia, for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts of America. As members of Troop 648 in the Chain Bridge District of the National Capital Area Council, these Scouts have exemplified the finest qualities of leadership and citizenship in earning Boy Scouts' most prestigious award. At Troop 648, these Scouts have provided leadership in a variety of positions. They have led as Senior Patrol Leaders, Assistant Senior Patrol Leaders, and as Troop Representatives to the Order of the Arrow, Scouting's national honor society. They have also served as Junior Assistant Scoutmasters to Troop 648 supervising and supporting the other Boy Scouts. Together and collectively, these Scouts have trekked through the mountains of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, explored underground caves, sailed the Chesapeake Bay and gone on numerous camping trips. They have earned dozens of merit badges and many service awards, including the President's Volunteer Service Award (Gold) for providing over 250 hours of service to the community in a twelve month period. They have earned numerous environmental awards including the World Conservation Award and the William T. Hornaday Award. These young men are truly exemplary Scouts. For their Eagle Scout Leadership Service Projects, these young men have organized and managed dozens of volunteers. They have led conservation projects, trail construction and park restoration involving hundreds of hours of work. Our communities are truly a better place to live because of their efforts. Madam Speaker and fellow members of Congress, I ask you to join me in commending these present and future leaders for their accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for achieving the distinction of Eagle Scout.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank both my friend from North Carolina and my friend from Virginia, as well as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for bringing this forward, as well as those who have spoken on behalf of this bill. This is not just a nuisance industry. This is a malicious industry that represents a very, very serious public health threat. We are very much concerned that the interstate or international transport, especially of birds used for cockfighting, could spread an influenza outbreak. The World Health Organization has reported at least nine confirmed human cases of avian flu in Thailand and Vietnam that they expect is related directly to cockfighting activity. The American Veterinary Medical Association, the poultry industry, all the animal protection associations, of course, but the National Sheriffs' Association as well has urged us to pass this bill. Yes, there are 50 different State bills against dog fighting, 49 against cockfighting, but many of them are different. And the fact is there is a great deal of interstate commerce that takes place, so you need a Federal law banning this, because it is so closely associated, and this is what the National Sheriffs' Association tells us, so closely associated to illegal gambling, trafficking of narcotics, public corruption, dangerous gang activity. There are so many reasons why we should ban this practice. As has been said, it is cruel, and it is inhumane. They drug these animals so that they are hyper-aggressive, so that they will continue fighting until they kill or are killed. That is not right. It is not moral. But even beyond the cruel and inhumane aspect of this practice, it represents a very dangerous public health threat, as well as a source of a great deal of other illegal criminal activity. This House would be well-served to listen to the more than 300 Members who have cosponsored this legislation and pass it today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today we will demonstrate that this Nation is not doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Forty years ago we were in another war. We had lost just about as many soldiers, about 3,000 young men, at this point in the Vietnam War. Our President urged the Congress to stay the course so that he could save face, and the Congress did, as the President demanded, until we had lost another 55,000 soldiers before we eventually accepted the fact that it, too, was an inconceivable war. Today, the Congress is going to end this war, this fiasco that we never should have begun. It is going to focus on our priorities of strengthening our military, going after the people who actually did attack us in 2001 and reinvesting in our nation's true priorities. We will bring our troops home as soon and as safely as possible. We will not repeat history. This is an important vote, and all of the American people should be proud of their Congress.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the chairman and thank the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee who has put this together. My colleagues, a short while ago when President Bush was asked how long will this war last, he said: ``We will be in Iraq as long as the Iraqi people want us there.'' Well, this bill says that we will be in Iraq as long as the American people want us there. And the American people realize this is a war that is not worthy of the sacrifice of those men and women in uniform who are bearing the whole cost of this war. This bill is about that young son who was told by his daddy one day that he has to leave him to go off and fight for our country. And day after day he asks his mommy: When is daddy coming back? And finally one day his mommy, with tear-filled eyes, has to say: Daddy is not coming back. Well, we have to ask ourselves: Is this war worthy of that sacrifice? This bill says it is not because there has never been a strategy for success. This bill will bring our troops home as soon and as safely as possible.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the arguments against this bill, and no one has made the argument that this is not the right thing to do. The opposition is hiding behind the language of the Constitution. I say ``hide'' because there are any number of interpretations and any number of conservative constitutional scholars who have said this is fully constitutional. But it is the right thing to do because there is no jurisdiction, no State, no local government that has had more legislation passed in this body affecting them than the onerous provisions directly affecting the citizens of the District of Columbia and uniquely affecting them. Forty-four thousand veterans are in the District of Columbia. Every D.C. resident pays Federal taxes. 1330 They are solid American citizens and there are more of them than in the entire state of Wyoming. They deserve voting representation. Let me say one further thing. I represent the area in Alexandria that used to be part of the District of Columbia. When that area retroceded back to Virginia, on the front page of the Alexandria Gazette they described the freed men and freed women on their knees begging for citizens of Alexandria not to do this--not to deprive every black person of all their rights. But the entitled white people of Northern Virginia voted to deny them their rights because of racism. The history of this disenfranchisement of D.C. residents is not a pretty one. It needs to be undone.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, last year representatives and leaders of Virginia's Native American tribes left their communities and flew to England to participate in ceremonies that were a prelude to the 400th anniversary of the first permanent English settlement in America. Some of the distinguished Virginia residents who made this trip are the blood descendants and leaders of the surviving 7 tribes that once were a part of the Great Powhatan Confederacy that initially helped sustain the colonists during their difficult first years at Jamestown. Virginia's best known Indian, Pocahontas, traveled to England in 1617 with her husband John Rolfe and was received by English royalty. She died a year later of smallpox and is buried in the chapel of the parish church in Gravesend, England. This year marks the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown. It would be a sad irony if the direct descendants of the native Americans who met these settlers, were still not recognized by the federal government. I, along with fellow Virginians, Reps. Jo Ann Davis, Bobby Scott and Tom Davis of Virginia, and Reps. Nick Rahall, Neal Abercrombie, Dale Kildee, and Frank Pallone are introducing legislation today entitled the ``Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act.'' This legislation will finally, and at long last, grant federal recognition to six Indian tribes in Virginia: the Chickahominy Tribe, Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock Tribe, the Monacan Tribe, and the Nansemond Tribe. Like most Native Americans, the Virginia tribes first welcomed western settlers, but quickly became subdued, pushed off their land, and, up through much of the 20th Century, denied full rights as U.S. citizens. Despite their devastating loss of land and population, the Virginia Indians successfully overcame years of racial discrimination that denied them equal opportunities to pursue their education and preserve their cultural identity. That story of survival doesn't encompass decades, it spans centuries of racial hostility and coercive state and state-sanctioned actions. Their story, however is unique in two ways. First, they signed their peace treaties with the Kings of England, and second, they suffered centuries of state sanctioned hostilities. Unlike most tribes that resisted encroachment and obtained federal recognition when they signed peace treaties with the federal government, Virginia's six tribes signed their peace treaties with the Kings of England. Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 between these tribes and Charles the II. This treaty has been recognized by the State every year for the past 329 years when the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia accepts tribute from the tribes in a ceremony now celebrated at the State Capitol. I understand it is the longest celebrated treaty in the United States. In the intervening years between 1677 and the birth of this nation, however, these tribes were dispossessed of most of their land and were too weak to pose a threat. They were, therefore, never in a position to negotiate and receive recognition from our nascent federal government. Last summer the English government reaffirmed its recognition of this treaty with the modern Virginia tribes. Their unique history speaks to the reason Congress must act to recognize the Virginia tribes. They have experienced what has been called a ``paper genocide'' and been persecuted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. At the time when the federal government granted Native Americans the right to vote, Virginia's elected officials were embracing the eugenics movement and began adopting racially hostile laws targeted at those classes of people who did not fit into the dominant white society. These actions culminated with the enactment of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This act empowered zealots, like Walter Plecker, a state official, to destroy records and reclassify in Orwellian fashion all non-whites as ``colored.'' It targeted Native Americans and sought to deny them their identity. To call yourself a ``Native American'' in Virginia was to risk a jail sentence of up to one year. The law remained in effect until it was struck down in the federal courts in 1967. For up to 50 years, state officials waged a war to destroy all public and many private records that affirmed the existence of Native Americans in Virginia. Historians have affirmed that there is no other state that compares to Virginia's efforts to eradicate its citizens' Indian identity. All of Virginia's state-recognized tribes have filed petitions with the Bureau of Acknowledgment seeking federal recognition. But it is a very heavy burden the Virginia tribes will have to overcome and one fraught with complications that officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs have acknowledged may never be resolved in their lifetime. The acknowledgment process is already costly, subject to unreasonable delays, and lacks dignity. Virginia's legacy of paper genocide only further complicates these tribes' quest for federal recognition, making it difficult to furnish corroborating state and official documents and aggravating the injustice already visited upon these tribes. This wasn't corrected until 1997 when Governor George Allen signed legislation directing state agencies to correct state records that had deliberately been altered to list Virginia Indians on official state documents as ``colored.'' The law allows living members of the tribes to correct records, but the law cannot correct the damage done to past generations. Two years later, the Virginia General Assembly adopted a resolution calling upon Congress to enact legislation recognizing the Virginia tribes. There is no doubt that the Chicahomony, the Eastern Chicahomony, the Monacan, the Nansemond, the Rappahannock and the Upper Mattaponi tribes exist. These tribes have existed on a continuous basis since before the first western European settlers stepped foot in America; and, they are here with us today. I know there is great resistance from Congress to grant any Native American tribe federal recognition. And, I can appreciate how the issue of gambling and its economic and moral dimensions have influenced many Members' perspectives on tribal recognition issues. I think the circumstances and situation these tribes have endured and the legacy they still confront today, however, outweigh these concerns. We have made significant compromises to give the State the option to say ``no'' to gaming. Congress has the power to recognize these tribes. It has exercised this power in the past, and it should exercise this power again with respect to these six tribes. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. cosponsors of legislation introduced by the rep. jim moran recognizing six virginia tribes The Honorable Jo Ann Davis; the Honorable Bobby Scott; the Honorable Tom Davis; the Honorable Nick J. Rahall II; the Honorable Neil Abercrombie; the Honorable Dale E. Kildee; the Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.; the Honorable Robert C. Scott.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Employee Free Choice Act. As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, ``It is one of the characteristics of a free and democratic nation that it has free and independent labor unions.'' Today we are considering legislation that, in the spirit of FDR, would allow workers seeking free and independent labor unions a fair shot. The Employee Free Choice Act would change our current system, one prone to intimidation, harassment and discrimination; into a fairer, more democratic process. In most cases, to get elected to public office in the U.S.--whether at the Federal, State or local level--you need to win a majority of the votes. Based on this democratic principle, The Employee Free Choice Act provides that when at least 50 percent plus one of the employees decide to form a union, the will of that majority is carried out. The current system for organizing a union has some very undemocratic components. Under existing law, employers hold all the cards when it comes to the election process for employees to decide whether they want to form a union. The result is often a bitter, divisive, drawn-out process, in which union supporters are frequently spied on, harassed, threatened, strong-armed, and even fired. Surveys show that in 25 percent of elections campaign workers are fired and that 78 percent of the time employers force supervisors to deliver anti-union rhetoric to workers whose jobs they oversee. While this type of coercive action might seem reminiscent of a banana republic, it is happening today in 21st century America. Madam Chairman, despite the views of some in this body, unions do benefit the working man and woman. Union workers earn 30 percent more than non-union workers; they are 63 percent more likely to have employer-sponsored health care and four times more likely to have guaranteed pensions. We should be removing undemocratic hurdles impeding the formation of unions, not protecting them. Since 1935, the majority sign-up process has been available and used by fair-minded employers. It is a tried and true method, having stood the test of time. Making that process mandatory prevents employer abuse and gives workers a fair shot to form a union. Madam Chairman, our workers need good representation at the bargaining table and unions best provide that leadership. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation which would make the unionizing process fairer, more democratic and more representative of the will of the American worker.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the staff of the Mount Vernon Recreation Center in Alexandria, Virginia on receiving the Heart of Potomac West Award. The Mount Vernon Recreation Center has been a key partner in the Del Ray Potomac West community of Alexandria for decades. The Center's staff has built long-lasting relationships with the community, including neighbors, businesses, and visitors, by ensuring that the Center's doors are open and that every community member is welcome. Each year, the Center staff helps to organize and assist with numerous events for the residents and businesses of Del Ray. These include the Annual Holiday Tree Lighting, the Annual Halloween Parade, Art on the Avenue, Cinema Del Ray, First Night on New Year's Eve, and countless programs for seniors and youth. Without the support of these dedicated, hardworking, and caring staff members, such events could never take place. The staff of the Mount Vernon Recreation Center has stood side by side with the community during times of crisis. When Del Ray lost two of its citizens, Kevin Shifflet and Nancy Dunning, the Center staff acted as a support beacon for a community in mourning, providing a home where citizens turned for comfort and support. These devoted and committed staffers have always gone far above and beyond the call of duty. The Mount Vernon Recreation Center is a marvelous asset of the City of Alexandria, and this has occurred through the hard work and dedication of the Center staff. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Center staff on being awarded this great honor.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I would like to paraphrase a poem that Rudyard Kipling wrote upon the death of his son in World War I that seems particularly apt to the war in Iraq: When they ask why the young men died Tell them it's because the old men lied. Madam Speaker, when the White House announced 4 years ago the U.S. military would attack Iraq under the guise of the global war on terrorism, there wasn't one single uniformed military officer who believed that Iraq was part of a global war on terrorism. Saddam had had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. Saddam wasn't harboring any al Qaeda cells that did attack us. In fact, they understood that starting a new war would distract us and limit us from accomplishing our immediate need to eliminate Osama bin Laden. Saddam was a vicious, secular, despotic dictator, but he saw al Qaeda as a threat to his control, and al Qaeda viewed Saddam as an enemy of their religious extremist world vision. The U.S. Intelligence Community knew that there was no clear evidence that Saddam was a threat to the United States. There was no failure of our professional Intelligence Community, but there was an abysmal failure of our political leadership. So how did we get to this point? First we were scared with the threat of Saddam's arsenals or weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda training camps, an Iraqi meeting with the 9/11 hijacker, mobile labs, aluminum tubing, yellow cake uranium. But there were no weapons of mass destruction, Madam Speaker. The training camps didn't exist. Mohamed Atta never met an Iraqi agent in Prague. The White House knew, before they informed us about the mobile labs, that our experts had determined that they were not in any way related to chemical or biological weapons. Likewise, the aluminum tubing was bogus information. Well before the so-called yellow cake uranium from Niger was cited as evidence at an attempt at nuclear armament, our Intelligence Community had informed the White House that it was a hoax. Yet we were told repeatedly by the President and the Vice President that Saddam was a threat to global stability, that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and September 11. We were told in the buildup to the war that our troops would be greeted by the Iraqis as liberators, being offered flowers in the streets. This was propaganda that the State Department warned the White House not to believe, but they nonetheless peddled it to the Congress and to the American people. We were told that to liberate Iraq was to spread freedom and democracy, to keep oil out of the hands of potential terrorist- controlled states. We were told that the war would pay for itself with Iraqi oil revenues. Yet all we have done is to finance our enemies, the insurgents and Iranian Shiia interests. After Baghdad fell, we were told that America had prevailed, that the mission was accomplished, that the resistance was in its last throes, that more troops were not needed. As things went from bad to worse, we were told of turning point after turning point, the fall of Baghdad, the death of Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government, the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi Government, elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam, all excuses for triumphant rhetoric while the reality on the ground continued to worsen. We were told, as they stand up, we would stand down. We would stay the course. Now we are told that there is a new course, but it is in the same misguided direction. Falsehood after falsehood unravels each day, with the morning paper reporting even more deaths. Now the American people are being asked to put 20,000 more sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives into the line of fire, and into the dead zone between the sectarian sides of a civil war. A message was sent to President Bush on November 7, 2006. This surge of more troops into Iraq defies the will of the American people. But this is a new Congress. We will no longer be cowed by leaders using 9/11 as a political ploy against sensible people who oppose the administration's failed Iraq policy. Today for the first time since the war began, Congress will go on record opposing the President's failed Iraq policy. Some will argue that it is a nonbinding resolution, that it will not have the impact of a law, that it will not stop a roadside bomb or bring a single soldier home to their family. But the President understands what this resolution means. It is the beginning of the end of this wrong war of choice