Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from the Rules Committee for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Ms. Matsui's leadership. Mr. Speaker, this legislation needs to pass. This trade agreement is very much in the interests of the United States. Oman is our ally. It is an example of exactly what we need to help bring about throughout the Arab world. Now, I do not know if everyone in this body knows where Oman is located. It sits at the Strait of Hormuz and at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It is in a critically strategic location. Across that strait lies Iran. More than 20 percent of the world's oil supply passes through that strait. Oman has remained our ally, notwithstanding all of the pressure that it has received over generations. It has been our ally since 1833 when we passed the Treaty of Amity and Commerce. It was the first Arab country to send an Ambassador to the United States. Today it is the first and only Arab country to have a female Ambassador to the United States. It is one of the most open, liberal societies in the Arab and Muslim world. They signed a 10-year military access agreement in 1981 with the United States, and they have renewed it twice. They continue to be one of the most important logistical and operational support areas for the present war in Iraq, and were so in the Persian Gulf. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what more they can do. They are an active supporter of the United States against terrorism, and as this letter from AIPAC says, they have been willing to take on the Arab world and break the Arab boycott against Israel, the primary, secondary and tertiary boycott. And here we are, we debated all night last night about the resolution in the Middle East. We know the number of lives that are being lost, the conflagration that is taking place, and we will not reach out to an Arab nation that is our most important ally, that is exactly what we are hoping to achieve in terms of economic and social liberalization. They have agreed to comply with all of the International Labor Organization's standards. They will have collective bargaining, unionization. They are going to open up their industries to outside review and competition. And what do they want to buy? They want to buy transport equipment and manufactured products, products that generate jobs in the United States. And what are they going to sell to us? It is primarily oil that does not generate jobs in the Arab world. That is part of the problem. But the Sultan of Oman understands that the vast majority, more than 60 percent of his population, are under the age of 18. He gets it. He understands. He needs to move into the modern world. But he needs American support to do that. This trade treaty needs to pass.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This trade agreement needs to pass. This trade agreement is so clearly in America's interest. Now, when you look at the total amount of trade between the two countries, it may not seem like a big deal. A billion dollars, what is that? Four one-hundredths of 1 percent of our economy, $500 million each way. That is no big deal. But that was my daughter calling, and that is what this is really about. This is about the future; whether we engage with the peaceful and progressive Arab world or whether we blow up the bridges that they are trying to build with America and with the modern Western world. Oman was the first Arab country to send an Ambassador to the United States. Today, they have the first woman and the only Arab woman Ambassador to the United States. They are showing by their actions that they get it. They understand that when 60 percent of their population is under the age of 18, they have got to go forward, not backward to fundamentalism and to the kind of theocracy that has hampered so many of their neighbors. They need to move forward. But they need the help of the United States to move forward. Now, as I say, the amount of trade is inconsequential. It is not going to affect organized labor here. It is not going to affect any particular industry, although I have to say that it is pretty much a one-way street. What they buy from us is transport equipment, manufactured products that generate jobs in this country. And what we buy from them is largely natural resources, and some textiles, but mostly oil and gas. They want to be able to buy more. They want to make it easier for us to sell by reducing tariffs and quotas. But, most importantly, is the larger context of this agreement. Oman sits on the Strait of Hormuz. More than 20 percent of the world's oil supply goes through that strait. Guess who sits on the other side of that strait? Iran. Oman is right next to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been the instigator and the promoter of an Arab boycott against Israel, and this relatively small country has dedicated itself to breaking that boycott. We have a letter from AIPAC here supporting this because Oman has been willing to break the tertiary, secondary and primary boycotts of Israel. Here is the letter right here. Now, when we were attacked on 9/11/2001, we put together a bipartisan commission of very thoughtful and knowledgeable people, and one of the most important recommendations that that commission came up with was that we as a country need to reach out to the modern, progressive Arab world. We have got to do it. We can't isolate ourselves from a billion- and-a-half Muslims, because then that is going to radicalize people in their country. We have got to walk through these doors that they are willing to open up and show what happens when you trade with the United States, when you trade with progressive democracies. This is exactly what that 9/11 Commission recommended. I am pleased that we overwhelmingly supported the Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, but this is an even better trade agreement. It is hard to believe that we are questioning the fact that this is in America's interest. It is so overwhelmingly in America's interest. A couple of red herrings have been brought up; and as much as I respect and admire my colleagues who have brought up these red herrings, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own set of facts. The facts are that we asked the Congressional Research Service to look into this. They came up with a report that was compelling and definitive: there is no national security interest involved here, because if we decide there is a national security threat, which we self-define, that trumps everything else, and at any time we can raise the essential security justification. No one else has the authority to second-guess what it takes for us to protect our national security, and there is no precedent for any kind of international panel second- guessing us. There is no national security issue here. The language, the provisions in this treaty, are the same as have been in all the others. It is the same language as Bahrain, the same language as Central America. There is no change here. In terms of labor law, and I will address this subsequently after people address it on the Democratic side to lay out their objections, but I have read the communication from the Sultan, as I trust others have. He is willing to agree to the labor rights issues. He wants to abide by the International Labor Organization's standards. He wants to do everything it takes to show that he gets it, that he wants a higher quality of life, a better standard of living and more worker protections in Oman than his people have today. Now, the democratically elected Advisory Council is not in session right now, but within 3 months he will get them all passed. When the Sultan says he is going to do it, that is it. We may prefer the niceties of a democracy and so on, but the reality is that these laws are going to be changed if the Sultan commits to changing them. So I really urge my colleagues to support this. One other aspect that I haven't mentioned, and I will get into it in a greater degree later, Oman has a military access agreement with us. They have had it since 1981. They keep renewing it. We keep putting more and more forces through Oman for the war in Iraq. They were of immense help in the Gulf War. I don't know what one country can do to be more deserving of a trade agreement with the United States.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, last year, I was proud to cosponsor and vote in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which will expand the Federal policy and implement stricter ethical guidelines for this research. Embryonic stem cell research is necessary to discover the causes of a myriad of genetic diseases, to test new drug therapies more efficiently on laboratory tissue instead of human volunteers, and to staving off the ravages of disease with the regeneration of our bodies' essential organs. President George W. Bush's policy on stem cell research limits Federal funding only to embryonic stem cell lines that were derived by August 9, 2001, the date of his policy announcement. Of the 78 stem cell lines promised by President Bush, only 22 are available to researchers. Unfortunately these stem cell lines are aged and contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain. According to the majority of scientists, if these stem cell lines were transplanted into people, they would provoke dangerous viruses in humans. What is even more disturbing is the fact that there are at least 125 new stem cell lines, which are more pristine than the lines currently available on the National Institutes of Health registry, and which are ineligible for Federally-funded research because they were derived after August 9, 2001. This restrictive embryonic stem cell research policy is making it increasingly more difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which passed the House on May 25, 2005, simply seeks to lift the cutoff date for lines available for research. H.R. 810 will also strengthen the ethical standards guiding the Federal research on stem cell lines and will ensure that embryos donated for stem cell research were created for the purposes of in vitro fertilization, were in excess of clinical need, would have otherwise been discarded and involved no financial inducement. Contrary to what opponents have been saying, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will not Federally fund the destruction of embryos. This measure makes it clear that unused embryos will be used for embryonic stem cell research only by decision of the donor. No Federally-funded research will be supported by this measure on any embryos that had been created solely for research purposes. In February 2005, the Civil Society Institute conducted a nationwide survey of 1,022 adults and found that 70 percent supported bipartisan federal legislation to promote embryonic stem cell research. Let public interest triumph over ideological special interests. Public interest is best served when the medical and the scientific community is free to exercise its professional judgment in extending and enhancing human life. I urge the Senate to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act with overwhelming support, and for President Bush to sign it into law when it reaches his desk.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there is a conflagration in the Middle East. We are losing the war in Iraq. We are losing ground to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The stock market is crashing, gas prices are skyrocketing. We have raised the debt ceiling four times to $9 trillion, all of which we are going to dump on the backs of our children, who we are inadequately educating, let alone creating a safer world for them. And what are the Republican congressional leadership's priorities? To ban same-sex marriage, to ban flag burning, to ban stem cell research, to ban child safety locks on guns in the home, to ban abortion here and family planning abroad, to protect the pledge of allegiance, to cut $20 billion from college student loan programs, to cut $9 billion from elementary and secondary education. And, oh, yes, more tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, this has got to be the most clueless Congress in American history.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Massachusetts for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, you know we have a conflagration in the Middle East today as we speak. We have raised the debt ceiling four times to over $9 trillion, and we are going to pass it all on to our kids. And yet this is how the Republican congressional leadership chooses to spend its time. Nobody's marriage is endangered. What this is really about and what this amendment should be entitled is the ``Gay Discrimination Act.'' That is all it is. And what is its motivation? It is a crass political attempt to divide America in an election year. That is what this is all about. We know it. And I suspect a lot of the American people know it as well. What every American should find most objectionable is that you are using the Constitution to do this. Our Founding Fathers put together the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to protect and enhance individual rights and liberties. And this goes directly counter to what our Constitution is all about by prohibiting individual rights and limiting States rights. They talked about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, yet, all you can think about is ways to make life more difficult for people who do not fall into the mainstream of America. That is not what America is about. This amendment needs to be defeated and we need to stand up for human rights, for civil rights, and for States rights. We know it is never going to get enacted. But we should not be spending our time talking about it. We should not be spending our time trying to seek political gain at the expense of people who want to live committed lives with each other. That is not endangering anybody. Defeating this amendment is what our Founding Fathers wanted America to be about. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I do so for one simple reason--the United States Constitution must never be allowed to expressly authorize, indeed to expressly direct, discrimination against a group of individuals that is based upon their shared personal characteristics Mr. Speaker, this amendment shouldn't be called the Marriage Protection Amendment. It isn't needed to strengthen or enhance the institution or traditional marriage in this country. Call it what it is--it's the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment, for it is intended to deny gay and lesbian Americans, solely on the basis of their orientation, the ability to maintain the same kind of committed relationships that every other adult in the country is entitled to. This is discrimination in its rankest form. The amendment is the first of its kind, for it seeks to change the Constitution, not to prohibit, but to authorize a specific form of discrimination. And it does this by forever preventing the states from extending the rights and protections of marriage to a certain class of citizens. States would be denied the right to recognize and afford same sex couples the legal rights and protection that heterosexual couples receive from government, such as the right to receive health benefits and hospital visitations. Furthermore, those states that have already seen fit to recognize and enact domestic partnership state laws would be preempted by this amendment. Never, however, has the Constitution, on its face, been amended to deny a specific set of rights to a specific class of citizens. By approving this measure, the House would be party to act that would stand as an extraordinary affront to the Constitution and, especially, to the Bill of Rights and the fundamental principles and protections it enshrines. This is not what the Constitution is about; this is not what our country is about. The amendment should be seen for what it is--a crass attempt to politically divide the American public in an election year. It must be soundly defeated, and I urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Government Reform Committee and applaud him for his leadership, as well as Mr. Wolf's, particularly when Mr. Wolf was chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Transportation, Ms. Norton representing the District of Columbia, and Mr. Van Hollen representing the Maryland suburbs. We are a team. We are a team, but we are representing the interests of the entire Congress. The principal reason why we need the Metro system is to transport our employees, the Federal workforce. If we did not have this Metro system, our Federal Government could not function. We don't have the road capacity to get them to and from work. Even with Metro, we have the second-worst congestion in the country, and it is the most expensive. We need a better Metro system, and the only way that we can meet today's demands is by having a dedicated source of revenue. That is what this bill does. But the funding has already been taken care of. It passed the House. The House voted for it. This is not about finding the money for Metro. This is about insuring that it gets used properly. This is about putting limitations on Metro, providing more Federal oversight for the Metro system, ensuring that local governments in the Washington area contribute their fair share, as should the State governments. The local and the State governments are willing to do that, as long as the Federal Government does; and the Federal Government should, because the principal people it serves are the Federal workforce. President Eisenhower condemned the land that established the transit system. President Nixon and President Carter both signed legislation to get Metro on track. Imagine if we did not have a Metro system when we have the Presidential inauguration, when we have these major national events in our Nation's Capital. We could not function. We are primarily dependent upon this transportation system so that this government, the government of the Nation's Capital, the principal government of the entire free world can function. Everything does not happen here on Capitol Hill. Everyone can't live here. People have to travel to get here. They have to get back home. You have to have a regional economy and a regional population; and in a dense metropolitan area you have got to have a Metro system, so that they can function. And it ought to be a first-class Metro system. This does not even ensure it is going to be first class, but at least it ensures it is going to be able to be adequate to meet the needs of the local, the State and the national governments, and it ensures that there is going to be Federal oversight and that it will serve the needs of our Federal workforce. Again, I applaud the chairman for bringing it to the floor today and securing its financing last week.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, over the last 9 years gas prices have doubled; college prices are up 38 percent; food prices, up 20 percent; housing, up 25 percent; and health care costs, up a whopping 75 percent. But the minimum wage hasn't budged over that period of time. Over the last 5 years, we have had a singular focus in this House on raising revenue for those families for whom these numbers really don't mean much, because they have so much disposable income. But for people on the minimum wage, it means they have to decide between putting food on the table or insuring their own children. They have to work a week just to fill their tank with gas. That's not right, and isn't it time that the Republican Party stop blocking the Democrat's attempts to raise the minimum wage and recognize that it is the working class families who are providing the underpinning of this economy? Let's increase the minimum wage. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 347, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Ryan Miller of Arlington, Virginia, on being awarded the Air Force Association's DW Steele Chapter ``Teacher of the Year Award.'' Mr. Miller teaches Astronomy and International Baccalaureate-level Environmental Science at Washington-Lee High School in Arlington. Mr. Miller opens up the often demanding field of math and the sciences through his challenging, but innovative, lab experiments and lessons. Furthermore, his expertise and exuberance for science has significantly contributed to an improved curriculum for Earth and Space Sciences, as well as the enrollment of more students into his science classes. Also as part of his responsibilities, Mr. Miller assists students in science fair competitions at Washington-Lee and in regional competitions. Ryan's selfless dedication to public service plays a significant role in shaping our future economy. The United States is facing increasing competition in the workplace from foreign nations that are investing heavily in math and science studies. Science and technology related jobs are among the fastest growing fields in our economy, and studies have indicated that our Nation is falling behind compared to the investment of foreign nations. Mr. Miller's use of the latest technology available to students, his interesting and motivating experiences, and his passion for science have genuinely assisted in helping our Nation narrow this gap. When he is not dedicating his time to improving the minds of his students, Mr. Miller is spending his spare time on his own education. He is currently enrolled at George Washington University, taking classes for his doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction. Mr. Miller is truly an asset to the students he inspires and the lives he shapes in the 8th District of Virginia. I congratulate him on being awarded this great honor.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that this past weekend was designated by Best Friends Animals Society as Best Friends Kindness Weekend. Best Friends Animal Society, based outside Kanab, Utah, works with shelters and rescue groups nationwide to bring about a time when there will be no more homeless pets. Best Friends operates the country's largest sanctuary for homeless animals, and provides adoption, spay/ neuter, and educational programs nationwide. The purpose of Best Friends Weekend was to remind all of us how animals enrich our lives through their companionship, friendship and love. Best Friends Animal Society believes that dedicating one weekend each year to promoting kind acts towards animals can make our communities and our world a better place. Cruelty to animals often leads to cruelty to people. I've been a strong and outspoken supporter of animal welfare issues since first coming to Congress, and I've authored legislation to help protect animals and promote their welfare. Organizations like Best Friends serve as a conscience to lawmakers and the country in these matters and remind us that our first duty is to protect the most vulnerable and innocent among us. This past weekend's activities of kindness inspired by Best Friends should serve as a reminder to all of us, that in this increasing fragmented society we need to be ever more compassionate about the animals in our world, whether they are companion pets, service animals such as seeing-eye dogs, livestock, or nature's wildlife. It also serves as a reminder that the bond between humans and animals is a vital one and is capable of bringing joy and healing to people of all ages. Finally, it serves to remind us to be more kind and compassionate to our fellow man. We coexist in this world--human to human and human to animal--and those bonds must be maintained and kept strong.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006. This legislation will exempt estates up to $5 million for an individual and $10 million for a couple; will tax the next $20 million in assets at 15 percent and assets above $25 million at 30 percent. According to the Joint Tax Committee, this measure will cost $279.9 billion in lost revenue between now and 2016, and at least $61 billion per year every year after. This is unacceptable and is fiscally unsound. Not only will this add to the enormous budget deficits we are now facing, but it will also contribute to the increasing concentration of the Nation's wealth among a very small number of Americans. Thirty years ago the richest one percent of our population owned less than a fifth of our wealth. According to a report by the Federal Reserve Board, that one percent now owns over a third of the Nation's wealth. Workers today are twenty four percent more productive than they were five years ago, but the median earnings of those workers have not risen in line with this, a distinct change from historical patterns. The average CEO pay is now 400 times that of a typical worker. Forty years ago it was 60 times that of an average worker. We are creating a new upper class, one that our country has not seen since the rise of the robber barons, and this legislation ensures that this gap will grow ever wider. Right now, a couple can pass on four million dollars to their children tax free. The New York Times attempted to find a farmer who had been affected by the estate tax. It was unable to do so, even with the assistance of the American Farm Bureau. I agree that we need to ensure that small businesses and family farms are able to be passed on to succeeding generations. This is why during debate on a permanent repeal of the estate tax I was supportive of keeping it at its 2009 level. Doing so would ensure that 997 out of every 1000 people can pass their assets on to their children and pay no estate tax. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center, if this level was in place in 2011, only fifty farms and small businesses would owe any estate tax. This legislation will not help the vast majority of our constituents. Instead it will help a small group of people maintain their enormous wealth and, in return, it will increase our country's deficit. As Members of Congress, part of our job is to ensure that the Nation's economy is strong for every person in the next generation. We don't do that when we give ourselves hundreds of billions of tax cuts and leave it to our children to find the tax money to pay for them.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for standing up for the last 10 hours in defense of our country and the troops that serve us and, most importantly, throughout his entire life, and I thank him for demanding that the Iraqi people stand up for their own country and responding to the American people who are demanding that this Congress stand up for our Nation's interest. Staying the course in Iraq is not in our Nation's interest. Several times the proponents of this resolution have cited Winston Churchill. Wonderful, lofty rhetoric, but there's a disconnect. Saddam Hussein did not drop any bombs on the United States. He was not involved in 9/11, didn't harbor any terrorists who were. It has been argued if we redeployed it might hurt our credibility around the world. As has been said, our approval ratings around the world are the lowest they have ever been. People rank us down with Russia in terms of trust and respect. It has been argued if we redeploy it might encourage terrorists. Our continued presence is the rallying cry in the recruitment tool for terrorists around the world. It has been argued that it might hurt American troops' morale. Mr. Speaker, 2,500 brave men and women dead, 18,000 seriously wounded and you want to stay the course? It has been argued that there might be a civil war if we redeploy. There is a civil war today. The fact is the Iraqis are going to have to seize control of their own country. We have to redeploy. We won't leave the region, but we will be there to fight off foreign terrorists. But the Iraqis are going to have to determine their own future. That's why this resolution is not in America's interest. Defeat this resolution. Changing the course, having a definable objective in Iraq is in America's interest.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the full day's debate yesterday was of no consequence because the premise of the resolution before us is a false one. It suggests that the goal of a secure, stable, and unified Iraq is an achievable one. It is not. Iraq has always been a failed state because it was created artificially by the British to serve the British interest, not the Iraqi's interest. The fact is, when you have no tradition of civil institutions at the local level, the only way that a country can be governed is by a brutal secular dictator or by a repressive religious theocracy, and neither of those options is going to be in America's interest, certainly not the pro-American liberal democracy that we have talked about. Neither of those options, most importantly, will be worth the cost of the thousands more of American men and women who will lose their lives, the tens of thousands who will be seriously wounded or the hundreds of billions of dollars that we will have to borrow to finance this war. This resolution is not in America's interest, and it should be defeated.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Ladies and gentlemen, the American people want a new direction. And Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House Appropriations Committee finally acted on something that the House Republican leadership has refused to address for over a decade. Finally, yesterday, the full Appropriations Committee passed the amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill that will very gradually increase the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. Do you know that those who were working at the minimum wage in 1968, if today they were getting a comparable compensation, it would be over $9 an hour. I commend the Appropriations Committee for passing this in a bipartisan fashion, because expanding economic opportunity for over 7 million hard-working wage earners, plus another approximately 9 million members of their family should not be a partisan issue. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has said they do not intend to allow us to vote on the House floor on this critical issue. Today's minimum wage is at its lowest level in 50 years. Let's change that for America's hardest working families.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Tom Fox, an American hero who tirelessly gave his life to help bring peace to Iraq but whose life was mercilessly taken from us at the hands of killers on March 9, 2006. I am here to commemorate the life of such a selfless and dedicated individual. Mr. Fox was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee and graduated with a double degree in music performance and education from George Peabody College for Teachers, which is now part of Vanderbilt University, in Nashville. An accomplished musician, he joined the Marine Band and spent twenty years playing his clarinet for them. His passion gradually shifted from music toward peace activism and he joined the Quaker Church. His views on non-violent social activism strengthened his resolve to fight against the injustices in the world. In 2002, he joined the Christian Peacemakers Team and traveled to one of the most dangerous and violent parts of the world, Iraq. For two years, he devoted his time and energy to promoting peace and understanding between Christians and Muslims, Iraqis and Americans. In partnership with local Iraqi human-rights organizations, he committed himself to non-violent forms of intervention, such as accompanying young Iraqi refugee children to the Syrian border, and living in the same conditions as ordinary Iraqis in the downtown quarters of a Baghdad neighborhood--without security or protection around his apartment dwelling. His dedication for helping others was always apparent in everything he did. A quiet, good-natured soul, he insisted on understanding the hearts and minds of every person he met, believing that ``there is part of God in every person''. His complete faith in the goodness and humanity of others allowed him to stand through more violence and hatred than most of us will ever see in our lives. Despite the roadside bombings that he walked by, despite the mortars that fell above his home, and despite the death threats he received before being kidnapped, Mr. Fox always understood why he was in Iraq. In his own words, he said: ``We are here to root out all aspects of dehumanization that exist within us. We are here to stand with those being dehumanized by oppressors and stand firm against that dehumanization. We are here to stop people, including ourselves, from dehumanizing any of God's children, no matter how much they dehumanize their own souls.'' His legacy will always serve as a testament that to fight for what you believe in and to understand others is not to use violence or coercion. We preserve the dignity of our humanity and our goodness by each loving action we take on behalf of others. ``Too many are willing to die for war and too few are willing to die for peace.'' [From Connection Editorial, Mar. 16, 2006] Tom Fox In the pages of The Connection, since the beginning of the war in Iraq, we have periodically been called to write obituaries for men and women who have been killed in the conflict both in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were people who traveled to Iraq in service to their country. Losing them has been devastating to family and friends; their grief is sometimes tempered by knowing that their loved one died in doing something they believed in. The war in Iraq also served as a call to service to Tom Fox of Springfield. It was a call of a different kind, but one driven by deep conviction and a sense of duty. Fox, a Quaker and a pacifist, was troubled by the U.S. military response to terrorism, and traveled to Iraq as part of a Christian Peacemaker Team. Fox and other members of his team were taken hostage in November 2005, and Fox's body was found last week. The Christian Peacemaker Teams group ``embraces the vision of unarmed intervention waged by committed peacemakers ready to risk injury and death in bold attempts to transform lethal conflict through the nonviolent power of God's truth and love.'' In a Feb. 16, 2005 interview with the Connection Newspapers, Fox said he believed peace in Iraq could only be achieved through non-violence. ``[The Iraqi] people are not being served by violence,'' Fox said. ``It doesn't help anyone. There is always going to be conflict, but it's a question of how we deal with it. Do we settle problems with words, or do we bring out the clubs and act like cavemen?'' Tom Fox's friends and associates say that he would forgive his kidnappers and his killers, knowing that they acted out of fear. He would reject any anger or any effort at reprisal. Fox wrote: ``We reject violence to punish anyone. We ask that there be no retaliation on relatives or property. We forgive those who consider us their enemies. We hope that in loving both friends and enemies and by intervening nonviolently to aid those who are systematically oppressed, we can contribute in some small way to transforming this volatile situation.'' It is remarkable to see fellow human beings who walk in the path of their convictions. It is heartbreaking to see the person die as a result. But his death was not futile--no more than the death 2,000 years ago of the one he followed.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate National Hunger Awareness Day and to honor the Arlington Food Assistance Center, which is located in my congressional district. National Hunger Awareness Day was established to help inform individuals, communities, corporations and policy makers that hunger is a severe domestic issue and deserves our critical attention. The Arlington Food Assistance Center's sole mission is to feed the hungry. This important action allows their clients to make other necessary purchases, such as paying for rent and utilities, without having to sacrifice their health and nutritional needs. Despite the fact that Arlington County is one of the wealthiest areas in the country, plenty of local residents do not have enough to eat. The Arlington Food Assistance Center, AFAC, seeks to remedy this problem by distributing bread, vegetables, meat, milk, eggs and other food items to those in Arlington who are in need. The Arlington Food Assistance Center currently distributes approximately 1100 bags of groceries each week to over 900 clients, nearly half of whom are children. Each week, families with one to three members receive one bag of food and families of four members or more receive two bags of food-- amounts that are expected to supplement a week's meals. AFAC obtains surplus food at a minimal cost from the Capital Area Community Food Bank and at no cost from local bakeries, supermarkets, farmer's markets, food drives and private donors. I would like to commend the staff and volunteers of the Arlington Food Assistance Center who work hard to provide needy families in Arlington with groceries each week.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as the Department proceeds with the site selection for the mirror data services center, we feel it is important that all appropriate GSA site selection procedures be followed and that an RFP be issued clearly stating objective criteria for the site. We seek your assistance in ensuring these procedures are used and that a proper RFP is issued.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Christine L. Gallo, who retired from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Fort Belvoir, Virginia on April 29, 2006. Her distinguished government career spans 38 years, and her record of achievement during this period reflects greatly upon herself and upon the organizations with which she has served. Her contributions to the National Defense will be missed as she moves on to new and exciting opportunities. Ms. Gallo was a member of the Senior Executive Service and had received numerous awards over her 38-year career. These include the 1998 Presidential Rank Award (Meritorious), the United States Army Association of Quartermasters ``The Distinguished Order of St. Martin,'' the DLA Exceptional Civilian Service Award, the DLA Meritorious Civilian Service Award, and the Department of the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Award. Beginning her Federal career as a planning assistant with the Navy in 1968, Ms. Gallo held progressively responsible logistics planning and management positions with the Naval Supply Systems Command before joining the General Services Administration as Director of Distribution for Federal Supply and Services. After joining DLA in December of 1986, she served as Director of the Defense Spares Initiatives Office, Director for Systems Planning for the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Production and Logistics, Executive Director for Readiness and Customer Support, Executive Director for Business Modernization and Integration, and Director for DLA Enterprise Support (DES). Mr. Speaker, I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Christine Gallo on her retirement from Federal Civil Service. She epitomizes the dedication and professionalism that make our Federal government a model all over the world.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. Madam Speaker, this bill claims that its goal is to ensure that no United States funding goes to support Hamaas, a foreign terrorist organization that has terrorized thousands and seeks the destruction of Israel. Were this what the bill in fact does, I would support it. However, the bill before us today goes much further than what is needed to achieve its stated, goal. First, H.R. 4681 severely restricts U.S. funding to the many non- governmental organizations that provide critical aid and services to the Palestinian people, and allows for such funding without a presidential waiver for the most basic of services, such as food and shelter. This serves no good purpose. Limiting NGO funding in this manner will only increase the hardship of the Palestinian people. Yes, it is possible that this increased hardship may drive Palestinians to turn against the Hamas-controlled Palestinian government. At the same time, however, the cause of this additional hardship--the termination in U.S. humanitarian aid--will provide a ready excuse to Hamas, allowing it to blame the United States, and others, for its failure. This is not in our interest. We must not give this ``out'' to Hamas. Instead, we must ensure that, when Hamas fails in its attempt to govern, as it certainly will, it will not be able to blame the United States or any other party for its inability to deliver what the Palestinian people expected. Second, restricting United States aid to NGOs in this manner will hurt the very people we should be assisting. The Palestinian people are facing an economic crisis that goes beyond basic food and shelter, and includes education, public health, economic development and physical infrastructure. It is in the United States' interest to provide such assistance if we are in fact in support of a two-state solution and peace in the Middle East. Third, placing tight restrictions and sanctions on those parts of the Palestinian Authority that are not controlled by Hamas is a serious mistake, for it precludes our executive branch from working with governmental officials who may be viable options to Hamas. Other provisions in the bill--restricting the ability of all Palestinian Authority representatives to travel in the United States, interfering with the participation of Palestinian Authority representatives in international organizations, and refusing assistance to the Pestinian judiciary--are petty actions that will not, in any way, advance peace in the Middle East. There is a high likelihood that as a result of this bill, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority will turn around and seek the support from wealthy Arab and Muslim states, as well as extremist governments, like Iran and Syria. The message that this bill sends will push the Palestinian people away from us and quite possibly, the peace process. It will isolate them and force them to become more dependent on Hamas and their extremist supporters. This is not in our interest. Madam Speaker, it is clear that the purpose of our every response to the Hamas electoral victory and to the fact that it now controls the Palestinian Authority must be (i) to deny any form of direct assistance until Hamas renounces its terrorist traditions and policy, (ii) to assist in the delivery of humanitarian aid and relief to the Palestinian people, and (iii) at least for as long as Hamas does not actively engage in or support violence, to refrain from any actions that will deepen the divide between the Palestinian people and this country, thereby allowing some room for progress to occur. The bill under consideration fails to meet two of these criteria. For these reasons, I will not support it.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dicks- Slaughter-Shays-Leach-Price amendment to increase National Endowment for the Arts by $5 million and increase the National Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million. The dividend this Nation receives from the Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities far exceeds the investment we make with the limited Federal dollars. We could eliminate all funding for the endowments tomorrow, and the arts and humanities would survive. That's not the issue. The grants NEA provides don't make or break most theater productions, studio exhibitions or symphonic performances. What NEA does with its grants is to ensure that these performances, exhibits and productions are shared with greater audiences of Americans. Scholarly research on the humanities will continue without the NEH, but research, writings and creative thought on what it is to be an American, like the We the People initiative, the embodiment of who and what we are, and diffusion of this understanding and insight among Americans will suffer. Mr. Chairman, there is too much that divides us as a Nation. We need institutions like the NEA and the NEH, that find common ground through performances and pamphlets that inspire us to look past the parochial and appreciate greatness. Support the Dicks-Slaughter-Shays-Leach-Price amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is legal, it is simple, and it is fair. All we are asking is to preserve existing contracts but that those firms that fail to renegotiate fairly would then not be granted new oil or gas leases. Not to accept this amendment is to take sides, is to choose to stand by an industry that has posted the highest profits of any industry in modern history by charging consumers about $50 every time they fill up their gas tank. Those profits are coming from our constituents. And not to support this amendment is to decide we are going to side against our constituents. We are going to give up as much as $80 billion, $80 billion over the next 25 years. That is money that should be our constituents' because it is their Federally owned land that the oil companies are drilling on. We have a responsibility to represent the American people before we represent a very wealthy and profitable industry. And to decide that we are going to figure out a way to let them continue with these contracts that never should have been signed this way in the first place, that gives up $80 billion of American taxpayers money, is wrong. It is wrong. It is wrong that our consumers are paying so much when these oil companies are making tens of billions of dollars more than they have ever made. Here is an opportunity, legal, fair and simple, to represent the interests of our constituents, the American taxpayer. To turn down this amendment is to choose one of the major political contributors in this corrupt political system instead the interest of our constituents. Pass this amendment. Mr. TAYLOR or North Carolina. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this amendment to help save a national treasure--the wild horse. The wild horse is known throughout the world as a symbol of the American West and we should be doing everything we can to protect it. In the 1800s, more than 2 million wild horses roamed the American West. Today, that number is down to 35,000. Due to a provision slipped into the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill, the sale of any wild horse that has been rounded up and is more than 10 years old is now allowed. This language was placed into law without any hearings or public debate. This rider removed protections under the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act, which was passed in 1971 after the public demanded that something be done after the shooting of hundreds of thousands of horses and burros for pet food and meat in European restaurants. Already, at least 41 horses have lost their lives due to this irresponsible language, and the lives of 8,400 horses now being held by the Bureau of Land Management are in jeopardy. This is an inhumane slaughter against these majestic animals, and there is no need for it to continue. There are other options we can explore. The Bureau of Land Management could reopen over 100 herd management areas or use animal contraception methods to keep the size of the herds manageable. There is simply no reason for these horses to be slaughtered for use as meat in other countries. The American public want the wild horses protected. In my district alone, countless constituents have asked me to stop this senseless slaughter. The horse is more than just an animal to our country. It is a beloved literary figure, a character in a movie or television show, a symbol of adventure, a friend of the cowboy, and an important part of our history. Poet and author Pam Brown says, ``A horse is the projection of people's dreams about themselves--strong, powerful, and beautiful--and it has the capability of giving us an escape from our mundane existence.'' I cannot say it any better, and encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment and help save the wild horse. Protect America's Wild Horses After 34 years, protections for wild horses from sale to slaughter were removed through an omnibus rider. No bill, no hearings, no debate. Late in 2004 (and late into the night), Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) attached this highly controversial rider to the omnibus appropriations bill. The amendment, passed with no hearings or public review, reversed longstanding federal policy of protecting wild horses from being sold at auctions and subsequently shipped to slaughter plants. Representatives Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), Ed Whitfield (R-KY), John Sweeney (R-NY), and John Spratt (D-SC) will offer the Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt Wild Horse Amendment to the FY 2007 Interior Appropriations bill. Just last year, the House overwhelmingly approved an identical amendment, as well as another similar appropriations amendment to prohibit horse slaughter, but the Department of Agriculture has thwarted Congress's will and used private funding to enable the grisly slaughter of horses to continue. ``A public outcry has again begun across the United States over the change in law that now allows the commercial sale and slaughter of these animals, `` said Rahall. ``We need to act before it is too late for thousands of these animals.'' It is already too late for 41 mustangs. On April 15, 2005, six horses were purchased by Oklahoman Dustin Herbert. Only three days later, these horses were sent directly to a foreign-owned slaughter plant in Illinois. Mr. Herbert told the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that he intended to use the horses for a church youth program. Another 35 were killed at the same slaughter plant one week later after being traded unwittingly by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe soon after they were sold by BLM. By pure chance, another 52 were snatched from the slaughterplant line in a last minute effort to preserve their lives by fast-thinking officials. We have graphic evidence in hand now that sale authority is not a workable solution. Horse slaughter is fundamentally inhumane. The cruelty of horse slaughter is not limited to the slaughter itself. Economic rather than humane considerations dictate transport conditions, as horses are shipped in crowded trucks, frequently over long distances, and are typically given no food, water or rest. The truck ceilings are so low that horses are not able to hold their heads in a normal, balanced position. Heavily pregnant horses, horses with broken limbs, and horses missing one or both eyes may be legally shipped for many days to slaughter. Inappropriate floor surfaces cause slips and falls, and sometimes even trampling. Some horses arrive at the slaughter house seriously injured or dead. Horses are required to be rendered unconscious prior to slaughter, usually with a captive bolt pistol, which shoots a metal rod into the horse's brain. Some horses are improperly stunned and still conscious when they are shackled and hoisted by a rear leg to have their throats cut. In addition, conditions in the slaughterhouse are stressful and frightening for horses. Death at the slaughterhouse is not a humane end for horses. All three of the remaining horse slaughterhouses in the United States are foreign-owned. Congress acknowledged this in the strong, bipartisan votes cast on the FY2006 interior and agriculture appropriations bills in both the House and Senate (House Interior 249-159; House Agriculture 269-158; Senate Agriculture 69-28), yet the United States Department of Agriculture undermined the will of Congress by constructing a private payment system specifically to enable the continuation of this brutal practice. The number of horses in the US is dwindling. In the 1800s, over two million wild horses roamed the American West. When Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act (WFRHBA), there were 60,000. Today, the combined number of wild horses and burros is approximately 35,000. That represents a nearly 50% reduction of wild horses out on the range since Congress passed federal legislation to protect them. The entire wild horse and burro populations of six western states have been completely eradicated. Wild horses and burros have been federally protected for decades. In 1971, Congress passed the WFRHBA in response to enormous public outcry over the shootings of hundreds of thousands of horses and burros and the slaughter of horses for pet food and human consumption in European restaurants. The Burns rider removed crucial protection under the WFRHBA by requiring that the BLM sell wild horses over the age of ten or those offered for adoption more than three times. The lives of 8,400 horses now being held by BLM--and more in the future--are in jeopardy due to this controversial rider and the law must be changed. BLM's current removal policy is costing taxpayers over $39 million a year. According to the U.S. Geological Service, $7.7 million could be saved annually through the use of contraceptive measures alone. Since 1988, seveeral wild horse populations have been controlled under pilot programs using a contraceptive vaccine (PZP) developed with the help of The Humane Society of the United States. Additionally, there are other, less expensive alternatives available. A 1990 GAO Report states that, ``[r]educing authorized grazing levels would likely be cheaper than wild horse removals to achieve the same reduction in forage consumption.'' Cattle outnumber wild horses and burros at least 100 to 1 on public lands. BLM's private livestock grazing program encompasses 214 million acres of public lands and costs over $130 million to manage annually. Over 4 million head of private cattle enjoy subsidized grazing on public lands. A congressionally-mandated study by the National Academy of Sciences found that, in one year, livestock consumed 70% of grazing resources on public lands, while wild horses and burros consumed less than 5%. The WFRHBA mandates that wild horses and burros be provided 47 million acres of public lands on 303 herd areas. Since 1971, the BLM has reduced the number of herd areas to 201, taking approximately 13 million acres of land from these federally protected animals. Horses are not crusing rangeland degradation. The 1990 GA0 study detemined that (1) the primary cause of rangeland degradation is poorly managed domestic livestock grazing, (2) wild horse removals have not demonstrably improved range conditions, (3) wild horse behavior patterns make them less damaging than cattle to vulnerable range areas, and (4) wild horse removals are occurring in some locations not being damaged by widespread overgrazing (GAO/RCED-90-110, Rangeland Management--Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse Program). Americans want wild horse protection. Support for the Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt Amendment to protect our cherished wild horses crosses all social, cultural, and political boundaries. When it was revealed that wild horses had been sent to slaughter since the enactment of the Burns' rider (with widespread media coverage in Peole Magazine, CNN, MSNBC, and dozens of papers across the country), Americans made sure their voices were heard, resulting in BLM temporarily suspending their sales program. Without the passage of protective legislation, sales will resume. The answer is simple. There is no need to sell off and slaughter America's Western heritage. With the millions of acres of public land in the US, we can surely make room for 35,000 horses. Americans do not wish to have their tax dollars spent on the sale and slaughter of this last living icon of our American heritage.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to John M. Evans, one of our Federal Government's finest public servants and a long time resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This March he retired from an exceptionally distinguished career of service to his country. He has served our Nation as a career civil servant for over 33 years. He has been an exceptional leader and has played a key role in ensuring effective financial management for the Department of Defense. It gives me pride to have the opportunity to honor him today for his tremendous accomplishments. Mr. Evans began his career with the Navy in the financial management field working for various field activities. He progressed to a management position in the Military Traffic Management Command at the Department of Defense where he had responsibility for personnel and administration. Mr. Evans first served in the Department of Defense Comptroller office as a senior budget analyst for a number of major Department of Defense-wide programs, including the DoD Family Housing Program, the DoD Real Property Maintenance Program, Navy Military Construction, and DoD Depot Maintenance. Mr. Evans also served as the director for revolving funds beginning in April of 2000. While director, he was responsible for financial management oversight for all DoD revolving and working capital funds, including the Defense Working Capital funds. Since 2001, Mr. Evans was the director for operations. As director, Mr. Evans was responsible for the Department's Operations and Maintenance appropriations, including programs that support the global war on terror and the Department's homeland security functions. Senior leaders, both in the Congress and the Department of Defense, have benefited from Mr. Evans' experience, outstanding leadership, and distinguished performance. His efforts have enabled our Nation's leader to make the most effective use of defense resources to ensure America's military strength. On behalf of my colleagues, I thank him for his service to our country and wish him well on his retirement.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today's record gas prices are the direct result of 5 years of failed policies by the Bush administration and this Republican Congress. We seem to be more interested in giving still more tax breaks to oil executives than providing real relief to American consumers. Rather than proposing policies that would aggressively confront our energy challenges, Republicans are once again pushing to drill in ANWR. They neglect to say that drilling in ANWR would not be possible for another decade and would only provide about 6 months of oil for the American consumer. House Republicans are also suggesting waiving environmental laws to encourage new refinery construction. But all of the major oil companies have already testified that environmental laws are not what is preventing them from building more refineries. It is more personally profitable to pay out lower-taxed-dividends than invest retained earnings in refineries. So along with the silly $100 rebate, this is another proposal from House Republicans that will do nothing to reduce prices at the pump today. But the American consumer is beginning to realize it is time to try something new. It is time for a change in leadership.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives will vote today on a bill that the authors think will help end the culture of corruption that exists in the Congress and restore the public's confidence in this body. I will vote no on this bill, H.R. 4975, not because I believe we do not need to address these significant matters, but because the bill fails to provide any real reform at all. We have an opportunity today to make significant changes in the way we perform the people's business and to help restore the people's confidence in their elected representatives. With this bill, the majority, who only a few months ago was shouting for reform, has failed to seize this opportunity. In fact, it has presented a bill that contains no significant reform at all. Throughout the country, far too many people believe that Congress gives its vote to the highest bidder. This perception must be eliminated, but the minor changes in this bill will not do so. Restoration of the people's respect of Congress requires one thing-- that we change the way our political campaigns are financed. While our campaign finance rules have been strengthened over the years, they remain insufficient. The time has come to take private money out of politics--entirely-- and, in its place, provide limited public funding for all Congressional campaigns. This is real reform. And it is the only type of reform that will even begin to restore the respect and trust of the American people in Congress. The bill before us today will not do this, and we must into fool ourselves into believing that it will.