Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.'' This bill is an attempt to carve out an exclusive liability exemption, and its vote on the floor today is a giveback to the gun industry at a significant cost to the American people. Under this bill, manufacturers and sellers of firearms or ammunition will not be held accountable for even the most irresponsible distribution of weapons that kill innocent people, including police officers, children and bystanders of gang violence. While the wholesale prohibition against lawsuits may allow several exemptions, these exclusions overhaul years of legal negligence standards. I'm concerned that this bill for the gun industry sets an impractical legal standard for even the most reasonable litigation. In the Washington-area, we are particularly sensitive to gun violence. You may not all remember, but our nation was held captive for three weeks in October 2002 while two men systematically killed ten people and wounded three others with a sniper rifle obtained from an irresponsible gun dealer that ``lost'' over 200 other unaccounted for guns. The language in this bill is so restrictive that survivors of the victims would not have had any legal recourse against the company whose negligent business practices led to the deaths of their family. Under the bill, we are eliminating a powerful incentive for gun dealers to value accountability and keep guns out of the wrong hands. We are implicitly condoning their irresponsible behavior. I understand the desire to protect the American judicial system from what some people perceive as frivolous lawsuits. But gun manufacturers and sellers should not be able to write their own liability standard into law. We aren't debating a product that has an inconsequential impact on our nation. Almost 30,000 people in our country die from firearm injuries, murders, and suicides each year. According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, as recently as 2002, 2,893 young people were murdered by firearms. That accounts for the second leading cause of death for young people under 19 in the United States. Our economy even suffers from this senseless violence. From the loss of productivity, medical treatment and rehabilitation and legal costs, gun violence costs the U.S. at least $100 billion annually. Instead of putting forth a national plan to end this futile cycle of death, extending the ban on assault weapons, or even prohibiting people we know are on our own terrorist list from obtaining weapons, we are debating how to best shield the gun industry from accountability and responsibility. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate today that we are sending the wrong message to gun manufacturers and the worst of all possible messages to the public: We are not willing to put special interests aside to protect the American people.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, over 25 years, jazz enthusiasts in the Washington region have tuned to one program for their weekly jazz entertainment. Musicians such as Duke Ellington, Ina Ray Hutton, and the Boswell Sisters fill the radio waves every Saturday evening thanks to Rob Bamberger, creator, producer, and host of Hot Jazz Saturday Night. Rob Bamberger began as a volunteer for WAMU in 1978, where he presented the first of several features on jazz performers during the news show, Morning Line. Two years later, in 1980, he created his own show, Hot Jazz Saturday Night, which he has hosted ever since. Rob's passion and dedication goes on display every Saturday night for three hours as he shares his love for jazz, swing, and big band music with WAMU listeners. Rob's interest in vintage jazz and swing came at an early age. While at an elementary school book fair in 1963, he purchased, for a dime, a two-record set featuring broadcast performances by the Tommy Dorsey Orchestra. This seminal moment in young Rob's life sparked a consuming and scholarly fascination with American music from the '20s, '30s, and '40s and became the cornerstone of a record collection which fills the basement of his Arlington, Virginia home. By day, Rob Bamberger serves Congress as a senior policy analyst with the Congressional Research Service. While Rob takes great pride in his work with CRS, his true love becomes evident to listeners both locally and abroad through broadcasts on WAMU, NPR, and the Armed Forces Network. Over the years, Rob's passion for music has led him to give talks before audiences at the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, and the Cosmos, Maryland and University Clubs. When discussing topics ranging from, the history of repertory jazz, to the meeting of jazz and third stream of Hoagy Carmichael and Bix Beiderbecke, he clearly demonstrates not only his mastery of jazz history, but also his deep passion for this uniquely American art form. I would like to thank Rob for his efforts to keep jazz alive in the hearts of enthusiasts and casual listeners alike who find too few options today when they turn on the radio. As Rob states, and I quote, ``There are virtually no places left on radio where someone like me is given three hours weekly to program music free of focus-group driven playlists and to present it as I hope works best for listeners and artists who might otherwise be totally forgotten.'' Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate Rob for spending these past 25 years sharing his passion with us through the radio. Hot Jazz Saturday Night is the highlight of the week for many local and international jazz aficionados. With a large and loyal listener ship, I am confident that we will continue to hear Hot Jazz Saturday Night for many years to come.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that October 2-October 8 is Nuclear Medicine Week. Celebrated at hospitals, clinics, imaging centers, educational institutions, and corporations around the world the first full week of October each year, Nuclear Medicine Week encourages members of the nuclear medicine community to take pride in their profession. I am proud to note that the Society of Nuclear Medicine is headquartered in Reston, Virginia in my congressional district. The Society is an international scientific and professional organization of more than 15,000 members dedicated to promoting the science, technology, and practical application of nuclear medicine. I commend the Society staff and its professional members for their outstanding work and dedication to caring for people with cancer and other serious, life-threatening illnesses that are diagnosed, managed, and treated with medical isotopes via nuclear medicine procedures. Nuclear medicine is a medical specialty that involves the use of small amounts of medical isotopes called ``tracers'' to help diagnose and treat a variety of diseases. These tracers are introduced into the body by injection, swallowing, or inhalation. A special camera, called gamma camera, detects the medical isotope in the target organ, bone, or tissue and forms an image that provides data and information about the imaged area of the body. This is how nuclear medicine differs an x-ray, ultrasound or other diagnostic test--it determines the presence of disease based on function rather than anatomy. Nuclear medicine tests are safe and painless and often identify abnormalities very early in the progression of a disease--long before some medical problems are apparent through other diagnostic tests. This early detection allows a disease to be treated in its beginning stages, which significantly improves the odds of a successful outcome. An estimated 16 million nuclear medicine imaging and therapeutic procedures are performed on 20 million individuals each year in the United States. These procedures are a vital tool in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancers of the brain, breast, blood, bone, bone marrow, liver, lungs, pancreas, thyroid, ovaries, and prostate, as well as cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders such as stroke and Alzheimer's disease, and kidney disease. Some of the more frequently performed nuclear medicine procedures include: Bone scans to examine orthopedic injuries, fractures, tumors or unexplained bone pain. Heart scans to identify normal or abnormal blood flow to the heart muscle, measure heart function or determine the existence or extent of damage to the heart muscle after a heart attack. Breast scans that are used in conjunction with mammograms to more accurately detect and locate cancerous tissue in the breasts. Liver and gallbladder scans to evaluate liver and gallbladder function. Cancer imaging to detect tumors and determine the severity (staging) of various types of cancer. Treatment of thyroid diseases and certain types of cancer. Brain imaging to investigate problems within the brain itself or in blood circulation to the brain. Renal imaging in children to examine kidney function. Unfortunately, funding for nuclear medicine research is in jeopardy. The President's FY 2006 Budget cut the Medical Applications and Measurement Science, MAMS, Program at the Department of Energy, DOE, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, OBER, from $37 million to $14 million and earmarked the remaining funds for research unrelated to nuclear medicine. The DOE has funded nuclear medicine research for over 50 years. Fortunately, the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee restored $35 million for the MAMS Program, but the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill is silent on this matter. It is vital that this small but highly successful program receive funding at the House level in conference. The MAMS Program is directly responsible for the creation of positron emission tomography, PET, and current research projects will create the next generation imaging procedures that will save lives. I encourage my colleagues to support Nuclear Medicine Week and to support the House funding level for the MAMS Program so that our nation will continue to be at the cutting edge of life saving nuclear medicine and imaging research.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and this legislation. This legislation is a corruption of special energy interests, it displays an abject disregard for human health and the environment, and it fails completely to find consensus to address the impending energy crisis. Today, we have the opportunity to lead and help the people of this country in a genuine and lasting manner. Instead, we are turning our back on the people and are catering to the self-interests of the highest bidders. History will not look favorably on the actions of this administration and this Congress. Confirmation of this criticism is contained in today's rule. The rule corrects an overreach by some within the oil and gas and electric utility industries. It seems the majority could not muster the votes to perpetrate a complete gutting of the Clean Air Act's New Source Review provisions. Under the pretext of lowering the cost of building new refineries by waiving certain environmental laws designed to protect the public, a few bad electric utilities operators tried to hitch a ride and enact what they have been trying for years to achieve: enable their older coal-fired power plants to operate without adding modern emission controls to reduce harmful emissions. Given the refinery industry's high profits and cash reserves, I find it hard to believe that we need to endanger the public's health to increase refinery capacity, but why should electric utilities be granted the same exemption from the New Source Review provisions? Despite the full support of the Bush administration, the utility companies' goals have been blocked by the courts and enforcement actions by the Justice Department which has continued to uphold the law and prosecute violators. The bill approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee would have enabled refineries and utilities making physical changes that do not increase emissions above a maximum level the plant could have theoretically once emitted to be exempt from the New Source Review requirements. The late Senator John Chaffee, when crafting the New Source Review provisions, stated: [O]lder plants are operating well below their maximum capacity. To allow a refurbished utility to emit at its old potential levels could permit an almost twofold increase in emissions. * * * So this amendment could permit a powerplant, even one where its emissions directly affected a national park, for example, to refurbish or add a new boiler, to double its NO[x] and particulate emissions, triple its SO2 emissions and cover these SO2 emissions by purchasing allowances and never have to demonstrate what impact this would have on visibility or other air quality standards. Similarly, a powerplant * * * could increase emissions in one of these nonattainment areas and neither have to demonstrate air quality impacts nor be required to offset these increases of emissions as they are required to do under existing law. Beyond making it easier and cheaper to increase refining capacity and to prosecute for price gouging, what does this legislation do to wean our dependency from oil and from a growing worldwide shortage in oil? Nothing. In fact, this rule blocks us from even considering what is clearly one greatest opportunities to reduce the country's dependence of imported oil. My colleagues Representatives Boehlert and Markey had an amendment that this rule does not allow us to consider that would require auto manufacturers to improve the fuel efficiency of their automobiles by raising the Corporate Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) for SUVs and minivans. Had the current President's father adopted tougher CAFE standards, put us on a gradual path to 27 miles per gallon for light trucks and 34 gallons for cars, we would have displaced all oil we import from the Persian Gulf today. Of course we would still be importing oil from the Persian Gulf, but our economy and our transportation sector and today's auto manufacturers would not be reeling from the consequences of $60 barrels of oil and $3.00 gallons of gasoline. We are an oil-based economy, with about 60 percent of our oil imported from abroad. While coal, uranium and some renewable sources such as wind and hydro comprise a majority of the fuel used to generate electricity, most of our economy is dependent or exclusively reliant on oil, from fertilizers for agriculture, plastics for manufacturing to gasoline and diesel for transportation. You would think that, in light of world events and the vulnerabilities Hurricane Katrina and Rita illuminated, we would have a different bill. World oil supplies have tightened, the price of oil has shot up to over $60 a barrel and many of our foreign sources of oil, the Middle East, in particular, but Africa and Venezuela as well, have grown even less stable. This bill, while better than what was approved by the Energy and Commerce last week, is woefully deficient and heads our country in the wrong direction. It rushes us closer to the day oil shortages occur and sets us backward on our ability to address it. Oppose today's rule and oppose this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and particularly the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). Mr. Wiesenthal's living spirit must have soared to hear the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) speak on this resolution. Simon Wiesenthal spent most of his adult life in pursuit of justice, the justice that is achieved through accountability. And while many of us would like to believe that all people are at heart decent and God- fearing, the reality is that evil does exist among us. And it is that threat of justice being served, of people's deeds and people themselves being held accountable that in fact does deter evil, and thus is an instrument that we can use to reduce suffering and to save lives. And that is what Simon Wiesenthal's life's work was designed to do. I would like to just use some of his own words because I think they are fitting in the context of this resolution. He said: ``I am someone who seeks justice, not revenge.'' He said: ``When history looks back, I want people to know the Nazis were not able to kill millions of people and get away with it. This is a warning for the murderers of tomorrow that they will never rest. When we cannot through some action warn the murderers of tomorrow, then millions of people will die for nothing. And when we come to the other world and meet the millions of Jews who died in the camps and they ask us what have you done, there will be many answers but I will be able to say `I did not forget you.' '' And just one last thing. On the Austrian policeman who was arrested for the murder of Anne Frank because of Mr. Wiesenthal's dogged determination, he said: ``My most hard work, and I am very proud of this case, was to find the man who arrested Anne Frank. The Family Frank was like 10,000 other families, but Anne Frank became a symbol of the million murdered children. And I tell it to the father of Anne Frank, the diary of his daughter had a bigger impact than the entire Nuremberg trial. Why? Because people identified with the child. This was the impact of the Holocaust. This was a family like my family, like your family and so you could understand this.'' Simon Wiesenthal was a mere mortal human being. But his legacy and his lessons should be immortal for all our sakes.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this appropriations bill. As State and local governments await critical homeland security funding, I do not want to stand in the way of the bill's passage, particularly as we proceed further into the fiscal year with so few spending bills already law. I do, however, feel the need to register my concerns with a number of this bill's shortcomings and identify pressing needs that are not being adequately addressed by today's actions. First, let me start with the obvious; the amount spent to protect our homeland is too little in too many areas. There are few Americans that would suggest the threats of terrorism or natural disasters have diminished over the past year, yet this agreement cuts funding for several of our most vulnerable weaknesses. Reductions include: State and local domestic preparedness grants are cut by $585 million (19 percent) below FY 2005; Firefighter Assistance Grants cut by $60 million (8 percent) below FY 2005; Pre-disaster mitigation, perhaps our best weapon of preemption, is cut by $50 million below last year; and Aviation security is reduced by $83 million below the President's request, resulting in 2,000 fewer screeners. These cuts irresponsibly penetrate the core of our Nation's ability to prepare and respond to national emergencies. Second, I am concerned about what Congress isn't focused on. On an average weekday, 32 million people make trips on public transportation, but funding for transit security makes up less than one-half of one percent of the DHS's budget. The conference agreement includes $4.6 billion for private aviation security, but only $150 million for State grants to improve mass transit security. Transit industry experts estimate we need more than forty times this amount. Put another way we spend $30 on planes for every $1 on transit which carries tens of millions more people. Furthermore, only $8 million will be available for rail security and $4 million to track hazardous truck traffic even though tons of hazardous material capable of becoming weapons of mass destruction travel our highway and rail lines every day. While we have made obvious adjustments in our airline security, I ask that we be as proactive in preventing other commercial carriers from being used as weapons against us. If the concern is that there isn't a sound transit plan or that regional coordination is proving inadequate, we should impel DHS to find solutions that make transit more secure. It would be a national travesty of tragic proportions if we had to wait until another attack similar to Madrid to occur in the United States in order to commit the resources necessary to properly secure our rail and transit systems. Third, we haven't exercised sufficient oversight to determine whether the money we've appropriated has been spent appropriately or accomplished its intended objectives. I am aware of the large unexpended balance the Metropolitan Washington Region may be sitting on. Admittedly, this unaccounted-for balance is troubling. But what is more disturbing is that we have no consistent explanations: It's red tape and unnecessary Federal bureaucratic procedures, or it's the delay in reaching regional consensus on how it should be spent, or it's a snafu in procurement. I suspect that this region's experience is not unique. Remaining silent or stubbornly oblivious of these problems abdicates our responsibility to use tax dollars wisely, and we should demand accountability of our spending commitments. Mr. Speaker, I worry that we may be living on borrowed time. If there's one thing Katrina showed us it's that emergency response plans that are not rigorously tested and retested won't work in a crisis. Even worse, public skepticism is growing over whether the Federal Government is now capable of responding effectively to another catastrophic event. A natural disaster is one thing, but terrorists can strike anytime, anywhere and use our own resources against us. I urge my colleagues to consider fully funding the needs of securing our homeland, and I challenge us as a body to meet the vital challenge of protecting our Nation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, my friend, for yielding me this time. ``Shortsighted men, in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by the reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things.'' So said Republican President Theodore Roosevelt almost 100 years ago, and how relevant his remarks are today. If we cannot find a way to live in harmony and conserve our natural resources in a sustainable way, we humans may, too, be doomed to extinction. The Endangered Species Act is a litmus test on the degree to which we are willing to conserve our livable environment. To date this act has succeeded. Its success rate is 99 percent. Only 7 out of 1,200 species, according to Fish and Wildlife Service, have become extinct, and they became extinct because of their status before they were listed. There are problems with the Act that need to be addressed, but many of the changes embodied in this bill are not designed to fix the problems. They are designed to eviscerate the law. The proposal before us today will gut the law by making any recovery plan unenforceable and by creating a new compensation program for those who own land that may host a threatened or endangered species. We are a Nation of laws and constitutional rights, but where in the Constitution does it say property rights are an immutable and an open- ended entitlement? Where would we be as a Nation if the law did not allow reasonable government regulations of private property without payment of compensation if undertaken for the public good? That kind of regulation occurs every day in every State in every locality throughout the country. It occurs as a result of practically every regulatory statute we pass. It is a long-standing principle of the jurisprudence of our courts. But this bill turns that principle on its head, and in so doing it creates a very dangerous precedent that this body should not knowingly adopt. Section 13 of the bill establishes a new program of conservation aid; and under this program the government must provide compensation to landowners whenever an ESA restriction prevents a particular use of property, regardless of the fact that other uses of the property remain and those uses are very valuable. This new aid program, therefore, requires the payment of compensation to landowners even though no governmental taking of their property has occurred. And rather than compensation being required where a restriction essentially strips property of all of its valuable uses, the standard under the takings clause, which exists today, this bill requires compensation whenever a restriction prevents a single use of property. It is a standard for compensation that goes far beyond the standard imposed under the Constitution's ``taking'' clause, and it does not exist in any other Federal statute. If enacted, this bill will set a very dangerous precedent that could lead to the insertion of similar provisions in other environmental and regulatory statutes. It has to be rejected. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, I know that there are some problems with the implementation of this Act. The current ``critical habitat'' designation needs to be revised and should be established later in the process during the development of species recovery plans. In that regard, the approach taken by the substitute put together by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and others is the right way to go and should be adopted. Mr. Chairman, Federal land belongs to all of us. The Endangered Species Act is a vehicle through which we can conserve our land and balance the needs of all against the short-term and destructive interests of the few. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, but strongly support the substitute.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the provisions contained in the Justice Department authorization bill that relate to the Violence Against Women Act. It is fitting that we are considering this measure today, as yesterday this body passed H. Con. Res. 209, which will designate October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The Violence Against Women Act was first authorized in 1994. Since that time, the rate of family violence has dropped from 5.4 to 2.1 victims per 1,000 U.S. residents over the age of 12. These provisions expand upon the many successes of the Violence Against Women Act since its inception. They will enhance the civil and criminal response to violence against women, will improve services and outreach to victims, and will provide additional resources for sexual assault victims through rape crisis centers and State coalitions. I am also pleased that provisions in this Act will address the needs of victims from communities of color, and which aid immigrant and tribal victims have been strengthened. However, I am concerned that the manager's amendment will strike the phrase ``ethnic and racial'' from several sections in the bill, which will have the effect of specific racial and ethnic communities not having their specific concerns addressed. This amendment should be rejected, thereby helping to ensure that racial and ethnic minority women will have their safety needs met through culturally-appropriate services. By leaving the language as it stands, the Violence Against Women Act will ensure that racial and ethnic minority women will have their safety needs met through culturally appropriate services. Rejecting the amendment also will ensure that culturally specific, community-based organizations will have the opportunity to access Federal funds that address domestic violence, sexual violence and other social ills. Two years ago, I was pleased to support a Federal earmark for Communities Against Domestic Violence, a worthwhile organization in Northern Virginia which provides public awareness and education programs designed to discourage domestic violence in the Hispanic, Vietnamese and Korean communities. Finally, I would like to pay tribute to my constituents from the local offices on Women in the city of Alexandria and Fairfax County, Arlington County's Domestic Violence Services and Violence Intervention Program and the numerous non-profit organizations which work to address domestic violence issues and break this devastating and destructive cycle of violence. I urge all my colleagues to oppose the manager's amendment, and to support the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the School Readiness Act which will reauthorize the Head Start program, but this measure will not get my vote if the amendment allowing for religious discrimination is adopted by this House. I think that we can all agree that this is not a perfect bill, though it is certainly an improvement over the Headstart reauthorization bill that the 108th Congress considered. As a former mayor of the city of Alexandria, Virginia, I know just how important Head Start programs are to communities because they help to provide our low-income preschool-aged children much needed services such as child development, educational, health, nutritional activities which help them receive greater advantages in life. More importantly, these programs help to level the playing field for disadvantaged children and prepare them for school. In addition to the educational services that are provided by Head Start programs, some of the other services include health screenings, such as dental and eye care. Statistics have shown that children who receive these crucial services, along with a hot breakfast every morning, have increased their readiness for school. In my congressional district, one of the most successful Head Start programs is the Alexandria Head Start. This is a collaboration that the Campaign Center, the city of Alexandria and the Alexandria City Public Schools system formed about 37 years ago. AHS serves over 250 Head Start children and because of a wonderful group of dedicated educators and involved parents, these children are truly getting a ``head start.'' I am pleased that many of my low-income constituents are served by Head Start programs. I am concerned, however, that the School Readiness Act's authorized funding levels, with limitations, will allow less than one-half of the eligible preschoolers, to participate in Head Start. Unfortunately the cost of the Iraq war and massive tax cuts have produced a fiscal crisis which now translates into the under-funding of critical programs like Head Start and others focused on our low-income citizens. I am saddened that so many children, who truly would benefit from participation in a Head Start program, will not be given a chance of doing so, and as a result, will be far less likely to reach their true potential. Another area of concern in this bill relates to teacher quality. The School Readiness Act will require that half of the Head Start teachers nationwide have at least a B.A. in child development or a related field by 2011, and that all new teachers, beginning three years after the enactment of the bill have at least an associate's degree or be enrolled in a program to achieve an associate's degree. While I certainly agree that our Head Start teachers should be highly educated, however, unless additional funding is provided for increased salaries, it will be extremely difficult for Head Start programs to attract and more importantly, retain the highly educated teachers the bill requires. Why would someone who is interested in being a teacher and possesses the education and background the bill requires, choose to make $25,000 a year as a Head Start teacher instead of $41,000 as a kindergarten teacher for a school system that provides its teaches with cost-of- living adjustments? The non-profit Trust for Early Education said it best in a recent report, ``If we do not provide appropriate compensation for our pre- kindergarten teachers, they will leave the pre-kindergarten classroom.'' The School Readiness Act needs to provide Head Start programs with the financial ability to recruit and retain our Nation's brightest teachers to educate our Nation's most disadvantaged. I am also adamantly opposed to the Boustany amendment. If a Head Start program is being administered by a faith-based institution and it is receiving federal funding for the program, it must not be permitted to discriminate on religious grounds when making employment decisions. It is as simple as that. Head Start teachers and workers not only provide cognitive development services to children; they help in the development of children's character. Most preschoolers have a strong sense of right from wrong. This will be setting a confusing example if we authorize discrimination of any kind. This amendment is opposed by every credible anti-discrimination an civil rights protection organization, and I ask my colleagues to oppose it. It was once said that ``Education is the great equalizer in a democratic society, and if people are not given access to a quality education, then what we are doing is creating an underclass of people who will ultimately challenge our very way of life.'' While I recognize the shortcomings of the School Readiness Act, it is a worthwhile effort that will help our low-income children by working to level a very un-level playing field, so they will be prepared and successful in school.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the School Readiness Act which will reauthorize the Head Start program, but this measure will not get my vote if the amendment allowing for religious discrimination is adopted by this House. I think that we can all agree that this is not a perfect bill, though it is certainly an improvement over the Head Start reauthorization bill that the 108th Congress considered. As a former Mayor of the city of Alexandria, Virginia, I know just how important Head Start programs are to communities. They help to provide our low-income preschool-aged children much needed services in the area of child development. These educational, health and nutritional activities help them receive greater opportunities in life. More importantly, these programs help to level the playing field for disadvantaged children by preparing them for public school. In addition to the educational services that are provided by Head Start programs, some of the other services include health screenings, such as dental and eye care. Statistics have shown that children who receive these crucial services, along with a hot breakfast every morning, have increased their readiness for school. In my congressional district, one of the most successful Head Start programs is the Alexandria Head Start. This is a collaboration that the Campagna Center, the City of Alexandria and the Alexandria City Public Schools system formed about 37 years ago. AHS serves over 250 Head Start children and because of a wonderful group of dedicated educators and involved parents, these children are truly getting a ``head start.''. I am pleased that many of my low-income constituents are served by Head Start programs. I am concerned, however, that the School Readiness Act's authorized funding levels, with limitations, will allow less than one-half of the eligible preschoolers to participate in Head Start. Unfortunately the cost of the Iraq war and massive tax cuts have produced a fiscal crisis which now translates into the under-funding of critical programs like Head Start and others focused on our low-income citizens. I am saddened that so many children, who truly would benefit from participation in a Head Start program, will not be given a chance of doing so, and as a result, will be far less likely to reach their true potential. Another area of concern in this bill relates to teacher quality. The School Readiness Act will require that half of the Head Start teachers nationwide have at least a B.A. in child development or a related field by 2011, and that all new teachers, beginning three years after the enactment of bill have at least an associate's degree or be enrolled in a program to achieve an associate's degree. While I certainly agree that our Head Start teachers should be highly educated. However, unless additional funding is provided for increased salaries, it will be extremely difficult for Head Start programs to attract and more importantly, retain the highly educated teachers the bill requires. Why would someone who is interested in being a teacher and possesses the education and background the bill requires, choose to make $25,000 a year as a Head Start teacher instead of $41,000 as a kindergarten teacher for a school system that provides its teachers with cost-of- living adjustments? The non-profit Trust for Early Education said it best in a recent report, ``If we do not provide appropriate compensation for our pre- kindergarten teachers, they will leave the pre-kindergarten classroom.'' The School Readiness Act needs to provide Head Start programs with the financial ability to recruit and retain our nation's brightest teachers to educate our nation's most disadvantaged. I am also adamantly opposed to the Boustany amendment. If a Head Start program is being administered by a faith-based institution and it is receiving federal funding for the program, it must not be permitted to discriminate on religious grounds when making employment decisions. It is as simple as that. Head Start teachers and workers not only provide cognitive development services to children; they help in the development of just as importantly, they aid them in their character development skills. Most preschoolers have a strong sense of right from wrong. This will be setting a confusing example if we authorize discrimination of any kind. This amendment is opposed by every credible anti-discrimination and civil rights protection organization, and I ask my colleagues to oppose it. It was once said that ``Education is the great equalizer in a democratic society, and if people are not given access to a quality education, then what we are doing is creating an underclass of people who will ultimately challenge our very way of life.'' While I recognize the shortcomings of the School Readiness Act, it is a worthwhile effort that will help our low-income children by working to level a very un-level playing field, so they will be prepared and successful in school.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Campagna Center, the leading nonprofit human services organization in the city of Alexandria, Virginia. For 60 years, the Campagna Center has served low-income citizens in my district, providing both Early Head Start and Head Start programs to over 300 income-eligible families. The center also provides child care, tutoring, and mentoring programs to school-aged children, and meaningful volunteer opportunities to older members of my district. The work of organizations like the Campagna Center is crucial to the development of children who come from lower-income households, offering the opportunity to truly level the playing field for these children and prepare them for school. The programs offered at the Campagna Center include early childhood education, as well as health and nutritional services. The Campagna Center, however, recognizes that family is the most important influence in a child's life, and parents and other family members are strongly encouraged to be active contributors to these programs. Recognition of this wonderful organization is especially poignant as this body debates HR 2123, School Readiness Act of 2005. It has been said that Education is the great equalizer in a democratic society, and we must ensure that programs like these continue to receive the funding required to help children achieve. The impact of Head Start programs is not measured in dollars, but in the faces of children who finally have the opportunity to excel in their education. The Campagna Center has provided such opportunities to students in my home district, and the impact on these children is significant. I congratulate the Board of Directors, staff members, and all of the selfless volunteers that make this organization such a success. Under their leadership, hundreds of young children go to school prepared for the challenges that lie before them.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of MG Mary L. Saunders. General Saunders has served her country for more than 34 years and will retire from the United States Air Force on October 1, 2005. General Saunders was born in Nacogdoches, TX, and grew up in Houston. She was commissioned as an officer in the Air Force after earning a bachelor's degree from Texas Woman's University in 1970, and served in a variety of assignments during her military career, excelling in key logistical positions. The general made her mark on Air Force logistics in a variety of transportation squadron, air terminal operations, and contingency plans staff positions. In August 1996, General Saunders was selected as the director of Transportation, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Installations and Logistics, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC. In 2004, the Department of Defense, in recognition of her superb organizational skills, appointed the general as the vice director of the Defense Logistics Agency, DLA, Fort Belvoir, VA. From early in her career, General Saunders' exceptional leadership abilities were evident to both superiors and subordinates as she repeatedly proved herself in select command positions. These include serving as deputy commander and commander, Military Air Traffic Coordinating Office, Military Traffic Management Command, McGuire AFB, NJ; commander, 475th Transportation Squadron, Yokota Air Base, Japan; and commander, Defense Supply Center, Columbus, OH. During her long service as a logistics expert, General Saunders was a crucial voice for critical Air Force policy and programs, always providing clear, concise and timely counsel to her service's senior leaders. Her later role in the joint service arena proved invaluable to the Department of Defense as she led a variety of logistics, acquisition, and technical services for DLA in times of peace and conflict. Always, the general put a human face to the Air Force's core values of integrity first, service before self and excellence in all we do. Her increasingly responsible positions and public recognition bear this out. I am especially pleased to note that upon her retirement, General Saunders plans to return to her home State of Texas to continue her life of service at her alma mater. In January 2006, she will become the executive director of the Leadership Institute at Texas Woman's University at Denton. As General Saunders transitions from her role as a military leader to a community leader, we wish her great health and happiness. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in expressing my heartfelt appreciation for her many years of service. I am confident in the years ahead, Mary Saunders will continue to leave her indelible mark on our country.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exceptional contributions of Rita Balian, a humanitarian activist and community leader who has worked tirelessly on behalf of women and children in the United States and Armenia. Ever since the earthquake in Armenia in 1988, Ms. Balian has dedicated her time, talent and expertise to help the people of Armenia. She has realized many projects in support of women, schools, and universities. Since 1996, she has concentrated her efforts on women's health, taking American technology, management skills and medical expertise to Armenia. She is the founder, president and chief executive officer of the Armenian American Cultural Association (AACA), a non-profit charitable organization incorporated in 1995 in Arlington, Virginia. Through AACA, Ms. Balian established the Armenian American Wellness Center in Yerevan, a humanitarian project dedicated to saving, prolonging, and improving the lives of women through the early and accurate detection of breast and cervical cancer and to providing primary health care services to ensure the good health and well-being of families in Armenia. To facilitate the Wellness Center's work, Ms. Balian partnered the Center with seven major U.S. medical institutions. Since the Wellness Center's establishment in 1997, it has screened over 60,000 women and saved the lives of over 1,500 through the early detection of life-threatening illnesses. Ms. Balian has dedicated herself to expanding the services offered at the Wellness Center and providing increased access to those services. The Center has added protocols in gynecology, family medicine, and pathology and reaches out to Armenians living in rural areas through monthly outreach missions and the establishment of two satellite clinics. Along with her work on behalf of the Wellness Center, Ms. Balian's accomplishments also include the establishment of a sister-city program between the cities of Gyumri, Armenia and Alexandria, Virginia. She co- chaired the Alexandria/Gyumri Sister City Committee for six years, organized several municipal, cultural and educational exchanges and established the Alexandria Armenian Day Festival, which is now an annual celebration. Through her work with the Armenian General Benevolence Union (AGBU), the largest and oldest Armenian philanthropic organization in the world, Mrs. Balian and her husband cofounded the AGBU New York Summer Intern Program for Armenian college students from around the world. She continues to manage the intern program, which is now in its nineteenth year. She has received many awards in recognition of her work with the Wellness Center; most notably the ``Spirit of Life Cancer Advocacy Award'' in September 2003 from the International Spirit of Life Foundation and the Washington Cancer Institute, the ``Outstanding Citizen Achievement A ward'' from the United States Agency for International Development in January 2003, and the Armenian Church's highest medal of honor, the St. Nersess Shnorhali Medal, bestowed upon her through a Pontifical Encyclical by His Holiness, the Catholicos Karekin II, in October 2001. The Armenian people have acknowledged Ms. Balian's humanitarian work as well. She has received honorary doctoral degrees from three different universities in Armenia, and in April 1996, Rita and her husband, Vartkess Balian, became honorary citizens of the Republic of Armenia through a special presidential decree presented to them at the Armenian Embassy in Washington, DC. She has also been honored by the United Nations for her advocacy on behalf of women's and children's rights and by the American Red Cross for her leadership in obtaining humanitarian assistance for the victims of the 1988 earthquake in Armenia. Since March of 2004, Ms. Balian has served as a member of Governor Warner's Virginia/Armenia Advisory Commission. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the numerous accomplishments of Rita Balian. Her dedication to the people of Armenia and her efforts to increase international understanding reflect a deep sense of purpose and remarkable ability to achieve difficult and worthy goals. Her work serves as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of Dr. Marie V. McDemmond, immediate past president of Norfolk State University and the 2005 Forever Upward award designee for her service and dedication to the cause of higher education in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Dr. McDemmond retired from Norfolk State University as president earlier this year, and while her indelible leadership skills will be sorely missed by all, I am pleased that Marie has chosen to continue to continue to serve NSU by teaching. Dr. Marie McDemmond made great strides in 1997 when she began her presidency at Norfolk State University by not only being the first woman to lead the university, but also the first African-American woman to head a public, 4-year institution of higher education in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Under her leadership, Norfolk State University has developed into a vibrant institution with cutting edge programs and operations, and is poised to be a leader in information technologies and other fields that significantly contribute to our Nation's economy. Under Dr. McDemmond's leadership, Norfolk State University's reputation as a leading minority-serving institution has soared. Dr. McDemmond's vision has also helped to bridge both the digital divide and opportunity divide at several Historically Black colleges and other universities. Her innovative style, while working with other leading educators and government officials, contributed to these great successes will benefit the entire higher education community for many years to come. I am pleased to rise in honor Dr. Marie McDemmond, a true education leader who embodies Norfolk State University's creed of ``Achieving with Excellence.''

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a lifetime commitment of service to the United States of America. On October 14th, 2005, Major General Daniel G. Mongeon of Alexandria, Virginia will retire after 34 years of dedicated service in the United States Army. General Mongeon was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Quartermaster Corps through the Reserve Officers Training Corps program at the University of Arizona, where he earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Public Administration and was designated a Distinguished Military Graduate. Thereafter he received his Master's degree in Logistics Management from the University of Arkansas. His military education includes the Quartermaster Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, the Command and General Staff College, and the Army War College. After commissioning and initial training, his initial assignments included a posting as Logistics Officer for the United States Army Security Agency's Communication Unit at Camp Drake, Japan. From there he transferred in December 1972 to Camp Zama, Japan where he was Executive Officer for the U.S. Army Garrison and subsequently as Welfare/Sundry Funds Division Chief and Installation Club Manager. From 1978 to 1984 he served as the Division Services Officer, Property Book Officer and finally Commander, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, of the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) at Fort Carson, Colorado. After completing graduate school he was transferred to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, United States Army. There he served initially as a Logistics Staff Officer and then as Assistant Executive Officer. He ended his tour on the Army Staff with an appointment as Military Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics. In 1985 he was transferred to United States Army Europe and 7th Army where he was the S-3 (Operations) and later Executive Officer of the 203rd Forward Support Battalion. In July 1987 he was transferred to Headquarters 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) to be the Deputy G-4 (Logistics). In January 1988 he was selected for the position as Aide- de-Camp to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). In February of 1990 he assumed command of the Support Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Bliss, Texas. From there he deployed with his unit to Operation Desert Shield and the first Gulf War-- Operation Desert Storm. Following a year of study at the Army War College, he again transferred overseas to United States Army South and assumed command of the 41st Area Support Group in Panama. In July 1995 he returned to Washington and joined the Joint Staff, initially as Deputy Director for Logistics, Readiness, and Requirements and then as Executive Officer to the Director of Logistics J-4. In September of 1997 he was designated Special Assistant to the Director for Logistics, J-4. He was promoted to rank of Brigadier General and assumed command of the Defense Logistics Agency's Defense Supply Center Philadelphia in 1998. From there he again returned to the Army Staff to be the Director of Sustainment in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics. He was then transferred to Headquarters United States Army Forces Command at Fort McPherson, Georgia to become the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4. Major General Mongeon entered into his current assignment Director of Logistics Operation J-3, Defense Logistics Agency in October of 2003 where he has been able to bring his wealth of experience and singular talents to bear on solving some of the most intricate sustainment challenges faced by our nation's military establishment. His tireless and selfless dedication to serving his country is represented by the many decorations he has earned including the Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Defense Superior Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Legion of Merit with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Commendation Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Army Achievement Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, two awards of the Joint Meritorious Unit Award, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge, and the Army Staff Identification Badge. In closing I wish to commend General Mongeon for his many years of distinguished service to our nation, protecting our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I wish him and his wife, Schele, Godspeed in his retirement.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, many people responded admirably and effectively in New Orleans and throughout the Gulf Coast. But the fact is that a natural disaster was turned into a human travesty because of incompetence, disorganization, and misplaced priorities. And the answer does not lie in the firing of Michael Brown. It has been apparent to many who have watched what has happened within the Department of Homeland Security that FEMA has been unvalued within this administration, and as a result became a dumping ground for political hacks. The fact is that 75 percent of FEMA's money has had to go to terrorism-related situations, such as paying overtime for TSA airport screeners, which means that preparation for the possibility of flooding in New Orleans or an earthquake in San Francisco get very low priority. In fact, we are not even preparing adequately now for an earthquake in San Francisco when two out of three of FEMA's highest priorities have already occurred with New York and New Orleans. Mr. Speaker, another natural tragedy cannot be allowed to become another human travesty. We have to get into the guts of this organization, weed out the incompetents and fund it adequately and appropriately.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues from Virginia, Maryland, D.C., Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey to introduce legislation recognizing the importance of a national memorial at the Pentagon to commemorate and mourn the terrorist attack against the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This legislation is modeled after a resolution (H. Res. 175) my friend and colleague from New York introduced earlier this year in support of efforts to create a September 11, 2001 memorial at the site of World Trade Center. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 4th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it is appropriate that we establish memorials at the sites of these attacks to honor the victims. On that fateful day four years ago, the 59 victims of American Airlines Flight 77 and 125 military personnel and Defense Department employees at the Pentagon died and scores more were injured in a dastardly and unprovoked attack against the American people. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have joined the pantheon of national tragedies and become a defining moment in United States history. These attacks of September 11, 2001 affected all Americans, not only for the tragic loss of life, but also for its emotional toll on our public conscience. Two-thirds of Americans report that the attacks had a great emotional impact on them, and virtually all Americans can recall precisely where they were and what they were doing when they learned of the attacks. And while all of us were beset by the tragic loss of life and untold suffering, we found solace in the inspiring and heroic actions taken by the crew and passengers of Flight 93 and by the firefighters, police officers, rescue workers, military personnel and ordinary citizens who raced to the scene of these attacks and saved lives, keeping the attacks from taking an even greater toll. It was a tragic day, but a defining moment in our nation's history. I applaud the efforts of those who have worked to build the memorials to honor and commemorate the fallen and to acknowledge the impact the horrific attacks have had on all of us. I encourage my colleagues and those listening to support these memorials and urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, our Nation failed its people last week. There was a violation of the trust that the American people have a right to vest in their government. The importance of that trust cannot be overstated. It is why we let our sons and daughters go to foreign lands to fight wars. It is why we pay our taxes. It is why we obey official laws and orders. But last week this trust was breached. Whether it is because we are not used to seeing poverty so visible or the results of institutional racism so stark or because of just pure incompetence, it was criminal to abandon thousands and thousands of men and women, mothers and children and grandparents to rot in the squalor of complete government neglect. There has to be an immediate, rigorous and harsh determination of accountability for this criminal neglect. But there must also be a response worthy of a great and prosperous and noble Nation. A person of the caliber of a Colin Powell, perhaps, must be given singular authority and responsibility to resettle when necessary, to rebuild where possible, and to return eventually New Orleans to its status as one of America's great cities. The people of New Orleans are asking for no more and the American people should demand no less.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers are with the families and individuals devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Reports that displaced residents in New Orleans and other parts of the Gulf Coast are unable to receive medical attention and basic supplies are truly horrible. This is an unacceptable situation for the wealthiest country in the world. The conditions are desperate and the full force of the Federal Government must be turned towards helping those in need. The Federal Government is prepared to provide an unprecedented level of disaster assistance, starting today with a $10.5 billion emergency aid package. The recovery effort has raised several issues that must be addressed. First, once the immediate need for medical assistance, food and other resources is met, the massive job of providing housing in different communities throughout the country for the thousands of displaced victims must be undertaken. This will require an unprecedented level of coordination between federal, state and local governments and the private sector. Also, decisions must be made in terms of the reconstruction of the areas most devastated, in a manner that ensures that a tragedy of this magnitude will not repeat itself. Second, the alleged unwillingness of the federal personnel assigned to the disaster to use the resources available to them in a timely fashion must be investigated. The fact that there was one instance of a military helicopter being fired upon is not an excuse for helicopters not to land or buses not to transport people. Questions with regard to class, race and discriminatory attitudes must be addressed in a candid and constructive manner. Third, the personnel and agencies responsible for responding to this disaster are the same as the nation would call on in the event of a terrorist attack. Their present response, in the President's words, has been unacceptable and inexcusable. We must ensure that future responses are dramatically different. In the coming days and weeks ahead, I encourage every American to consider volunteering to help our fellow citizens in this time of great need. My offices have received hundreds of phone calls from constituents who are eager to help in anyway possible, and this will allow the generosity of the human spirit to prevail.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise because what the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), my friend, has said is terribly important to be said. And what is even more important is that it be made available to the public at large. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, appropriate, to inform the gentleman and the rest of the Congress who may not be aware that the elements of the strategy for success, the identical language which the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), has requested in the form of an amendment, has actually been included in an appropriations bill, the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill, passed earlier this year. That language was included in an amendment that I submitted to the Iraq supplemental bill. It also included the benchmarks that the gentleman has suggested, as well as even more specific information. We have received that report on the strategy for success, Mr. Speaker. The most important elements of that report, in fact though, were included in an addendum which was classified. And so I and those who have seen the report are not at liberty to give the kind of specific information that at least I feel should be shared with the American public. But I would like to address what was in the body of the report, which does in part respond to the very specific questions, as to Iraq's military capability, its economic viability, and its political stability. The American people need to know whether in fact Iraq will ever be able to fully control its borders and provide security for its society and its economy. And we need to know how successful we have been in training and equipping Iraqi forces, because we have been working at that for more than 2 years. The American people also need to know what has happened to the tens of billions of dollars that we have appropriated for economic reconstruction. Will Iraq ever be or is even close to being economically viable? Is its physical infrastructure in place so that its economy can rebound in a way that will provide economic opportunities for its population? The American people also need to know, in addition to where Iraq is in terms of military capabilities and economic viability, how stable its government can ever be and at what point will the decisionmakers, the policymakers in Washington decide that its governance is stable enough to be able to return Iraq over to a democracy that is worthy of our military efforts. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this war. I voted against it. I voted against most of the funding for it. I did vote for the Iraq supplemental because it included this language that I felt was vitally important, requiring what, while we do not call it an exit strategy, is certainly appropriately entitled ``a strategy for success.'' That language was included and could only have been included if it was offered in a bipartisan, nonpolitical context, without a whole lot of fanfare. But working with the majority we could get some answers to the questions that the American people, our constituents, are asking. We did not have those questions answered when we went to war. I opposed the war because I felt that it was unjustified. I knew that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. Suggestions to the contrary were a ruse. The reasons given were at best unjustified; at worst, deliberately deceptive. I also opposed it because as our senior military officers will tell you we ought not go to war without a plan to win the peace. We had no plan to win the peace. And, in fact, the 41st President of the United States, George Bush, when he had the opportunity to go into Baghdad and take out Saddam when we had Saddam's Republican Guard on the run, he chose not to do so because his advisors, understanding the country, acting with foresight and knowledge of the political context within the Middle East, were afraid that we would be thrust into the role of an occupier. And they knew, and I think were absolutely right, that the United States should never be playing the role of an occupier, but always that of a liberator. So they chose not to go to Baghdad. The son chose differently with very different people advising him, and I think for different reasons. But now that we are in Iraq, what do we do? That is what senior military officers are asking us. And it is certainly what the mothers and fathers of the young men and women who are fighting this war are demanding to know. They need to know what is our strategy. How long will we be there? How much more money is absolutely necessary to continue this military engagement? And they are getting none of those answers. Unfortunately, I cannot disclose any of the specific information that has now been provided, but I certainly can share, at least with my constituents, the fact that in my judgment we are nowhere near being able to withdraw a substantial number of our troops in a responsible manner because, in my judgment, the Iraqi military is nowhere near being able to secure its borders. The Iraqi police forces are nowhere near being able to restore law and order in that country. The economic infrastructure is nowhere near being able to support a viable economy. And even the government is nowhere near being able to pass a Constitution that not just would be acceptable to the American people who have sacrificed so much to bring it about, but it is not even in the situation where it would be enduring and accepted by the vast majority of the Iraqi people. Mr. Speaker, we are in a quagmire here. We need answers. We need answers from the people who put us in that quagmire. It is wrong to continue to be sending troops to a war that is this unwinnable, Mr. Speaker. Now, I suspect what is going to happen, and it was further confirmed yesterday by the Secretary and by some of the senior military officers who have been in a consultation with them, that we will start a substantial withdrawal. But I think that withdrawal, I feel that withdrawal will be motivated more for political reasons than for military or foreign policy reasons. We have our fist in the middle of a beehive, and we are getting stung. The advisors that sent us there are not getting stung because they figure they can say or do anything to avoid repercussions and accountability. But, boy, our young men and women are being stung every day. We need to figure out how to extricate in a way that is responsible and will justify their sacrifice. We cannot cut and run. And yet the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), one of the most respected Members of the House, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, is afraid and, in fact, predicts that is what we will do, and we will do it for political reasons, not for substantive policy reasons. We need to get more countries involved in a real way, not in a way so that with a few troops they can list their participation. We need to go through international bodies like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. We need to work with the United Nations, which we continue to bash and beat up on and scapegoat for our own problems in terms of our credibility throughout the world. We need to get the rest of the world involved because the rest of the world had a stake here in getting rid of a ruthless dictator, in restoring stability in Iraq, in giving Iraq some ability to seize control of its own destiny, but in a way that it chooses. That is what we should be about. We should not be about, in my estimate, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build an American Embassy in Baghdad that only serves to confirm what our enemies are telling their recruits, that we are there for the long run; that we are there as occupiers; that we are there to take advantage of their oil reserves; to exploit Iraq's resources, and to exploit its people for our own political purposes. They are wrong, but we have to prove that they are wrong. We have to show the world that we have a strategy for success, a responsible one. It will leave Iraq in better shape than before we entered it. We never, as I said, should have entered, but now we have a responsibility to fix it before we leave. And that strategy for success, as I say, Mr. Speaker, is not going to be achieved unilaterally. It is going to have to be achieved by working with the rest of the world in an international context, letting the Iraqi people control their own destiny, not dictating to them. As much as I would love for us to hand them a Constitution that made us feel good about what we have accomplished, I do not think that is going to work. They have to own that Constitution. I pray to God that they will not exclude women, that they will not continue some of the arcane habits, the laws and the regulations that only serve to support religious clerics and a very conservative, even extremist in some cases, religious system of governance, but, in fact, will open it up to a true democracy where both men and women can fully participate a free enterprise, an uncorrupted economy, and, in fact, a strong military and police force that will provide the security to the Iraqi people that they have not had in generations. That has got to be our objective. We cannot achieve it on our own. We have got to work with the rest of the world. We have got to sit down and maybe even eat a little humble pie and come up with an international solution for this, and to not require our soldiers to bear the brunt of the injuries and the death that they have. Changing Iraq's leadership was more in the interest of so many other countries than it was in America's interest. We went because we had the ability to go, and I am afraid there was some political motivation involved as well. But now that we are there, we in the Congress need to require of the executive branch that they give us the answers, that they share with us and then to the American people, they need to share with the American people what is their plan, what is their strategy for success. And if they do not do that, there will be political accountability as there ought to be. Mr. Speaker, the report that we received 2 weeks late, but that we did finally receive 2 weeks ago, is an important first step, but it is grossly inadequate. The language that I put in the appropriations bill several months ago required a 90-day update. Every one of those updates needs to be more specific, needs to be fleshed out better than the prior reports. And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it needs to be shared with the American public. It is their money. It is their sons and daughters. That is what this war, unfortunately, is about, from their standpoint. How do you make this worth the effort? How do you succeed in a way that their sons and daughters can be proud of what they contributed and the risk they undertook? The administration owes that to them. We will continue to insist that it provides that information, not in a classified document that can be kept from the public's eyes and ears, but within a spirit of full disclosure. And if they do not have a plan that will work, they need to come up with one. They need to consult with the rest of the world, be willing to work with the legislative branch, with our other allies and even those we do not consider allies. It is in this planet's interest to bring about a free world, a safe world for its future generations. So I ask the administration that has been twice elected to do the right thing, to get us out of Iraq, but to get us out in a way that we can turn back knowing that we have accomplished something that was deserving of the sacrifice, the loss, the risk that our best young men and women have been willing to undertake.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 40th anniversary of one of our nation's most vital and successful social programs: Medicare. To this day, it remains one of the greatest accomplishments, providing near universal coverage to America's most vulnerable citizens. Since its inception in 1965, Medicare has drastically reduced the number of Americans living below the poverty line, and considerably reduced the financial burden on seniors and their families. The program has increased life expectancy among Americans, giving minorities greater access to health care, and given individuals with disabilities access to health care that was never previously available. All the while, this program has operated efficiently with our tax dollars. Administrative costs average less than two percent of expenditures, a fraction of what private insurance companies spend on such costs. Yet while we have seen remarkable success in the last 40 years, we must ensure that the mission of Medicare is carried on through this new century. So far, this Congress has fallen woefully short. The Republican majority pushed through the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 to provide prescription drug coverage to American seniors. A noble idea, but this law falls far short of the universal coverage and prohibits the government from using common sense negotiation strategies to keep drug costs low. As future generations reflect on the legacy of this Congress, in many respects it will be shaped by the commitments--rather than the rhetoric--that we make to our seniors. Medicare is a program that offers stability and hope for millions. It is our responsibility to continue the strong history Medicare has built. Let's give America's seniors the drug and medical coverage that they deserve.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 40th anniversary of Medicaid on July 30, I want to underscore the importance of Medicaid to children and adults with serious illnesses. Medicaid is a public health insurance program that helps 52 million low-income and disabled Americans, including 540,000 Virginians, stay healthy. Nationally, half of Medicaid enrollees are children. Medicaid is particularly important to people with serious illnesses. Medicaid can be the only way to pay for care. Many people with serious illnesses must turn to Medicaid for several reasons. Many insurance policies have a lifetime upper limit of $1 or $2 million. Approximately 51 percent or 87.5 million people with employer-based insurance have a lifetime cap, according to a 2004 Kaiser Family Foundation survey. Many private insurance plans impose pre-existing condition and other exclusions and refuse to insure people with serious illnesses and disabilities. Many working Americans do not have job-based health insurance because their employers do not offer it. The cost of individual health insurance policies is often out of reach. And most Americans are too young for Medicare. A serious, chronic illness can be emotionally and financially devastating. While we have made great strides in treating cancer today, everyone fears cancer. In 2004, 1.4 million new cases of cancer were diagnosed. In 2005, 34,000 Virginians will have cancer, says the American Cancer Society. Since 1990, over 18 million new cancer cases have been diagnosed nationwide and 9.6 million Americans are alive today with a history of cancer. Some cancer drugs can reach $300,000 a year. Hospitalization, chemotherapy, bone marrow transplants, and other treatments can be very expensive and people with insurance can reach the lifetime limit of their policy quickly. Consider also the example of hemophilia. For the typical hemophilia patient, clotting factor to prevent bleeding, needed for a lifetime, can cost $250,000 each year, according to the National Hemophilia Foundation. Look at cystic fibrosis. The care for a person with moderate cystic fibrosis can climb to $70,000 a year. The average cost of care for all people with cystic fibrosis is $58,000 a year, reports the National Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Drugs for rare genetic diseases can reach $200,000 a year, says the National Organization for Rare Disorders. Caring for a person with spinal cord injury can be beyond almost anyone's ability to pay and it can be for a lifetime because spinal cord injury is most common among teenagers. The Spinal Cord Injury Information Network estimates that the average yearly expenses (health care and living expenses), for severe injury (high tetraplegia, C1-C4), the first-year cost would be $683,000; each subsequent year, $122,000. As for lifetime costs, for someone who is severely injured at age 25, costs could reach $2.7 million. If one is severely injured at age 50, can be $1.6 million. Most American families cannot handle costs like those. This is why Medicaid is called ``America's safety net''; it is often the only way to pay for care. I'd also like to focus also on the importance of Medicaid to children. Over 25 million American children, one-fourth of all children, are enrolled in Medicaid. Medicaid is the largest public provider of health insurance for youngsters. In Virginia, 23 percent of our children are Medicaid enrollees. Sadly, 8.6 percent or 163,501 of Virginia's children have no insurance. Insured children are more likely to get health care. Insured children are healthier, happier children. We also need to understand how important Medicaid is to children's hospitals, where very sick children are often treated. In 2003, Medicaid-covered children were 47 percent of all discharges and 50 percent of all inpatient days of care at children's hospitals. According to the National Association of Children's Hospitals, children covered by Medicaid tend to need more care than other children's hospital patients. Children's hospitals provide 40 percent of the hospital care required by children on Medicaid. Children with particularly complex and life-threatening illnesses are frequently treated by children's hospitals and without Medicaid, these special institutions could not survive. Medicaid has played a vital role in our country these last 40 years. I call on my colleagues to join me in working to strengthen Medicaid. It is truly a lifeline, especially for those unfortunate children and adults with serious illnesses.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Would the gentleman be willing to yield me the remainder of his time?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time the gentleman has on his hour.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, should I just ask for unanimous consent since there are no other Members present in the Chamber?