Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, the amendment that I am proposing will make sure that the biotechnology research and innovation are included under TIP's funding objectives by expanding the definition of enabling technologies in section 204 of the bill to include ``any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof to make or modify products or processes for specific use.''

Biotechnology is an emerging segment of the technology sector often overlooked as an excellent source of manufacturing jobs and research and development. The biotechnology industry is a driving force in the Maryland economy and a rising sector of the American economy.

In the United States, the biotechnology industry has created more than 200 new therapies and vaccines, including products to treat cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and anti-autoimmune disorders.

The industry continues to develop innovative therapies over 400 products are currently in clinical trials targeting over 200 diseases. The biotechnology industry is comprised of mostly small start-ups that don't have an existing stream of revenue and are years away from product commercialization. It takes at least 8 years, and then up to $1.2 billion to get a biotechnology therapy approved.

It is these small companies, many of which will never see a product come to market or turn a product that are undertaking the bulk of early development gambles and working toward innovative cures. In fact, small biotech companies account for two-thirds of the industry's pipeline.

In 2005, there were 1,400 biotech companies in the United States, but only 329 were publicly traded. The majority of the Biotechnology Industry Organization's (BIO) members are small companies that have fewer than 50 employees.

The U.S. is the leader in biotechnology. The number of products in the late stage pipeline in the U.S. has double the number of products in the E.U. This is largely due to the fact that per capita biotech R&D in the U.S. is 574 percent higher than in the E.U.

My State of Maryland is a leader among States in biotechnology research and innovation, and Maryland-based businesses will benefit greatly from the funding awarded under this bill. But not only Maryland; other small startup companies in the biotech industry will benefit by inclusion of this bill.

I believe it is a simple, straightforward amendment that just expands and clarifies the fact that biotechnology companies should be included, and I ask support for the amendment.

I would be happy to yield.

Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for his support.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the growing crisis in the Sudan. Today, earlier today, the House passed House Concurrent Resolution 7, an important piece of legislation that calls on the League of Arab States to acknowledge the genocide in Darfur, to support the U.N. peacekeepers and to work with the U.N. and the African Union to bring peace to the region. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of this important legislation, and I thank the House leadership for its attention to this crisis.

An estimated 200,000 noncombatant civilians, including women and children, have been murdered by the janjaweed militia fighters supported by the Sudanese government; 450,000 people have been killed in the conflict. To date, 2.5 million villagers in the Darfur region have been displaced from their homes. Most Darfurians live in camps today.

There is no question that the acts of the janjaweed militia and, by extension, the government of Sudan constitute a level of violence that can only be described as genocide. But now that violence has spread. With the splintering of rebel groups into as many as 12 factions, there is increasing rebel-on-rebel violence with the possibility of return to all-out war.

The African U.N. has deployed nearly 7,000 troops to the region. Last year the United Nations Security Council authorized a peacekeeping force of 22,000 U.N. troops for Darfur. Those peacekeepers, unfortunately, are still not in place due to the resistance of the government of Sudan.

Today, U.N. negotiations with Sudan continue in an attempt to add at least 3,000 U.N. peacekeepers to the existing 7,000 African U.N. peacekeepers, and to allow the U.N. to use helicopters to safeguard peacekeepers and the refugees they protect. The Bush administration has suspended its pending sanctions against Sudan at the request of the U.N. to give these negotiations time to work.

I hope that these negotiations will be successful, and that the peacekeepers can be effective in ensuring that there is no further loss of life and that international aid can get to those who most desperately need it. Humanitarian access to refugees is decreasing, due to the administrative foot dragging by the Sudanese government. Humanitarian groups are under increasing pressure due to restrictions placed on them by the Sudanese government, as well as the deteriorating security situation.

We must ensure access for humanitarian workers and continue provide to funding and support that they need to perform their lifesaving mission. The conference version of the appropriation bill approved by the House just a few minutes ago included over $360 million in peacekeeping and disaster assistance for the victims of this crisis. That includes $44 million in international disaster and famine assistance funding for immediate lifesaving needs of victims of the Darfur crisis, including health care, access to water, sanitation and shelter, $150 million for additional food assistance in Sudan and eastern Chad.

Most of the humanitarian groups now operating in Sudan are doing so supported by the U.S. Government, with money provided by U.S. taxpayers. We must work in cooperation with the United Nations and with our friends and allies around the world to stop these horrific crimes and to provide a essential aid to the victims of this conflict and to bring peace to the region.

We must be prepared to keep the pressure on. The emergency supplemental that we just passed calls on the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare a report on companies that do business in Sudan and determine whether the U.S. Government is currently doing business with them. The point is, that if the time comes for sanctions, Congress will be ready. Congress is also calling on Sudan's neighbors to acknowledge the genocide in Darfur and to take steps to stop it.

The bill we passed today calls on the Arab League to declare the systemic torture, rape and displacement of innocent civilians in Darfur as genocide. The Arab League must support and accept U.N. peacekeepers to ensure an end to hostilities and the safe passage of humanitarian aid. The Arab League needs to engage the U.S., African Union and Sudanese government to bring lasting peace and stability to Darfur.

I am very proud to have supported this legislation, as well as the conference report, and look forward to working with my colleagues to help bring a peaceful future to Sudan and peace to the lives of the Darfurian refugees.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 518) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize States to restrict receipt of foreign municipal solid waste and implement the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste between the United States and Canada, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material into the Record on the pending bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 518, the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act of 2007.

This legislation is a culmination of efforts that began with the introduction of the international waste bill in the 104th Congress and has been introduced by our committee chairman, Mr. Dingell; and sponsored by all the members of the Michigan delegation, including Mr. Rogers, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Upton, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Levin, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Kildee, Mrs. Miller, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Camp, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Hoekstra, and Mr. Walberg. I want to thank and congratulate all these Members for their tireless efforts to move this legislation to the floor.

In March this legislation was reported out of the subcommittee which I chair, the Subcommittee on the Environment and Hazardous Materials, and out of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce.

This legislation, which has a long history of bipartisan support, is long overdue in providing States and localities control over the amount of international municipal solid waste that they are forced to accept.

The extent of this problem is exemplified by the millions of tons of solid waste that is trucked into this country at the rate of approximately 350 truckloads per day. The volume of the international solid waste that comes into this country on a daily basis places an undue burden on the States' and localities' landfill capacities, as well as their roads and infrastructure, solely at the expense of the States and localities.

This legislation seeks to address these concerns by providing the States with the authority to place limits on the amounts of international municipal solid waste that they will accept. It will give the States and the EPA clear authority to safely manage solid waste disposal and to control waste volumes in the best interests of the States and the Nation as a whole.

In addition, H.R. 518 provides the necessary legal authority for the United States, through the Environmental Protection Agency, to fully implement the 1986 Trans-Boundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Other Wastes Agreement between the United States and Canada. These are simple steps that will provide the legislative authority to the Federal and State governments, and are also consistent with the powers enumerated in the United States Constitution and our international trade obligations and agreement. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this very important and bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time.

It gives me great pleasure at this time to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Likewise, Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers. Again, I would like to commend Chairman Dingell and the Michigan delegation for their leadership on this issue.

I yield back the balance of my time as well.

I would like to thank the distinguished chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of D.C. voting rights on behalf of the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland, suburban neighbors of the citizens of the District of Columbia, out in Prince George's and Montgomery Counties. We fully and wholeheartedly support full D.C. voting rights.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House takes up the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, a bill that ensures that our troops are properly trained and equipped, that sets strong standards for accountability in Iraq, and that sets a date certain for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq.

Our servicemen and women have performed courageously in Iraq, and we are deeply grateful for their sacrifice and unflagging commitment. They have served our Nation admirably, despite inadequate planning and incompetent management by this administration. There is nothing more we could ask of them. They have risen to every challenge, and carried out their mission faithfully, in the highest traditions of military service.

This bill honors that service, by ensuring that our men and women in uniform are properly equipped, and properly trained, before they are deployed to combat duty. It sets strong readiness standards, to protect our troops by requiring that their deployment is consistent with Department of Defense guidelines for equipment and training, and that they are fully ``mission-capable.'' It also ensures that they do not serve longer deployments than is the tradition of their service--while including provisions that grant flexibility in the case of a real national-security need.

The Bush administration has extended troop stays, brought back our troops for tour after tour, time and again. But the time for more tours, and more troops, and more war, is finished.

It is time to bring our troops home.

While I'd like to see our troops begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, concluding by the end of the year, I have become convinced that the bill before us is the best we can achieve. I commend Speaker Pelosi, for her hard work to build consensus in this House for a new direction in Iraq, and for her efforts to bring our troops home.

This bill is a historic step in the right direction in that it sets a date-certain for the withdrawal of troops. After four years of war in Iraq, it is evident that this conflict is not amenable to a military resolution. Rather, we must withdraw, and engage Iraq and its neighbors in the region in a diplomatic initiative, rather than a military conflict. I also believe we must give the Iraqi people an incentive to take responsibility for their own security, to disarm the militias and reduce sectarian violence. This bill gives them that incentive in no uncertain terms.

Under this bill Iraq, and the Bush administration, must begin to show real progress, and will be held accountable by this Congress for that progress. The bill requires the President to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting the political and military benchmarks he laid out in January, and hold the Iraqis accountable for making progress towards those benchmarks. The bill offered by this Democratic Congress requires the Iraqi government

to take steps to disarm the militias, pursue extremist groups, and start delivering Iraqi Security Forces to protect Baghdad. It requires the Iraqi government to fairly share oil revenues, ensure that elections are free and fair, and begin to responsibly allocate and spend Iraqi government funds to rebuild the nation of Iraq.

If the Iraqi government does not take action to disarm the militias, and has not taken steps towards political reconciliation and responsibility for its own security by July of this year, Americans will begin to come home, and will be out of Iraq within 180 days. Most importantly, under this bill, American combat troops will begin to leave Iraq by March 2008, and will be out of Iraq by August of 2008.

This is not the bill that many of us want, but it is the best bill we are likely to get, and I am going to support it.

It is not a perfect bill. But it is a step in the right direction-- towards ending the war. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill, and for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. This war has cost us 3,225 American lives to date and almost half a trillion dollars. It's time for a new direction. It's time for our troops to come home.

Madam Speaker, I represent the 4th District of Maryland which abuts the District of Columbia. These citizens are our friends, neighbors, and relatives. It is time to give the citizens of the District of Columbia full representation in the House of Representatives. It is time to end the injustice of ``taxation without representation'' for the District and give these good citizens the right to vote.

For 206 years, the citizens of the District of Columbia have paid taxes, served in the military and worked hard for this great country and yet, for over 200 years these citizens have been denied the right to representation. The United States is the only democracy in the world that, to date, has deprived the residents of its capital city full voting representation.

We have sent thousands of soldiers overseas and spent billions of dollars fighting to bring democracy to the rest of the world. We must stand on the side of democracy in our country and give our own citizens in the District of Columbia the right to vote and an opportunity for full representation in this great democracy.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. But it is not the bill I wanted. I think we should begin an immediate troop withdrawal, but this is a good compromise bill that has the virtue of setting a date certain.

Now, I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about ``micromanagement.'' Well, I will tell you, we have great United States troops who perform admirably in spite of the incompetence and lack of planning by this administration. And I will tell you what our troops deserve. Number one, they deserve that we meet the readiness standards that our military has established, and this bill says it. We will meet our readiness standards, and we will make sure our troops are adequately trained and adequately prepared before we deploy them.

The second thing they deserve, and this is very important, they deserve accountability by the Iraqi people. The Iraqis need to disarm their militias. The Iraqis need to come up with a political solution. The Iraqis need to divide the oil revenues. That is not something the military can do.

Third, our troops deserve a date certain not because we are ``losing the war,'' but because we are going to take a new direction that relies on negotiation and diplomacy, rather than warfare and bloodshed.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention the launch of the Campaign for a Violence Free, Stress-Free America, and the unveiling of the Universal Declaration of Human Values on March 28, 2007 at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, in Washington, D.C. The evening will include comments and peace meditation by the Art of Living founder, His Holiness Sri Ravi Shankar, cultural musical performances, and a keynote and statement by distinguished leaders.

As you may know, the effect of stress and violence can cause serious problems for one's health and life. The Mayo Clinic says stress can cause headaches, chest pain, heart problems, high blood pressure, as well as anxiety and depression.

The effects of violence are equally serious. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, children who are victims of violence show behavioral problems such as aggression towards others, depression, sleeplessness, lowered self-esteem, poor school performance and even suicidal tendencies.

The Art of Living Foundation works with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, participating in a variety of committees and activities relating to health and conflict resolution. The organization also conducts a number of educational programs, and with the International Association for Human Values, carries out various humanitarian service projects.

I would like to encourage all members to support this worthwhile event.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63, a bipartisan resolution supporting our troops in Iraq, while opposing the President's troop escalation strategy.

This marks the fourth year of this war. It is time to bring our troops home now. We have not quelled the violence. We have not thwarted al Qaeda. We have not stabilized the region. We have not deterred terrorist radicals. In fact, because of our presence, there are more jihadists in Iraq than there were before.

Thus, I find it inconceivable that the President's response to this situation, 3 years of military failure in Iraq, is to suggest that we add more troops, 20,000 additional troops.

Since the start of the war in 2003, over 3,000 U.S. troops have died, more than 50 from my State of Maryland alone. In addition, 23,000 American soldiers have suffered serious injury and will have post- traumatic consequences.

The President's approach will only result in the loss of more U.S. lives.

Iraq is in the midst of what has become a civil war between Shia and Sunni. There also is internal tribal and gang violence. Our troops can play no constructive role in this environment, except as targets for all sides.

This is not a partisan Democratic issue. Let me be clear. The President's proposed troop escalation runs contrary to the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and military experts such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to a December Washington Post article, the Joint Chiefs have long opposed the increase in troops.

Generals Colin Powell, George Casey, John Abizaid and Barry McCaffrey have all expressed skepticism about the President's surge strategy. Even some of my Republican colleagues will oppose this surge strategy, and for good reason.

Troop buildups in Iraq haven't worked. U.S. troop levels increased by 18,000 from November 2004 to January 2005 in advance of the Iraqi elections, yet insurgent attacks increased. In 2005, the administration increased troop levels by over 20,000 to secure Iraq ahead of its constitutional referendum. The strategy not only failed to quell the violence, but insurgent attacks increased by 29 percent.

Some of my Republican colleagues make an argument that if you support the troops, you must support the mission. They say if we don't defeat radical Islam in Iraq, then where will we do it? Unfortunately, both of these theories are flawed.

Our troops have performed admirably, sacrificing life and limb, often without sound strategy or adequate equipment. And, yes, the goal of peace and stability in the Middle East is admirable, but this mission is misguided. The fact is that despite previous congressional support, this mission was inadequately planned and our troops inadequate equipped. In addition, the administration has cast a blind eye at massive fraud, waste and abuse that has undermined the reconstruction efforts and cheated the American taxpayer.

We are now in the midst of a civil war that we neither understand nor can we resolve. I support the troops, but I cannot support this ill- conceived mission.

As hard as it is for some, we must understand that this is not a World War II type conflict. This is not our great army defeating their great army.

We cannot defeat a radical Islamic insurgency militarily. This does not mean we cannot defeat a radical Islamic insurgency. It does not mean that if we oppose a troop escalation or begin withdrawing our troops that we have failed. Rather, it is a recognition of what the American people already know: We need a new strategy.

This administration operates under the arrogant assumption that only America wants peace in Iraq. In fact, other Arab nations in the region have an even greater desire for peace and stability. They don't want to see their brethren killed. They don't want to see waves of refugees flood their region. Our new strategy should be a diplomatic initiative to bring countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and Syria to the table to engage in finding solutions.

Now, I know the war hawks will say diplomatic approaches cannot work. But think about it. It wasn't too long ago that this administration and these war hawks were saying that North Korea was an intractable enemy. Yet today, through diplomatic efforts, we are making appreciable progress. I believe this diplomatic approach can work in Iraq.

We need a dramatic change in strategy. We should begin with the withdrawal of U.S. troops and place more responsibility on the Iraqis to foster their own democracy. Most people, including General John Abizaid, understand that we cannot impose democracy on the Iraqis if they don't want it for themselves. That is why I support the End the War in Iraq Act, which would use the congressional power of the purse to bring this war to an end if the administration cannot or will not do so.

But in addition to beginning a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, we must pursue an aggressive diplomatic initiative to involve willing Muslim countries in creating a ceasefire first, a peace process second, and the rebuilding of Iraq in the third instance. These countries have a vested interest in promoting peace and stability in the region.

It was said many years ago war is not the answer, and today more war in the form of troop escalation is the absolutely wrong answer. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House will take up, H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiations Act of 2007. H.R. 4 will require the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies in order to obtain reduced drug prices for seniors enrolled in the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. The bill prohibits, that in conducting these negotiations, the government may not restrict access to certain drugs by requiring a particular list of covered drugs, otherwise known as a formulary. Under the Republican majority, the government was prohibited from engaging in any negotiations to utilize its buying power to reduce costs to consumers.

I have been assured by my colleagues that H.R. 4 will not involve or allow restrictions on patients' access to medicines during the negotiation process. Specifically, I have been assured that H.R. 4's prohibition against government mandated formularies is intended to protect against all forms of government imposed restrictions on patients' access to needed medicines, and that no such restrictions will be allowed under the Medicare Modernization Act as amended by H.R. 4. In casting my vote for H.R. 4, I am relying on these assurances because I firmly believe that all patients must have unrestricted access to doctor prescribed medications.

Overall, I am optimistic about this bill. While the government should have the ability to negotiate on behalf of the 43 million seniors on Medicare, we must be careful that negotiations do not result in reduced access to prescriptions. We must strike a delicate balance to ensure that lower prices do not cause drug companies to withdraw vital drugs from the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. As H.R. 4 moves forward to conference, I ask that the conferees affirmatively strengthen and clarify the rules against government imposed restrictions. If implemented properly, this bill has the potential to cut the cost of health care and improve access to medicines for millions of seniors on Medicare.

According to Families USA, while providing some relief, the current Medicare Prescription drug law has failed to slow the rapid growth in drug prices. As a cosponsor of H.R. 4 and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I will be exploring additional legislative measures designed to reduce costs for seniors, without reducing access to life saving drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the Rules Committee for yielding.

I rise in support of this rule. I am a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I watched 2 years ago as my Republican colleagues larded up the Energy Policy Act. While we were trying to talk about energy efficiency and we were trying to talk about energy conservation, they were giving over $8 billion in tax breaks to the oil and gas companies, the companies that are making huge profits right now.

What this bill does is roll back that tax break as well as require the oil and gas companies to pay appropriate royalties to the government, appropriate royalties to the taxpayer.

This bill is looking forward. I am afraid my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are looking backwards. They are still talking about oil and gas. We on the Democrat side, however, get it. We understand that, yes, we are using oil and gas today, but we are also running out of oil and gas in the world and in this country and that we must have alternative energy sources.

So what do we do? We say, let's take this unnecessary tax break of $8 billion and let's collect our royalties and let's put that money in a trust fund to develop alternative energy, renewable energy that can last us well into the latter part of this century.

Now, personally, I am very enthusiastic about hydrogen fuel cell development because hydrogen fuel cell development definitely leads us down the road to energy independence. Hydrogen fuel cells don't have any emissions; they don't leave any emissions. Hydrogen fuel cells aren't dependent on foreign countries. It is a technology we can develop here in this country that will really make us energy independent and will also address the problem of global warming. But we must invest in it.

So let's not look backwards and give oil and gas companies more tax breaks. Let's look forward and invest in renewable energy, in hydrogen, in wind and solar, and the things we have in this country that can make us truly independent. I urge adoption of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank first the gentlewoman from California for yielding, and also for her consistent, aggressive and activist leadership on this issue. She has been very courageous throughout. She has always taken a principled position, and she is now leading our efforts to stand up and express our opposition to the President. I want to thank her for that.

Sometimes one of the most difficult things for a politician or elected official to do is to say I was wrong; I made a mistake. I am here to say that tonight.

After 9/11, after the Pentagon was attacked in addition to New York, my district, which is just outside of Washington, D.C., felt the effects very severely. A lot of my constituents worked in the Pentagon. I went to several funerals, and I was very sensitive to the fact that my constituents in suburban Washington, D.C., in Montgomery County and in Prince Georges County, as Federal workers, were very vulnerable to an attack in what is arguably the number one or the number two target of terrorists in the United States.

I represent 72,000 Federal employees, most of whom work right here in the Nation's capital, in the immediate Capitol complex area.

At that time, the President was presenting, as the gentlewoman mentioned, extensive evidence about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, about attempts to develop a nuclear arsenal, about chemical and biological warfare, and I was of the belief that the President, on issues of national security, would put politics aside and would consider only the best interests of the country. Boy, was I wrong.

It has turned out and become evident to everyone that the President's intelligence was seriously flawed. It was inaccurate, it was distorted, and it was exaggerated to create a false impression of urgency that this country had an urgent threat and that weapons of mass destruction, in fact, existed and that they posed a threat to the citizens of the United States and, in my consideration, a threat to my constituents here in the Washington metropolitan area.

We were shown classified information, documents, photographs and the like, all of which were designed to create the impression that we were facing an imminent threat. Assuming the President would not mislead the country, I supported the war. That was a mistake.

But then it came to pass and became increasingly evident that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that we were not facing an imminent threat. So in May of 2004, in an appearance before the Muslim Council in my district, I said I think my vote was wrong; I think my vote was a mistake.

Subsequent to that, I heard people say, well, what about the fact that we toppled Saddam Hussein? Well, that was a laudable goal, but it was not worth 3,000 troops. Well, what about the fact we created elections and they put their finger in purple ink and they had elections for the first time? I said I agree, that, too, is a laudable goal, but that was not worth 3,000 troops.

If you had asked me then to make this decision based on what I know now, I would not have voted to support the use of troops.

Because, you see, there are a lot of dictators in the world, some of whom we not only deal with, some of whom we actually arm. There are a lot of dictators that are cruel, that murder their own people, that violate human rights. There are a lot of countries that don't have democratic processes. And yet we do not make the decision that we ought to engage with them militarily. So to my way of thinking, the only justification, the only justification would have been the existence of weapons of mass destruction and an imminent threat to the United States that in fact did not exist.

What we have in fact seen is that our military presence has worsened the situation. Areas that did not have terrorists now have terrorists. They are called breeding grounds for terrorism because our presence creates a cause for the terrorists, a motivation, if you will, a catalyst, an antagonism. That is not solving the problem of terrorism. That is not effectively fighting the war on terrorism. Our military role has not been productive and effective; in fact, it is been counterproductive and sadly ineffective.

It is time to withdraw our troops. We need to begin now to withdraw our troops so that the Iraqis will take more responsibility for their own security. In fact, Mr. Maliki says that is what he wants us to do. He says, ``Give us the weapons, we will do it.'' He is not so excited about having us. Clearly, the American people don't want to be in Iraq. More importantly, the Iraqi people don't want us to be in Iraq. It is time for us to pull out. We are in the midst of a civil war, one that we cannot resolve, and therefore we are not playing a constructive role.

We are now on the eve of another adventure in Iraq or, should I say, misadventure, in which the President is proposing not to withdraw but just the opposite, contrary to the recommendations of the joint chiefs, contrary to the recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group. The President is saying, Let's send more troops. He calls it a surge. Folks, it is a troop escalation and an escalation of this war, and I will oppose it.

There is a saying that the old folks used to say: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Mr. President, you fooled me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice? I don't think so.

I am opposed to any troop escalation. I am opposed to any surge. I am opposed to any expansion of this war by military means. Yes, we have to fight the war on terrorism, but it seems to me we need to use diplomatic means to create an environment in which we can promote peace. We need to involve the other countries in the region, be it Shia or be it Sunni, who have an interest in a stable region. It is their region. They don't want war as a way of life in their region. Let's involve those countries, the Egypts, the Jordans, the Saudi Arabias. Let them get engaged in helping resolve this war. Let us step back from this war. We need to implement diplomatic solutions.

So this is not a question of withdrawing United States leadership. We need to leave, but we need to leave diplomatically. We need to understand that, in the modern world, the use of military force is extremely limited, limited in its utility, because we are operating in a different environment, a terrorist environment, an insurgent environment in which additional troops

only work for a temporary period of time. The insurgency withdraws, melts away, and then reemerges, which is to say, the President's proposal can only lead to a permanent U.S. presence of even more troops, putting them in harm's way.

We have lost over 3,000 troops. The Iraqi people have lost tens of thousands more, maybe even hundreds of thousands. It is time to withdraw our military presence. It is time to advance the cause of peace through diplomatic means and diplomatic leadership.

I want to thank the gentlewoman again for giving me this opportunity to speak.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, September 23, I attended the funeral services for Army Second Lieutenant Emily J.T. Perez, an outstanding young officer who gave her life in service to her country while patrolling near Najaf, in southern Iraq, on September 12th of this year.

Emily J.T. Perez was a 23-year-young woman of great determination and distinction from Prince George's County, Maryland, who rose to the top of her class at Oxon Hill High School. Seeing her tremendous potential, I had the honor of nominating her for an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point. Emily rose to the top of her class to become the first minority female Command Sergeant in West Point's history.

With sadness I acknowledge her for another distinction; she is the first female graduate of West Point to die in Iraq. Lt. Perez, a platoon leader assigned to the 20th Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, perished when an improvised roadside device exploded underneath her Humvee.

Emily Perez was a young woman of many talents, with a passion to serve others. Born in Heidelberg, Germany to a military family, she decided early on that she wanted to be a soldier. Her family moved to Fort Washington, Maryland, and Emily enrolled at Oxon Hill High School and became Wing Commander of the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps. At Peace Baptist Church in the District of Columbia, she started an HIV-AIDS ministry to educate young people on the dangers of the life-threatening disease. She also volunteered with the Red Cross at an HIV-AIDS peer education center where she shared stories of those living with depression and the stigma of AIDS.

Emily was a sprinter. She ran the third leg for the Army's 400-meter relay team and ``She

was the cream of the crop,'' according to her former high school track coach Nathaniel Laney. Emily had a wonderful voice and performed in the Military Academy's gospel choir, acting again as a shining example to her fellow women cadets.

``She was resilient. Her spirit was calm. She was resolute. She believed . . . the real tragedy is not to live while you are alive,'' said her godfather, Reverend Michael Bell, pastor of the Peace Baptist Church.

Mr. Speaker, today I honor the spirit of an outstanding young American patriot taken from us much too soon, United States Army Second Lieutenant Emily J.T. Perez.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the commendable efforts of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) in safeguarding the citizens of Prince George's and Montgomery counties in Maryland from flooding. On the weekend of June 24, 2006 anywhere from six inches to two feet of rain fell in the Washington, DC area, leaving some homes under water, bridges washed away, and residents displaced.

The WSSC is among the ten largest water and wastewater utilities in the Nation, serving 1.6 million customers in Prince George's and Montgomery counties. The agency's response to the storms and subsequent flooding was executed with foresight and sound planning. Their staff remained in constant communication with city, state, and emergency officials, allowing residents to evacuate in a safe and timely manner.

One noteworthy individual is WSSC Systems Control Group Leader, Karen Wright. Wright and her staff were responsible for monitoring the rainfall and opening the dam gates. Recently, she was recognized by The Baltimore Sun for her efforts.

In crisis situations such as the June storms, it is comforting to know that the employees of the WSSC can rise to the occasion, make the difficult decisions, and safeguard our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in commending the WSSC and its employees on a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express the heartfelt condolences of a grateful nation and to honor the life of PFC Justin Ray Davis of Gaithersburg, MD. PFC Justin Davis was killed on June 25 near the village of Kandalay, located in the Kunar Province in Afghanistan, from wounds sustained during combat operations as part of Operation Mountain Thrust. PFC Justin Davis, 19, was assigned to A Company, 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division of the U.S. Army. A native of Gaithersburg, MD, Private First Class Davis entered the Army in June 2005 and trained at Fort Benning, GA, to be an infantryman. His strong patriotism and desire to defend our freedoms led him to join the military immediately after graduating from Magruder High School in May, 2005, where he was active in the Junior ROTC and a starter on the varsity football team. Private First Class Davis was a loving son and leaves behind his mother, Paula Davis, and father, Dennis Johnson. May God bless them and comfort them during this very difficult time.

We owe this brave soldier and his family a tremendous debt of gratitude for his selfless service and sacrifice. Our country could not maintain its freedom and security without heroes like Private First Class Davis. He made the ultimate sacrifice. Americans, as well as Afghanis, owe their liberty to Private First Class Davis and his fallen comrades. Private First Class Davis was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart for his actions in Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, for his heroism and service to his country, please join me in honoring the life of PFC Justin Ray Davis.