Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is with enormous pride that I rise today to commemorate an important historical milestone in America's history, the 100th anniversary of the cornerstone laying of the Pilgrim Monument in Provincetown, MA.

The Pilgrims arrived on our shores with their many hopes and dreams; they worked hard and suffered greatly in order to fulfill them. Now, people around the country, from schoolchildren studying them as part of their American history curriculum to families gathering together on the fourth Thursday of every November in the spirit of thankfulness, the story of the Pilgrims and America's First Thanksgiving is enshrined in our collective memory. On Monday, August 20, 2007, a variety of friends and admirers will gather at the Pilgrim Monument to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the laying of the Monument's cornerstone in 1907.

The 252-foot-tall Pilgrim Memorial Monument was constructed between 1907 and 1910 to commemorate the first landing of the Pilgrims and the signing of the Mayflower Compact in Provincetown Harbor in 1620. It was built by the Cape Cod Pilgrim Memorial Association, which was established by a special act of the Massachusetts legislature on February 29, 1892, to raise funds to build the Monument. The Association raised $92,000 in federal, state and private funds, while the land was donated by the town of Provincetown. The cornerstone of the Monument was laid on August 20, 1907 at a ceremony attended by President Theodore Roosevelt, and the completed Monument was dedicated in 1910 at a ceremony attended by President William Howard Taft.

Since its completion in 1910, the Monument has become a symbol of the role Provincetown played in the early history of our country. In the century since its construction, the Monument has attracted millions of visitors from across the United States and around the world. The Provincetown Museum has excelled in its mission of detailing not only the events surrounding the Pilgrims' first landfall but also the place Provincetown occupies in New England's cultural and maritime history.

On August 20, 2007, a host of well wishers will join the entire Provincetown community in a parade and gathering at the Monument to commemorate its place in Massachusetts' and America's history. And it is with equal pleasure that I enter this tribute into the Congressional Record so that this milestone is officially recognized and recorded in the official history of the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of a financial service product that was unique to the United States when created in Massachusetts in 1907. I refer to Savings Bank Life Insurance, which was the brainchild of Louis D. Brandeis, then a prominent Boston attorney and subsequently, of course, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Legislation authored by Brandeis that created Savings Bank Life Insurance of Massachusetts was signed into law 100 years ago today by Massachusetts Governor Curtis Guild, Jr.

At a time when life insurance was often too expensive for ordinary citizens and especially recent immigrants to afford, Louis Brandeis examined the ``delivery system,'' as we would call it in modem parlance, and concluded the Commonwealth's mutual savings banks could best fill this unmet need by selling life insurance policies directly to their depositors. Now, of course, financial services companies routinely offer banking and insurance products, but in 1907, this was a bold experiment. Indeed it was not until 1999 that this Congress passed legislation formally allowing banks and insurance companies to affiliate throughout the United States.

In the 100 years since its establishment in Massachusetts, Savings Bank Life Insurance has gained broad consumer acceptance to the point where the Savings Bank Life Insurance Company of Massachusetts has become the leading provider of ordinary life insurance in Massachusetts. The company, headquartered in Woburn, Massachusetts, has nearly $2 billion in assets and $70 billion of life insurance in force.

I am especially pleased to note that, as the centerpiece of its centennial celebration, the Savings Bank Life Insurance Company of Massachusetts has underwritten the production of a documentary entitled ``Louis Brandeis: The People's Attorney,'' that traces the life and achievements of Justice Brandeis through the use of archival footage, images and reenactments, and features commentary by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf, and several noted Brandeis scholars, as well as personal recollections by his three grandchildren. Produced by Emmy-award-winning Stuart Television Productions, the documentary will air on selected PBS television stations later this year.

Gerald T. Mulligan and Robert K. Sheridan, who serve respectively as chairman and chief executive officer of the Savings Bank Life Insurance Company of Massachusetts, deserve our appreciation not only for being the stewards of what Justice Brandeis called his greatest achievement, but for their efforts in the form of this new documentary to preserve and promote the life story of Justice Brandeis himself.

Mr. Chairman, the committee recommends $9 million for democracy programs in Cuba. I want to be sure that no one is misled by a claim that this is a cut. This is the same amount that the program received last year.

And last November, as has been noted, the GAO found serious problems with the administration of this program, as well as a lack of accountability which must be addressed, and this has not happened.

The report is entitled ``U.S. Democracy Assistance for Cuba Needs Better Management and Oversight.'' So to increase the funding to almost $50 million, or by about 500 percent, is not just irresponsible, it has an Alice in Wonderland quality about it. Reward mismanagement and incompetence.

No, my friends. The committee has acted wisely and I applaud the committee. It is demanding a spending plan and a strategy for how the funds will be used so we no longer will be sending cashmere sweaters to the tropical island of Cuba. Yes, this actually happened. I know it is hard to believe.

This program does not need any more money. What it needs is what it has never had before, and that is vigorous congressional oversight. Why does it need oversight? There is simply no time to list all of the programs. Read the report in full measure.

But I would note that I found it particularly informative that over a 10-year period, $62 million of the $65 million in USAID grants was provided without competition. That is 95 percent of the money provided in response to unsolicited proposals with no bidding, no public notice, no compensation. No, this program doesn't need any more money. It needs oversight.

And I agree, let's listen to the dissidents like my friend Miriam Lay-VA, who is one of the founders of the Ladies in White. Here is what she says:

``There must be no funds from any government allocated to the dissidents . . . the opposition gets practically nothing and the main thing is that it gives the Cuban Government a pretext to say that we are mercenaries and put us in jail. I'm against any funds from the American Government, and I think that if it wants to help the Cuban people, it should lift the embargo and allow trade, tourism, and academic exchanges, and Cubans should be allowed to travel without restriction to the United States and send money to their families'' in Cuba.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Missouri.

In response to the ranking member, I don't disagree when he suggests that we listen to the dissidents because they're on the island, they're fighting the good fight, not from the safety of Washington or Boston or Miami, but they're there. Let's start to listen to them.

This was a statement that was released by four of them, prominent and well respected, on the island. It is a statement that was signed by Marta Beatriz Roque, Jisela Delgado, Elizardo Sanchez and Vladimiro Roca. Let's listen to what they say. Let's not reach our own conclusions here in this House without listening to what they say.

``We consider it very important to achieve greater efficiency in the use of these funds. We believe that one possible way to achieve this would be the elimination of a series of existing restrictions on the sending of aid and travel to Cuba, which doesn't at all help the pro- democracy struggle that we are carrying out inside our country.''

With all due respect to the gentleman from Virginia, it is about travel, it is about the embargo, because that's what the dissidents are saying to us here, and we ought to listen to them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend and colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

I thank my colleague for the statement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today so that my colleagues in the House of Representatives can join me in honoring the exemplary career of a constituent and fellow Coastie.

After 26 years of service, Captain Daniel MacLeod, originally of Hanover, Massachusetts, will be retiring from the United States Coast Guard on June 29, 2007. Captain MacLeod's extended resume boasts an impressive list of accomplishments.

After Graduating the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in 1981, Captain MacLeod served as First Lieutenant aboard USCGC VALIANT and then as a Navy Exchange Officer aboard USS GRIDLEY. Captain MacLeod then served as executive officer of TACLET Miami conducting counter-drug operations. While serving as Operations Officer for USCGC RUSH (WHEC- 723), Captain MacLeod received TAD orders to the Persian Gulf with the first group of Coast Guardsmen to participate in Operation Desert Shield. After a tour at Coast Guard Headquarters as part of the Deepwater Mission Analysis Staff, Captain MacLeod spent two years as Executive Officer of CGC TAMPA (WMEC-902). Then, in January of 2000 Captain MacLeod was assigned as Commanding Officer of USCGC FORWARD (WMEC-911). Both the TAMPA and FORWARD completed numerous counter-drug, homeland security, alien migration interdiction operation patrols.

In June 2002, Captain MacLeod was assigned as Chief of the Marine Protected Species Division. While assigned, Captain MacLeod headed up the Maritime Homeland Security and General Law Enforcement Division. On October 1, 2007, Captain MacLeod will be retiring from the United States Coast Guard as Chief of the Deepwater Human Systems Integration Office.

As a former Coast Guard Reservist and co-chair of the Coast Guard Caucus, it is an honor to recognize Captain MacLeod's many years of admirable service. I wish him all the best in his retirement and know that his courage and leadership will be missed.

Mr. Chairman, for my district--coastal Massachusetts-- our waterways are as important as our roadways. They are also a vital part of the Nation's transportation infrastructure.

It is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers to help keep our harbors, rivers and other channels in navigable condition. In New England, the Corps is responsible for maintaining 171 ports and harbor channels, yet the Bush Administration budget includes funding to take care of just one. That is because the rules for Army Corps projects were changed by the Bush Administration to now favor large, commercial waterways. This constitutes an abandonment of Federal responsibility and quite simply, is an assault on smaller communities all over the country, putting lives and the economic health of coastal communities at risk.

The rationale for these changes is that financial constraints require us to abruptly change Army Corps' priorities to favor projects with ``true value to the Nation.'' This sounds good--but is dangerously misleading. The changed formula focuses only on commercial tonnage and mileage, so smaller projects do not have a chance--even though they are critical to the economy and public safety.

When waterways close due to sediment build-up, the commercial fishing industry suffers. Tourism is compromised. And our transport stops-- sometimes dead in the water. The Coast Guard can't undertake ``search and rescue'' because they can't move--literally.

Just as a deteriorating highway or bridge needs repair, our waterways need maintenance. If the traffic through a harbor requires an eight- foot draft and sediment builds up, leaving only five feet available, vessels cannot pass. It is larger, commercial vessels like tankers, fishing boats and barges that face the greatest difficulty and are most likely to run aground.

Entire portions of our local economy are organized around the sea and the easy transport of people and products in and out of our harbors. When you consider our island communities--such as Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, and Cuttyhunk--the waterways carry all the necessities for local citizens, everything from food and water to lumber and heating oil.

In Chatham Harbor, which hosts the largest fleet of commercial fishing vessels in my district, we face a constant problem with shoaling. It is a 900-foot channel and when it is not clear, millions of dollars are at risk. Each year it is now a fight to keep the fishing industry on Cape Cod in business.

It's the same thing with Green Harbor in Marshfield, where we have the second highest lobster catch harbor in New England. In Woods Hole, we have a major Coast Guard station which launches many cutter search- and-rescue missions a year. Without regular dredging, that emergency equipment is land-bound. In that same harbor, the Federal government has invested millions in a state-of-the-art NOAA research vessel, the Bigelow. But, these WHOI vessels and Navy vessels cannot do essential research because the harbor is clogged with sentiment.

For coastal communities, our waterways are critical to their economic well-being. I urge my colleagues to support this Amendment and support our mariners, our fishermen, the Coast Guard, and small coastal communities throughout the country.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Today, American workers' freedom to form unions is not only at risk. It is in serious jeopardy.

We've seen lax enforcement of labor laws. Judicial decisions under- cutting organizing protections. Administration interference in collective bargaining efforts.

At the same time, business interests have aggressively worked to strip overtime protections from millions of workers. Corporate America has pushed through trade deals sending American jobs overseas, further weakening workers' power to organize and bargain.

The Employee Free Choice Act is a critical measure that restores workers' freedom to form unions. It protects America's hard-working middle class families. The legislation protects workers against employer interference in organizing drives. It safeguards workers against practices of intimidation. Practices that are increasingly common.

This is a deeply personal issue for me. I know what happens when workers have no protection.

My grandfather was a Boston police officer who was fired for trying to organize a union. When he worked as a police officer, the work week was 96 hours. There was no vacation or overtime. There were no benefits.

Worker rights have advanced in this country only when unions are strong, but today those rights are being trampled. The hard-earned worker protections are disappearing. This should not happen in America, a country built on the efforts of workers across the decades.

During our history, the rise in the American middle class has directly paralleled the rise in the number of unionized American workers. The more workers in unions, the larger and stronger the American middle class is. The stronger the American middle class, the stronger our democracy. Today, we are regressing--at an alarming rate. Median family income has dropped every year of the Bush Administration--every single year. American worker paychecks have been flat or declined in more than half of the 65 months of the Bush Administration.

When workers are able to make their own decisions--freely and fairly--about whether to form a union, they can bargain for better treatment on the job. The middle class standard of living improves. Workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union workers, and they are much more likely to have healthcare and pension benefits.

And the American people know it. In a recent survey, 68 percent of respondents believe that unions can make a difference for today's workers. An even higher percentage support the Employee Free Choice Act.

Every day, millions of Americans work hard and play by the rules. Yet they still struggle--just to get by.

Workers represented by unions are far more likely to have health insurance and guaranteed pensions, access to job training opportunities and higher wages. If we want to improve working conditions for America's workers, strengthen America's families and rebuild America's middle class, we need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

Madam Speaker, ``this is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost. And if it's carried out it represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.''

This assessment the Bush escalation policy was made by the Republican Senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel--a decorated Vietnam veteran who originally supported the invasion of Iraq.

And I concur with his observation. But his conclusion should come as no surprise. After all, this administration's Iraq policy has been a series of mistakes and bad choices from the beginning.

The Bush/Cheney team was obsessed with Iraq. In fact, according to former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, their very first National Security Council meeting focused on Saddam and Iraq. Just days after President Bush was inaugurated. And a map, noting Iraqi oilfields and potential bidders for oil contracts, was presented for review. That was in February 2001. Months before 9/11.

We all remember that awful day in September 2001. When America was attacked by al Qaeda. Not Iraq. But by al Qaeda. Nevertheless, almost immediately, plans for attacking Iraq were initiated. With the Vice President as its most vigorous advocate. Secretary Powell is reported to have observed that the Vice President had ``the fever''--war fever.

Former counterterrorism czar Dick Clarke has described how, even as the smoke was still rising from 9/11, the administration began looking for ways to use it to attack Iraq.

The American people were told that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. That he was a clear and imminent threat. That he was an ally of al Qaeda. That if we did not invade Iraq, there could be mushroom clouds over American cities.

None of that was true. To the contrary, there was plenty evidence that the secular Baathists of Saddam Hussein's regime and the religious fanatics of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda were rivals. In fact bin Laden had publicly condemned Saddam as an apostate who had corrupted Islam and repressed Muslims. There was little evidence that Saddam's regime possessed nuclear or biological weapons, or--even if it did--that it would share such materials with an uncontrollable group of apocalyptic terrorists like al Qaeda.

But the administration did not listen to those who knew what they were talking about. Professionals like Greg Thielmann, the Director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He told me personally that in his professional opinion, after years of studying the issue, Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program.

Instead, the administration relied on the likes of Ahmed Chalabi. An embezzler who had been convicted in Jordan of bank fraud. Who is alleged to have provided Iran with information about U.S. troop movements. And who is presumably still under investigation by the FBI.

Chalabi provided so-called ``defectors'' from Iraq who--surprise, surprise--said exactly what the Administration wanted to hear. The most notorious was codenamed ``Curveball''--how appropriate--and was the source of the now-discredited claim about a mobile bioweapons program. The German intelligence agency warned that the man did not live in Iraq and described him as an ``out of control'' and mentally unstable alcoholic. It later turned out that he was the brother of one of Chalabi's top aides. But he was one of the primary sources for Secretary Powell's statement at the United Nations that convinced many to support the war.

Furthermore, in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, the administration told the American people that it would be easy. That we would be greeted as liberators. That Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction. And that peace and democracy would flourish.

None of that was true. The American people were sold a bill of goods. But those of us who raised doubts were ignored. Some even questioned our patriotism.

But the responsibility for this mess is not the President's alone. It is shared by the preceding two Congresses, which abdicated their constitutional responsibility to oversee and review the conduct of the war and the occupation. We will never know if serious oversight and insisting on answers over the past 4 years would have made a difference.

But we do know that thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died. Billions of American and Iraqi taxpayer dollars have been wasted. The Middle East is on the verge of a war that could devastate the region and the global economy. And terrorist groups are multiplying because of Iraq. Some confuse the war on Iraq with the war on terror. But that could not be further from reality.

The fact is that the war in Iraq has severely damaged our efforts to fight al Qaeda and terrorism. That's not just my judgment: that's the consensus judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies. In April 2006, they prepared a National Intelligence Estimate. It represents the consensus judgment of the entire U.S. intelligence community. Here's what it said:

The Iraq conflict has become the ``cause celebre'' for

jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in

the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global

jihadist movement.

Meanwhile, the war in Iraq has done nothing to stop al Qaeda and its affiliates from launching attacks around the world. I refer you to a Dear Colleague letter sent by two of our Republican colleagues which clearly describes that reality. It includes a list of attacks that plainly demonstrates that terrorism is global in nature. While we are stuck in the sands of Iraq, radical Islamists are launching major assaults everywhere. Because this Administration, as a result of its bungled misadventure in Iraq, has hurt our efforts against terrorism.

Remember, we were attacked on September 11, not by Iraq, but by al Qaeda. Which was based in Afghanistan. And we responded, with worldwide support, by going to war against al Qaeda and liberating Afghanistan from al Qaeda's allies, the Taliban. But then what happened? The administration took its eye off the ball. And invaded Iraq. It's as if we had responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico. Even though we had not yet defeated al Qaeda, the administration pulled intelligence and Special Forces assets from Afghanistan in order to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Now we are in danger of losing Afghanistan to al Qaeda and their Taliban allies.

Enough. As Senator Hagel said, this is ``Alice in Wonderland . . . it is folly.'' And the American people know it. It's time to get back to fighting the terrorists. It's time to concentrate on victory in the war on terror.

Oppose the escalation. Support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Barrow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Lincoln Davis).

(Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from California for his insightful and thoughtful remarks and particularly his observation that this is not about micromanaging the war. This is about accountability.

And I daresay that if over the course of the past two previous Congresses that there was oversight and that there was more monitoring, we would not find ourselves in this unhappy moment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, a new Member of the House, a valued member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs and Financial Services, Mr. Donnelly.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask where we stand in terms of the time allocation.

Mr. Speaker, if I can inquire of my friend and colleague on the other side, I have a speaker that has been waiting here. Understanding that I have 3\1/2\ minutes left before the reallocation, I would like to give her an opportunity to address the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would commend to my friends and colleagues who spoke previously that they take the time and review the National Intelligence Estimate that was released by the Bush administration in September of 2006, because the American intelligence agencies found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown. What we want to accomplish is to defeat terrorism, but we are not doing it with this strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth), a new Member of the House and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wilson), another new Member and a valued member of the House Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his concern and respect for the families and the soldiers that serve. He should know that there are many that are serving today in Iraq that agree with you.

Let me quote from a private in Baghdad who was shot at and who is enduring the vagaries and the vicissitudes of living every day in hell. This is what he had to say in a paper just recently.

``We can go get into a firefight and empty our ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much. This isn't our war. We're just in the middle.'' And that is Private First Class Zach Clausen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Bishop.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Rhode Island, a member of the House Appropriations Committee and a valued member of the caucus, Mr. Patrick Kennedy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with my friend and colleague from Florida. This is a special country

and a special Nation and our men and women who are serving us in Iraq are special to us, to all of us.

The article that I alluded to earlier and mentioned the name of Private Clausen, I would like to quote from other soldiers who are in Baghdad currently who are fighting, are in the combat, and their observations, and I would encourage my colleagues on both sides to listen to their words. They get it. They understand. They know what is happening on the ground. They know the reality of Iraq.

Lieutenant Antonio Hardy. These are his words:

``To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do. I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it. They get it sugar-coated.''

Sergeant Herbert Gill:

``What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn around and go into a new area, there's somebody waiting to kill us. Once more raids start happening, they'll melt away. And then 2 or 3 months later, when we leave and we say it's a success, they'll come back.''

Our troops get it.

I referred earlier to Private Zack Clausen. Let me repeat his words: ``We can get into a firefight and empty our ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much. This is not our war--we're in the middle.''

Listen to these voices. These are not the voices that come and appear before us in congressional hearings. These are our brothers, our children, our sons, our daughters that are serving every day in Baghdad. Let's listen to the troops.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to respond to the query of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. Energy policy vitally impacts our Nation's security, the strength of our economy, and the health of our planet.

Today, high gas prices stretch family budgets. Our addiction to Mideast oil threatens our national security. Increased consumption of fossil fuels contributes to global warming. These issues will dominate the 21st century, our future, and America's role in the world. It requires a new energy initiative, and the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act is a critical component of that effort.

This bill is aimed at improving the Nation's transportation fuel infrastructure, to improve the storage and transportation of biofuels.

It will facilitate affordable delivery of alternative fuels to gas pumps throughout the country. It is just one piece of a large puzzle. But it is an important move towards a sustainable energy future. We need this legislation to address specific technical problems that hinder the storage and distribution of biofuels. Many of the country's gas stations are not equipped to handle large increases in alternative fuels. Ethanol and other biofuels have unique chemical properties that make them incompatible with much of the country's existing fuel infrastructure.

Despite their enormous promise as a cleaner, homegrown fuel source, biofuels can be corrosive to pipelines and tanks, can clog filters and contaminate water and air with volatile emissions. In the past, these technical problems have created a significant barrier to market acceptance of these alternative fuels.

The bottom line is that it would be enormously expensive to modify existing infrastructure to accept ethanol and other alternative fuels. We need a focused, scientific effort to address this problem. H.R. 547 would allocate $10 million in R&D monies on new technologies and methods, including additives, blend stocks, and easier tank reconditioning methods that allow gas

station owners to retrofit their infrastructure, significantly reducing costs for businesses and consumers.

It is clear that the United States must take meaningful steps to move away from our dependence on foreign oil. I think we all agree that this is merely a first step. But in order to make alternative fuels financially feasible for American drivers and gas station owners, we need to take some of the small steps like this one today.

I am proud to support this bill. I congratulate my colleagues and urge swift passage.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, I rise today so that my colleagues in the House of Representatives can join me in honoring the life and service of one of America's fallen heroes, Sergeant Alexander Henry Fuller, who gave his life to his country while serving in Iraq. I rise so that the House of Representatives can join me in conveying our deepest condolences to his wonderful wife Stacey and to his entire family.

Alex died on January 25 at the age of twenty one, while serving in Iraq. He came from New Bedford and was raised on Cape Cod. He soon fell in love with Stacey and together they were married. Today Stacey is expecting their child. Alex had dreams of someday owning a house on Cape Cod, working as a police officer and raising a family.

But he was a young man with a mission. He had another priority in his life, to answer the call of service to his country. He loved his country and he loved serving in the Army, and in the 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division based in Fort Carson Colorado. Each and every American owes him and his family a great debt of gratitude. The courage he demonstrated through his service will always be remembered.

I wish to join with my colleagues in expressing our condolences to his family and friends. We hope and pray that they find peace and comfort during this most difficult time.

Sean Gonsalves, a reporter from the Cape Cod Times wrote a moving tribute that I wish to share with you.

`We Couldn't Be Prouder'

(By Sean Gonsalves)

One had a Bible in his hand.

The other Army officer carried the news Anastacia

``Stacey'' Fuller and her husband's adopted family had been

losing sleep over--wondering if their hero, Army Sgt.

Alexander Henry Fuller, was alive.

He was not, they were informed late Thursday night.

Yesterday, Sgt. Fuller's 19-year-old widow still seemed

disoriented, as if the repercussions from the improvised

explosive device that killed Fuller and another member of his

convoy in Baghdad had reverberated across the Atlantic Ocean,

all the way to the Centerville home the 21-year-old soldier

had shared with his wife and inlaws.

Pfc. Michael C. Balsley, 23, of Hayward, Calif., was also

killed in Thursday's explosion, according to the Department

of Defense.

Stacey Fuller wasn't sure if her husband's remains were in

Maryland or Delaware. She wasn't sure when his casket would

be brought home to Cape, or when the funeral and burial would

be held.

All she knew was that the father of her yet-unborn daughter

was ``fearless'' and had ``a huge heart.''

Sitting in the showroom of her family's used-car dealership

on Yarmouth Road in Hyannis, Stacey Fuller rested her hands

on her bulging belly as the small flags lining the awning

outside flapped in the winter wind.

``He was very determined. He always said, `I need to help

my Joes,' '' she recalled, explaining the love he had for the

Fort Carson, Colo.-based 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment,

2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division.

``We tried to talk him out of going because of how

dangerous it is, but we couldn't,'' said Fuller's mother-in-

law, Irena Zinov.

Fuller, who was born in New Bedford and raised in

Centerville, saw the Army as the best way to prepare for

becoming a police officer.

Fuller's legacy was his concern for others, his uncle

Robert Mogavero of Millis said in a phone interview

yesterday.

``At the same time, he had a great zest for life. Some kids

have plans that are a little far-fetched, but his head was

screwed on straight. His plans were not beyond his reach,''

he said.

Mogavero described Fuller as a soldier ``dedicated to God

and country.'' ``As a soldier he was exemplary, and we

couldn't be prouder of him as a family.''

Zach Hallet of Osterville remembered his best friend as the

toughest, funniest person he's known.

``And he believed in what he was doing. He was proud of

being a sergeant and he was proud of being a leader.''

Hallet also described his fallen friend as ``fearless''--a

trait his wife said she'll call on in the months ahead as she

prepares to give birth in April.

Besides his wife and unborn daughter, Fuller is survived by

his mother, Linda; a sister, Katie, and two brothers,

Christopher and Sean.

The family has set up a memorial fund for the benefit of

his daughter.

Well, again, I am honored to be here. I heard that last evening my name was mentioned here in the House, and I presume that it was mentioned in a way that was kind and generous to a senior citizen, a senior citizen that has the Medicare card to prove that.

Talking about Medicare, we are going to address Medicare in this session of Congress, and we are going to do something about that so- called prescription drug benefit program that was passed over the objections of almost every Democrat and a few courageous Republicans several years ago. Because as you know, Mr. Meek, and you know, Tim Ryan, there was a provision in that particular legislation that prohibited the Medicare Trust Fund from negotiating with the large pharmaceutical companies for a discount.

In other words, whoever is the director of the Medicare Trust Fund can't go into a room and sit down with the drug companies and say, ``Let's discuss a fair price, because we are going to purchase in large quantities prescription drug benefits,'' for people like myself, ``and we are going to effect real savings, like they do in the Veterans Administration.''

I have seen estimates of savings that range from 30 to 80 percent on drugs where discounts could be made available and effected, drugs that save the lives of people and enhance the quality of life for those of us who have reached the golden years.

It is extraordinary in terms of helping people who have worked hard all their lives from not having to make those tough choices between food and heat, or air conditioning in the case of Mr. Meek and the young lady who just became the chair of a very powerful subcommittee here in the House, who is now known as Cardinal Wasserman Schultz.

I guess. I am just using a term that we often use here. But she is certainly dressed like a cardinal this evening.

But I have to tell you, I am really proud of the work that your generation has done over the course of the 109th Congress to bring home that message to the American people. You did it effectively. You are helping my generation and you have our profound gratitude. Because it was clear the message that the three of you and other colleagues of ours in the Democratic Caucus spoke to over the course of 2 years resonated with the American people.

I am so proud of each and every one of you. Congratulations. I think we can all share great pride in what has been accomplished since we took our oath of office just a week ago. It is extraordinary. There is a new tone.

You know what is particularly gratifying to me is to see so many of our colleagues, our Republican colleagues, our good friends, our dear friends, join with us in really moving forward an agenda that benefits all Americans.

I think maybe I should yield to the gentleman from Ohio because he wants to say something.

I think for those watching we have to explain what the term cardinal means, in terms of a new position.

Could you amplify on that, Mr. Ryan?

Right. And I look forward to the proposal that will reduce the interest on student loans, because I know so many families in my district back in the South Shore of Boston and Cape Cod and the islands, where the families and specifically the students themselves take a loan and find themselves graduating from college with a debt, on the average, of approximately $20,000. We know that over time they are catching up for a significant number of years, preventing them from putting that bonus that they receive at the end of the year for a down payment on a home to ensure their future or maybe just putting it into an IRA.

And it comes real quick.

And hope.

And I believe there is a palpable sense of optimism for the first time. And I think much of it is predicated on that bipartisanship that we are talking about that was reflected in that vote.

Now, partisanship is good in the sense that there is a diversity of ideas, and out of that debate on ideas comes sound public policy.

We have had debate after debate, 10 years' worth of debate on the minimum wage. Workers in this country have been waiting for this moment, even if they make more than the minimum wage, because it sends a message that finally the U.S. Congress is listening to them. And so there is hope.

And it is not just Democrats. As all of you have indicated, there was a significant minority of Republicans who voted for it. So I think, not only should we be proud, but I think the American people should begin to understand that something is happening. Something good is happening, Mr. Speaker, and it is going to take time. It is not going to be all roses. There will be speed bumps. But finally we are turning into a new direction. And I know that every Member on the Democratic side is excited about working with our Republican colleagues to advance the agenda that will truly impact the lives of most American families.

Of course.

Tim, could we go back? And, again, I promise I won't interrupt. I know sometimes I have a tendency to do that.

But I have to tell you, the fact that one of the first orders of business was to institute the so-called PAYGO rules, which means we recognize that there is a deficit out there that has to be addressed, it is not going to be easy. I know the American people understand that. But again, it goes back to that optimism and that hope that is beginning to emerge.

Yes, it is going to be tough, but we are a resilient people. We are a tough people. And we might have to make some sacrifices, but we are going to get back to the time where the deficit and the national debt was declining dramatically and our national economy was booming and the disparity in this country between those that have and those that don't have was narrowing. Narrowing, Mr. Speaker.

So the issue of inequality of income and wealth will be addressed. It will be addressed, and we can do it. We can do it together. We can do it in a bipartisan fashion because the Members of this Congress, I believe, have heard loud and clear this past November from the American people.

We are waiting.

I appreciate my friend from Florida, and I have, it is getting late for me and I am going to have to excuse myself for the remaining 15 minutes. But I want to pick up on something that you just referenced, and that is the American people have to understand that we are now alone. We are now alone with this issue.

Just this past week there was a report in the British press that the withdrawal of the troops from the United Kingdom would not be slowed. There are no plans on the part of the British,

or anyone else, any other nation, state on this planet, to introduce additional troops as part of this escalation. We are alone. There is no more coalition, if there was ever one to begin with, other than in name only.

America is now alone, because the rest of the world has concluded that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, a mistake for reasons that I think we all know but are not going to list them here today.

But let's remember this, Mr. Speaker. In the past 6 or 7 months, there was a poll that was commissioned by our own Department of State, and the results were painful because this was the conclusion on two questions. The first question was, do you believe it is better for American troops to leave? This was asked in a way that presumably was done in a survey that was accurate. It was commissioned by our own Department of State. And 70 percent of the Iraqi people said, yes, we would be better off if the American troops left.

But what was more disturbing and painful was that in excess of 60 percent of the Iraqi people, according to this poll, said that it was okay to kill a member of the American military.

What are we fighting for now? What are we fighting for? Saddam Hussein is gone. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were never any links to al Qaeda.

What have we accomplished? Well, I dare say that what we have done is we have managed to create an even stronger Iran that has a relationship with Iraq, that includes all kinds of agreements, including a military cooperation agreement between the government of Iraq and the government of Iran. Does anyone ever talk about that? Can anyone explain to me what the terms of that agreement are?

What are we fighting for? What are we fighting for?

And, with that, I yield to the gentlewoman and ask to be excused.

Mr. Speaker, it's been said that the world goes on because a few people in every generation believe in it utterly, accept it unquestionably, underwrite it with their lives. Leo Diehl was one such man.

A community is gathering together in Harwich today to celebrate Leo's remarkable life that took him from Beacon Hill to the Halls of Congress. Those who remember him recall his wit, tenacity, dignity, compassion, irascibility, loyalty, and most importantly, his lust for life.

Diagnosed with polio at the age of 6, Leo never let his infirmity get in the way of living. Never one for sitting on the sidelines, he was determined to do all the things the other kids in Charlestown were doing. He was a formidable athlete--pitching 27 innings in a sandlot baseball game or playing goalie for the neighborhood hockey team. He refused confinement in a wheelchair and the pity of others.

In later life, he would say the experience of losing his legs and learning to use crutches to walk gave him the grace to understand the struggles that so many poor and working-class families endure on a daily basis. He reminded people that his brain, eyes, ears and, most importantly, his mouth still worked. Leo used them all to right wrongs where he saw them and to speak up, even stand-up, for those who didn't have a voice, who weren't as strong or as brave as he was.

Elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in the same year as Tip O'Neill, the two men became fast friends and allies. Later, when Leo would lose his seat, he would begin a storied career in the Commonwealth's tax department, eventually rising to tax commissioner.

Then, the call came. Newly elected Majority Whip, and his old friend, Tip O'Neill, wanted him to come to Washington, DC. He needed a good right-hand, a conscience and a confidant. The rest, they say, is history.

He dined with kings and queens, prime ministers and cardinals, but never forgot his working class roots. He was a constant presence in this House; a role-model of character and integrity for Members and staff alike. Many called him the ``watch-dog''; lots of other people called him other things--usually behind his back. Regardless, at the end of the day, everyone had the greatest respect for Leo--a man who served this institution well and faithfully.

In later years, he would raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for charity with his good friend and with the help of those he inspired.

St. Luke reminds us that to those to whom much is given, much is required--and should be expected. In the case of Leo Diehl, he gave as good as he got. Now he's in a place, joined with his wife Grace, family and friends; made whole and perfect in His sight--and most likely still helping his friend, his Speak-ah, Tom make the streets of heaven a better place.

Thank you, Mr. Meek, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Ryan.

I arrived some 10 minutes ago and had the opportunity to hear some of

the remarks of our friend and colleague from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx. She spoke about the truly outrageous comments by both the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and the President of Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad, at the United Nations; and I think we all concur that not only were the words offensive and insulting and demeaning, but they had to be responded to.

She spoke clearly about the threat that Iran is posing in the Middle East. Yet she talks about Iraq with a view that I don't share in terms of her description. She speaks about progress, moving forward. That is a very hopeful vision, and maybe under new leadership that is a possibility. But that is not what is happening now. And, ironically, the direction that Iraq is going is towards Iran. How ironic. How ironic that a member of the majority party speaks about Iraq as if it were going forward and at the same time decries the threat from Iran.

If you look to my right in this particular picture, what you have is a photo that was recently taken in Tehran. The gentleman that is farthest to my right is the Prime Minister of Iraq. He is shaking hands and clasping the hands of Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is the President of Iran and whose remarks at the United Nations provoked a response from most Americans and hopefully most members of the United Nations that was deserved.

What I find particularly interesting is that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and almost 3,000 American lives have been lost to provide freedom to Iraq, and yet they are going to Tehran. And while in Tehran, according to the Congressional Research Service, there have been a number of agreements between these two governments. Stop and think about that.

A joint committee has been formed to prevent border infiltration from Iran into Iraq, a joint committee to exchange information on mine fields left over from the 1980 to 1988 war, cooperation to search for missing victims of the war, a requirement for Iran to devote a part of its reconstruction contributions for Iraq to Iraq's defense minister. And, most importantly, a bilateral military cooperation.

What have we done?

And I think you have stated it well, Tim, and that is that despite the reality, because of political needs on the part of the Republican majority, the American people are not getting the truth.

I am not suggesting that there is intentional misleading on the part of our colleagues. I think that they hope so profoundly that they have created an alternative reality. How can a Republican Member come to the floor and say on one hand we have got to be careful of Iran and things are going well in Iraq and the only thing that I can see, in addition to the report of the National Intelligence Estimate, is that Iraq is going in the direction of Iran? Some day we could wake up and there is an alliance. There is an alliance.

There are connections. The leadership in Baghdad during the Saddam Hussein regime, many of them resided in Tehran, and what we have here is a symbol of the two leaders of both of these countries executing military cooperation agreements. Is that the direction that the American administration intended when they launched a war into Iraq, that we would create a hegemon in the region, in Iran, that would be allied with Iraq? Now, I am not suggesting it is a formal alliance, but you tell me what direction it is going in. Have an oversight hearing on it.

But when you don't think through a situation, when you don't plan, you have unintended consequences.

I just want to ask Mr. Meek, because I know he serves with great distinction on the Armed Services Committee, can you tell me has there been a hearing, an oversight hearing, in terms of what is encompassed in that bilateral military cooperation agreement between Iran and Iraq? Has there been any exercise by the Republican majority in this House of finding out what it is all about? Should we be concerned? Because, if I can for just 30 seconds, I want to read. This is from a think tank in Britain. Sometimes you have to go overseas to get the truth:

``Iran, despite being a part of U.S. President Bush's Axis of Evil, has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East. Of particular note is Iran's influence in Iraq. The greatest problem facing the U.S. is that Iran has superseded the United States as the most influential power in Iraq.''

Has there been a hearing in the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Chairman?

You know, and you are so right. I mean, we really have to be past partisanship at this point in time. And, again, I am not being critical of a particular Republican Member. But to come to this floor and say that things are heading in the right direction is simply inaccurate. It is not intentional, but it is inaccurate.

And it is, you know, hope that is founded on an illusion. But there are some Republicans that are speaking out, that are known to be hawkish, if you will, in terms of their view. I serve on the International Relations Committee. And recently we have had a hearing.

And before the hearing there was a letter that was sent to the President of the United States who claims that we are winning the war on terrorism, and things are going well. And this is what this letter said. I am just going to read one paragraph. ``The United States efforts in Afghanistan are failing. Afghanistan faces its highest level of violence and corruption since its liberation. Drug money continues to finance terrorism.'' The chart shows, by the way, that there was like 44 tons of opium production in 2005.

In 2006 it is estimated to be over 6,000 in this current year, 6,100 to be exact. It has become a narco state. Let me go back to this letter.

``That failure, coupled with aggressive efforts of the terrorists, threatens to destroy Afghanistan's nascent democracy. A free government that Americans and coalitions have died to support.''

That letter was sent to the President by two of our colleagues, one Henry Hyde, the highly respected chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and Mark Kirk from the State of Illinois, both Republicans. For the first time, there is a little bit of reality and forthrightness, and I am not going to use the word ``truth'' I will say accuracy, in terms of what the realities are.

It is confirmed over and over and over again, wherever you go, whether it is Iran, or whether it is Iraq, or whether the Global War on Terror is

being won. And when you have the administration's own intelligence services saying that they conclude that the War in Iraq has made global terrorism worse by fanning Islamic radicalism and providing a training ground for lethal methods that are increasingly being exported to countries, we are spreading terrorism all over the world like a deadly virus.

I want to pose a question to our expert on the Armed Services Committee. Because while we are, as our national intelligence estimate suggests, while we are losing the war on terrorism, and it is expanding, what has been the impact in terms of our military?

Is our military stronger today than it was 4 years ago? Because today, Mr. Meek, in the Washington Times, a conservative paper, there is a report by Rowan Scarborough, the Army is studying whether to add more combat units to the rotation plan for Iraq.

``Rather than planning for a big draw down of 30,000 Army soldiers and Marines this year to a level of 100,000 as field commanders had expected, the two services are now trying to figure out how to keep the equivalent of two extra divisions or 40,000 troops in Iraq.''

The Army is facing more demand for troops at a time when military analysts say it is nearly stressed to the breaking point.

What does this mean? Are we eroding the strength of our military?

Of the people.

Can I ask you a question, again, in your role as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, there have been general after general that have spoken out publicly in a very courageous way that have made statements. Let me just read one of them.

Retired Army General John Batiste, this is what he had to say several months ago, and he was part of the team that actually did the planning. He was involved in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Here is what he had to say: ``We went to war with a flawed plan that did not account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a Secretary of Defense who did not understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who did not build a strong team.''

In your time on the committee, and I know Mr. Ryan, too, also serves on the Committee on Armed Services, has he ever been invited by the majority to come before the committee and explain in detail what the process was? Have you ever met General Batiste in your capacity on the dais of the House Armed Services Committee?

If the gentleman would yield to me, I think the American people should be aware that whether it was today or yesterday, there was a hearing, we will call it a rump hearing, an unofficial hearing that was conducted by Democrats with three retired senior military officers who came before Democratic members to explain and give their opinions on what went wrong. Imagine, imagine having to do that, that your point about the need to change Congress so that there are no questions, but that this presidency and this White House and this administration is held accountable. It just boggles my mind.

Can I ask Mr. Ryan a question. General Paul Eaton had this to say, another retired Army major general, and he is referring to the Secretary of Defense. He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.

Have you ever seen General Eaton before your committee?

I don't know if the gentlelady saw last evening the interview with former President Bill Clinton. He achieved a bit of notoriety. There was a statement that President Clinton made about if he were President at this point in time, there would be so many more troops in Afghanistan. There would be so many more troops in Afghanistan. The inference is, of course, that we wouldn't be in Iraq.

Well, I am not going to speculate, but I thought it was significant that he talked about the reality is that there is just insufficient troops existing.

You know what I find particularly interesting, we are talking about active duty army military personnel. It is worse with the National Guard and the Army Reserve. I know we all have Guard units back home. I have a large military reservation that has served this country very well. We have, in my opinion, some of the best Army and Air Force National Guard units anywhere in the country. But the truth is, they are under incredible stress.

I will just read this to you. ``More than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready largely because of vast equipment shortfalls that will take as much as $21 billion to correct.

``The comments by Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum came in the wake of disclosures by Army officials, analysts and members of the Congress that two-thirds of the active Army's brigades are not combat ready.

``The problem, they say, is driven by budget constraints that won't allow the military to complete the personnel training and equipment repairs and replacement that must be done when units return home after deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan.

``I am further behind or in an even more dire situation than the active Army, but we both have the same symptoms. I just have a higher fever.''