Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that setting deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq is unacceptable. I am in agreement with the concept of adding a series of success checkpoints, and I suggested as much in a letter to the President 2 weeks ago. It worked before when we set deadlines for a new constitution and elections, and I think it could work again.

But withdrawal is the Democratic leadership's only solution if the Iraqis fall short of the benchmarks. That is simply too simplistic. It is too limiting. It is tying the hands of the President and the Pentagon.

We should have benchmarks, but the response shouldn't be all or nothing. These benchmarks should carry a gradation of consequences, rather than an all-or-nothing withdrawal.

Pulling back to the perimeter is an obvious step between surging and withdrawal. There are other gradations that our military leaders could propose to the President.

To begin an immediate withdrawal upon failure of a benchmark is like writing a lease with an eviction-only remedy for a late payment. It makes sense to have a section in the default paragraphs calling for a late payment fee before you begin the eviction.

The leadership in Iraq needs to know that they don't have forever to make the decisions regarding dividing up the oil fairly and regarding returning Baathists to positions of public service. They need to know they don't have forever in coming up with a working model of pluralism. We are providing their protection. We have the right to tell them to hurry. We have an obligation to our servicemen and women to tell the Iraqi factions to hurry.

But we don't need to tie the hands of our field commanders and our President with an arbitrary withdrawal date, predetermined by some political purposes and not by what is happening in the Iraq.

The circumstances on the ground in Iraq have changed at least three times since we went in--from an action against a dangerous regime, to an action against insurgents, to a civil war between Iraqi Shias and Iraqi Sunnis.

The circumstances may change a couple of more times before we get Iraq to reasonable stability, and, who knows, the Iraqis may ultimately want us to retain a base or two.

This bill overreaches. This bill improperly limits the options open to our commanders and our troops. This bill makes no provision for any number of successes in Iraq, which are still quite possible. And I urge its defeat.

Madam Speaker, I wish to address three questions here on the floor today: Where are we? Where do we want to be? How do we get there?

First, where are we? We're in phase 3 of a conflict in Iraq. In Phase 1 we overran Iraq in response to an American national security threat. We won.

Then came Phase 2. We were forwardly deployed; the terrorists brought the fight to us; we busted up terrorist networks; America was protected from further attacks. We won.

Now comes Phase 3. At best, Iraq is engulfed in a sectarian killing spree. At worst, Iraq has descended into a civil war.

So where are we? We're thankful for the incredible work of our military in winning Phase 1 and 2. We're aware--and I think all of us are aware--that only the Iraqi people can win Phase 3. We're united in imploring the Iraqi people to choose order over chaos; pluralism over theocracy; and freedom over authoritarianism. As we had the help of the French, the Iraqis have had the help the United States.

But just as it was only American patriots who could decide the future of our country, only Iraqi patriots can decide the future of their country. It is a neo-con mistake to charge our war fighters with building an Iraqi national consensus. Iraqis must decide for themselves if they want to live in a unified, peaceful and pluralistic Iraq. No amount of American military might can compel that result.

So where are we? Thankful for success in the outcomes that we could control; aware of the outcomes that we cannot control.

Where do we want to be? We want the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country. The President is wisely pressing them to do so. We want the Iraqi leadership to make some key political decisions that could bring reconciliation. We want them to divide up the oil fairly, to allow banned Baathists back into positions of public trust and to develop a working model of pluralism.

We want the Iraqi leadership to know that they don't have forever, that they should settle these reconciliation questions quickly. We want them to know that we are not content to provide an overall security umbrella for their country while they dispatch death squads to kill their enemies and improve their sectarian positions. We want them to know that we're reaching for the button that would lower that umbrella. And we want to avoid the error of nation building.

The job of the U.S. military is to crush, kill and destroy the enemies of the United States. They are not nation builders; they are warriors. And they do their jobs very, very well. As commanded, our military entered Iraq to destroy what we understandably believed were threats to our national security.

We were successful in destroying those threats and thereafter in interrupting terrorist networks. Those were outcomes that we could control.

Now we are rightly asked for inputs that we can control but we are faced with outcomes that only the Iraqi people can control. It is right to evaluate the quality of our forces' inputs, but wrong to hold them accountable for outcomes beyond their control. Diplomats, statesmen, peacemakers and everyday Iraqis must work with us to develop a path to progress--a path that has milestones along the way and which has rewards for meeting those milestones and consequences for failure. Our military must help plan the path because they are the most stable and trustworthy institution on the ground in Iraq and because they are experts at planning and logistics.

Since our military is in control of the ``planning'' input, they will rightly be evaluated on the basis of the quality of that planning. Because they are the most trained and capable force in the world, our military must also continue to provide protection for the decisionmakers as they plan the path to progress. The quality of that protection is an input that will rightly be evaluated.

Because they are experts at discipline and structure, our military must help define the agreed-upon milestones, the rewards for meeting those milestones and the consequences for missing them. The quality of those inputs will rightly be evaluated.

Because they are capable, our military must provide strength for the first steps on the path. The quality of that strength and the capabilities with which it is delivered will rightly be evaluated.

Having well supplied those inputs, the American military will leave Iraq successful--in Phase 1, 2 and 3. If the Iraqi people follow the path to progress to a peaceful, pluralist and unified Iraq, they will have been successful. The path may lead to something less.

Any lesser outcome is the responsibility of the Iraqi people. So we want a path to progress, and we hope for the blessings of liberty for Iraq.

Now. how do we get there? The President has ordered an increase in troop strength in Iraq. He thinks a surge in troops will give breathing room for the development of a path to progress.

I'm concerned that a surge will have the opposite effect--that it will give breathing room to the death squads, that our service men and women will be caught in the crossfire and that the surge will end right where it began. In fact, that's what happened in Baghdad in August and September of 2006.

I'm concerned that a surge sends a conflicting message. On the one hand we're telling them, ``You don't have forever; you've got to make progress in solving these political questions; you've got to stop legging up on your enemies; it's your country.'' By surging, we may be saying, ``Not to worry, we're increasing the size of that American security umbrella; there's no urgency; we're here to stay; in fact, more of us are coming.''

I want all Iraqi factions and leaders of factions to worry. I want them to see us reaching for the button that would bring that umbrella down. I want them to imagine the click of that button and the feel of the wind from the descending umbrella.

The resolution before us isn't written the way I would have written it, but it's the resolution before us. Resolutions are the way that Congress discharges its constitutional responsibility to communicate with the President. This resolution says, ``We disapprove of the surge.''

Parties on both sides have added additional and conflicting meaning to those words. In the end, I just have to vote on the basis of the words. That's why I'm going to vote in favor of the resolution and express my concern about the effectiveness of the surge.

Unlike many others who will vote for this resolution, I will not follow it with a vote to cut off funding. Nor will I follow it with a vote to withdraw immediately. Both of those actions would be mistaken.

Some will say that I am too impatient and insistent for decisions from the Iraqi leadership. It's true that it took us nearly 100 years to figure out that slavery was antithetical to freedom. It took us even longer to figure out that women should have the right to vote.

But as I had the opportunity to say to one of Prime Minister Maliki's advisors in Baghdad in August, it is our right as Iraq's protector and our obligation to our servicemen and women to insist on a timetable for these decisions. I've only been to Iraq twice. Both times I found that the hardest thing was leaving.

While there, surrounded by America's best, I had the sense that I was at ground zero of mission and purpose. The Americans serving in Iraq are the most impressive people in the

world. Everyone of them is a volunteer. Everyone of them, everyone of their predecessors and everyone of their non-deployed comrades has offered his or her life in preservation of our lives.

America's best deserve our best--our clearest thinking, our freshest analysis, our steadfast devotion. Forget the political consequences; protect no one's ``legacy;'' don't worry about ``saving face;'' make sound decisions; take decisive action. Tell them what their mission is. Discharge the Constitutional responsibility of the Congress. Give them a clear description of the inputs we expect from them. Evaluate them on the quality of those inputs but don't hold them accountable for outcomes they cannot control.

Ask them to do accomplishable things. Don't ask them to do the impossible.

No amount of force can cause someone to choose freedom, and freedom cannot be given--it must be earned. We have provided the conditions under which freedom can take root. Iraqis must nurture the seed and water it with their own sweat and blood.

If they do so, Iraq will enjoy the blessings of liberty. If they don't, our military will nevertheless have been successful.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we face three questions here tonight: Where are we? Where do we want to be? And how do we get there?

First, where are we? We are in phase three of a conflict in Iraq. In phase one, we overran Iraq in response to an American national security threat. We won.

Then came phase two. We were forwardly deployed; the terrorists brought the fight to us; we busted up terrorist networks. America was protected from further attacks. We won.

Now comes phase three. At best, Iraq is engulfed in a sectarian killing spree. At worst, Iraq has descended into a civil war.

So where are we? We are thankful for the incredible work of our military in winning phase one and two. We are aware, and I think all of us are aware, that only the Iraqi people can win phase three.

It is a neocon mistake to charge our warfighters with building an Iraqi national consensus. Iraqis must decide for themselves if they want to live in a unified, pluralistic, and peaceful Iraq. No amount of American military might can compel that result.

So where are we? Thankful for the successes and the outcomes that we can control; aware of the outcomes that we cannot control.

Where do we want to be? We want the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country. The President is wisely pressing them to do so. We want the Iraqi leadership to make some key political decisions that can bring reconciliation. We want them to divide up the oil fairly, to allow banned Baathists back into positions of public trust, and to develop a working model of pluralism. We want the Iraqi leadership to know that they don't have forever, and that they should settle these reconciliation questions quickly. And we want to avoid the error of nation building.

The job of the U.S. military is to crush, kill, and destroy the enemies of the United States. They are not nation builders; they are warriors, and they do their jobs very, very well.

As commanded, our military entered Iraq to destroy what we understandably believed were threats to our national security. We were successful in destroying those threats and, thereafter, in interrupting terrorist networks. Those were outcomes that we could control.

Now, we are rightly asked for inputs that we can control, but we are faced with outcomes that only the Iraqi people can control. It is right to evaluate the quality of our force's inputs, but wrong to hold them accountable for outcomes beyond their control.

Diplomats, statesmen, peacemakers, and everyday Iraqis must work to develop a path to progress, a path that has milestones along the way, and which has rewards for meeting those milestones and consequences for failure.

If the Iraqi people follow the path to progress to a peaceful, pluralistic, and unified Iraq, they will have been successful. The path may lead to something less. Any lesser outcome is the responsibility of the Iraqi people. So we want a path to progress, and we hope for the blessings of liberty for Iraq.

Now, how do we get there? The President has ordered an increase in troop strength in Iraq. He thinks a surge in troops will give breathing room for the development of a path to progress. I am concerned that a surge will have the opposite effect: that we will give breathing room to the death squads; that our servicemen and women will be caught in the crossfire; and that the surge will end right where it began. In fact, that is what happened in Baghdad in August and September of 2006.

I am concerned that a surge sends a conflicting message. On the one hand, we are telling the Iraqi leadership, ``Hurry up, you don't have forever.'' On the other hand we are saying, ``No, not to worry. We are increasing the size of the American security umbrella.''

I want all Iraqi factions and all leaders of Iraqi factions to worry. I want them to see us reaching for the button that would bring down that security umbrella. I want them to imagine the click of the button and the feel of the wind from that descending umbrella.

The resolution before us isn't written the way I would have written it, but it is the resolution before us. Resolutions are the way that Congress discharges its constitutional responsibility to communicate with the President. This resolution says we disapprove of the surge. Parties on both sides have added additional and conflicting meaning to those words. In the end, I just have to vote on the basis of the words. That is why I am going to vote in favor of the resolution and express my concern about the effectiveness of the surge.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 59, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week.

It is particularly helpful to have people from all walks of life in this body. It is especially helpful to have Mr. Lipinski as an engineer here, along with some other engineers, to cause us to focus on the crucial need for engineering education in this country.

My dad is an engineer. He lost this son to political science and the law. Not everybody can be an engineer. But the folks that can be engineers really will help us solve the challenges of the future.

Here is our challenge in terms of numbers: India is graduating somewhere north of 200,000 engineers a year; China is graduating nearly 300,000 engineers a year; and the United States is somewhere in the order of magnitude of 60,000 engineers a year. That doesn't bode well for us.

In a technological world, we need more engineers. We need people to enter science, technology, engineering and math education. And so it is a good thing to have a week to celebrate the importance of engineering to the history of the country and to the future of the country. I applaud the gentleman from Illinois' effort to bring this to the floor, and I am in complete support of the resolution and look forward to its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 540 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the life of Carroll Campbell, a great statesman, a passionate voice for economic development in South Carolina, and a good friend. He served the 4th District of South Carolina as a Representative in this body from 1979-1986, and I am honored to serve in the same seat. He also served the state of South Carolina in the State House and Senate, and as Governor from 1987-1995, I am honored to have the opportunity to introduce this bill to name the courthouse to be constructed in Greenville, South Carolina as the ``Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United States Courthouse.''

As a Representative for the 4th District of South Carolina, Campbell was a rising star from the start, gaining early seats on the Appropriations and Ways & Means Committees in the 95th to 99th Congresses. He also participated with Lee Atwater in South Carolina's first presidential primary, helping California Governor Ronald Reagan ultimately win the nomination.

As two-term governor, Campbell demonstrated his leadership in difficult and uncertain times for the State of South Carolina, He was a trusted voice in the evacuation preceding Hurricane Hugo, and a self- giving leader in the recovery and rebuilding in its aftermath. He is also responsible for attracting prestigious international firms to South Carolina, including BMW, which is in the 4th District.

In 2001, Campbell announced in an open letter that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and said his wife Iris and his two sons had joined in the battle. The people of South Carolina were saddened, and joined in prayer for his health and perseverance. The disease claimed his life December 7, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the life of Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. by naming the courthouse to be constructed in Greenville, South Carolina as the ``Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United States Courthouse.''

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 993) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to raising awareness and enhancing the state of computer security in the United States, and supporting the goals and ideals of National Cyber Security Awareness Month.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H. Res. 993, the resolution now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 993, a resolution to applaud the goals and activities of National Cyber Security Awareness Month.

Computers and the Internet have been integrated into our daily routine in businesses, schools and homes. These information and communication systems underpin our government, and they increase the productivity of our industries, financial institutions and transportation systems. However, our increasing dependence on computers and computer networks exposes our society to the risks of cyber attacks, destructive viruses, malicious hacking, and identity theft.

This is why the National Cyber Security Alliance, a cooperative effort between government, academia and industry, has organized National Cyber Security Awareness Month for each of the past 3 years and has already begun planning for the next National Cyber Security Awareness Month in October 2007. As is only proper for a cyber security-related effort, there is a central Web site that is available all year round with on-line resources that offer tips and tools to help computer users protect themselves from viruses, worms, hacker attacks, identity theft, spyware and more.

In addition to these on-line resources, during National Cyber Security Awareness Month there are events all over the country on specific cyber security topics aimed at consumers, students, children, parents, small businesses and educational institutions. Attorneys general from 41 States and the District of Columbia have signed on to a resolution like H. Res. 993, supporting National Cyber Security Awareness Month. The National Cyber Security Alliance, in partnership with the Small Business Administration, sponsored a series of workshops to provide people from small businesses and nonprofit organizations with access to cyber security training developed by the National Institutes of Standards and Technology. In total, some sort of event on cyber security took place in 49 States during the month.

Of course, cyber security is not just an issue in October, but year round. National Cyber Security Awareness Month is a chance not only to raise awareness about computer vulnerabilities and threats, but also to inform people about programs that exist throughout the U.S. to educate students, parents, businesspeople, local law enforcement and government employees about cyber security and to attract students into careers in information technology.

For example, the National Science Foundation supports a program at the University of South Carolina in which undergraduates studying computer science and undergraduates training to be teachers team up on summer cyber security projects to get the experience of what actually doing research is like and to explore how the projects might be used to communicate about cyber security to K-12 students and to the general public.

In conclusion, I would like to thank Chairman Lungren, Ms. Sanchez, Chairman Boehlert, Mr. Gordon, Chairman King and Mr. Thompson for introducing this resolution. We applaud the associations, companies, organizations and agencies involved in National Cyber Security Awareness Month for their efforts to help all of us to become more responsible, safer computer users.

I urge my colleagues to support adoption of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You know, we want to listen to the terrorists. We want to know who they are talking to. If they are talking foreign to foreign, we clearly have the right to listen in. If they are talking foreign to domestic, we want to listen, but we want a judge to review that.

The idea is to have in this separation of powers between the judicial and the executive branch the oversight that the Framers had in mind for our constitutional system.

At the end of this war on terror, it is really about whether we have preserved the constitutional system that is going to win the hearts and minds of the world to our point of view. It is crucial that we do that here tonight by voting to see that we have judicial oversight.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be voting for the amendment. I have got questions, though. Why now? Why this amendment? Why now?

No court has ordered the State of South Carolina to recognize a Massachusetts marriage. In fact, it is all within any given State. If a court had ordered South Carolina to recognize a Massachusetts marriage, this amendment would not be failing today on the House floor, as we all know it will. It would be passing with a significant margin.

I also have a question about why this amendment. Why not a federalism amendment? Why not an amendment that honors the 10th amendment to the Constitution that says that all powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States?

As it is, this amendment is not what it should be. It should be a federalism amendment. It should be an amendment that says States have the prerogative to define marriage within their boundaries. As it is, we are providing a Federal definition of marriage, or attempting to do so, in this amendment that will fail.

I think it is also important to ask why this amendment, and to point out that no one should be under the misimpression that we are here mandating, let's say, a biblical definition of marriage. If we were, we would be directing the States only to grant divorces on the biblical basis of infidelity. But nobody is proposing such an amendment.

Why? Because we have avoided the dangers of a theocracy. I agree with what my colleague from Missouri said earlier, Mr. Cleaver: this is the church's business. This is the synagogue's business. This is the business of the mosque to figure out what is marriage within their definition.

Now, when a State gets involved, it is really just about children and the result of divorce. Why now? Why this amendment? But yet the question is simply brought up, so we vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Silver Crescent Foundation and the winners of the 2006 Silver Crescent Award.

The prestigious Silver Crescent Award for Manufacturing Excellence is a salute to manufacturers in the State of South Carolina. This award is intended to promote wealth, innovation, and job creation in the State, and to recognize companies in South Carolina who excel in manufacturing.

I am pleased to announce the winners of this year's Silver Crescent Award for Manufacturing Excellence. The three award winners are Jarden Plastic Solutions, Westminster's U.S. Engine Valve, and Bridgestone Firestone's Graniteville plant. Jarden Plastic Solutions is located in my district in Greer, and they are an industry innovator specializing in high-volume precision injection molding. The company designs, engineers, and manufactures everything from recreational equipment to advanced healthcare tools. Bridgestone Firestone is one of the world's top tire producing plants. They are no strangers to success. In 2003, Bridgestone Firestone's Graniteville plant was also named one of the top 10 plants in North America by Industry Week. Finally, Westminster's U.S. Engine Valve is a first class provider of automotive engine components. This is the second time they have received the Silver Crescent Award. These three manufacturers know the keys to success, and I am proud that they call South Carolina home.

To build the next generation of manufacturers and engineers, the Silver Crescent Foundation organizes Camp Success. The goal of Camp Success is to get middle school and high school kids excited about engineering, math, and science. The camp uses state of the art technology to give kids the firm foundation they will need to become highly skilled professionals. By investing time, effort, and money in our kids, Camp Success ensures that South Carolina and our Nation will have the tools necessary to compete in tomorrow's global economy.

I am extremely proud of the Silver Crescent Foundation's efforts in the State of South Carolina. Under the leadership of President Tony Smith along with excellent award sponsors like the South Carolina Research Authority and the Advanced Technology Institute, the Silver Crescent Foundation is leading the way toward a bright future for South Carolina's manufacturers and a new generation of engineers and manufacturers.

Mr. Speaker, please join me as I commend this year's winners, the Silver Crescent Foundation, and everyone involved in the success of South Carolina manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Colonel Jamie L. Adams on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force after more than 30 years of distinguished service to the Department of Defense and his country.

A native son of South Carolina, Jamie grew up in Greenville, just a stone's throw from my home in Travelers Rest. After graduating from Carolina High School in Greenville, he set out on a military career, heading across the state to Charleston, and enrolling in The Citadel, earning a degree in business administration and a commission as a second lieutenant in the United States Air Force in 1973. Now, some 33 years later, this highly respected Air Force acquisition professional will end his military career while serving as the chief of staff of the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). DCMA is a worldwide organization of 11,000 military and civilian personnel responsible for ensuring that the supplies and materials going to our men and women in uniform are delivered on time and are of the highest quality.

As a newly commissioned officer, Jamie was assigned to the procurement office at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia. It was there that his ascent to the top echelons of the Defense acquisition community began. Displaying a penchant for understanding the intricacies of Federal contracting, he blazed a career path that in the ensuing decade took him to various contracting assignments throughout the United States and saw him rise through the junior-officer ranks.

In the mid-1980s, Jamie was named chief of the contracting division of the 67th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing at Bergstrom AFB, Texas, and promoted to the rank of major. While there, he earned a master's degree in business administration, an academic credential that would serve him well as he took on positions of increasing authority and responsibility within the pressure-packed realm of Air Force acquisition management. In 1999, after having been promoted to the rank of colonel, he was tapped to be the chief of contracting for the Air Mobility Command at Scott AFB, Illinois, a demanding job in which he led a cadre of more than 600 contracting professionals who exercised stewardship of $1.4 billion for procurement in support of America's strategic and tactical airlift mobility network.

But all that was prelude to his capstone assignment for the past two years as DCMA chief of staff, a position that showcased his acquisition knowledge, his human-relations skills, and his results-producing leadership. With Col. Adams in the vanguard, DCMA successfully adopted the principles of performance based management, ensuring effective, outcome-centered support to its customers--principally the military services and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. He consistently demonstrated a blend of technical competence and affability, reconciling divergent points of view and catalyzing the agency's pursuit of acquisition excellence, workforce re-engineering, and customer satisfaction. This past spring, in firm testament to his stature within in the Defense acquisition community, Jamie was a featured presenter at the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement-sponsored Defense Acquisition 2006 forum, where he shared his insights on contingency contracting and the management of contractors on today's battlefield--a challenge of considerable import over the past three years.

Whether he was approving base-level purchase orders, maintaining vigilance over major systems acquisitions, or steering a large Defense agency through the white waters of change, Col. Adams served with unwavering diligence, integrity, and competence. On the occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force, I offer my congratulations to one of South Carolina's finest sons and wish him and his wife, Sandra, well in their future pursuits.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5143) to authorize the Secretary of Energy to establish monetary prizes for achievements in overcoming scientific and technical barriers associated with hydrogen energy, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5143, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H-Prize, an exciting opportunity to do for hydrogen what the X Prize did for entrepreneurial space flight. First of all, it is important for us to get a handle on what our need is, why it is that we are aiming at hydrogen, why we must accelerate the drive for hydrogen.

Probably a picture is worth a thousand words. So here is a picture of a gas line in China. As you can see, if that is the future, our addiction to oil becomes a significant problem for us.

ExxonMobil predicts in their energy report at the end of last year that global energy demand will grow by 60 percent between now and 2030. The challenge, of course, for us in that is that that increase in global energy demand will necessitate a 40 percent increase in OPEC oil production. Even if they have got it, do we really want to be that much more dependent on countries in OPEC?

So the idea is to figure out a way to break our addiction to oil, to move away from this dependence that we are currently in.

The Ansari X PRIZE did for entrepreneurial space flight what the H- Prize can do for hydrogen. As you know, Burt Rattan's spaceship won, became the first private spaceship in commercial use and flew within 2 weeks successfully and back to the Earth. That is the idea; that is the model that we are using here in the H-Prize.

The H-Prize would basically set up three categories of prizes. The first is an every-other-year $1 million prize for breakthroughs in production, storage, distribution and utilization of hydrogen. Every other year, as well, we would issue a prize of $4 million for breakthroughs in prototypes. And

then, within 10 years, a $10 million prize for the team that can transform from well to wheels essentially, or as one of our colleagues pointed out, from water to wheels, if you are thinking about splitting water to create hydrogen. That team that can do that transformation would win a $10 million prize, augmented, we hope, by up to $40 million worth of private money that would be added to the prize amount. That private money would be matched dollar for dollar to the venture capital that was raised by the team that does the transformation.

So it is a way of testing the teams' ability to get us all the way to the government's objective, which is not to declare a winner in a science project, but rather, to get all the way to the marketplace. So if a team can do it, if they can break us through to the hydrogen economy, they would get the $10 million, but then they would get a dollar-for-dollar match of up to $40 million if we can raise that private money for their venture capital. And so they would have $50 million to get to the marketplace.

Now, along the way, we have had helpful suggestions from various members of the committee and other Members not on the committee. And it is true that there are other competing technologies. For example, a breakthrough in better batteries could supplant hydrogen. Better solar cells could replace or win out in this race to the fuel of the future. Those, I see, as the three big competitors: hydrogen, solar cells and then better batteries.

What we hope to do in the H-Prize is incentivize the breakthroughs, the creativity that can get us to a hydrogen economy. Along the way I think I am hearing from other Members of Congress about possible other prizes that would incentivize perhaps solar or perhaps better battery technology.

I think it makes sense to have prizes because the beauty of prizes, as we heard from Peter Diamondes, the founder of the X Prize, is, of course, if nobody wins, you don't pay the prize money. So the government basically gets the research done for free until somebody meets the metrics of the prize, and then we award the prize money. So I am very supportive of other prizes.

It is also true that it has worked before. We have actually done prizes in the past. In fact, the transcontinental railroad essentially had some prizes in it, both dollar-per-mile for the railroad companies rewarded by the Congress, appropriations from this body, and also a great deal of land that was offered to the railroads if they could do this, if they could complete the transcontinental railroad.

And, of course, the thing that I think we all need to be aware of is that this was done in 6 years. The transcontinental railroad was begun in 1863, completed in 1869. And you know, there was a lot going on during that time period. In fact, there was the Civil War under way. But the United States, with the support of the U.S. Congress, united east and west within 6 years. We can, because we have done it before.

Now, in 1927 Charles Lindbergh won a prize for being the first to successfully go in a transcontinental flight across the Atlantic Ocean. That is a transatlantic flight over the Atlantic Ocean. And that prize incentivized him and caused him to go for it. There was a lot of risk involved in that, but he won it; and the face of aviation was changed because of it.

So I submit to my colleagues here today that hydrogen is not as far away as we think it is. When we hear people talking about 10, 20, 30 years away, particularly when they get into the 30 kind of time frame, most Americans start putting that way on the back burner and maybe even off of the stove. But it really is not that far away if we get with it.

And the final example I would use for that is when President Kennedy announced in 1961 his goal of getting to the Moon before the decade was out, we did it in 1969. Within 8 years, the mission was accomplished.

It is important to remember that that mission was accomplished using slide rules, not the computers that we have today. So with the capabilities we have today, there is every reason to believe we can break through if we would but just get with it. And I look forward to the debate from colleagues who will share this view that we can get there faster than we think.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with great appreciation for his skill and efficiency in moving the H-Prize through the committee, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Boehlert.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), who is a cochair of the House Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett), whose district has one of the keys to this hydrogen future, Savannah River National Lab.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank Mr. Lipinski for his cooperative spirit and very helpful comments along the way. Mr. Lipinski is our chief cosponsor and someone who has improved the bill as it has worked its way through the process. Perhaps that is because of a pleasant personal relationship and also my respect for his expertise that made it easy for him to work with us, and I appreciate the work that he did to improve the bill.

Along the way we did make improvements through the committee process, and I appreciate the cooperative way that Mr. Lipinski and others on the Democratic side of the aisle worked with us in the committee. The result is a better bill and I am very appreciative of that.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I will introduce for the Record letters in support of the H-Prize from the National Hydrogen Association, the Hydrogen Advisory Council, the U.S. Fuel Cell Council, SAE International, Shell Hydrogen, BMW, General Motors, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Enertech Capital, Ion America, Tiax LLC, Protium Energy Technologies, and professors from USC Davis and Purdue.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize the great work of our folks on the committee, particularly David Goldston was extremely helpful in making all this happen. He works closely with Chairman Boehlert. I also want to thank Mr. Gordon and, again, Mr. Lipinski and other members of our staff that made it possible for us to get this quickly to the House floor.

Let me close with this: We have an opportunity to solve America's challenge in energy. It is a Republican problem. It is a Democratic problem. It is an American problem. The good news is, it can have an American solution.

This is an opportunity for a triple play. If we do this right, we can improve our national security by ending our dependence on foreign oil. We will still use foreign oil; of course, we will use oil for a long time, but we can move away from the dependent state that we are in now, dependent on places that are very unstable. So it is an opportunity to improve our national security.

It is also, secondly, an opportunity to create jobs and economic development, because if we can reinvent the car, imagine the jobs we can create.

And then, third, for the third part of the triple play is an opportunity to clean the air. Because whether it is an internal combustion engine, the way that BMW intends to do it, or a fuel cell, the way that General Motors intends to do it, the only emission out of the back of the car is water. We want to incentivize those breakthroughs.

There are some technological hurdles ahead, but with an H-Prize, with the incentive from the Federal Government and the support of the Federal Government saying we are going to do this, we are going to get there, I believe that we will summon the creativity of inventors and investors out there in America and around the world to try to win this prize, and in the process, America will win with a triple play.

Mr. Speaker, the letters I referred to previously are as follows:

Hydrogen Advisory Council,

May 8, 2006.

Representative Bob Inglis,

Cannon HOB,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Inglis: On behalf of the Hydrogen Advisory

Council, I want to congratulate you on the movement of H.R.

5143, the H-Prize Act of 2006, through the House Science

Committee. We look forward to working with your office in the

near future to move this crucial legislation to the

President's desk.

As you know, the U.S. spent almost $250 billion on oil in

2005 and 25% of America's trade deficit currently comes from

importing oil. These staggering numbers combined with growing

instability in the world's oil producing regions is very

concerning, and the need for a domestic solution to the

nation's future energy needs has never been more apparent.

We believe that the solution is hydrogen. Not only does

hydrogen provide a clean and renewable source of energy for

the U.S., it will help create thousands of new jobs and

enhance our national security.

The H-Prize will help move the nation towards this goal. By

incentivizing key breakthroughs in hydrogen technology,

storage, production, and distribution, the H-Prize Act of

2006 will help speed the hydrogen economy to fruition.

Furthermore, the H-Prize will do this in a fiscally

responsible way by only awarding prize monies to technologies

that reach set performance metrics and by leveraging a

combination of federal dollars and private-sector investment

without impeding natural market forces.

The Hydrogen Advisory Council fully supports the H-Prize

Act of 2006 and will do all it can to assure its future

passage and utilization. Thank you again for your continued

leadership on hydrogen policy.

Cordially,

Robert S. Walker,

Chairman, Hydrogen Advisory Council.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 681) supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 681, the resolution now under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 681, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week.

In 1951, the National Society of Professional Engineers established National Engineers Week. The purpose of the week is to increase understanding of and interest in engineering and technology careers and to promote K-12 literacy in math and science. It also showcases the contributions that engineers have made to our society. Cochairs of the 2006 week are the Society of Women Engineers and Northrop Grumman Corporation.

Historically, Engineers Week is celebrated during the week of George Washington's actual birthday, February 22, as he steered our new Nation toward technical advancements, invention and education. His many credits include an order given at Valley Forge for more engineers and engineering education, an order which led to the creation of the U.S. Army Engineers School.

There is no doubt that we have worked very hard and come a long way

since the days of President Washington to become the world's leader in innovation, and there is no doubt that engineers have been there every step of the way. From landing a man on the Moon to providing new colors in our children's crayon boxes, engineers play a role in nearly every facet of our lives.

I applaud the National Society of Professional Engineers for having this week to raise public awareness of the role engineers have to play in American prosperity. If we are to remain competitive and a world leader, however, it is not only important, but imperative, that we continue to attract young people to this profession. It is imperative that we provide them with the education and tools necessary to excel in this demanding and rewarding profession. It is also imperative that we see that the teachers have not just the knowledge but also the enthusiasm to inspire and stimulate students to excel in math and science.

It is my pleasure to join with my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) as an original cosponsor of H. Res. 681, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to close, and note that my distinguished colleague from Illinois referenced his engineering education. You notice he stopped short of talking about his Ph.D. in political science. That is where he went to the dark side. He could have fallen into the law after that, even worse. But he came to Congress instead, so we are happy to have him here and happy to have the expertise he offers.

As one of those political scientist undergrads myself, I would point out there are some national security implications to what we are describing here. The United States graduates in order of magnitude something like 60,000 engineers a year. China graduates perhaps north of 200,000. India as well north of 200,000 engineers a year. That has implications for us as a society.

Also, the U.S. Department of Labor predicts that in the future new jobs will require math and science training and technical ability four times more often than other jobs. In other words, there is a growing need, as Mr. Lipinski was saying, for people trained in science and math and engineering, in

spite of the fact that out of 100 high school students only two of those students will typically go on to ever get a degree in engineering or science. That is of concern.

And that is why I join with the gentleman from Illinois in urging my colleagues to adopt this resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bicycling community in Greenville, South Carolina, and my own office had a tragic loss this week. Jeanne Menard was a bicyclist and an enthusiast in Greenville who was struck and killed by a car. Maybe it was the fact that the sun was low in the sky, maybe it was a dirty windshield, maybe it was inattention, maybe it was all of those things. In any event, somebody who had given her time very recently to distributing helmets to school children in one of our parks was killed in our town.

As a society, we want to promote a healthier lifestyle. We want people to ride bikes in order to relieve congestion on our streets, in order to make them healthier and just to have some fun.

The problem is that we are not all attentive to those bikes. In South Carolina, there were 21 bicyclists killed in 2004; so far this year, 10. Nationwide, 600 bicyclists have been killed yearly in crashes with automobiles.

I applaud groups like the League of American Bicyclists, the Palmetto Cycling Coalition, the Spartanburg Freewheelers and the Greenville Spinners, of which Jeanne Menard was a part, in their efforts to promote bike safety; and I hope that all of us will take the opportunity to spread the word in our own districts.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall nos. 512, 513, and 514, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''