Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding his time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in very strong, strong support of this resolution.

You know, it has been said that no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy, and I believe that that is true. That's why our military must constantly plan for every eventuality in warfare, because failure to do so can cost lives.

The situation in Iraq is no different. We must prepare for every contingency. The day is coming when our brave men and women in uniform will leave Iraq, hopefully very, very soon. In fact, General Petraeus in his testimony last month spoke of the possibility that some of our troops will leave Iraq very soon, perhaps within weeks.

In order to facilitate a very safe and orderly withdrawal, it is important that our military leaders plan appropriately, and they must also consult with the Congress so that we can provide the needed support to ensure that our troops are safe and that our vital national interests are protected.

Prudent planning leads to success and provides the ability to react quickly to events on the ground. I believe that this resolution encourages such prudent planning. That's why I supported it when it came before the House Armed Services Committee, when it was debated then, and why I would urge the entire House to support it today. As was just mentioned by the chairman, it was a bipartisan vote and it passed 55-2.

The issue of our troop presence in Iraq has caused great debate across our country, has polarized this Congress, and I believe that this resolution is a demonstration that a bipartisan way forward can be achieved, that it can happen. In fact, it must happen for our Nation to move forward.

I certainly want to express my appreciation to the sponsors of this bill. I want to express my appreciation and deep regard and respect for the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, as well as our ranking member, Duncan Hunter, great American patriots, all of them.

Let us hope that the day is coming soon when our troops will come home with honor, with honor, our brave men and women who so proudly and bravely have protected and exported liberty and freedom, democracy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I went to the Rules Committee to offer an amendment to this bill that would have given the people of Michigan and other Great Lakes States fundamental fairness in the Federal flood insurance program. Unfortunately, the Democrat majority on the Rules Committee did not allow the people of Michigan to have their case heard on the floor of this House. I want to stress what I do understand about this bill; that this is an insurance program and that some will pay more than they take out, and that the idea is to have a broad spectrum of the Nation share the risk of natural disasters.

But when it comes to States like Michigan and the Federal flood insurance program, the people of my State are repeatedly being sucked dry by a mandated program that forces so many property owners into floodplains and into the program when they never, or almost never, flood. The net result is that Michigan property owners, by far, pay much, much more than their fair share.

Recent hurricanes, of course, have depleted FEMA funds. The Federal Government appropriately has stood up to help these States recover. But now the Federal flood insurance program is looking for even more money. And people in Michigan, where natural disasters are rare, are being forced to kick in more than their fair share.

I would say this, if it is the policy of the United States Government to continue to encourage property owners to live in areas that repeatedly suffer from natural disasters by offering heavily subsidized insurance, then we should just set up a fund for that purpose. We should not have property owners, like people that live in my State of Michigan, carry the burden of that policy. In fact, water levels in our magnificent Great Lakes are at historic lows. If you believe in the climate change theory, those levels are going to continue to fall. Yet property owners currently in floodplains are faced with increased premiums, and new maps will force even more homeowners in areas where we have never seen a flood into this plan. One thing about Michigan is that, instead of other States where they actually look up at the water, in Michigan, we look down at the water.

I would certainly agree that FEMA needs to do what Congress has asked them to do, to update the maps utilizing satellite and digitized elevation. They need to use the new technology. But we should base elevations on sound science. That is not being done now. Currently, the baseline for the FEMA plan is based on 1986 lake levels, which was at a time of historically high lake levels; 20-year-old data is what they are going to base this on now. I would simply suggest that we wait until the International Joint Commission, the IJC, completes its very extensive and exhaustive study that they are currently doing of the lake levels. I think they are now into the third or fourth year of a 5- year study. Then FEMA will have sound science to use on which to base their floodplain maps.

Mr. Speaker, because the Rules Committee would not allow my amendment to be heard, I intend to vote against this rule. I urge all of my colleagues to also oppose the rule. I will also be recommending to our Governor in the great State of Michigan to consider options that are fair to the residents of the State of Michigan, like self-insuring or actually opting out of the Federal flood insurance program.

Mr. Chairman, Detroit Metropolitan Airport is a prime candidate for both an aerotropolis and participation in this program due to its importance as the Midwest jumping off point to Southeast Asia, as a world-renowned manufacturing center, and as an international highway crossroads. At its peak, the aerotropolis could create up to 60,000 jobs for southeast Michigan.

I would also request the support of the chairman in assuring that Wayne County Airport Authority receives priority consideration under section 114, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the dean of the House, for the time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of talk over the years that the Big 3 domestic auto companies have been too generous in providing pay and benefits to their workers which has made them less competitive.

I think it is wrong that these companies that helped, literally helped, create the American middle class have been attacked in such a way, but detractors of our domestic auto industry fail to understand that blatant cheating by foreign competitors and foreign governments on such matters as currency manipulation and piracy of intellectual property distort the marketplace and give foreign companies a competitive advantage. Detractors now want to expand the attack on our domestic auto industry by imposing draconian fuel economy standards that will benefit foreign companies and cost American jobs.

Enough is enough. The American auto companies and the UAW are poised to revolutionize the way health care and other benefits are delivered to autoworkers, retirees, and their family members; and, at the same time, the companies and their incredible scientists are working on new technologies for the vehicles of the future that will significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Now is not the time for increased government regulation that will simply kill American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, at this moment in Detroit the leaders of the UAW and the domestic auto industry, the Big 3, are busy at the negotiating table trying to come to agreement on a new contract. In these negotiations, both sides will be making tremendous concessions in the effort to restore the industry to profitability and to protect jobs. They are dealing with very difficult issues like retiree health care as well as pension reform.

I wish them luck, sincere good luck, because the future of my home State of Michigan and of manufacturing in America are at stake as are literally millions of American jobs. We should all support them in their efforts to strengthen this vital industry. What we should not do is pull the rug out from under them by enacting draconian and arbitrary fuel efficiency standards that would kill jobs while doing nothing to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Both management and labor are making hard choices. They are working together to build a better future and a better industry. And in the same spirit, we here at the Federal Government should partner with our auto industry to help move forward technology that would actually solve the problems and create new jobs.

While those involved in negotiations are trying to find common ground to save jobs, Congress should not be working to destroy them.

Mr. Speaker, it has been six years since September 11, 2001 when radical Islamic terrorists attacked and murdered nearly 3,000 of our fellow Americans.

On that horrible day the seriousness of the terrorist's war against us became clear. Because of their hatred of our freedom and liberty-- these deranged individuals would murder innocent men, women and children to make their point.

On that day our hearts were broken--and for many who lost friends and loved ones on that fateful day their hearts will never be mended.

In the days immediately following 9/11 our nation was unified.

Unified in the resolve to strike back against those who murdered our fellow Americans.

Unified to do what was necessary to defend our citizens from future attacks.

Unified to defend our freedom and to stamp out those who would seek to take it from us.

Unfortunately, since that time our unity has faded, but the danger has not.

The terrorist's war against us is not about a single American President or ideology. The focus of the terrorist's hatred is every American.

On this sixth anniversary of that horrific day every American should reflect upon that day and its place in our nation's history.

One thing is certain--freedom is not free. And free people face a constant challenge to preserve that freedom.

The terrorist's war against us is a profound test of our ability to preserve the liberty we hold so dear. Our commitment to meet that challenge must rise above petty politics. We must return to the unity of the days following 9/11 because this war is long from over and the danger is real.

I have no doubts about the capabilities of our great nation.

We threw off tyranny to proclaim our independence behind the idea that all men are created equal.

We made that idea a reality by fighting a civil war to bring freedom to every American.

We sustained our freedom through two world wars and a cold war.

Through it all America has stood tall.

America has stood for freedom.

And just as we stood together on 9/11 we must stand together today to ensure that the horrors of that day become even more distant memories and the future is a place where every American can enjoy the benefits of our hard won and tenaciously defended freedom.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 815 and rollcall No. 816, I did not vote as a protest of the actions of the majority related to rollcall No. 814. Had I voted, I would have voted nay on rollcall No. 815 and nay on rollcall No. 816.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think you can find a single Member in this House who does not want the war in Iraq to end. We pray every day, every day that the war ends. And we are all so very proud of the brave men and women who serve us in the Armed Forces. We all want them to come home to their families safe and secure.

But unfortunately, the terrorists don't really care what we want. Like it or not, the terrorists' war against us is going to continue through the end of this administration and into the next. Whatever you think of George W. Bush, after his time is up, this war will not end.

I can understand the consternation that some have for the way the Bush administration has prosecuted this war. I can understand the desire of some who want to tie his hands. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why we would want to tie the hands of the next administration, of the next President, as he, or she, takes on the mantle of responsibility to lead our Armed Forces as Commander in Chief.

In fact, I just heard the other day one of the major Democrat Presidential contenders, Senator Obama, who said that as President he might order an invasion into Pakistan. This, of course, would be a major escalation of the war. How would this legislation affect his ability to do that? What impact would it have on our troops, because this legislation only refers to Iraq deployments.

Could some troops who just returned from Iraq, could they immediately be deployed to Pakistan by ``President Obama''. I believe it would allow that, regardless of their need for dwell time.

All of us need to think through everything we are doing and how our actions affect our troops and their families. Military families should not be given false hope of decreased deployments and longer dwell times, because any President forced to take on the tremendous responsibility of leading our Armed Forces in this war will just utilize the waiver provisions in this bill and make it meaningless.

You would think any President would just give their Secretary of Defense a blanket waiver. So really, what is the point of this legislation?

Mr. Speaker, in September, General Petraeus will be coming to Congress with his unvarnished assessment in his report on progress in Iraq. Recent reports fortunately have been more positive about the progress being made by our military; although, I will note that the lack of progress by the Iraqi Government on the political front remains a huge problem. The fact that the Iraqi Parliament is taking a recess is cause for great consternation.

But let us all pray that real progress is happening which will allow our troops to come home, and complete their mission and come home soon. I would ask my colleagues to wait to hear the assessment from General Petraeus and then make a judgment on how to move forward in Iraq. I don't believe this legislation is fair to our troops.

And I also want to make a point that I have very high regard and respect for my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, who brings this to the floor today. I do not question her motives for a moment on this, but I do urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk just for a moment about what the impact would be if the Democrats' plan to arbitrarily impose draconian fuel standards on our domestic automobile industry were to be enacted. First of all, our cars would get smaller, less safe, more expensive and more likely to be built in foreign countries.

Because American automobile companies lose money on every American- built small car, these vehicles would have to be built in low-wage foreign countries like Mexico, China, Korea or Japan. More American automobile workers will lose their jobs. In order to meet the new Federal regulations, experts suggest prices will be going up by more than $6,000 per vehicle.

The Democrats' CAFE proposal is nothing more than a stealth tax on American families and businesses. It will put smaller, less safe cars on our roadways, increasing traffic injuries and deaths, and the efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil will be outsourced to cheap foreign labor. Does that sound like a good plan to you?

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle are often quick to criticize corporate America for everything from outsourcing jobs to poor health care and retirement benefits for their workers. However, we have some very responsible corporate citizens that we call the Big Three. And over the last century, the Big Three have been the leaders in providing health care benefits and retirement benefits as well for their workers. These efforts were actually crucial in building up the American middle class. GM, for example, spent $3.3 billion last year on health

benefits for their 432,000 retirees. In comparison, non-U.S. auto manufacturers spent roughly just $23 million for their 1,200 American workers and American retirees.

And one would think that after decades of commitment the Big Three have shown to the American worker that that would earn them the admiration and the sympathy of the Democratic leadership. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. The Democratic leadership that should be holding up the domestic auto industry as models of corporate responsibility are instead trying to ram through increased CAFE standards that will put U.S. auto workers in the unemployment line and likely bankrupt U.S auto companies.

I urge my colleagues to reject these policies which will help our foreign competitors, and instead stand up for American jobs.

Madam Speaker, 30 years ago, Congress established CAFE standards to lower our dependence on foreign oil. And the cost? Hundreds of billions of dollars to comply with the regulation, hundreds of thousands of auto jobs lost, and dependence on foreign oil has gone up over 100 percent.

CAFE has not worked. It's an antiquated model, and we should be pursuing new technologies instead. But Democratic leaders are pushing even more stringent CAFE. Democrats are telling auto companies to produce more hybrids and other unprofitable vehicles to comply with new regulations.

A recent JD Power survey shows consumer demand is dropping for hybrids, forcing costly incentives to move these expensive vehicles. Even Honda is discontinuing its Accord hybrid because of poor sales.

If we worked with the domestic auto industry to develop leap-ahead technologies and make them affordable for all consumers instead of overregulating, we could achieve breakthroughs to reach our goals and to protect American jobs, but instead, the Democratic leadership has made a conscious decision to bankrupt Michigan.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 187.

Madam Speaker, throughout my career as a public servant, a principal advocacy of mine has always been to improve the quality of our precious Great Lakes, our magnificent Great Lakes, which are actually 20 percent of the fresh water supply of the entire planet. That is one-fifth of all of the fresh water in the entire world.

We have seen efforts at the local and State and Federal levels to prevent industrial pollution, to stop water diversion, to eliminate sewage discharges and to fight invasive species so that future generations can enjoy the beauty of our magnificent Great Lakes.

In fact, this House has passed many important bills that have helped make those goals a reality. And though we have made tremendous progress, there are still so many challenges facing the Great Lakes. We need to continue to fight to protect the Great Lakes.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, it seems not everyone shares this vision. As has been discussed, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management recently issued a wastewater permit to a British Petroleum refinery on the coast of Lake Michigan which will actually allow BP to increase the amount of ammonia and total suspended solids discharged into Lake Michigan. This is crazy. This is nuts.

This permit flies in the face of everything that we in this body, and numerous individuals in groups outside of this body, have attempted to achieve. Instead of increasing our efforts in creating more stringent regulations, this permit marks a huge step backwards in our efforts to keep our Great Lakes clean.

And although BP might argue that they have followed the law in this process to secure their permit, I would say it does not make their actions right.

The resolution before us expresses Congress's disapproval of this permit and urges the EPA to reject increased

dumping of chemicals and pollutants into our Great Lakes. This Congress must speak up for the Great Lakes. We owe it to our children, to our grandchildren, and for every generation that will follow. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership in both this House and the United States Senate have made a conscious decision to bankrupt the domestic United States auto industry by forcing an antiquated CAFE standard on them.

And I just want to remind my colleagues what this industry has meant to America.

Over 100 years ago, Henry Ford built the Model T, which brought automobiles to the masses, created opportunities that built America's middle class, and fundamentally changed our Nation.

During World War II, Michigan was known as the Arsenal of Democracy because we had the manufacturing capability to build the armaments that literally led the world to peace. For 2 years we didn't even build automobiles because we were building tanks and jeeps and B-24 bombers. And as we surrender our manufacturing capabilities to Japan and China, we had better hope that we never need the ability again to build armaments because we will be at the mercy of these foreign countries.

After 9/11, when everyone was concerned that our economy would go into a tailspin, the American automobile industry, the domestic auto industry,

offered zero interest financing, which, as GM said, has kept America rolling.

I will never apologize for defending the domestic auto industry against the Democratic leadership.

Mr. Speaker, currency manipulation by our foreign competitors is creating difficult challenges for our country's manufacturing base, particularly our domestic auto industry.

The Wall Street Journal reported in June that ``a cheap yen is making it advantageous for Toyota to increase manufacturing capability and to export cars from Japan, and that it is much more profitable to produce cars in Japan and ship them all to the United States right now.''

And what is the response of the Congress to this threat against the American automotive industry which is directly responsible for the employment of millions of American jobs?

Well, the Democrats control the Congress, and the Democratic leadership has decided that Detroit doesn't have enough on its plate right now. Instead of trying to level the playing field, Democrats want to pile on unworkable new CAFE standards on the domestic auto industry.

Higher CAFE standards will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but they will steal investment dollars from technologies that could transform the entire automobile industry and level the global automotive market.

I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided policy and stand up for American manufacturing companies, stand up for American jobs.