Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule, and as well as I am in opposition of the underlying bill that we are considering today, and I do so because I am a strict constructionist. I am a believer and I am a defender of the Constitution. In fact, when I came to Congress, like all of us did, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I intend to do so. And I believe that what the House is considering passing today in this legislation is simply unconstitutional.

Let me just say, I am not against the citizens of the District of Columbia having the right to vote for a Member of the House of Representatives. In fact, before I came to Congress, I had the privilege and pleasure to serve as the Michigan secretary of state for 8 years, and that is the chief elections officer in my State, and a principal advocacy of mine then as it is now was registering as many citizens who were eligible to vote, and then trying to get as many who were registered to actually participate in the elections process.

However, under the Constitution of the United States, it explicitly declares that representation in Congress can only be granted to States. Article I, section 2 states clearly that: Representatives shall be apportioned among several States.

Interestingly enough, even the District of Columbia recently argued that it was not a State and shouldn't be treated like one. And I am referring to the recent District Court of Appeals case about the long- time D.C. gun ban when the District argued that the second amendment did not apply to them because they are not a State. And I am not sure if the District actually believes that other parts of the Constitution don't apply to them for the same reasons. For instance, they might think that the first amendment doesn't apply to them. I am not sure.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution applies to every American wherever you live, the first amendment, the second amendment, and the section that precludes the District from having a vote in this Chamber.

And if we are going to sacrifice the Constitution on the altar of politics, why are we stopping with just giving D.C. a vote in the House? Why not give them two Senators like every other State has? How about a Governor? A statehouse? A State senate as well as all the other constitutional officers that other States have, like the attorney general or secretary of state or whatever?

Also, by trying to buy a few votes by saying that we will expand the membership of this Chamber by giving D.C. one Member and Utah one Member so that we will hopefully have one Democratic vote or one Republican vote; since we are being completely political and arbitrary, how about just one vote for the District, and then give whatever Member has the most Republican district in the Nation, give them two votes?

Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for a bill that clearly violates the Constitution. It will never be upheld by the courts. The District should either go back to being a part of the State of Maryland, as they were at our Nation's founding, or we should amend the Constitution. Asking Members to vote to violate our Nation's Constitution, I believe, is absolutely the wrong approach. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I have a very easy question: What does support for spinach farmers have to do with fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? The easy answer is: Nothing.

But in the emergency war supplemental appropriation bill that we are considering this week, spinach farmers will be getting support. In fact, there is over $21 billion of unrelated spending in the bill; pork, pure and simple. And the purpose is simply to buy votes.

I thought the Democrats promised to stop all of this. I thought they said they were going to clean up Washington and not waste taxpayers' money. This is hypocrisy, and you have to ask why they need to buy votes if they are so confident in their slow-bleed strategy.

I said during the debate on this nonbinding resolution that the House considered a few weeks ago that micromanagement from the White House is wrong and micromanagement from the floor of this House is worse.

The emergency supplemental is not nonbinding, it is for real, and many Democrats will be joining Republicans to vote to let the generals run the war, not politicians, regardless of money for spinach farmers.

I certainly appreciate the gentleman for yielding some time to me here today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong, extremely strong support of this particular piece of legislation we are looking at today, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2007. I am actually a brand new member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee this term, but I have wanted to get on this committee ever since I came to Congress, and it is particularly because of issues like this that we are talking about today.

My home State of Michigan actually has more shoreline than any other State in the Nation, except Alaska. If you think of the mitten of Michigan and think of the Great Lakes, of course, surrounding, fresh water and clean water and the Great Lakes, I mean, we are the Great Lakes State. It is an economic impetus for us. It really is our very identity.

In fact, the Great Lakes system is actually one-fifth of the fresh water supply of the entire planet. Sometimes people don't recognize that, but they are one-fifth of the fresh water supply of the world. In my area, in the Detroit area, actually, there are over 5 million Americans just right there in southeast Michigan who are drafting their fresh water supply from the Great Lakes, and, of course, the Canadians on the other side, our great neighbors to the north as well. But these waters are absolutely a national treasure, and I think we need to do everything that we possibly can within our power to preserve them and to protect them.

Of course, one of the great problems is that many of the communities along the shoreline have very, very old, very antiquated infrastructure. It is decaying infrastructure; it is not right sized. It has all the problems that are not particularly inherent to a city like Detroit or an area like southeast Michigan.

We see it all around the Nation, particularly in our industrialized areas there, and we have not been capable, or we have not had the political will, I should say, of spending the dollars to keep up with the growth with our underground infrastructure. Of course, people don't see the underground infrastructure a lot of times. We are not thinking about it as we should.

Local communities, of course, are struggling with declining tax dollars. In Michigan, we are having a huge amount of decline in State revenue sharing as well. They have very tight budgets, and even though they have had their best efforts, they just have not, the local communities in the State, have not been able to keep up with the infrastructure needs to keep our water quality clean.

We in this Congress have invested tax dollars in so many things that our constituents have questions. Somebody was just mentioning we maybe spent more money on water systems and infrastructure in the country of Iraq than we have in our own Nation in recent years. Some would say that some of the things we do here are not in the national interest. But that is not the case, not the case with this very, very important piece of legislation.

I believe that this legislation will provide vital assistance to States and local communities throughout our entire Nation to meet the critical need,

to keep our water clean and pure. That is a charter that we all share.

Whatever our constituency is, we are the stewards of this fantastic country and magnificent treasures like the Great Lakes or so many other areas around the country, and we need to make sure that we do keep our water clean and pure for our generation as well as the next.

In fact, and let me just mention, several months ago, actually with a Canadian-based research group, we do a lot of work, as you might imagine, in Michigan with our Canadian counterparts there. They were calculating that the United States and Canadian cities dump a combined 24 billion gallons of municipal sewage directly into the water systems each and every year, which is the equivalent of more than 100 Olympic- size swimming pools full of raw sewage each and every day.

In fact, they characterized the study as we were treating our Great Lakes like a toilet is what they said; and, unfortunately, there is a very choking grain of truth to that.

So I certainly support the legislation. I want to commend Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for bringing it forward. I urge all of my colleagues to support this very bipartisan piece of legislation that is so important to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I will have an opportunity to talk about the war resolution, but this morning I would like to just talk for a second about energy independence.

Several weeks ago we heard the President announce part of his agenda for making America more energy independent. But the real question is, how do we get there? The President laid out a plan to place new draconian fuel-efficiency standards on our domestic automakers, which I believe is the wrong approach to energy independence.

It is the wrong approach because it would force our domestic automakers to invest in old technology and to stifle very exciting new technologies. Our domestic auto industry is nearing innovative breakthroughs, such as the usage of alternative fuels, new battery technology, and advanced hybrid vehicles.

I believe it is in our national interest to provide Federal support to advance the auto technologies of the future to help achieve energy savings. Both General Motors and Ford recently unveiled advanced plug- in hybrids that use a lithium ion battery. Helping that technology become commercially viable will advance our efforts to conserve energy by light years and to create great new jobs here in America.

If my colleagues want true energy independence and a thriving domestic auto industry, we must focus on the technology of the future.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be yielded time from a true American hero.

If at any time while I am in the Congress and I am asked to vote to authorize war, I will ask myself two fundamental questions, two caveats to such action. Number one, what are the United States' vital interests? How are our vital interests being advanced? Number two, what is the mission and how is the mission being defined?

I was not in the Congress when the vote to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq was taken, but as I remember the debate during that vote, it was heavily predicated on the fact that we thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and the mission seemed to be principally defined as finding WMDs. It is clear that he had them at one time because he used them on his own people.

However, since we have gone into Iraq, whether it is because they have transited the country or they were destroyed, or whatever the reason, we have not found them.

Then the mission was defined as toppling the oppressor, the butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein. And we have done so. We let the Iraqi courts exercise their due diligence in a court of law, and he is dead now. Good riddance, and hanging was too good for him.

Then we defined the mission as providing a stable framework that would allow the Iraqis to build a democracy because we can all agree that having a democracy in an Arab country in the Middle East would be optimal for the entire world. They have had their elections. They have adopted a Constitution, and they have elected leadership that is in place.

Again, I ask about the United States' vital interests and how we are defining the mission because, Madam Speaker, the mission needs to be understood. It is important that those of us in Congress can understand it, of course. It is important that the American people can understand it. But most importantly, the brave men and women who wear the uniform and are in theater risking their lives and their limbs need to be able to understand the mission.

President Bush has said that the mission is to achieve stability in Iraq, to train the Iraqi forces so that they will be able to stand up so that we will be able to stand down. He says that the so-called surge is a necessary thing to do.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have listened to the testimony from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense as well, about how this surge will work, and in my mind, a surge is a quick, overwhelming show of force. However, as it has been explained to me, this action will have two of a total of five brigades begin to deploy to Baghdad and the Anbar province and then gradually the other three brigades will be deployed as an assessment can be made on how the first two are doing.

I will note that I have read that General Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, has said in a closed door hearing that he thought the surge had a 50-50 chance of success.

Madam Speaker, our troops have done everything that we have asked them to do and more, and you cannot blame America for the Iraqis' failure to stop killing one another in a religious frenzy.

I am a product of the Vietnam era. My husband was an Air Force pilot in Vietnam. My county has the largest chapter of Vietnam veterans in the entire Nation, and although I have resisted making any analogy from Iraq to Vietnam, I will make this one personal observation.

From the very beginning of the Iraq conflict, we should have allowed our troops to go in and use overwhelming force; but we were told, no, that we had enough. Those that suggested otherwise were dismissed, and so they micromanaged from the White House, and now I think they are doing the same with this surge. Our troops can win, but they are being held back. They are being micromanaged by our politicians. We are not letting them win, and this is the lesson that I learned from Vietnam.

In Vietnam, we used a graduated response. We held back our troops. We did not use overwhelming force, and after many died, we left the field and I cannot believe in my lifetime that once again we are repeating this mistake.

I support the troops and I support victory. I recognize how incredibly complex this situation is. I recognize that having our troops leave will probably result in a loss of human life that will be horrifying. I recognize that leaving will probably encourage the neighbors to move in to protect their own interests, and I recognize that the war on terror will follow us if we leave.

Yet, recognizing all of this, since the Iraqis will, for whatever reason, not stand up to ensure their own freedom, how can we ask Americans and for how long to continue to do so for them? Either use overwhelming force to win, or get out and do not continue to ask our troops to fight with one hand behind their backs.

Mistakes have been made, as they always are in war; but another lesson that I learned from Vietnam is that the only thing worse than micromanaging a war from the White House is micromanaging it from here in Congress. And this is a time when every Member in this House needs to dig down deep and vote their conscience, knowing that sending the right message to the administration has the very real consequence of sending the wrong message to the troops who so bravely and professionally fight for freedom and liberty and democracy.

Vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as a member from the Michigan Congressional Delegation I am proud to honor today one of our State's favorite sons, the 38th President of the United States Gerald R. Ford.

President Ford is the only person in the history of our Nation to ascend to presidency having never sought either the presidency or the vice presidency. And he did so at one of the most difficult moments in our Nation since the Civil War.

Upon assuming office he acknowledged that he had not been elected through the votes of the American people but simply asked for his confirmation through their prayers.

He was the right man, for the right office at the right time for our Nation.

He made policy decisions not based on political calculation, but on what he believed was in the `` best interests of the Nation.

He was not afraid to reach across party lines to find solutions to the myriad of challenges which faced our Nation.

He was a man of unquestionable character.

Prior to coming to Congress I had the honor to serve as Michigan's Secretary of State and as such served as our State's official historian.

During my term in office I had the privilege to place a historic marker at the newly renovated boyhood home of President Ford.

On that day he spoke of the values instilled in him in that home, in his community and in our great State of Michigan.

These were values that served him well throughout his life and certainly when he assumed the presidency.

Values like honesty. Integrity. Treating every person with respect and dignity. Love of country and a commitment to freedom.

His commitment to these values was evident throughout his public service.

As a military officer in the Pacific in World War II.

As a member of this House of Representatives for nearly three decades.

As the leader of the Republican minority in the House where he proudly voted for and sought votes for landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

And as Vice President and President of the United States where he helped America recover from what he called our long National nightmare of Watergate and where he concluded the war in Vietnam.

Simply put, Gerald R. Ford was a great American worthy of our honor and respect.

Our condolences go out to his wonderful and courageous wife Betty and to the entire Ford Family.

A grateful Nation owes a debt of gratitude to President Ford for his lifetime of honorable service.

May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 531, my vote was not recorded though I did attempt to vote by electronic device. I wish for the Record to reflect that I was present and attempted to vote ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6407, The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

This measure is the accumulation of 10 years of hard work and I would like to thank Chairman Davis and Congressman McHugh for their unwavering commitment to this bill, and their steadfast commitment to modernizing and reforming all aspects of the federal government.

The United States Postal Service is currently operating under a system built in 1970. In 1970, Richard Nixon was President, gasoline cost $0.36 per gallon, and very few people had even heard of computers, much less owned one.

Much has changed since then. The primary mode of written communication now is via email or fax, not first class mail. Consumers have a whole range of options to send mail and packages urgently. Most households either have or have access to a computer. But the Postal Service still operates at the same frequency as it did in 1970.

The simple fact is that this generation-old structure is unable to support the functioning of the 21st Century economy. With ever- accelerating declines in First Class Mail volumes, it's becoming more and more difficult for the Postal Service to collect revenue. This in turn leads to the need for frequent rate hikes, which is nothing more than an indirect tax increase on average Americans and a significant cost increase for businesses that heavily utilize the mail.

Mr. Speaker, this bill strikes the correct balance between the need for Postal reform and the obligations that the Postal Service has to the American people. If enacted, this bill will guarantee universal service, streamline back office operations, provide for workforce stability and implement a logical, reasoned process for increases in postal rates, which will generally be in line with the rate of inflation. Such stability and predictability will allow the Postal Service to grow along with the needs of its customers.

Mr. Speaker, America relies on the Unites States Postal Service to deliver our mail. Every Member of this body relies on the Postal Service to deliver important communications to our constituents. It's time we give the Postal Service the tools they need to remain an efficient, effective organization in the years to come.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1346, the Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act. I am a proud cosponsor of a similar bill introduced by my colleague Mr. Camp, H.R. 3532, and I'm glad we are taking a step today towards preserving the great State of Michigan's maritime heritage.

Mr. Speaker, Michigan truly is the Great Lakes State, touched by 4 of the 5 Great Lakes. Helping protect ships on the Great Lakes and the sailors who crew them are the hundreds of lighthouses that dot the Lakes. The State of Michigan alone has 124 lighthouses, the most of any State in the union, and I am proud to have 8 of these lighthouses in my district, including the oldest lighthouse in Michigan, located in Fort Gratiot on the shores of Lake Huron. Built in 1829, this lighthouse is still in use, along with the South Channel Light, Pointe Aux Barques Light, and the Harbor Beach Light, that were all in service before Abraham Lincoln was President.

In addition to having the most lighthouses of any other State, Mr. Speaker, Michigan was the first State to initiate a transfer of authority for lighthouses from the Federal Government to nonprofit groups. The State of Michigan accepted responsibility for lighthouses the Coast Guard previously had jurisdiction over, and then transferred authority to nonprofit groups such as Save our South Channel Lights, which I am proud to have located in my district. Through this process, the people of Michigan have been able to preserve these living landmarks and symbols of our nautical heritage.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of State in Michigan, I unveiled a ``Save our Lights'' license plate in 2001, which directed funds to the Michigan Lighthouse Assistance Program, which remains dedicated to preserving the 124 lighthouses dotting the Michigan shoreline and islands. To date, the program has raised over $900,000 through the sale of license plates. With this in mind, it's only fitting that the Federal Government begins to take a look at helping to preserve these treasures, and help the public learn more about them for their own personal enjoyment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer sincere congratulations to the Dakota High

School football team from Macomb Township, Michigan, on winning the 2006 Division 1 State title.

The Dakota High School Cougars are the first school in Macomb County history to win the Division 1 football State championship.

Mr. Speaker, this season belonged to the Cougars, whose overall record was 13 wins and only 1 loss. Coach Mike Giannoe did an excellent job of putting together a solid game plan and a solid coaching staff.

Quarterback James Stallons commanded the offense, while running back Greg Gay led the scoring attack and tied a State finals record with four touchdowns.

The offense moved the ball with the great teamwork of fullback Quentin Trotter, tight end Justin Sylvester and all of the linemen.

On defense, linebacker Bobby Hush earned himself two sacks, and kicker Joe Harla connected on a 31-yard field goal and made all five of his extra point attempts.

What a season, what a team. Go Cougars.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the St. Louis Cardinals on a tremendous season that culminated in their 10th World Championship.

The Cardinals were a great team led by a great manager in Tony LaRussa and by arguably the game's greatest player in Albert Pujols.

Cardinal fans everywhere should be rightfully proud of this great championship because they beat a true team that shocked the baseball world in their run to the World Series.

You see, I am a fan of the American League Champion Detroit Tigers.

At the start of the season nobody gave the Tigers a chance, but they underestimated the grit and determination of our team.

Much credit needs to go to owner Mike Illitch for putting together a strong leadership team.

Team President Dave Dombrowski rebuilt our player development system which has produced so many new stars and when combined with his deft trades produced an incredible team.

Then he hired a great leader in Manager Jim Leyland who insisted upon teamwork and a commitment to fundamentals that brought out the best in a group of talented players.

And talented they are.

A future Hall of Famer in Pudge Rodriguez behind the plate.

A veteran leader at first in Sean Casey.

ALCS MVP Placido Polanco at second base.

Tiger of the Year Carlos Guillen at shortstop.

Brandon Inge at third who hit 27 homers from the bottom of the lineup.

Craig Monroe in left who delivered 28 homers during the season and five more in the post season.

Twenty-five-year-old Curtis Granderson in center who was the guy who got it started at the top of the lineup.

And Magglio Ordonez in right who will always be remembered in Detroit for his dramatic walk off homer that sent this team to the World Series.

But the best part of the Tigers is our incredible pitching staff.

Kenny Rogers was signed in the offseason and many questioned why a team would invest so much in a 41-year-old left hander. Well because he went on to win 17 games, mentored a young pitching staff and won three post season games without allowing a single run!

Twenty-four-year-old Jeremy Bonderman won 14 games and finished second in the American League in strike outs.

Twenty-three-year-old Justin Verlander won 17 games on the way to becoming American League Rookie of the Year.

Twenty-nine-year-old left hander Nate Robertson was a bulldog starter who delivered 13 wins.

Thirty-eight-year-old Todd Jones didn't blow people away but did deliver 37 critical saves.

While 21-year-old Joel Zumaya and his 103-mile-per-hour fastball provided the foundation for our tremendous bullpen depth.

What a team!

This group lifted the city of Detroit and the State of Michigan on their backs for a tremendous ride through a beautiful spring, summer and fall.

They are built upon a strong foundation and with a commitment to team work that bodes well for the future.

And the Tigers are not resting on the laurels of an incredible season.

They have already added slugger Gary Sheffield to their already impressive lineup which should send shivers through the rest of the American League.

And while the Cardinals may have gotten revenge this year for the Tigers victory in the 1968 World Series, we are already working on getting revenge for 2006.

Again congratulations to the 2006 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals.

And congratulations and thank you to the American League Champion Detroit Tigers on a magical season.

Bless you boys and go get 'em Tigers!

Mr. Speaker, we have heard an awful lot in the last couple of days from the Democrats over the national intelligence estimate which partly says that our involvement in Iraq is creating a new generation of jihadist leaders.

What they fail to say is that the same NIE says that, I quote, ``Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves or be perceived to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that one of those new leaders cited in the report, Abu Musaab al Zarqawi, is now very much dead. Let's just say that he has failed.

The NIE says that the best way to kill the jihadist movement is to spread hope and democracy, which is exactly what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, national security is the first and foremost responsibility of the Federal Government and of every Member of Congress, and we always need to put national security ahead of politics. And yet, the Democratic minority leader just last week said that she thinks that national security should not be an issue in this campaign.

She actually said that, that national security should not be an issue. Think about that.

Mr. Speaker, we are a nation at war. We are at war with terrorists who hide in the shadows and prey on the innocent because they want to strike fear in the hearts of Americans, because they hate our freedom. And there should be no doubt that terrorists who perpetrate these acts are the enemy, and we need to treat them like the enemy, and that is why we are here today.

This legislation will give this administration and future administrations the authority to try these terrorists. It also expands the definition of terrorists to those who would provide arms or financing to those who would seek to murder our citizens. It would allow confessions secured through tough interrogations to be used in court, confessions that have stopped many terrorist plots, plots to kill Americans.

And it is astonishing to hear some in this House speaking out against these provisions.

Mr. Speaker, if you contract for murder, you are a murderer, you are guilty of murder. And we need to give our professional interrogators clear direction and clear law, because right now, if you can believe it, they are actually faced with the prospect of buying liability insurance so they don't get sued as war criminals in a Federal court. This is ridiculous.

One of the reasons that we are the strongest fighting force the world has ever seen is that we are an all-volunteer military. And I would ask you, are you going to volunteer to serve in a military that may inadvertently make you a lawbreaker just because you are doing your job of protecting America? Are we going to be asking our marines, who are breaking down doors in Fallujah, whether or not they should be reading Miranda rights to insurgents?

I believe the American people are demanding that we stand strong against the terrorists and are demanding that we keep the information we need to keep our Nation safe.

Mr. Speaker, the first and foremost responsibility of the Federal Government is to provide for the national defense, that is in the preamble of our Constitution. And national defense should always be above politics. Yet, the Democratic minority leader of this House has said that national security should not be an issue in the upcoming election. Think about that.

She has said that, that national security should not be an issue in the upcoming elections. And I would think that our brave men and women in the military would beg to differ with that.

It is my hope that we can stand together in a bipartisan fashion to do what is right for America. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, when I decided to run for Congress, I made a conscious decision to do so, and I took my oath of office very seriously, just as every Member before me and every Member in the future will as well.

I knew that the first and foremost responsibility of the Federal Government was to provide for the national defense. It is actually in the preamble of our Constitution. America is a peace-loving Nation. And yet we find ourselves in a war with an enemy who hides in the shadows and preys on the innocent, terrorists who have murdered innocent citizens and are enemies of freedom and liberty and democracy.

Mr. Speaker, election day is coming to our Nation, and as Americans make their decisions, national security and the war on terror is on every voter's mind. So I ask them to consider what the Democratic minority leader said in a recent interview about the upcoming elections when asked about the importance of national security. She said, ``This is what I guess campaigns will be about. It shouldn't be about national security.''

Mr. Speaker, Americans are dying and the Democratic minority leader doesn't think national security should be an issue. Think about that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule as well as the underlying legislation.

We are a Nation at war against the forces of terror who would like to threaten the freedom and the liberty that we all hold so dear and are constitutionally required to defend.

Now, I know that the Democratic minority leader in this House recently stated that national security should not be an issue in the upcoming election. She actually said that. She said that national security should not be an issue in the upcoming election. But the fact of the matter is that the American people are very interested in knowing who stands up for the defense of our Nation and who buries their heads in the sand when it comes to defending our freedom. They are interested in what we are doing here because our first and foremost responsibility is to provide for the national defense. That is in the preamble of our Constitution.

This bill is an important indication of our national will because it allocates needed resources to ensure that our troops on the front lines have the equipment and training that they need to defeat our enemies. It helps us to prepare for emerging threats with support for ballistic missile defense. It provides needed funding for the weapons systems of the future, like future combat systems, that will allow our forces to remain the most powerful fighting force on the planet. And it also provides needed funding to study ways to help our troops become more mobile and enhance their capability in the future.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said recently about earmarks and much of it in a derogatory fashion. But not all earmarks are bad, and let me tell you about one that I am proud to have secured that is in this bill being done at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in my district.

Mr. Speaker, as we seek alternatives for everyday energy needs, we also need alternatives for our military. This bill is providing $4 million for the second phase of a project to turn waste into fuel and electricity.

NextEnergy, which is an alternative fuel research cooperative in the great State of Michigan, has been working with the U.S. Army TARDEC on this very important project. And the technology that they are developing will take waste produced by units such as mess hall and other types of waste and turn it into liquid fuel. This fuel would then run a generator that could produce high-quality electric energy that every unit needs.

One, of course, can only imagine how much it costs to transport fuel in the battlefield. You can think about taking a unit of fuel and transiting it up to a mountaintop in Afghanistan, for example.

This project not only enhances the capability and mobility of our troops, it will also provide additional security for our troops as well. So I am proud to have brought forth this earmark, and I have no problem coming to the floor and defending it. And I think all Members should come to the floor and defend their earmarks.

Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonable rule to manage an outstanding bill. It has the right priorities and makes a further commitment to maintaining our military as the best trained, the best equipped, the best supported, and the most lethal fighting force on the planet.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill as well.