Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that this weekend, June 23-25, 2006, has been designated by Best Friends Animals Society as Best Friends Kindness Weekend.

The way a society treats its animals speaks to the core values and priorities of its citizens.

As a co-chair of the Congressional Friends of Animals Caucus, I am committed to animal welfare because I believe animals are vital to our livelihood, and I believe humankind has an obligation to all animals. Some species have become our companions, some play important roles in sensitive ecosystems, and some are raised for food. It is our duty to protect and care for all of these animals.

The Best Friends Weekend reminds all of us how animals enrich our lives through their companionship, friendship and love.

This weekend of kindness activities should serve as a reminder to all of us, that in this increasing fragmented society we need to be ever more compassionate about the animals in our world, whether they are companion pets, service animals, zoo critters, livestock, or nature's wildlife. It is a reminder that the bond between humans and animals is a vital one and is capable of bringing joy and healing to people of all ages. It is also a reminder to be more kind and compassionate to our fellow man.

Mr. Speaker, on June 22, 2006, I traveled to Connecticut to deliver a high school graduation address and, therefore, missed 11 recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 308, ``yes'' on recorded vote 309, ``yes'' on recorded vote 310, ``yes'' on recorded vote 311, ``yes'' on recorded vote 312, ``yes'' on recorded vote 313, ``no'' on recorded vote 314, ``yes'' on recorded vote 315, ``no'' on recorded vote 316, ``yes'' on recorded vote 317, and ``yes'' on recorded vote 318.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague as well in thanking Mr. Davis for his comments.

I am a huge fan of what I call community-based health centers. These clinics, these health centers do awesome work. So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 5573, the Health Centers Renewal Act, which will reauthorize the Community Health Center program for 5 more years and increase the program's funding. This continues the strong commitment Congress has shown to these centers over the past 5 years.

During the last reauthorization, this administration sought to double the amount of people receiving care through community health centers from 10 million to 20 million. Already nearly 16 million individuals are now receiving quality care, and half of these individuals are uninsured. So of the 46 million uninsured, approximately 8 million are receiving excellent care from these centers.

By preventing costly hospitalizations and reducing the use of emergency care for routine services, it is estimated community clinics save the health care system over $6 billion annually.

So, in conclusion, I strongly support passage of this legislation so community health centers can continue providing high-quality, cost- effective care. And I thank Mr. Deal and others, including Mr. Green, for bringing this bill out. It is an important bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Mr. Castle's amendment to prohibit the Department of Defense from awarding bonus fees for good performance to any defense contractor that does not meet the contract's requirements.

Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed we need to debate this subject. I'm disappointed that while our servicemen and servicewomen are in harm's way, and while the Congress and the American taxpayer are spending billions of dollars to ensure they have all the resources and equipment they need, the Defense Department is paying bonuses to companies that haven't earned them and companies are accepting bonuses that are not due to them.

During consideration of the Defense Authorization Act, we wisely passed an amendment also authored by Mr. Castle that requires the Defense Department to develop and issue standards that link award and incentive fees to desired program outcomes, such as meeting cost, schedule, and capability goals. I look forward to the Department implementing these standards, but until they do we should ensure unwarranted and undeserved payments are not paid.

Mr. Speaker, on June 19, 2006, I was in Connecticut and, therefore, missed three recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on recorded vote No. 289, ``yea'' on recorded vote No. 290 and ``yea'' on recorded vote No. 291.

Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid we will lose the war in Iraq, ... in Iraq. I am deeply concerned we will lose the war in Iraq here at home.

Our efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power and help bring democracy to the most troubled part of the world is a truly noble effort that must succeed.

Whether you believe al Qaeda was in Iraq when the war began, they are there now, and they think they can win because they believe we will leave too soon, before Iraqis can defend themselves.

True, we got their prince. Al Zarqawi is dead, but his fellow terrorists remain determined to succeed.

This resolution clearly links the war in Iraq with the war against Islamist terrorists. Islamist terrorists is exactly who the 9/11 Commission said we are confronting. If you agree, vote for this resolution and explain why. If you disagree, vote against the resolution and explain why.

I support the rule. I support the resolution. I support our efforts in Iraq, and I look forward to the 10 hours of debate.

When I ask individual Iraqis what is their biggest concern, it is not the bombings, the lack of electricity or anything else other than this. It is, and I quote, ``that you will leave us. That you will leave us before we can grab hold of democracy and defend ourselves.''

I pray we will not let them down. I look forward to the 10 hours of debate. I look forward to our being absolutely resolute in helping Iraqis have an opportunity they have worked so hard to achieve.

In just 11 months, Iraqis have had three elections that put our elections to shame. They have a new government. They only need more time to develop their security, to defend themselves and a democracy they dearly love.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have been listening to this debate all day. The argument I am hearing most from the opponents of this resolution is we shouldn't have gone into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein in spite of the fact that many of them voted to go into Iraq.

I am hearing from opponents that there was and is no connection between Islamist terrorists and the war in Iraq,

in spite of the fact that the prince of al Qaeda, al Zarqawi, did his gross handiwork in Iraq. Fortunately, he is dead.

I am hearing from opponents of this resolution that we have made many mistakes in Iraq, as if that is justification for arguing that we need to leave. We have made a number of mistakes. We permitted the looting of government buildings. We didn't secure the munitions depot. We disbanded their army, their border patrol and police, and then asked the 150,000 coalition forces, mostly brave American soldiers, to protect and defend 26 million Iraqis living in a country the size of California.

These were mistakes, but mistakes do not justify leaving prematurely. They help explain why things could be better, and why, because we learn from our mistakes, we are doing better.

Since the transfer of power to Iraq in June of 2004, we have seen considerable progress, three free elections that put our elections in the United States to shame, the training of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi security forces, the establishment of a government chosen by a national assembly comprised of 30 percent women.

I am not afraid we will lose the war in Iraq. I am deeply concerned we will lose the war in Iraq here at home. Our efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power and help bring democracy to the most troubled part of the world is truly a dear and noble effort that must succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am going to take the full 5 minutes, but I have been in this House Chamber almost all day and I hear these arguments that we don't have a plan to end the war in Iraq and succeed, and that is just simply not true. It is not true at all.

The fact is the plan was wrong in the sense that there was the anticipation that it would happen more easily. But the plan is very clear. It is not simple. It requires that the Iraqis have their own police, their own border patrol, and their own army in order to secure themselves. And since we did not allow for their police to be restood, we had to start from scratch and train them.

And it is simply not possible to train a police and border patrol, an army, in 1 year or 2 or 3. There are 26 million Iraqis in a country the size of California. But every day we train more and more of them, so that now they control about 42 percent of the land that includes 42 percent of the population.

So as we continue with our plan, as we continue to train more and more Iraqis, we are able to move our troops out and move their troops in. We are able to move their police in and our troops out. We are able to move their border patrol in and our troops out.

Now, it is clear that they do not have the logistics, so we will still have to be there later, but not in the numbers that we have now. That is all part of the plan; to train their troops, train their border patrol, train their army, and allow them to take our place.

What we object to is leaving prematurely. And if you ask an Iraqi what their biggest fear is, and having been there 12 times I have spoken to a lot of them, it is basically the same thing, it is that you will leave us; that you will leave us before we can take hold of democracy and before we can defend ourselves. That is their biggest fear. Some of them even say, like you did in Vietnam. And some of them will make reference to what they hear on CNN or what they hear about elected officials who say we need to get out, we need to have some kind of artificial timetable.

Thank goodness George Washington didn't have Congress telling him he had to have a timetable to beat the Brits. Thank goodness when all the generals criticized Abraham Lincoln, we didn't say, well, the generals are against Abraham Lincoln, he doesn't have a plan, we better just fold our tent. Thank goodness that didn't happen.

The bottom line for me is very clear. We may have been wrong about weapons of mass destruction, and for that the President loses credibility, and people like me do, and people on the other side of the aisle who voted for going into Iraq, and now pretend like they didn't, we all lose our credibility there. But we don't lose our credibility with this: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He used these weapons on his own people and neighbors. He didn't abide by the agreement that stopped us from going into Baghdad. He has now been removed. Thank God.

The Iraqi people have a democracy that is flourishing and is extraordinarily impressive. Three elections have allowed the Iraqis to form a government that created a Constitution, adopt a Constitution, and then elect a government under that Constitution.

All the Iraqis are asking from this Congress is you came in, you removed our security people, you have given us a taste of democracy, let us live that democracy and let us have the capability to protect ourselves before you leave. That's our plan.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And just to say that I appreciate the opportunity to appear with him and to have some dialogue.

Being to Iraq 12 times has been very interesting for me because what I have been able to do, I go every 3 or 4 months and I am able to kind of graph out how well we are doing or how well we are not doing and to have a sense of where we are headed.

If you were to just take April 2003 when I was there, and now, in June of 2006, you would say, well, we are not, things aren't as good as they were way back in April when everyone was euphoric. And if you are tempted to draw those two points you see a downward slope. But if you were an economist or anyone else looking at a graph you would say, well, what happened in between? Is the trend line up or is it down? Well, it has clearly been up. And the reason it has been up is that we saw a serious decline in what happened in Iraq shortly after we took over. We, unfortunately, allowed for the looting. We, unfortunately, didn't take charge of the munitions depots. So Iraqis got in there and took out a lot of armaments. And then we, and I think this was the biggest mistake. We allowed their army, their border patrol and their police to be disbanded.

Now, what we basically said to 26 million Iraqis is, you have no police, no border patrol and army. And then what we said to 150,000 troops, mostly Americans, is you have to be their army, their police and their border patrol. Really, an impossible task. And I say that with a lot of regret, but also with the recognition that explains why things really started to decline. And what you then saw is the fact that you saw the Iraqis have real concerns about the United States. We had said, you lay down your arms, don't fight, and we will work with you. And the Iraqis would say to me, why are you putting my brother and my father and my uncle, my cousin, my son, particularly my husband out of work? That was their argument. And they said, why can't they at least guard a hospital?

Well, those were very poignant words for me because the first death we had was Wilfredo Perez from Norwalk, a young man who was guarding a hospital. We had another death Tyanna Avery Felder, this young woman from Bridgeport. And then we lost another American, Jack Dempsey, a very young man who graduated from high school and wanted to be in the Marines, and he went in the Marines instead of going on to college. These three fine Americans from my district lost their lives. I can look their families in the eye and say, without any hesitation whatsoever, that they did not die in vain. I can say that so long as we don't abandon Iraq, leave prematurely.

When we dug this hole with no army, no police and border patrol, and asked our military, we saw the problems that we have seen. But then what did we do to turn this corner and head in the right direction? We started to train their police, their border patrol and their army. That is what we did. And we saw in 2005, extraordinary elections. I was there for the first election. It was one of the most thrilling things that I have ever seen in my entire life. We were in a Kurdish area, in Irbil, and we saw Iraqi women bringing their husbands and family members to vote. They were so excited that after they voted they celebrated. And I was so excited watching these brave people as they voted. And what I saw was something pretty extraordinary. What I saw were Iraqis thrilled with the opportunity to vote. And I asked if I could put my finger in that ink jar. And they looked at me and said, with some astonishment, no. You are not an Iraqi. And I thought, she could have said I wasn't a Kurd. But she said I wasn't an Iraqi. She didn't think of Sunni, Shiia and Kurd. In fact, when I go to Iraq and I will ask someone, are you a Kurd or a Shiia or a Sunni, they will say I am a Shiia, but I am married to a Sunni, or I will ask someone the same question. They will say, I am a Kurd. But sir, Kurds are Sunnis.

For me, it is an amazing thing to go to that country and to see the absolute conviction that Iraqis have that they can have a better future. And I think as I am seeing this, back here at home we are saying we need to leave. Again,

when I ask the Iraqis what is their biggest fear, their biggest fear is this, that you will leave us, that you will leave us before we can take hold of democracy and own it.

And I know my colleague made reference to the concept of lying. There is no question in my mind that anyone lied about weapons of mass destruction, not a scintilla of doubt about that issue. And I could confirm it in a whole host of ways. One is, we didn't let our troops go into Iraq until every one of them had protective chemical gear.

If we didn't think they had chemicals, if we didn't think they would use it, we sure as heck would not have spent our time doing that. What we should have made sure of was that they had body armor. So they did not have body armor. They had exactly what we thought they needed: protective gear against chemicals.

When I went to the Brits, the French, the Turks, the Jordanians, and the Iraqis, they all said this to me: He has weapons of mass destruction. Only the French said he wouldn't use it.

Thank you. I am almost done for this part, and I would encourage the gentleman to stand up so we could have a little bit of a dialogue about this.

But when I read what he read in the resolution, declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, I think it is a very clear statement. If people think it is in the national interest to have an arbitrary date, they can vote ``no'' against this resolution and hold their head up high. If like you, Mr. Gohmert, and I feel that it would be an absolute huge mistake, and, in fact, I am not aware of any war that has been won by setting arbitrary dates, then we would want this statement to stand and we would support it. This declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq. I believe the war in Iraq is a noble effort. I believe this describes exactly how I feel. If there are those who feel that we should not complete the mission to create a sovereign, free, and secure and united Iraq, they have the ability with their heads held high to vote against it.

I appreciate the opportunity we have had to debate these two very important points.

If the gentleman will allow me to comment, I think the gentleman makes a very good point. I love to just think of the Revolutionary War and, being somewhat a student of history and loving history, thinking of when my professors would tell me that one-third of the American people supported the war against Great Britain, one-third opposed it, and one-third didn't care or didn't even know there was a war. But we were pretty divided. In fact, the war during that time we had families absolutely divided. And Benjamin Franklin's son was the governor of a State, did not want to give up that authority given to him by the crown, and opposed the war. Even among their own family, there was division.

But what I think about that Revolutionary War that just blows me away is George Washington had one failure after another after another. In fact, they said if the wind had been blowing the other way, he would have been captured in Manhattan. Thank goodness there was not the press that said we have made all these terrible mistakes, we need to leave. And it gets me to this point. We have made mistakes, but they do not justify leaving. What is justified is to stop making those mistakes and doing it the right way.

And if the gentleman would just indulge me a little longer, I am well aware that Abraham Lincoln was constantly criticized because his generals were not winning. In fact, his generals started criticizing him. In fact, a general ran against him in his reelection because they thought he was not fighting the war properly. So thank goodness we did not set an arbitrary date on either George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. Thank goodness we did not say because you have made mistakes, we have got to just stop.

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

What is important in your dialogue is the terrorists. And there was this argument: Well, the terrorists are not in Iraq. I am not going to argue whether they were there before we went in, but no one can argue that they are not there now. In fact, the prince of the terrorists, al Zarqawi, was killed. He was killed operating and doing his handiwork in Iraq.

I do not know, if that is the kind dialogue that has been happened in Texas. Most of my folks have recognized that we got him and it was due to good intelligence. But if I could, you are talking about this administration. Let me just talk briefly about what a former administration said, in other words, what Bill Clinton said, according to John A. Torres from the Florida Today on June 13 in a meeting he had on the 12th. He wrote, ``Former President Bill Clinton told Florida Democrats on Monday that Iraq's fledgling government would falter if the United States were to withdraw its troops. He also said more terrorists could emerge from that region without an American military presence.''

So he is arguing that without a presence it would be worse. Then he said, and this is a quote: `` `The representative government there in Iraq is a hopeful sign,' '' Clinton said at a fundraising reception for the Florida Democratic Party at the Orlando Marriott downtown. `But we need to stay there long enough for the politics to get worked out,' he said. `If we withdrew tomorrow, that government couldn't survive.'

``Clinton said he didn't agree with the original decision to invade Iraq before finishing military operations in Afghanistan. However he said the focus now needs to be on stabilizing Iraq and he warned that occupying Iraq for too long would backfire.'' Too long it would backfire, but he is very clear: We cannot leave until we stabilize Iraq.

This is al Qaeda that is saying that; correct?

Mr. Speaker, on June 12, 2006, I was speaking to a group of professionals in New York City about my work in Congress and, therefore, missed five recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously, and had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 251, ``yes'' on recorded vote 252, ``yes'' on recorded vote 253, ``yes'' on recorded vote 254, and ``yes'' on recorded vote 255.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add $750,000 to an account that has $1.5 million in it. Mrs. Maloney and I both had legislation adding $1.5 million on top of the $1.5 million to the Civil Liberties Board.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the chairman will accept this amendment at 750, and I advise Mrs. Maloney of that fact. What we want to do, Mr. Chairman, is to support a Civil Liberties Board that hopefully over time will do more than it is presently doing.

When we give the executive branch more power, we need to have more oversight, more congressional oversight, stronger whistleblower protection. And the 9/11 Commission suggested a strong Civil Liberties Board.

I would like to ask the chairman if this is in fact an amendment that he would accept.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I just first would thank Mr. Knollenberg for adding $750,000 to the $1.5 million that is already there. I particularly want to thank my colleague, Mrs. Maloney, who has worked tirelessly on the 9/11 Commission with me and others. I appreciate her willingness to accept this amendment. I appreciate the work that she has done, and she is right about this.

With the Government getting more power, with the PATRIOT Act and the war on terrorism and, and, and, there needs to be stronger legislative oversight. We need to make sure that our whistleblower statutes protect those in the intelligence community.

We need a much stronger Civil Liberties Board. This money will allow the Civil Liberties Board to get started and to do what they need. I know we will be back asking Mr. Knollenberg for more as it proves its viability and effectiveness.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I urge acceptance of this amendment.

My amendment would add a modest $750,000 for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. This board was created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and is based on a key recommendation of the 9-11 Commission.

The Commission provided the nation with 41 important recommendations to address the terrorist threat and improve our homeland security and recognized the need to balance civil liberties and security. It recommended the following: At this time of increased and consolidated government authority, there should be a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and the commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties.

Unfortunately, the authority of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is not as broad as proposed because the legislation that created it does not provide subpoena power, and Board investigations can be vetoed by the U.S. Attorney General. The need for the Board to have strong oversight power was the subject of a recent hearing held in the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, which I chair.

The limitations on debate prevent my offering an amendment that would expand the Board's powers as is proposed in H.R. 5000, which I co- authored with Representative Maloney, but we can take an important step to ensure the Board will function to the best of its ability under current law.

During our Subcommittee hearing, the chair and vice-chair of the Board testified that they currently only have two staff members and are considering hiring one additional permanent staff member. Mr. Chairman, how can a board with responsibilities for protecting privacy and civil liberties operate like this?

With increased executive power must come increased oversight. These additional funds will help the Board establish its infrastructure and begin performing the robust oversight needed to make it successful, and ensure it can protect all citizens' privacy and civil liberties.

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act and want to thank Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey for their hard work, thoughtfulness and dedication to bringing such a well-crafted bill to the floor.

There are so many important issues this bill addresses and so many ways in which it positively demonstrates the United States' values as a leader and a responsible member of the family of nations. I am grateful for the full funding of the President's request for aid to Israel and for humanitarian assistance to Sudan, and am thrilled it goes above and beyond the President's request for the global HIV/AIDS pandemic.

I appreciate the inclusion of reporting requirements for the protection of children affected by humanitarian emergencies, an issue I've worked with Representative Lowey on, as well as the inclusion of $45 million to support research and development of microbicides as a means of combating HIV/AIDS.

I appreciate the chairman and ranking member's support of the Community Action Program in Iraq--known as CAP. The CAP program directly engages Iraqis in reconstructing their own communities, while building a nationwide grassroots constituency for democracy. Typical CAP projects use both U.S. and Iraqi funds and resources to rebuild schools, repair water and sewage lines, build health clinics, as well as a host of other infrastructure and development projects.

I have traveled to Iraq 12 times--4 times outside the umbrella of the military--and have seen first-hand how the CAP program improves the lives of Iraqis and, most importantly, how it helps us accomplish our mission of creating a secure environment for the Iraqi people so democracy can prosper.

This legislation provides $50 million for the CAP program, and I would urge the chairman to consider, as the bill moves forward, that a higher funding level would certainly be money well spent.

Regarding the Peace Corps, I am grateful for the inclusion of $325 million for the Peace Corps, which is an increase of $5 million above the fiscal year 2006 level, but is unfortunately $12 million below the President's request. I wish we could have done better. As the U.S. strives to create a better understanding of America in the world, the 7,800 Peace Corps volunteers serving from Armenia to Zambia are tangible evidence that America cares about its global neighbors.

Peace Corps volunteers have worked in every corner of the world, including the Middle East, and demonstrated the ``human side'' of American assistance: promoting friendship, cross cultural understanding along with sustainable international development.

Again, I appreciate the hard work that went into this bill and urge all my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act. Protecting our environment and promoting energy independence are two of the most important jobs I have as a Member of Congress, but before we can begin to consider building more refineries, we must first change our consumption habits. American consumption of oil has been increasing at an unsustainable rate. In 1995, we consumed 17.7 million barrels of oil per day, but today we consume 20.5 million barrels per day.

The bottom line is we are not resolving our energy needs because we are not conserving. We'll just continue to consume more and waste more, consume more and waste more, and act like it doesn't matter. We are on a demand course that is simply unsustainable.

We need to address rising energy prices by encouraging conservation and this bill fails to do anything to impact that. This bill will not affect gasoline prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil. To feel relief from the price at the pump, we must focus on decreasing our consumption of oil and looking to alternative energy sources.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H.R. 5449, which requires the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association to return to the bargaining table and negotiate a contract.

If this legislation is not passed, the FAA can impose unilaterally its contract on the union. By passing this legislation, Congress is not choosing sides, but is simply asking the two sides to come to a mutually agreeable contract solution.

I believe Congress must encourage employers and unions to come to amicable solutions. I recently introduced legislation to improve the negotiating process at the National Labor Relations Board because many union employees feel that employers have an unfair advantage because they can hold out as long as it takes to get favorable terms in the contract.

It seems to me Congress can lead by example by putting the air traffic controller contracting process on a more level playing field. Under current procedures for the FAA and the air traffic controllers, the FAA would have an advantage by holding out because they can eventually unilaterally impose their contract offer. It seems to me this legislation is fair to both sides.

Our Nation's air safety relies on the men and women who work in air traffic control towers. I am hopeful both sides will work diligently towards a solution.

Mr. Speaker, while Rome is burning, we are eating grapes. We waste energy. We consume 25 percent of the world's energy, yet only 2.7 percent of the world's oil reserves are in the United States of America. We are depleting our savings account.

The President was right. We are addicted to oil.

George Miller and other Members of Congress are right. We are addicted to oil. We are addicted to fossil fuel. We consume fossil fuel at an alarming rate. We need to conserve.

Mr. Boehlert is right. The proponents of this bill like to point out that if this legislation had been enacted 11 years ago, ANWR would now be producing oil. But Mr. Boehlert points out if we had higher conservation standards 11 years ago, we would save more oil than we would get from ANWR.

The bottom line to me is very clear. ANWR is a national set aside area. It is a pristine area. It is a small part of Alaska and should not be mined.

Why don't we mine the rest of Alaska, all the other parts of the northern slope and the rest of Alaska?

We have only 2.7 percent of the world's oil reserves. We need to say ``no'' to the mining of ANWR, ``yes'' to exploring other areas, ``yes'' to other energy including, renewable energy, ``yes'' to conservation. Increase the mileage standards of SUVs, minivans and trucks, increase the mileage standards of cars, and we will save far more than we will ever get from ANWR.