Floor Statements

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

I rise today in support of this resolution urging the establishment of a National Teacher Day. Every day, thousands of men and women in this country wake up in the morning with a tremendous responsibility, this stressful and sometimes daunting task of educating our Nation's youth. We entrust these special people with our most precious resource, our children.

Devoted teachers make a difference in the lives of students from every age and background. Every one of us can point to so many exceptional educators whose impact allowed us to get where we are today.

Support for a national day honoring the hard work of teachers has been brewing since 1944 when an Arkansas schoolteacher, Maddie White Woodridge, began corresponding with education leaders about the need for a teacher's day. In 1953, Eleanor Roosevelt convinced the 81st Congress to establish the first National Teacher Day. Finally, in 1985, the National Parent Teacher Association declared the

first week in May as National Teacher Appreciation Week.

Through their dedication and passion for service, teachers bridge the gap between the resources available and the vital need for a strong education, with sometimes too little compensation. They provide the tools necessary for success, and their sacrifice deserves national recognition.

So, in recognition of the crucial role teachers play in trying to make sure every child receives a quality education, it is appropriate we pass this important resolution.

Given the incredible teachers I have been fortunate to have over my life, it is appropriate for me to recognize and thank them. I am extraordinarily grateful for every teacher that I have had. They saw in me opportunities for growth--there sure was--but more important, they helped me to dream and to imagine I could be someone I wanted to be. I thank them for the skills they taught me and for helping me grow in the right direction. And I thank them for their love and care of me.

With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month and the commitment in Congress to raise public awareness about the importance of financial education.

As we near the end of April, which is Financial Literacy Month, credit card debt is on the rise, borrowers are defaulting on mortgage payments, oil

prices are hitting historic highs, unemployment is increasing and consumers continue to bite off more debt than they can handle. Financially illiterate consumers cannot be expected to make sound financial decisions because they simply are not equipped with the tools and knowledge they need.

It seems to me we can't expect people to be thoughtful consumers when they are not afforded the knowledge they need to make wise choices about their finances.

In light of recent turmoil in the subprime mortgage and credit markets, financial education is now more important than ever. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke drew attention to this point when he said, ``The crisis in the U.S. subprime mortgage market underscored the need for Americans to develop a sound base of financial knowledge.''

I believe it is important to ensure Americans have access to the knowledge and expertise they need to be savvy consumers and wise investors. It is never too early to learn about the importance of good credit and savings.

Parents and schools play an important role in educating tomorrow's consumers, which is why I am supportive of initiatives like Jump$tart that bring financial education into our Nation's classrooms. Jump$tart is a national coalition of organizations dedicated to improving the financial literacy of kindergarten through college-aged youth by providing educational resources and advocating for increased personal finance education. A 2008 survey of high school seniors conducted by the alliance revealed that graduating seniors continue to struggle with basic financial concepts.

First convened in December 1995, the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy determined that the average high school graduate lacks basic personal financial management skills like even balancing a checkbook. Laying the groundwork for financial independence at a young age will create a generation of individually prosperous and fiscally responsible consumers, and a corresponding stronger and better Nation.

Madam Chairman, before beginning, Ms. Matsui, do you have 30 seconds you could yield me?

I thank both Members for their courtesy in yielding me this time.

I have a different view than some of my colleagues. This industry may be highly regulated by State, Federal and international governments, but because all are involved, no one takes ownership.

I had an experience with a constituent, George Smith, who was lost at sea on his honeymoon on board a cruise ship in the Mediterranean. We had hearings on this tragedy, and had people contact us with unbelievable stories of someone missing, the family never being notified, the cruise line taking the person's possessions and putting them in a lost-and-found and then selling them, of sexual assaults and thefts, and no information being provided about the crimes to the proper authorities.

What this language does, the Matsui amendment, requires the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to maintain a numerical account of missing persons and alleged crimes committed on cruise ships. The database will be updated quarterly and aggregated by the cruise line industry.

It requires cruise lines to include a link to this database on their public Web site. The public has a right to know about the exact circumstances that take place on board cruise ships.

This is a sensible amendment. It needs to pass. And I thank her for introducing it.

I thank my former chairman for yielding, and now ranking member of the Government Oversight Committee.

I wanted to speak today because I have tremendous admiration for William Buckley, Jr. He lived in many places. He had a wonderful home in New York City, he had a wonderful home on the water in Stamford, Connecticut, in the Fourth Congressional District, and a family compound in Sharon, Connecticut, as well.

Bill Buckley was an absolute delight to interact with. On occasion, not often, I would be invited to have dinner at his home, and he would have people of great notoriety. I would participate in the dialog, but a lot of the time I felt it was best to listen more than talk. I loved the twinkle in Bill Buckley's eyes as he debated people, and me, on occasion.

There was nothing mean or angry ever in the way he spoke to people. He had strong views, but he clearly liked the interaction that took place. He loved debating ideas, he loved drawing you out. But I never once ever heard him be nasty about anyone. He was a conservative with strong views but he listened kindly to those with other views.

I would like to place in the Record, A Eulogy for My Father, St. Patrick's Cathedral, April 4, 2008, and that is by his only son, Christopher Buckley. I will just read a slight part of it. This was delivered on the occasion of the memorial mass for his dad at St. Patrick's Cathedral.

Christopher began by saying, ``We talked about this day, he and I, a few years ago. He said to me, `If I'm still famous, try to convince the cardinal to do the service at St. Patrick's. If I'm not, just tuck me away in Stamford.' '' Then Christopher went on to say, ``Well, Pup, I guess you're famous.''

Further on he said, ``Pope Benedict will be saying mass here in 2 weeks. I was told that the music at this mass for my father would in effect be the dress rehearsal for the Pope's. I think that would have pleased him, though doubtless he would have preferred it to be the other way around.''

It was a magnificent service. It was a service where great joy and admiration was expressed and with people from all political persuasions, from the most liberal, to the most conservative. We were saluting a man, the likes of which we may never see again, sadly.

With that, let me say thank goodness for William Buckley, for his magnificent family, and for the grace which embodied everything he did.

Eulogy for My Father

Delivered on the Occasion of the Memorial Mass for the Repose of the

Soul of William F. Buckley Jr. on April 4, 2008, at St. Patrick's

Cathedral

(By Christopher Buckley)

We talked about this day, he and I, a few years ago. He

said to me, ``If I'm still famous, try to convince the

Cardinal to do the service at St. Patrick's. If I'm not, just

tuck me away in Stamford.''

Well, Pup, I guess you're still famous.

I'd like to thank Cardinal Egan and Msgr. Ritchie of the

archdiocese for their celestial hospitality, and Fr. Rutter

for his typically gracious words. I'd also like to thank Dr.

Jennifer Pascual, musical director of St. Patrick's, as well

as the St. Patrick's Cathedral Choir, and organists Donald

Dumler and Rick Tripodi for such beautiful music.

Pope Benedict will be saying Mass here in two weeks. I was

told that the music at this Mass for my father would, in

effect, be the dress rehearsal for the Pope's. I think that

would have pleased him, though doubtless he'd have preferred

it to be the other way around.

I do know he'd have been pleased, amidst the many

obituaries and tributes, by the number of editorial cartoons

that depicted him at the Pearly Gates. One showed St. Peter

groaning, ``I'm going to need a bigger dictionary.'' If I

disposed of the cartoonist's skills, I might draw one showing

a weary St. Peter greeting the Fed Ex man, ``Let me guess--

another cover story on Mr. Buckley?''

My mother is no longer with us, so we can only speculate as

to how she might react to these depictions of her husband of

56 years arriving in Paradise so briskly. My sense is that

she would be vastly amused. On the day he retired from Firing

Line after a 33-year-long run, Nightline (no relation) did a

show to mark the occasion. At the end, Ted Koppel said,

``Bill, we have one minute left. Would you care to sum up

your 33-years in television?'' To which my father replied,

``No.''

Taking his cue, I won't attempt to sum him up in my few

minutes here. A great deal has been written and said about

him in the month since he died, at his desk, in his study in

Stamford. After I'd absorbed the news, I sat down to compose

an e-mail. My inner English major ineluctably asserted itself

and I found myself quoting (misquoting, slightly) a line from

Hamlet, He was a man, Horatio, take him for all in all, I

shall not look upon his like again.

One of my first memories of him was of driving up to

Sharon, Connecticut for Thanksgiving. It would have been

about 1957. He had on the seat between us an enormous reel-

to-reel tape recorder. For a conservative, my old man was

always on the cutting edge of the latest gadgetry--despite

the fact that at his death, he was almost certainly the only

human being left on the planet who still used Word Star.

It was a recording of MacBeth. My five-year-old brain

couldn't make much sense of it. I asked him finally, ``What's

eating the queen?'' He explained about the out-out-damned

spot business. I replied, ``Why doesn't she try Palmolive?''

So began my tutelage with the world's coolest mentor. It was

on those drives to Sharon that we had some of our best talks.

This afternoon, I'll make one last drive up there to bury

him,

alongside with his sisters in the little cemetery by the

brook. When we held the wake for him some days after he died,

I placed inside his casket a few items to see him across the

River Styx: his favorite rosary, the TV remote control--

private joke--a jar of peanut butter, and my mother's ashes.

I can hear her saying, ``Bill--what is that disgusting

substance leaking all over me?'' No pharaoh went off to the

afterlife better equipped than he does.

The last time I was with him in Sharon was last October. It

was a fundraiser for the local library, billed as ``A Bevy of

Buckleys''--my dad, Uncle Jim, Aunt Pitts, Aunt Carol, me--

reading from the aggregate Buckley oeuvre--a word I first

heard from his lips many years ago, along with other exotic,

multi-lingual bon mots: mutatis mutandis; pari passu; quod

licet Jove, non licet bovi.

An article had appeared in the local paper a few days

before, alerting the community to this gala event. As I

perused the clipping, my eyes alighted on the sentence: ``The

Buckleys are a well-known American family, William F. Buckley

being arguably the best known.''

I kept my amusement to myself, and handed Pup the clipping

and waited silently for the reaction I knew would come. Sure

enough, within seconds, he looked up with what I would

describe as only faintly bemused indignation and said,

``Ar-guably?''

He was--inarguably--a great man. This is, from a son's

perspective, a mixed blessing, because it means having to

share him with the wide world. It was often a very mixed

blessing when you were out sailing with him. Great men always

have too much canvas up. And great men set out from port in

conditions that keep lesser men--such as myself--safe and

snug on shore. One October day in 1997, I arrived from

Washington in Stamford for a long-planned overnight sail. As

the train pulled into the station, I looked out and saw

people hanging onto lampposts at 90-degree angles, trying not

to be blown away by the northeast gale that was raging.

Indeed, it resembled a scene from The Wizard of Oz. When the

train doors opened, I was blown back into the carriage by the

50-mile-an-hour wind. I managed to crawl out onto the

platform, practically on all fours, whereupon my father

greeted me with a chipper, ``We'll have a brisk sail.''

I looked up at him incredulously and said, ``We're going

out in this?'' Indeed we did go out in it. We always went out

in it. Some of my earliest memories are of my mother,

shrieking at him as the water broke over the cockpit and the

boat pitched furiously in boiling seas, ``Bill--Bill! Why are

you trying to kill us?''

But the cries of timorous souls never phased him. He had

been going out in it for years, ever since he published his

first book, God and Man At Yale. Nor did he need a sailboat

to roil the waters. His Royal typewriter--and later, Word

Star--would do.

How many words flowed from those keyboards. I went up to

Yale recently to inspect his archive of papers. They total

550 linear feet. To put it in perspective, the spire of St.

Patrick's rises 300 feet above us. By some scholarly

estimates, he may have written more letters than any other

American in history. Add to that prodigal output: 6,000

columns, 1,500 Firing Line episodes, countless articles, over

50 books. He was working on one the day he died.

Jose Marti famously said that a man must do three things in

life: write a book, plant a tree, have a son. I don't know

that my father ever planted a tree. Surely whole forests,

whole eco-systems, were put to the axe on his account. But he

did plant a lot of seeds and many of them, grown to fruition,

are here today. Quite a harvest, that.

It's not easy coming up with an epitaph for such a man. I

was tempted by something Mark Twain once said, ``Homer's

dead, Shakespeare's dead, and I myself am not feeling at all

well.''

Years ago, he gave an interview to Playboy Magazine. Asked

why he did this, he couldn't resist saying, ``In order to

communicate with my 16-year-old son.'' At the end of the

interview, he was asked what he would like for an epitaph and

he replied, `` `I know that my Redeemer liveth.' '' Only Pup

could manage to work the Book of Job into a Hugh Hefner

publication. I finally settled on one, and I'll say the words

over his grave at sunset today in Sharon, as we lay him to

rest. They're from a poem he knew well--Robert Louis

Stevenson's Requiem--each line of which, indeed, seemed to

have been written just for him:

Under the wide and starry sky

Dig the grave and let me lie.

Glad did I live, and gladly die.

And I lay me down with a will.

This be the verse you grave for me:

Here he lies where he longed to be.

Home is the sailor, home from sea,

And the hunter home from the hill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and I appreciate his launching this bill.

Let me say, first and foremost, that you have worked on this legislation for over 4 years, and you have done what many of us in Congress said we wanted to do. We said we wanted Americans to have the same health care that Members of Congress have. And that's what I said, the same health care that Federal employees have, because that's the program that Members of Congress are a part of. It's a program that in my State, and in most States, we have, like, 18 different choices.

And so what I'd like to do, I'd like to start out, if you wouldn't mind putting the American health benefit guiding principles back up on the chart there, because I think that's a good way to start out.

And, again, let me say, Congressman Langevin, it's a privilege to work with you. You have done incredible work to bring forward a plan that Congress can consider seriously. And what you've done is what all of us said we wanted to do, and you've given me the privilege of not having to write it, but I got to edit it. And that's a lot of fun.

So this is a partnership, and what a great partnership, to be able to first argue, as you have, that chart in front of you, universal coverage. So there's 85 percent of the Americans have coverage and 15 percent don't. 90 percent have it in Connecticut. But there are about 45 million Americans that don't have health coverage.

What that does, as you've pointed out so well, it means that you have a distortion in the marketplace because those 45 million are going to get covered when they are really sick in a hospital, and it's going to be the uncompensated care.

So you've written a bill that says, universal coverage. You've written a bill that says, Americans will have choice, which is really important to me. You've written a bill that said there'll be shared responsibility, that individuals, employers, the government, hospitals, insurers, all have a responsibility. That's what you've done.

You and I are seeking to have this be affordable, so we are going to talk about a commission that we've established that would be established under this bill.

But you want it to be portable. You want it to be that if an employee moves somewhere else they're going to have that same coverage. And if the employee wants to upgrade, they can upgrade every year, or reduce it, because Federal employees pay 28 percent of the cost. The government pays the employer, in this case, 72 percent. So 28 and 72 on the part of the government.

The continuity concept, that if employers have worked out a really good program with their employees then they can keep it. But eventually I think they will ultimately want to be part of the American health benefit plan.

And I particularly like the aspect that no insurer is going to be allowed to participate unless they have a strong preventative care program. And we can get into that.

And then the health care re-investment. Insurers take 20 percent out and 80 percent goes to health care. The way you've drafted the bill, and we are promoting this bill, there's going to be, our expectation, and this is our goal, is that 90 percent be reinvested into health care.

Now, it's pretty amazing when you look at the differences in cost. And maybe you want to comment on this. You have a pretty good view of it.

But we're looking at statistics in 2004. And you can see that the Gross Domestic Product in the United States, in 2004, was 15 percent. And yet, it was 11 percent, and in 1980 it was 8.8. But the significant thing is Canada's is at 10, just slightly under 10, where ours is at 15. The United Kingdom is at 8 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Japan is at 8. And Germany slightly over 10. There's a big difference in the cost here compared to our cost. I have a sense that part of that is just the uncompensated care, and that's, you know, we've had information that says that. But I think this is one that just gets you to have to wake up.

If we do nothing, if we do nothing, we are going to be spending, by the year 2016, it's estimated, over $4 trillion a year in health care. And it still means that a good number of Americans don't get the coverage.

So we have to do something. And let me just make this last point, and then I know that you'll have things that you want to say as well.

But our bill, the bill that you wrote, and the bill that I'm now a part of, is going to give Americans choice. And there are going to be some other bills presented. There's a bill that says you have a single payer system. There's another bill that says the individual pays and not the employer in a tax to, and as you've designed the bill, pays into a tax, in which we have 300 million people in one pool. So you don't have this problem of a single employer.

But, no, I just want to make this point before yielding back. The point I want to make is that we all know we're going to get to universal coverage. And the question is not if, but when.

The other question is what is it going to look like? We have the perfect

model, a system that the employer pays, that the individual pays, a system now where the hospitals, because they won't have such uncompensated care, will be contributing a bit, and where the insurers are going to be making sure that more goes into health care.

And there's the other plan that will come out here, Mr. Wyden's bill, that deserves to be looked at, where the individual is going to pay. There's again, the single payer plan. And then there's the other groups that say, well, let's just kind of work on the edges and keep covering more and more of the uninsured and then see what it looks like when we're done.

So maybe we could have more back and forth dialogue, but this is something I deeply believe in. And I appreciate the work that's gone in by you and your staff. And now, my staff as well.

And this is a debate that Congress needs to say, let's begin it. Let's have a hearing in the House and in the Senate on this legislation, on the other legislation. Let's understand the impact on individuals and on employers.

So this is a lot of fun for me to be out here with you.

And if I could just jump in. The key that you make is that there are 8 million individuals, either actively working for the government or retired, who are part of the same pool, and so the purchasing power becomes more powerful.

And the exciting part, I think, or the very sensible part of what we have as Federal employees, because as Congressmen, we have that same plan that all Federal employees have, is that we can choose to upgrade our plan and spend 28 percent on the more expensive plan, or we can choose to lower it each year. But we never have a problem of there being a pre-existing condition.

And thinking how it would work in the private sector, you move to another job and you will be able to keep the same plan. Or you are unemployed. You lost your job. And you have this huge fear of buying COBRA and having to pay all of the cost, and you can't. You're not working. In this case, you would be part of the government coverage, and it would be paid for almost entirely by the government, in that instance, until you were back working.

And what's hugely important about that is to recognize though, that that individual wouldn't, then, be able to get the most expensive plan, they'd have the basic plan. But the basic plan is a good plan.

I love to talk about this and just delve into the preventative care part even more.

The insurance company isn't guaranteed that that individual will be with them for life. But they are aware that the insurance company's part of the American Health Benefit Plan and that all of the other insurers, as well, have to focus on preventative care. And that's going to be hugely important how people take care of themselves; are they having physical checkups, but more importantly, how do they take care of themselves? Are they smoking? Are they overweight?

You are going to have insurance companies that are going to provide incentives for people, one, to not smoke; to provide incentives for them to lose weight; and this is going to also include a health savings account for those who want it. And the significance of that will be that it becomes a high deductible.

So they would have to put in for the first few thousand dollars, but it comes out of what they put into a savings account. And if they don't spend it, then it stays in that savings account. And then there has been no cost to the insurer and, in this case, it will be a less expensive plan to the government as well.

I would love to, if you wouldn't mind, just point out that what we have done in this legislation is that when the bill passes, it will take 2 years to be implemented so that as we vote out the legislation with whatever changes are in there, it may be that the amount that an employer has to put into the system may be higher or lower in certain numbers of employees and so on; and we can go back to that chart in a second. But we want to have time to write the legislation but then to examine it during the course of the 2 years.

And one of the things that we've done is that we require there to be a health benefits commission. And the significance of that is that we don't want the United States to be spending so much more than other countries. So much of our wealth and our income is going into health care, and we would like it to be less.

But they won't have to negotiate a plan every year, and it won't be unique to that business. It will be a plan that will have been negotiated by the American Health Benefits Plan.

You know, I look at this trend line, and I see that we're looking that in the year 2016, we would be spending $4 trillion. But what will we be spending in the year 2020? And this is without doing what we need to do, which is to reform the system.

And so what we have done is we have established a commission, and the commission will be of nine members, the chair and vice chair, as well as two other members who will be chosen by the comptroller general. The President, the majority leader, the minority leaders of the Senate and Speaker, the minority leader of the House will choose one representative. And the commission shall examine and make recommendations regarding the major issues and cost drivers affecting the delivery of health services as it pertains to the American Health Benefit Program.

Within the legislation, we specifically are directing the commission to examine a comparison of the American Health Benefit Plan to other public health insurance programs, the proper implementation and utilization of electronic medical records and other health information technologies, including privacy and interoperability issues. We're directing them to look at the effects of medical malpractice insurance and defensive medicine on the delivery and cost of health care, and that's something that needs to be looked at.

The patterns and effects of overutilization. When do people overutilize care? Why do they overutilize it, and what steps can an overall plan do to encourage all of the insurance companies to have some of the basic same practices that would discourage overutilization?

We are having them look at the cost and implementation factor of retiree health coverage under the American Health Benefit Plan. What is the impact of retirees? And candidly, what is the impact of the last few months of someone's life when we see a huge amount of money spent?

A comparison of prescription drug prices under the American Health Benefit Plan to other public health programs, and the effects of insurance monopolies on health care costs and delivery, we need to look at that.

Now, what this commission will do, it has 18 months to file its findings, which is 6 months before the law actually goes into effect. But we're asking them to give us a preliminary finding 12 months in, a final version 18 months, but one 12 months.

So the legislation passes 2 years before it's implemented. The commission comes back in a year and says, You need to make these changes to help control costs, to help discourage overutilization, to help with preventative care. That would help save costs in the long run. We will come back 18 months later.

Now, one of the last points I would make, and I know that you have comments that you need to make as well, we are willing to amend this legislation as we get data. And, for instance, I hope that sometime again we can look at the chart that you had where you talked about employer contributions because we're asking employers to say, okay, what do you pay now and how would this legislation impact you. And even if now they would be paying a little bit more, I suspect that in the long run, because their costs are going up significantly without a plan, but if I could just point out how this chart works. It's rather small. But we look at an average wage earner of $21,000 or less, and then we say okay, there's 10 employees to 25 employees. There are 200 to 500 employees. That's on the left column. And in an average wage of $21,000 or less, even with 500 employees, they would only be paying about $1,000, slightly over $1,000 a year.

Now, when you go and look at someone who is making $83,000-plus, the amount that they would be contributing would ultimately max out, potentially, at a much higher rate, more than $10,000. But the question is, what do they pay now?

Did I get that right? Yeah.

But the point is, employers are going to say, I have 26 employees, their average salary is $42,000. They will know that they're going to be paying approximately $6,600 an employee. So that's what they would pay under this plan. What do they pay now, and are there employees having the same choices that now--do they have the same choices under their private plan as they would under this plan?

Right. Because what we do is we cap the payroll at $120,000. And so it ends up being $12,000 an employer would pay.

But when I was speaking of someone with 500 employees, they would pay $21,000 salary, they pay 5.25, 5\1/4\ percent of payroll. It gets up to, if they're making $83,000 on average, and that would be quite a company, then they would be paying the 10 percent rate. And the key is that when we drafted this legislation, we had the input of private foundations and experts. But in the end, this still is an estimate of what we

think brings in the revenue needed to provide the services.

And the challenges you just don't know until you get more into it. That's why the hearings are so necessary.

We have to draft legislation that we think is as accurate as can be, and then we present it to those who would be impacted: Employers, government individuals, and say tell us how it impacts your life. I have committee meetings, and I had individuals say, well, for a period of time I lost my job. This plan would have meant I would have had health care.

I had someone else who said, you know, I had a condition. I was insured. I couldn't hold my COBRA. I couldn't keep my insurance for a while. It stopped. And then I got insurance later and they said, you had a preexisting condition, and they weren't covered.

I had business men and women who said, I only have five people in my office, and we're paying an exorbitant amount. I mean, under our legislation, someone who had less than 10 would be paying, if their salary was $21,000, 4 percent of payroll. If their salary was 83, they would be paying 6 percent of payroll, far less than what they're paying now, far less. And so, it's a debate that we need to have. Now, I'm waiting for the employer who comes to me and says, guess what? Under your plan, I'm going to have to pay more. I want him or her to tell us why and how much. So we need to make sure that people get on your web page or our web page and take a look at this legislation and give us feedback.

We're going to literally tour the country to argue that we need to begin, first, a debate on health care that our bill, the bill presented by Mr. Wyden, the bill of the single payer, all of that should be brought forward for really a terrific debate.

See, that's, I think, one of the key points. You could make an assumption that 15 percent are not covered and you're now going to cover them, that it means it's going to be more expensive for everyone. And there are arguments that we might have to phase the legislation in to make sure that we get more doctors and nurses and so on because we're looking at potential shortages. But the key thing is that those that don't have insurance have extreme measures taken, and by extreme, more services, more costly services. And so we have this artificially inflated cost, and that clearly will have an impact if everyone is, in fact, covered.

Before we end, I'd love to make sure we just go right through the simple parts of this legislation. If I could just start by saying you've written a bill that says all Americans should have the same health care benefits and opportunities that Federal employees have. Federal employees, Members of Congress who are Federal employees, we pay 28 percent of the cost, the government pays 72 percent of the cost. We can get a more expensive plan or we can get a less expensive plan.

What your plan does is it puts everyone in a pool, one pool, 300 million people. It spreads out the cost. It gives all Americans at least, probably--we have now 18 choices, there will probably be more, and they have choice. Your plan says that you will never lose your insurance, ever. Your plan says it doesn't matter if you're an employer with five employees or one with a thousand. Your plan recognizes whether you're one person or 500, you're going to get covered and be part of the same pool.

And ultimately it means that we're going to do something that we've talked about for 50 years, and that is, this great country of ours, the United States of America, will have a universal plan, all Americans. And when we do it, I think you're going to find that we're going to say, what took us so long?

So it's just a real pleasure and an honor to work with you and your staff. And I look forward to our having some impact on this hugely important issue.

We just have to insert different names here, but our web page is www.house.gov/shays. If someone goes to www.house.gov/shays, they will see this plan, as we've been talking about, on our main page. And I'm assuming that your web page would be www.house.gov/langevin. So they can go on either of our web pages and see the plan.

We would love for people to respond, tell us what they like about it, how they would benefit. And then we would like their help in contacting their Member of Congress and saying we would like you to support the Langevin bill, and get on it. We need to start getting cosponsors. We need to encourage Congress to have hearings on this legislation, begin that process.

So again, that's www.house.gov/langevin or www.house.gov/shays.

If I could thank the Speaker as well. And thank you again and your staff, and my staff as well. It's a great opportunity to work on this legislation with you. Thank you.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the work on both sides of the aisle.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act, because it is an important legislative step to addressing the liquidity shortage in the student loan market.

I would like to thank Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and the Education and Labor Committee in general for bringing this legislation to the floor today to ensure continued access to student loans in this time of financial strain.

This isn't a Democratic or Republican issue, this is an American issue, and I'm grateful we were able to work together to take this first step to protect our Nation's students.

The fallout of the subprime market and subsequent weakening of the credit market has destabilized what many consider to be sound investments, most notably, student loans. Investors are not hungry to invest, funds have dried up, and lenders have been unable to secure the capital they need to make new loans. All this in the aftermath of reductions in lender subsidies to the Federal Family Education Loan Program that were made in the past 3 years and have created the perfect storm in the student loan market. We should re-examine the effect of these cuts and affect swiftly if we have an over-cut in any area. What's more, lenders have backed out of the program before most students have even gone to secure their loans for next year.

We see the potential for a problem ahead, and I believe it is our job in Congress to find solutions and alternatives now, before we see a repeat of the subprime mortgage market meltdown.

When we considered the Higher Education Reauthorization bill back in February, I offered an amendment expressing a Sense of Congress that the Departments of Education and Treasury explore options within Federal financing institutions to ensure liquidity for the program providers. While I am pleased that Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon have included this language in the bill before us today, I wonder if we would be in this situation had we worked to address this situation back in February.

Lenders who have exited the FFEL program account for 13 percent of total student loan volume in the FFEL program. What's worse, we have not entered the period of time when students will call their individual lenders for next year's loans. We need to act quickly to prevent students from being denied loans.

While I believe this bill is a good first step, we need to work with the Treasury Department to open access to Federal financing institutions like the Federal Home Loan Bank or the Federal Financing Bank.

Ultimately, this is a liquidity issue. While I am pleased the bill provides additional Federal assistance to students and their families, I am concerned that we are not getting to the heart of the matter.

It is alarming to think in this period of economic uncertainty we would be willing to provide anything less than the highest quality education to citizens of our Nation. Access to higher education is critical to maintaining our global competitiveness.

And, again, let me thank both the chairman and ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, just before yielding, I would like to explain to my colleagues on the other side that we have 8 minutes left. We are going to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois and then reserve our 3 minutes and you are going to have an opportunity to go through a number of speakers.

With that, I would yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Let me ask my colleague, does he just have one last speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I yield myself the remaining time. I appreciate first the work of Congresswoman Maxine Waters and Congressman Spencer Bachus to bring the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2008 to the floor, and in particular, my chairman, Barney Frank, who continues to be an American first and is an outstanding chairman of the Finance Committee and puts all the partisan stuff second. I appreciate that.

Debt cancellation has proven to reduce poverty and save lives. It sends a strong message that we care about the rest of the world. It is sound economics, and it is humane.

The debt cancellation support by Congress in 1999 and 2005 has reached more than 2,000 countries in Africa and Latin America as has been described already. When Uganda is using $57.9 million freed by debt cancellation to increase spending on primary education, malaria control, health care and infrastructure, that is good for every Ugandan citizen, its neighbors and the world at large.

Today's legislation, adopting an additional nine impoverished countries to the list of countries eligible for debt cancellation and making an additional 15 countries eligible for relief is a very positive step. The bill costs an estimated $197 million if all nine countries enter into the agreement, and $119 million if Vietnam decides not to participate.

This is reasonable expenditure, a wise investment and a significant effort of goodwill by our country towards the world community.

While I support this legislation, debt relief by itself will not lead to reforms that are needed in many of these countries. Investment in foreign policy programs that promote world stability is crucial, and that is why oversight is so important.

Many of us in this Chamber believe responsible debt relief is not only the right thing to do, but it is also in our national security interests, particularly when coupled with reforms that will lead to substantial development. Developing nations that improve economically and help their citizens out of poverty and despair are much less likely to develop in ways that make them a threat to their neighbors and the greater world.

I urge passage of H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2008, and I again thank all those involved, the chairman of the full committee Mr. Frank, Ms. Waters and my ranking member, Spencer Bachus.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan manager's amendment. I would like to thank Chairman Frank, Mr. Bachus and Mrs. Biggert for their work on the amendment, which addresses several concerns that Members had with the version of the bill reported by the Committee on Financial Services. With the adoption of this amendment, the Jubilee Act will be a better bill.

The manager's amendment clarifies the conditions for that relief. Specifically, it will ensure that countries receiving debt relief comply with specific outlined conditions. By doing do, these countries will be held accountable, and, as a result, the debt relief accorded them will be effective in alleviating poverty, establishing sustainable development and ensuring good governance.

Beyond clarifying the requirements for eligible countries, this amendment adds three more: Requiring greater cooperation with the U.S. on human trafficking, preventing illegal immigration to the U.S., and promoting Democratic standards within the country benefiting from debt relief. These additional measures will have a positive effect not only on the recipient nations, but on the U.S. as well.

Finally, the manager's amendment makes clear that countries that have engaged in human rights violations and aided terrorism are excluded from receiving debt relief.

This manager's amendment represents progress towards making this a more effective measure. I again commend the sponsors of the amendment, and urge its adoption.

Without objection from the chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who had wanted a minute when we didn't have time. I would like to give him a minute at this time.

I want to emphasize we support this amendment, and I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be silent to the concerns that my colleague from Florida Mr. Hastings has expressed.

Haiti is a country that has tremendous poverty, and while his resolution speaks to the HIPIC package of the 43 nations who have already been authorized for debt forgiveness. I hope the folks in the administration are listening to his concern that is shared by so many.

While the legislation before us deals with countries to be added to the list, I think he is right in pointing out a concern that I know many on this side of the aisle share. Haiti is a country in desperate need of help, and it is a very close neighbor and friend and we need to do everything we can to help it.

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

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

Madam Speaker, on April 14, 2008, I missed 3 recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on recorded vote number 183, ``yea'' on recorded vote 184, and ``yea'' on recorded vote 185.

I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 1092, which will in effect defeat the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement by postponing consideration of the legislation indefinitely. It is more than ironic to me that, at a time when our economy has slowed tremendously, Democratic leaders are seeking to derail efforts to enhance our export market, which has been one area of strength in our economy.

The fact is, this trade agreement will help U.S. manufacturers and high tech service providers export to Colombia, a great friend and ally, where many of our products face tariffs. If any country deserves our support for aiding efforts to build a stable economy, it is Colombia. The Government has taken great strides in preventing attacks by paramilitary groups, and if we are ever going to curtail drug production from Colombia, it will be because of a stable economy, which free trade helps create.

I urge my colleagues who support economic growth, free trade and better relations with our neighbor to reject this misguided resolution and keep the Colombia free trade agreement on track.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System, NLCS, Act. This bill would codify the NLCS's management of 26 million acres of land presently under the direction of the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, affording the system the recognition, management, and unification of a national system.

The lands in question have been designated National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Scenic and Historic Trails by Congress and by Presidential Proclamation. Eight years ago, the Secretary of the Interior established the NLCS to manage these areas. Congressional recognition of NLCS's management of these treasured places only seeks to codify what the BLM currently administers.

H.R. 2016 does not change the BLM's multiple-use mandate. Rather, it celebrates the BLM's ability to manage its special lands for multiple uses, including conservation, for the benefit of the American people. By writing the NLCS into law, this legislation prevents any rescission that might put this new conservation system at risk. It is important that the BLM continue to manage and protect these lands and waterways enjoyed by millions of Americans each year.

I am grateful for the steps the BLM has taken in protecting this system of Federal lands and urge support of final passage of H.R. 2016.

Mr. Speaker, today I missed 14 recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on recorded vote No. 164, ``yea'' on recorded vote No. 165, ``yea'' on recorded vote No. 166, ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 167, ``no'' on recorded vote No. 168, ``no'' on recorded vote No. 169, ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 170, ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 171, ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 172, ``no'' on recorded vote No. 173, ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 174, ``yea'' on recorded vote 175, ``yea'' on recorded vote No. 176, and ``yea'' on recorded vote No. 177.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1077, introduced by our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, calling on the Government of China to end its crackdown in Tibet and to enter into a substantive dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The recent violence in Tibet, which was triggered by the Buddhist monks asking for religious freedoms, should be a great concern to everyone concerned about human rights. China needs to end the violence and engage in open and honest dialogue with the Dalai Lama to achieve peace and reconciliation. China must come to realize that Tibetans deserve more autonomy and the world community will not be silent until they achieve it.

As a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I am very concerned about human rights in China but in particular the political and religious freedoms of Tibetans. I urge the resolution's adoption and appreciate this resolution coming to the floor.

I thank the gentlelady for taking her time to allow me and my colleagues to be able to address the chamber. Thank you very much. And I appreciate her husband's service to this country both in Congress and in the Senate.

I am taking this opportunity to talk about the conflict in Iraq, the war in Iraq, and I want to do it based on my 20 visits to Iraq when I first was there in April of 2003 to the trip that just concluded last week. I want to speak very frankly about this war and our presence there and what I think we should do and why I think we should do what we need to do.

September 11 clearly was a wakeup call, from hell, that forced us to address the fact that for such a long time we had a blind eye to what was happening in the Middle East and what was happening particularly as it related to the extreme Islamists who were seeking to get the world's attention by attacking our troops in Lebanon, our Marines, our Soldiers, and Air Force men and women in Saudi Arabia attacked three times, our embassy employees in two countries in Africa, the Cole where we lost 17 Navy personnel and 33 injured.

I was somewhat surprised that, in spite of all this, that we would keep turning the other cheek and ignoring what was confronting us. So when September 11 happened, it was a huge wakeup call. And the issue is, did we respond in the right way?

We created a Department of Homeland Security. Before September 11, when we talked about such a department, people said, ``What are we, Great Britain?'' It was difficult for Americans to conceive that we should do that. We passed the Patriot Act; and clearly we could have given it some other name, but we wanted to make sure that we had modernized our capability to infiltrate cells that needed to be infiltrated. We created a much stronger intelligence structure by establishing a Director of Intelligence that would coordinate these 16 agencies. And we also went into Afghanistan, where there was uniformed consensus that we should do it. But we also went into Iraq, and that obviously was very controversial.

I remember, as I tried to debate whether we should do this, visiting with the Brits, the French, the Turks, the Israelis, and the Jordanians. They all said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But the French said, he has them, but won't use them. And we discounted the French because we knew even then, about the Oil for Food Program, that they had been pretty much bought off, and we knew that they would probably not support using the U.N. as the instrument to remove Saddam from power. So we went in. And, we made sure our troops had the one thing that we felt they needed: Protective chemical gear. We really believed that Saddam had both a nuclear program and a chemical program, and we were very adamant that we shouldn't go in before our troops had that protective chemical gear.

But it became very clear early on that Saddam not only didn't have an active chemical weapons program that he could readily use, and there was no nuclear program. So, the very basis for going into Iraq proved to be false.

I voted to go into Iraq based on what I believed was the right thing to do. I am struck by some Members who somehow blame their decision on someone else. I did what I thought was due diligence. I was impressed by Iraq's neighbors. I was impressed by, frankly, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and others who had reason to be skeptical but believed as well that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

But what surprises me most, and I want to make this point. I remember when George Romney, the former governor of Michigan, not Massachusetts, Governor Romney from Massachusetts's dad, said: I believed we needed to go into Vietnam, but I was brainwashed by the generals. And there was instant ridicule, and he was forced to drop out of the race for President because he wasn't taking ownership for his own decision, and was blaming someone else.

I blame no one for my vote. It was my vote based on my best conclusions. And I would like to think that every Member would own up to their own vote, but somehow some who voted to go into Iraq now act like they didn't, and blame others for their vote. And I think that is wrong. So the question is, we are there, and we were there under false pretenses but very much believed to be true. So what do we do now?

When you go to Israel, Israel had the best intelligence in the region, and they were wrong and they empanelled a commission to try to determine how they could be wrong. They didn't blame their political leaders, they didn't say people lied. What they concluded was that, based on the knowledge that they had, it was reasonable to assume that Saddam had these weapons. That was their conclusion.

It is a fact that even his own troops, his generals, in December were stunned, as we learned from the debriefing of Tariq Aziz and others of the Iraqi politicians, that Saddam told his own generals in December of 2002: We don't have a nuclear program and we don't have a viable chemical program. And they were stunned.

I was so troubled by this that I went to see Hans Blix in Stockholm and I said, ``Why would Saddam want us to think he had weapons of mass destruction?'' And he said, because Saddam thought it was a deterrent to his neighbors, and that he believed there was no consequence because he thought there would be no way the United States would seek to remove him from power if the French and the Russians and the Chinese would not allow the U.N. to be involved.

Well, the fact is that Saddam misread us the first time in Kuwait. Because of Vietnam, he thought we would never go in because of that experience,

and we did, and he misunderstood our intentions a second time, which is an incredible lesson about making sure that our adversaries know our true intent and believe our true intent.

We were wrong. But being wrong does not mean we need to get out, get out right away because of our original purpose for being there.

The fact is once we disbanded the Army, the police and the border patrol, we owned Iraq; and there is no way of getting around it. There is no way to say that we can get rid of all Iraqi police, border patrol and Army, and then say, well, you know, we achieved our objective, good-bye. That would be a cruelty to the Iraqis that they don't deserve, and it would be a huge invitation to the Iranians to just walk right in. We can't allow that to happen.

In my first visit to Iraq, I went just as the war was ending. I actually had to get in with the help of the State Department because the Defense Department said I couldn't go in. I remember speaking to Muhammed Abdul-Assan. He was telling me the things that we were doing that troubled him, like throwing candy on the ground. He said, Our children are not chickens; they are not animals.

He talked about how our troops seemed to be offended when they extended a hand, and an Iraqi woman put her hand to her heart and would not shake the soldier's hand. She was saying, thank you for honoring me, but we don't shake hands with strangers.

He basically put his hands on my shoulders and said, You don't know us, and we don't know you. He told me an incredible story. He told me a story that he had been in an Iranian prison and hadn't made the first exchange of prisoners because the Iranians had more Iraqis than the Iraqis had Iranians in their war with each other. I said to him, You have had an incredibly difficult life, and I started to go on. And he looked at me and said, No different than any other Iraqi.

Well, after my first visit I couldn't get back soon enough to say we need Arabic speakers and we need to understand their culture. These are tough people.

The second time I went in, I went to Basra and I went again outside the umbrella of the military and spent two nights in Basra with Save the Children. I began to hear things like why are you putting my son, my uncle, my brother, my cousin, my nephew, my husband, my father, out of work? Why can't they at least guard the hospitals? He was talking about the fact that we put a half a million men out of work, and basically said you have no future in this new government.

And so I couldn't wait to get back home and say: Why are we doing this? And the poignant thing to this is the very first death in the 4th Congressional District Connecticut was Wilfredo Perez. He was guarding a hospital.

Try to imagine what we did when we disbanded their Army, their police and their border patrol. We left them totally and completely defenseless. It is a country of 24-plus million people left with no security.

Let's take New York State. New York State has 19 million people. It is two-thirds the size of Iraq or maybe even smaller. It has 19 million versus 24 million. Imagine New York State with no police, no police in New York City, no police in the subways, no police in Albany, Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse, no police in any of the towns in between, no security whatsoever. Oh, and by the way, to be consistent with what Saddam Hussein did, he released all his prisoners. We are going to release the prisoners from Attica and Riker's Island and make sure that they are in the community, and then say don't worry, we are going to bring 150,000 Iraqis who speak Arabic to keep the peace throughout all of New York State.

Well, you don't have to be a genius to realize we had created a huge problem. We were basically saying we would provide all of the security in Iraq, but we didn't have enough men and women to do it. We didn't speak their language or know their culture. Are we surprised that militias were formed? Are we surprised that when we put half a million people out of work, that they would go to the other side?

And then there is the looting. They were dumbfounded. Iraqis love their antiquities. They love their history. If you go to an Iraqi and somehow suggest it is not a real country, they will look at you and say, Let me get this straight. You did not learn in your school, about the Fertile Crescent where the two rivers met, the cradle of civilization? You never studied about us Iraqis? They are stunned that we would think them not a country, and they were particularly stunned, when the Senate voted to divide Iraq into three parts, they said aha, it just goes to show what we have been saying. You want to divide and conquer us, and then take our oil.

We made huge mistakes and we didn't correct them and we didn't deal with the reality on the ground. The reality is that we needed to train more Iraqi troops than we were, and we needed to have more American troops there given we had gotten rid of a half million security forces for all of Iraq.

When you go to an Iraqi and you ask, Are you a Sunni? They will say, I am a Sunni but I am married to a Shia.

I will go to a Shia and say are you a Shia, to try to understand their perspective, and they will say, I am a Shia, but my tribe is Sunni.

I will go to someone I suspect to be a Kurd, and ask, Are you a Kurd? They will say, Yes, I am a Kurd; but you do know Kurds are Sunnis? They are constantly lecturing me about understanding what they are and the significance of what they are.

We have the fear of sectarian violence in Iraq, and it is often compared to Bosnia. In Bosnia, you had fathers who literally raped their child's best friend. So a father is raping a 14- or 12-year-old child because she happens to be Christian and he is Muslim or she is Muslim and he is a Christian. I remember going to Bosnia and seeing a house filled with garbage, garbage filled all of the way to the top. It was a message, don't come back to your home, you are not wanted.

That kind of violence is not what has happened in Iraq. What has happened in Iraq is when there were Sunnis and Shias living together, they were not kicked out by their neighbors, they were kicked out by outsiders who came in and tried to have it be one ethnic group, which is very different than Bosnia.

Now that is not to suggest that Sunnis and Shias will agree on everything. But again, it is not like Saudi Arabia where Sunnis there don't like Sunnis in other countries if they are not Wahhabbis. We sometimes tend to judge the Middle East, I think, on what we see in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is another issue we are going to have to have a frank conversation about. It is not Iraq.

When I go to Turkey, the Turks say to me, We used to run this place for 402 years; why don't you pay attention to us?

When I go to Egypt, they say, We have been a country for 4,000 years, why don't you pay attention to us?

When I go to Jordan they say, We are direct descendants of Mohammed, why don't you pay attention to us?

When I go to Iraq, they say, We are the cradle of civilization, why don't you pay attention to us?

So we are starting to. We are starting to pay more attention to them. We are certainly paying attention to the ambassadors that come from countries near Iraq. And they say, we may not have wanted you to go in, are there, for you to leave now would be an outrage. And they are right.

Now that we stirred everything up and we created significant dislocation in Iraq, we have a moral obligation to set Iraqis in a place where they can govern themselves; or failing to govern themselves, it will be their failure. But they need the security to do it.

So what do I see and what have I seen over the course of 20 times in Iraq?

If this is April 2003, we could have gone in an upward direction. It could have been an amazing experience. We could have kept their military. We could have listened to them. We could have had Arabic speakers. We could have found that rather than digging a deep ditch, we could have gone in the other direction. But as soon as we allowed the looting, as I made reference to earlier, they really believed that was our message to them that we had only contempt for them. That is what they believed. They thought, You could have stopped it and you didn't. The thing we cherished the most, our antiquities, you allowed those looters to

just desecrate, and you were the security.

We then put them out of work and left them with no security. We dug a deep hole.

I began to feel, though, that we were turning the situation around when we transferred power in June of 2004. Mr. Bremer left, and Iraqis were being invited to make some major decisions. And they did something extraordinary. I was there for the first election. They put our elections to shame.

What did they do? They had far more people who voted, and they were honest votes. The U.N. will tell you, these elections were very well run. I was in Arbil for the first election, and I saw men following their wives because their wives were determined to vote, dressed up with their kids in their arms or following them. I was there as an observer, and I saw them come and vote for local, regional and national elections. They came and got all three ballots and filled them out in a protected area, and then they came and put them in the ballot box. But before they could do that, they had to stick their finger in the ink jar. I watched that for awhile, and then I went and quietly asked, as an observer, Do you mind if I put my finger in that ink jar? I wanted to bond with them; and I, frankly, wanted to come home and show people that there was something pretty monumental going on in Iraq.

The woman looked up at me, looked down, and then she said, No! you're not an Iraqi! Everybody looked at me. I clearly wasn't an Iraqi. I was first embarrassed, and then I thought this was amazing. I was in a Kurdish area. And she didn't say, No, you're not a Kurd. She said, You're not an Iraqi.

Well, that election established a government that then created a constitution. And in October of 2005, they voted on that constitution. And more people came out to vote, including Sunnis that had not participated the first time. They had establish a constitution, and then they had an election in December of 2005. I thought in 2003 we had dug a deep hole, but now we and the Iraq's were getting back up there. Things are looking much better.

And they had an election in December, and then nothing happened. January, no leader was chosen. February, no leader was chosen. March, no leader was chosen. By April they had decided on a very slim vote that Mr. Maliki would be the prime minister.

(1900)

And so, they had literally delayed for 4 months choosing a leader. And when you're swimming upstream and you stop swimming, you go way downstream. And they dug a deep hole again. You had the Samarra bombings; that was horrific. That was a Shi'a Mosque that was bombed and destroyed, intended to bring out the Shi'as in a total civil war with Sunnis. That almost happened, but didn't happen.

When I came back to Iraq and met with Mr. Maliki after 6 weeks in office, there was a sense on my part that he wasn't going to do any heavy lifting. And so I decided, rather than come back 3 months from now as I usually did, I came back 6 weeks later. And one ambassador told me then, it was in June, he said to me, ``I fear that Prime Minister Maliki does not have the political will to do what he needs to do.''

So, I went back in August. There were 6 more weeks that had passed. Now he had been in office about 12 weeks, and I didn't see hardly any positive change. I concluded that the only thing that would get him to move was to have a timeline. And I demanded to see him. I said, I've been here more than anyone else, I want to meet with Mr. Maliki. And I said it can be a stand-up meeting, but I want to meet him. I want him to look me in the face and tell him what I believe after being in Iraq so often.

So, a meeting was set up. He was meeting with others and we went to a side of the room, and I said, take a good look at me, you're not going to see me after November, and you're not going to see a majority of Republicans that had been supporting our presence in Iraq. You're going to see a change in government because you aren't doing the heavy lifting you need to. You need timelines like you had in '05, where you had one election, then the constitution, then another election, to select a government. He said, no, we moved too quickly; we can't move that quickly.

I came home believing we need a timeline, and I believe that to this day. But it's a timeline that doesn't say we get out tomorrow. It's a timeline that says we leave when the Iraqis can be ready, and we can pretty much predict when that is. And we know it's going to take more Iraqis troops to do it. We know they have to be trained.

With all due respect to my colleagues in the majority who sincerely believe this was a mistake and we need to get out, a timeline that gets us out sooner than we can replace their army, police and border patrol and leaves them in a place where they can protect themselves is a timeline that makes no sense. But a timeline that says we're there forever in this capacity makes no sense either. We need a logical timeline.

Now, one thing I never argued for that turned out to be very important, I never argued that we needed a surge. That was the one area where I didn't feel I had the expertise. So, after that election, I went to Iraq in December of 2006, and frankly, things were worse than ever. The generals told me that they had given up on Anbar Province, the largest Sunni province. In fact, they said it's almost like a mini Afghanistan within Iraq, no one is in charge except al Qaeda. And that was a pretty disappointing bit of news to be told.

When I went back in April of '07 they said we're winning Anbar Province. Now, this was after we started to begin the surge, but that hadn't really taken effect yet. They were doing something that I had argued for for a long time, and that was, we were engaging the Iraqi tribes. The Sunni Iraqi tribes had become totally fed up with al Qaeda for all the reasons that most people know. They wanted to set up the kind of shari'a government that Iraqis want no part of, and they were killing the young Sunni tribal leaders who were not cooperating. And so, the leaders came to us and said, we want to be with you.

So, I went in April, and we're winning Anbar Province. I go back 2 months later and they say, we've really won Anbar Province. I go back in August, and we're starting to win other areas. We're starting to clean out other areas.

And we've started to have al Qaeda be in small little enclaves. And why? Because before the surge they struck us at will. After the surge, they can't get above the water line to take a breath because our daytime troops went after them, and our nighttime troops went after them, and then our daytime troops went after them. They never have a chance to regroup. The surge has enabled us to clean out areas and bring the Iraqi police, which aren't the best of Iraq, but they are good enough to do what police do, and that is, once an area is clean, keep the peace.

This past year, I've been able to go without armor into so many different marketplaces, places they would never have taken me before. And I come back and I say things are getting better, and then people say yes, but there were the rockets on the Green Zone. Well, there are going to be rockets on the Green Zone and there are going to be men and women who wear vests that basically are filled with explosives and they're going to blow themselves up. There are women who have lost their husbands who see no future. There is obviously al Qaeda, that still has some influence. There will be those kinds of attacks, but there are going to be different kinds of attacks than has existed in the past.

So, I have seen the surge is working. The tribal leaders have made a huge difference. We are now going into other areas. We've cleaned up our two-thirds of Iraq. Mosul is going to be a very difficult area. It's a very mixed community of Sunnis, Shias, Turkmen, and others.

The other reason why we're seeing an improvement beside the surge and support of tribal leaders is the Iraqi troops have become competent, in some cases very competent. And I'm sure there may be some who will criticize me for saying it, but I believe the Iraqis are actually beginning to like us, or at least respect us, and in some cases trust us. And why would that be? Well, they were raised for 30 years to hate Americans and love the Russians. So, in comes this government, Americans,

and we attack them, and we put a lot of their loved ones out of work. And they were convinced that we would take their oil. But it's been 5 years, and they've come to realize that there is a country so good that it would spend nearly a half a trillion dollars, have more than 20,000 of its American forces wounded, some very severely, have 4,000 of its troops killed and not take a drop of its oil, not a drop of its oil. We're beginning to gain credibility that we actually meant what we said and that there is a country so good in the world that it would do that for something far more important.

We want a world of peace. We want a world where people can live their lives as they want to. We want a world where commerce can flow back and forth freely. And we're willing to give a lot and spend a lot to do that.

Now, I want to say something to my colleagues that may not believe we should ever have been in Iraq. I fear that there are some in this Chamber who fear that if we ultimately win in Iraq, and by winning, I mean restore a security force of Iraqis that can fend for themselves and where they can govern for themselves and where there is a significant movement towards a more democratic form of government, and a government that, unlike its neighbors, allows its women to be educated, allows its women to be part of commerce, if we do that, it justifies the war.

We may say at the end, we spent a trillion dollars, we lost 4,000 to 5,000 men and women, and we have this result which is pretty spectacular, but in the end, it may not justify what we have done. But where we all should be united, it seems to me, is that we leave Iraq in a place that the void is not filled up by the Iranians.

Now, we haven't taken a drop of their oil, but one thing is very clear, Iraq has a lot of oil and gas. In fact, Bunker Hunt came to my office, rolled out a map that would cover this desk, and he said, I believe Iraq has more energy than exists in Saudi Arabia. The world says it has 10 percent. He told, I believe it may have as much as 20 percent of the world's reserves. And then he showed me this map with markings throughout Iraq indicated a real potential for either gas or oil. He said, to an oil man, this is a candy store of opportunity. Well, it belongs to the Iraqis. And my hope and prayer is that they will someday be able to enjoy it and share it with the rest of the world.

And the thing that's stunning is, it's not just in Sunni areas, it's not just in Shi'a areas and it's not just in Kurdish areas, it's throughout Iraq. This is a nation that doesn't believe in shari'a law. It's a nation that is very secular. It's a nation where Sunni and Shi'as have, in particular, gotten along with each other. It's a nation that has so much oil as a resource, and gas, but almost as importantly, it has so much water. When I fly over it, you see these magnificent rivers, not just the Tigris and Euphrates, but the others that join it, but all the canals and the irrigation that exists. This is a country that will be able to export and feed parts of the world.

This is a country that will educate both its men and women. This is a country that has significant resources. This is a country we hope to be friends with for a long, long time. And this is a country that deserves some patience from Americans. We need to understand that they didn't have the head start we had in the United States. And even then, think about it, we knew democracy before we became these United States. We had democracy in our colonies.

We had the Declaration of Independence in 1776. And it took us 13 years to have the Constitution of the United States, 13 years. And even then, as perfect as we would like to think our Constitution is, but in our Constitution as Condoleezza Rice points out, she was three-fifths a person, and a slave. So, we certainly didn't get it all right.

I'll conclude by saying, we've seen the most progress on the part of the military. We've seen not the kind of progress we want to see from the politicians. But even then, we need to give them credit. They have voted out retirement for ba'athists, Saddamists. That was hugely important. While they don't have an oil law that formally distributes the oil to the different regions of Iraq, they are doing it in spite of that without the formal agreement.

They have a de-Baathification law that's coming into place so that they're hiring people that, in the past were told they couldn't be part of this new Iraqi government.

And they're going to have provincial elections. The significance of that is the local elections were the first of the three elections, and Sunnis didn't participate, so we have some Shiias who run Sunni areas. This means that these leaders are willing, and know that they have to give up power to the predominant group within their regime of Iraq.

No one knows how history is going to judge our involvement in Iraq. But the one thing I do know is that we finally have the kind of leadership in Iraq that I've been hungry for, some real honest talk from Mr. Petraeus. He'll tell you what's going right and what's going wrong. We've had, I think, good military leaders, but I think he's learned a lot, and I think he's clearly the best.

We needed to make a change with Secretary of Defense, and since then I've seen significant progress. It took Abraham Lincoln 9 generals before he got the generals that finally started to win some battles, Sherman and Grant.

We're starting to see a difference in Iraq because of this leadership. We're even starting to see Mr. Maliki show some guts by confronting his own political base, Shiias, in Basra.

They haven't been given the opportunity that we had of having 13 years before a true government was established under our Constitution. They've had five.

We have American time. We want them to act more quickly. But, at the same time, in terms of Middle East culture, they're moving a lot faster than some people give them credit.

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate your willingness to allow me this opportunity, and I want to just repeat that everyone in this chamber loves our troops. I'm addicted when I go back to Iraq, to meet with the men and women who serve, those who are content we're there, those who would go back and again and again, and some who wish they weren't there. But every one of our troops are real patriots. I can't tell you what an honor it is to interact with them. And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 18 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Frankly, I don't think there is a more important bill than this; and yet to hear some of the critics, it's like we're just paying people to be volunteers.

The thing I love about Ronald Reagan was Ronald Reagan believed in the future of America, the youth of America, and that the best was yet to come. And he gave us a sense of hope, as did President Kennedy.

When President Kennedy talked about the Peace Corps, I was in eighth grade. My parents bought a TV set to listen to the debate between Nixon and President Kennedy, and I was just enthralled by a President who asked me, a young person, to do something for the world, and that was to become a Peace Corps volunteer.

And from that point on, that was one of my dreams. It was something I wanted to do . . . become a Peace Corps Volunteer.

Guess what? Peace Corps volunteers are paid. We earn a salary and are given a stipend because we have to eat. We are given a certain sum of money at the end, not for education, but to frankly be able to come back and just buy some clothes. When you clean your underwear on rocks for 2 years, you don't want to continue to wear them when you get home.

So what did President Clinton want to do? He said we have the Peace Corps for those who volunteer overseas. And we have Vista for those who want to be of service in these United States. But we can make Vista better. We're going to have expanded national service here at home, and by the way, while this was happening we in Congress were getting rid of summer jobs for kids.

The President said and I want this expanded national service program to be a bipartisan proposal. I want to work with Republicans. Let's make this something all of us can get behind.

I got excited with his call to us. Let's work together, and we did. Because instead of a national program where one-size-fits-all, he said it's going to be a competitive process, something Republican should like.

And by the way, I'll just say parenthetically, Ms. Matsui has an amendment that I am a chief cosponsor of that says let's have more of the dollars be competed for by State and local communities. It's an amendment that should pass.

So what we did is have a national program called AmeriCorps, but we had two-thirds of it going to the States. Now, the problem with that is you're going to have some bad programs that might get funded. The good thing about it is you're going to have some great programs that are going to be funded. And so former President Clinton took a risk. He said instead of having a one-size-fits-all, which would mean we'll have vanilla, and, no one can criticize it, we had some great programs and some bad programs. So the critics of AmeriCorps then took the bad programs and started to criticize as if this was all of AmeriCorps, as if this was the President's national service bill.

Well, the bottom line is we have some great programs. Thank God we had these programs for people impacted by Katrina and other natural disasters. In my part of the country, we have young people who are giving to their neighbors, and if you think they're paid, they're paid a minimum wage and they have a stipend they can use towards their education. It gets them to think about their future and get an education.

But we have people here who will say, well, let's give out Pell Grants, we're going to give out Pell Grants for nothing; and yet we have an opportunity to give out grants that someone actually earned.

I can't speak more strongly for this legislation. I congratulate President

Clinton for bringing it forward, for working with Republicans, at least those who were willing to work with him, and for having a program that has energized young people to be of service.

There are six former Peace Corps volunteers in this House, three Republicans, three Democrats. If you asked any one of us what was the most significant time in our lives, it was serving in the Peace Corps. It was helping others. But we came back more enriched than probably we gave. And I'm absolutely certain of this, the folks that are doing national service, they don't get much monetarily, but they give a lot; and in return they get a lot in terms of their personal development. They grow as individuals. They have more confidence in themselves. I think they're better Americans.

I hope whoever's the next President, and we have three good candidates to choose from, I have a preference obviously, but I think that they are going to inspire Americans to be of greater service, and they could use this legislation to help them.

I hope we pass it, and I thank our sponsors for bringing this bill out. I particularly want to thank our colleagues from New York and from Pennsylvania for their effort here today. God bless this country and God bless this program.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Committee on Education and Labor for all of their work in bringing this bill to the floor today.

National service is one of the most productive, cost efficient investments the Federal Government can make.

My wife Betsi and I were Peace Corps volunteers and we call ourselves volunteers because we gave 2 years of our lives in service to others.

Americorps is a similar program to Peace Corps. It takes 18, 19, 20- year-old kids and gives them an opportunity to work in a program mentored by various nonprofit organizations.

The passion of participants in Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and other national service programs is undeniable. As they give back to their country they also learn something about themselves, each other, and the world around them.

I am pleased H.R. 2857 expands the AmeriCorps program and increases the education award, which participants in the program receive upon completion of service.

As the cost of a college education increases, students often have to choose between public service careers and other jobs to pay back student loans.

I am also pleased we are making amendments in order under this rule because I believe they will strengthen this underlying reauthorization.

Congresswoman Matsui and I have offered an amendment to streamline funding for State and national AmeriCorps programs, which will encourage coordination, efficiency, and high quality programs.

Furthermore, this amendment will improve the collaboration between State and national entities to better serve local needs.

Congressman McDermott, Congressman Farr and I have offered an amendment to establish a Congressional Commission on Civic service that will investigate ways to increase and encourage service opportunities throughout the country.

The Commission will consider and promote ideas to inspire community service initiatives around the Nation.

There is no substitute for the passion of our Nation's volunteers, who can be found mentoring students, building houses, assisting senior citizens or beautifying our national parks.

As a co-sponsor of this legislation, I am proud to support national service initiatives and encourage my colleagues to support this important reauthorization today.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congresswoman Matsui and the Committee on Education and Labor for all of their hard work on bringing H.R. 2857 to the floor today. I would also like to thank the work and dedication of Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, Subcommittee Chairwoman Davis, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Platts.

I believe national service is one of the most productive, cost effective investments our government can make.

Since the inception of the Corporation for National and Community Service, of which I was a co-author, more than 1 billion service hours have been generated by Senior Corps volunteers, more than 40,000 individuals have served through AmeriCorps, and more than 1 million high school students have participated annually in service-learning initiatives.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the increasing achievement gap in education, the call to serve is louder than ever.

Our amendment will revise and improve the funding formula for AmeriCorps, which engages more than 40,000 Americans in service throughout the Nation, by combining State and national competitive funding streams.

National service programs throughout the country believe this change will provide a better means of allocating this funding and will bring the highest quality programs to States.

The change will also enable States to compete for more funding and provide States with more choices of programs.

Community service is about helping people, and it is also about gaining deeper understanding of each other and the world around us.

Through service, Americans of all ages gain a sense of commitment to their communities and their country, which will prove valuable for the rest of their lives.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of this valuable program.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congressman McDermott and Congressman Farr, Congresswoman Matsui and the Committee on Education and Labor for all of their hard work on bringing this reauthorization to the floor today.

This amendment establishes a Congressional Commission on Civil Service. The Commission would identify ways to expand opportunities for volunteerism and national service in America. It would also recommend ways Federal and local governments can improve awareness and access to national service opportunities, encourage increased volunteerism and better train future public service leaders.

I believe national service is one of the most productive, cost- effective investments our Government can make.

I am pleased this amendment addresses the need for a public service academy, a federally-funded 4-year institution dedicated to training the future leaders of our country's public service sector. In the next 10 years, 90 percent of our nation's Federal executives will be over the age of 50 and nearing retirement. We need to ensure that this workforce is replaced with well-trained, invigorated graduates.

Investing in service opportunities provides enormous returns to communities.

There is no substitute for the passion of our Nation's volunteers, who can be found mentoring students, building houses, assisting senior citizens or beautifying our national parks.

Community service is about helping people, and it is also about gaining deeper understanding of each other and the world around us.

Through service, Americans of all ages gain a sense of commitment to their communities and their country which will prove valuable for the rest of their lives.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of this valuable program.