Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of passage of H. Res. 106, the Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution.

It is long past time for the United States to officially recognize the massacre of one and a half million Armenians early in the 20th century for what it undeniably was: genocide.

Year, after year, after year, I've been proud to cosponsor the Armenian Genocide resolution. Last year, over 150 House members cosponsored this important legislation to properly recognize the Armenian Genocide. This year, the resolution has already received 226 cosponsorships, a majority of the Members of the House. This impressive number reflects the broad bipartisan support for an official recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

Countries all around the world have adopted similar resolutions to ensure that the atrocities committed against the Armenian people are properly recognized as acts of Genocide. Canada, France, Switzerland, Greece, and Poland all have passed resolutions affirming the recognition of the Genocide. Properly recognizing the Armenian Genocide here in America is essential to ensure that all past genocides are never forgotten and all future atrocities are never permitted.

The writer Milan Kundera once wrote that ``The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.''

There are those that would deny the Armenian Genocide, just as there are those that deny the reality of the Nazi Holocaust. In commemorating the Armenian Genocide as we will do with this Resolution, we collectively engage in that struggle of memory against forgetting. The dangers of forgetting are real--as Adolph Hitler plotted the Holocaust, he was emboldened by the failure of the international community to note the first genocide of the 20th century, writing in 1939 ``Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?'' But this resolution is not just intended as a remembrance of a dark past, but as a way of animating future policies with a commitment to prevent such things from ever happening again, as well as a step towards building a better future for the Armenian people and for all people.

I commend Representative Schiff for introducing this critical resolution, and again commit myself to work for its timely adoption.

Madam Speaker, since 1973, the Endangered Species Act, ESA, has been one of our Nation's most important environmental laws. For over 30 years, the ESA has been the primary safety net for our Nation's species that are facing extinction. And this cornerstone of our environmental policy has been a tremendous success. More than 99 percent of the species that have been listed as threatened or endangered have avoided extinction, including iconic animals such as the bald eagle, the gray wolf, and the whooping crane.

Recent reports have surfaced of political interference with the science behind Endangered Species Act decisions within the administration. It is crucial that we not allow politics to trump science in making decisions that can affect whether a species recovers or disappears forever. The ESA requires that decisions as to whether a species is an endangered or threatened species must be made purely based on the science. In addition, while decisions on the designation of a critical habitat of a species can include economic considerations, they must also be based on science.

The Transparent Reporting Under ESA Listing Act or, the TRUE Listing Act, that I am introducing today would help ensure that the science behind these decisions is never compromised by political interference. This legislation would require that concurrent with the publication of a determination as to whether a species is threatened or endangered or the designation of critical habitat, the Secretary of the Interior publish a summary statement of the scientific rationale behind the decision or revision. Furthermore, the summary statement would include the name and title of any executive branch employee or officer who was involved in the decision. Publishing this important information will help ensure that political appointees not just within the Department of Interior but within the entire executive branch

are not permitted to silently and anonymously interfere with the science behind ESA decisions.

However, this legislation shedding light on the Department of the Interior decisionmaking go hand in hand with additional whistleblower protections for government employees, such as those contained in H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 that overwhelmingly passed the House in March of this year by a vote of 331- 94. As we look to expand the transparency of ESA decisions, we must also ensure that those employees at the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior who are acting in the best interests of the Nation are not subject to reprisal.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I rise in support of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, this rule today lays the framework for a historic debate, a debate that will talk about the energy future of the United States of America, an agenda that has not been discussed out here on the House floor, although there has been a pent-up demand by the American people that we move to this new renewable energy agenda for the 21st century.

Climate change has now become a problem, not only for the United States, but for the whole world. We must be the leader.

In 1986, we imported 27 percent of our oil. Today, we import 61 percent of our oil. Today, we begin the effort to turn that around, to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of our country, to unleash a technological revolution that can capture the solar, capture the wind, capture the cellulosic future for our country; make our country more efficient, have the devices which we use to consume energy infinitely more efficient. That is the debate that we have been missing here in America, and today we begin that debate here on the House floor.

This is what the American people want. This is what the world has been waiting for, a debate on the energy future of the United States; unleashing its technological genius, and as a result, making it possible for the rest of the world to gain access to these technologies.

This is the day, and we have to be the leaders. This rule is now constructed in a way in which we can begin the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the rule.

Mr. Chairman, this is the energy vote of the decade. This is

the most important vote of the day, because this vote is about the future. This vote will decide whether or not we are going to have 15 percent of our electricity by 2020 generated by wind, by solar, by biomass and by the other renewable electricity energy resources.

Climate change, dependence upon imported oil, all of it is in this fossil fuel agenda. This gives us a chance to move to a new agenda, a new way of generating energy in our country: 15 percent by 2020.

This is the challenge for our country. This is what the American people expect from us, not to be held hostage by OPEC, not to be polluting the atmosphere, not to be exacerbating climate change, but to be moving to a renewable future.

This is the vote of the decade on the energy future of our country. This will send a signal to Europe, to China, to India, that we are serious about climate change, that we are serious about energy independence.

Vote yes on the Udall-Platts amendment. Vote for the future and not for the past.

Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to move on to the new agenda.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about a very important provision in the Defense Appropriations Act for 2008, which yet again confronts President Bush over his inhumane and un-American torture policies.

I want to thank Chairman Murtha for agreeing once again to include my language regarding torture in this bill. The provision, in Section 8104 of the bill, states that none of the funds in the Defense Appropriations bill may be used in contravention of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. This is a crucial provision because, as we all know, for years the President has been willing to ignore our obligations under international and domestic law to protect the basic human rights of detainees. This disregard for treaty and legal obligations also undermines our efforts in the war on terror, serving as a valuable recruiting tool for terrorists and putting our brave men and women in uniform at risk of similar mistreatment if captured by our enemies.

I have inserted this provision into a number of funding bills over the past several years, and I will continue to do so until we can legislatively restrain this and every future President from intentionally misinterpreting our obligations to respect the fundamental human rights of all people. In the period of the Republican majority, I had to come to the floor and offer amendments to insert this funding restriction into the appropriations bills. Fortunately, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that our obligations to treat individuals humanely are paramount, and my amendment repeatedly prevailed with near unanimity. I commend Mr. Murtha for including this language in the bill, which reflects his deep concern for our troops and his commitment to upholding our obligations to fundamental human rights.

With his policies of extraordinary rendition, President Bush has shipped countless prisoners to countries such as Syria and Uzbekistan where they are brutally tortured--without ever having been afforded a lawyer, a trial, or any opportunity to challenge their transfer based on probability of abuse. By allowing senior officers and officials to implicitly encourage the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, President Bush not only allowed a situation to develop where Americans horribly abused detainees but also created one of the greatest public diplomacy disasters in American history. By establishing a network of black-site CIA prisons around the world, where prisoners are held in total secret and without access to international monitors such as the Red Cross, the President engages in the grossest hypocrisy and undermines the very international protections for prisoners that our own troops abroad count on as their last line of defense should they be captured.

These policies must come to an immediate and permanent end. I look forward to passing my Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act to end extraordinary rendition once and for all, and it is essential that Congress reinstate habeas corpus. Until then, I am proud that the Congress will, with this funding restriction, once again bar any appropriations in violation of the Convention Against Torture.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the children's Health and Medicare Protection Act.

The United States has the highest gross domestic product in the world. We have the most advanced technology, the strongest research program, and for some, the best medicine in the world.

But last year, 18,000 Americans died because they were uninsured and did not have access to health care. Many of them were children.

Providing health care for poor children used to be a bipartisan issue. But today the Republicans say that they philosophically object to this bill claiming that it is a massive expansion of Government-run healthcare.

But this bill does not change the structure of the program that the Republicans voted for in 1997. The only explanation is that they philosophically object to spending the $50 billion necessary to find and give healthcare to all 11 million poor, eligible children. What kind of philosophy is that?

President Bush used to talk about compassionate conservatism, but this debate has exposed a Republican Party that is neither compassionate nor conservative.

Instead, we are seeing some on the other side of the aisle choosing corporations over children. They demand that we continue Federal subsidies for their friends in the big, for-profit, insurance companies, while denying uninsured children the healthcare they need.

If you kick these Republicans in the heart, you'll break your toe.

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this critical children's health bill.

Mr. Speaker, September 11 was a very important day in Boston history. Mohammed Atta and nine other terrorists hijacked two planes with hundreds of people on them 2 miles from my house and flew them into the World Trade Center, killing not only the people in the World Trade Center, but all of the people on those two planes from Logan airport.

For the last 5 years, we've had a fight over whether or not we should screen

the cargo which goes on passenger planes in our country. Yes, each of us has to take off our shoes, our bags have to go through, we have to take off our wristwatches, children's baby carriages have to be inspected. But, believe it or not, then the cargo is placed right under our feet, and it's not screened. Billions of pounds of cargo not screened.

And so this cargo loophole has been fought by the cargo industry, opposed by the Bush administration, but now it is in this legislation. And henceforth, all of the cargo which goes onto passenger planes in our country, placed next to the bags of passengers, placed under the feet of passengers on planes, will also be screened. And so now cargo will have this on it. Screened, safe to place upon those planes. It is a huge moment in security. This bill is historic.

And secondly, although the Bush administration has opposed it, this legislation also includes my language which is going to require the screening of cargo on ships coming into ports in the United States.

Right now cargo with a nuclear bomb in it, which we know is al Qaeda's top goal, to obtain a nuclear weapon from someplace in the former Soviet Union, move it to a port in the world and move that ship with the cargo into New York, into Long Beach, into Boston, and then detonate the nuclear bomb before it is taken out of the cargo hold of that ship, destroying that American city. Because of the language in this bill, that cargo will now be screened in the port overseas before it ever leaves for our country. It will be screened for a nuclear bomb overseas, thwarting the highest objective which al Qaeda has, which is to detonate a nuclear bomb.

Now, I can understand the Bush administration's misgivings about it, and I understand that many of the Senators, Republican Senators will not sign this conference report because of this requirement. I think they're making a historic mistake. This is at the top of the terrorist target list. This is what they want to do to American cities, detonate a nuclear bomb on a ship already docked in a port in the United States before it's ever taken off that ship.

This legislation is historic. I congratulate Chairman Thompson. I congratulate the staff. I congratulate the bipartisan nature for the vast majority of this legislation. It is overdue. It is overdue.

We must put in place the defense, now, against al Qaeda returning to finish their plot against us here in the homeland.

Al Qaeda came to Boston to begin this attack. There's no reason to believe they can't return to those very same planes, to those very same docks where al Qaeda came in. They came in through the ports of Boston to, in fact, wreak this catastrophic event on our country.

Vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the principal author of the air cargo security provision in Section 1602 of the conference report--Screening of Cargo Carried Aboard Passenger Aircraft--I want to make several points clear.

While the House version of the bill used the term ``inspected'' and the Senate version used ``screened'', neither bill actually defined these terms. The language in the final version of the bill does define ``screening'', and it makes clear that screening does not mean what DHS currently considers screening--reviews of manifests, information about shippers (Known Shipper program), etc.

To make clear what is meant by screening, the final bill states that:

The system used to screen 100 percent of cargo carried on passenger planes must provide a level of security on par with the level of security for passengers' checked bags. Specifically, the language states that the system ``shall require, at a minimum, that equipment, technology, procedures, personnel or other methods approved by the Administrator of TSA are used to screen cargo carried on passenger planes to provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage.'' (emphasis added). A 3-year deadline is established to get to 100 percent, with an interim benchmark of 50 percent of cargo within 18 months of enactment.

Screening means an examination of the cargo's contents, not just information about the cargo, consistent with the mandate that the cargo screening must be on par with the security standard for screening of passengers' checked bags. The bill stipulates the cargo screening methods TSA is to use to meet this standard: ``Methods of screening include x-ray systems, explosive detection systems, explosive trace detection, explosive detection canine teams certified by the TSA, or a physical search together with manifest verification.'' These are methods currently used for checked bags.

While TSA may approve additional methods, they cannot be solely data checks, and must also utilize physical checks. As the final language makes clear: ``The Committee is also concerned about TSA using data checks of cargo or shippers . . . as a single factor in determining whether cargo poses a threat to transportation security. The Conference substitute, therefore, requires that if such data checks are used, they must be paired with additional physical or nonintrusive screening method approved by TSA that examines the cargo's contents.'' (emphasis added).

There has been some discussion in the media about Congress's intent in passing this provision. I want to address these points and make clear the intent of the provision.

One concern that was raised is that as much as 60 percent of air cargo could be exempt from a mandatory physical inspection at airports, under a new program to be called Certified Shipper.

As noted above, the language in the final version of the bill requires that the system for screening all cargo on passenger planes must ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage.'' All cargo on passenger planes must be physically examined before it is loaded onboard, a major departure from current practice. While TSA may be considering a so-called ``Certified Shipper'' program that would require physical examination of all cargo in a location off the airport grounds and then a sealing of the cargo containers with tamper-proof seals, this plan, and any such system developed by TSA, must provide a level of cargo security on par with the level of security for checked bags, which includes the requirement that the contents of all the cargo must be physically checked.

The final version of the bill mandates that the Department of Homeland Security issue a rule to implement a system consistent with the bill's 100 percent cargo screening requirement. Congress, along with stakeholders who have been working to require 100 percent screening of all cargo carried on passenger planes, will be watching TSA's plans closely to ensure that the implementation of the cargo screening mandate in the bill is performed in a manner that complies with the mandate in the final version of the bill. If TSA's system does not ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage'' as required in the bill, it will not be in compliance with the congressional mandate in the final version of the bill, and therefore will be in jeopardy of being halted or modified by Congress to bring it into compliance with the law.

Another concern that has been raised is that companies that participate in the Certified Shipper program would still have to follow security rules, including conducting their own package inspections and putting special tamperproof seals on containers, but packages handled by these companies, which will probably represent the bulk of the air cargo industry, would generally be exempt from mandated electronic, canine or other physical inspections at the airport.

Again, a so-called ``Certified Shipper'' program or any other program that TSA develops to implement the mandate to screen 100 percent of the cargo on passenger planes must meet the standard that it provides a level of security on par with the level of security for passenger checked bags. At this point, it is unclear whether a program that screens and then seals cargo outside the airport perimeter would meet this standard.

In an April 2007 report requested by Representative Markey and other Members, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that the Department of Homeland Security is conducting pilot programs to test a number of currently employed technologies used in other areas of aviation and transportation security, as well as new technologies. These pilot programs include an air cargo security seals pilot, which is exploring the viability of potential security countermeasures, such as tamper-evident security seals. According to GAO, TSA anticipates completing its pilot tests by 2008. (GAO-07-660 Aviation Security). Before implementation of any TSA air cargo program relying on seals, a thorough, comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of such seals will have to be conducted. Again, if such a system does not ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage'' as required in the bill, it will not be in compliance with the congressional mandate in the final version of the bill, and therefore will be in jeopardy of being halted or modified by Congress to bring it into compliance with the law.

Another concern that has been raised is that a program similar to Certified Shipper that is

used by Customs and Border Patrol for ship cargo has frequently been criticized. Auditors have found that companies in this program are sometimes permitted to move their goods more quickly even though there is insufficient proof that they have a robust security system in place.

The program referred to above is called the Customs--Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). I have criticized C-TPAT for many of the same reasons cited above. In fact, in addition to the air cargo screening requirement, the final version of the bill also includes a requirement that 100 percent of maritime cargo must be screened and sealed overseas before it arrives in U.S. ports. Clearly, with the inclusion of this mandate in the final version of the bill, Congress rejected C-TPAT as a substitute for 100 percent scanning of maritime containers. It did not intend, nor would it permit, a program for screening 100 percent of air cargo that is based on the flawed C- TPAT program.

By establishing the standard that TSA's system for screening 100 percent of cargo on passenger planes must ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage'', the final version of the bill creates requirements much more stringent than the C-TPAT program. C-TPAT uses risk-based process, not mandatory, comprehensive screening. Specifically, C-TPAT security guidelines state that ``C-TPAT recognizes the complexity of international supply chains and endorses the application and implementation of security measures based upon risk analysis. Therefore, the program allows for flexibility and the customization of security plans based on the member's business model. As listed throughout this document appropriate security measures, based on risk, must be implemented and maintained throughout the Air Carrier's supply chains'' (emphasis added, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/commercial _enforcement/ctpat/security_guideline/ guideline_air_carrier.xml)

The air cargo provision requires 100 percent screening, not risk assessment. The air cargo provision mandates screening of all cargo carried on passenger planes within 3 years. Under the air cargo provision in the conference report, no risk calculation is permitted to determine whether or which cargo to screen; rather, all cargo is presumed to present a risk and must be screened, just as all of passengers' checked bags must be screened under the current policy.

The C-TPAT program relies on data and manifest information, not physical checks. C-TPAT guidelines advise program participants in the procedural security measures they should use for the shipping and receiving of cargo. These procedures rely on data and manifest checks, not the physical screening of the cargo to determine and evaluate its contents. Specifically, the C-TPAT guidelines state that: ``Arriving cargo should be reconciled against information on the cargo manifest. The cargo should be accurately described, weighed, labeled, marked, counted and verified. Departing cargo should be checked against purchase or delivery orders.'' (emphasis added)

Whatever system TSA establishes to implement the 100 percent air cargo screening requirement in the bill will be subjected to close congressional scrutiny to ensure that it meets the standard established in the bill; namely, the system must provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage, as stipulated in the bill. Again, any TSA system that fails to meet this standard will not be in compliance with the congressional mandate in the final version of the bill, and therefore will be in jeopardy of being halted or modified by Congress to bring it into compliance with the law.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007. This bill will give the United States far superior economic and political leverage against Iran's ongoing and dangerous nuclear program by significantly strengthening our sanctions package against Tehran.

The necessity for the United States and the world to negotiate a final termination to Iran's nuclear program cannot be overstated. The signals that Iran's nuclear program may not be peaceful are legion: Iran is in violation of its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, it has yet to explain decades of deception surrounding their nuclear research and construction programs, it is pursuing a uranium enrichment program which could eventually produce weapons-grade uranium, and it is building a heavy-water nuclear reactor which will produce plutonium which could be used for weapons.

An Iranian nuclear weapon could threaten the United States, the security of the Persian Gulf, and it would certainly threaten one of our greatest allies, Israel. Iran's position in the region has unfortunately been greatly strengthened by our misadventure in Iraq, and the regime in Tehran may believe that with a nuclear bomb they could become the regional hegemon, the local strong-man. Such an outcome would be disastrous for the stability of the region, and would be deeply threatening to the United States and our allies. We must do everything we can to avoid this scenario. The Iran Counter- Proliferation Act will put stronger arrows in the diplomatic quiver of the United States through its expanded sanctions package, and it hopefully will help us find a resolution to this important issue.

Iran's development of a nuclear weapon would also be a deeply damaging blow to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and could signal the death-knell for international efforts to halt the spread of the bomb. An Iranian nuclear weapon would so dramatically alter the balance of power in the Middle East and Central Asia that other nearby countries could decide that they must pursue a weapons program as well to protect themselves from the sway of Iranian regional hegemony. In such a scenario, an Iranian bomb could spur the development of a Saudi bomb, an Egyptian bomb, or a Turkish bomb. If the cascading security implications for the region from an Iranian nuclear weapon did lead to neighboring countries also pursuing nuclear programs, the NPT may truly be shattered beyond repair.

While I support H.R. 1400 and am proud to cosponsor it, I am concerned that one provision of the bill may have the unintended consequence of undermining our international efforts to unify all governments around the world against Iran's dangerous and destabilizing nuclear program. This bill would remove the President's ability to waive sanctions against foreign countries and corporations if the sanctions could harm the national security interests of the United States. I share the view of the bill's authors that such Presidential waiver authority has been utilized far too frequently--in fact, the international sanctions contained in the Iran Sanctions Act have never been utilized because they have been waived every year! However, I am concerned that by removing the waiver altogether, we will go too far in the other direction.

A number of American allies would be targeted by a universal application of the sanctions contained in H.R. 1400, and while it may be desirable in many cases to do so, leveraging such costly sanctions against our international partners could in certain circumstances make it more difficult to convince these countries to support our efforts to obtain further multilateral sanctions against Iran. No country and no corporation should get a free pass to conduct business in Iran, but at the same time we must retain the flexibility necessary to assure success at the multilateral level. For this reason, I intend to work with my colleagues to make sure that a tightly-crafted waiver authority is included in the final legislation--not to encourage its use, but to ensure that the United States retains the flexibility that we must have to be successful.

It is also very important that H.R. 1400 includes a provision clarifying that nothing in the act authorizes the use of force or the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iran. I believe that our best strategy for success against the Iranian nuclear program will be a strong combination of economic sanctions, political engagement, and multilateral pressure with a clear and persuasive package of benefits to Iran in exchange for the renunciation of their nuclear program. A successful strategy does not involve the use of force, and in fact the use of force against Tehran would most likely backfire by solidifying the domestic political support for the hard-line regime which is continually loosing the support of its people.

I believe that we can solve the Iranian nuclear issue with smart diplomacy, forceful engagement, unilateral and multilateral sanctions, and a sophisticated understanding what combination of sticks and carrots will be persuasive to the decision-makers in Tehran. While it is my opinion that most of the Bush Administration's efforts in this regard have been heavy-handed, ideologically rigid, uncreative, and ultimately counter-productive, I believe that some of their recent actions point to the slow adoption of a more sophisticated approach towards this extremely important problem. The Iran CounterProliferation Act will help strengthen this approach, and will help us ratchet up the pressure on Iran. It is yet to be seen whether the Bush Administration will be wise enough to couple this bigger stick with a bigger carrot, and I hope that they do so. Far too much hangs in the balance, and the United States strategy must be smart, adaptive, and tough.

I urge adoption of the bill.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008. Overall, this is a very good bill, and I will vote for it. In this difficult fiscal environment, it provides funding for critical programs that have been starved by the Administration and the Republican Congress.

This bill provides significant increases for Education programs including resources for

teacher quality, early education and after school programs, and it provides more for Low Income Home Energy Assistance. It also provides important resources for preventive health care, for the title IIV and title IIIV Health professions training programs, and for the Ryan White program.

While I will support the bill, I am very disappointed that we were not able to provide more funding for the critical work conducted at the National Institutes of Health. The NIH embodies our country's hope for treating or curing debilitating diseases like heart disease, Alzheimer's, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, cancer and so many other illnesses that American families battle every day. But scientific advances don't just occur by accident. They are the result of sustained investments in research. Unfortunately, since 2003, Republicans flat- lined the NIH budget, and NIH has lost 13 percent of its research funding when adjusted for inflation.

I was hopeful that this year we would be able to end that devastating trend and get the NIH budget back on track by providing the NIH with significant increases over the rate of inflation.

Although I am disappointed that we were not able to provide more for NIH this year, I look forward to working with the distinguished chair and the members of the Appropriations committee in the future to ensure that we provide our country's premier medical research institution with the funding it needs to find treatments and cures to our country's most devastating diseases.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.

It is long past time that the disaster in Iraq is brought to an end.

The President's failed policy in Iraq has been repudiated by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, his inability to extricate the United States from a quagmire in the desert has been rejected by the voters, and we must change course. The President has proven himself to be either blind to the reality on the ground in Iraq or simply uncaring of what that reality means for the stability of the Middle East and the security of the United States of America.

The President took this country to war on false premises. There were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no imminent threat, there were no operational ties to al-Qaeda. And the administration knew, because we had U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq for months before the invasion, that the so-called ``intelligence'' pointing to an active and dangerous Iraqi WMD program was simply wrong. Over and over again, Hans Blix and his teams of inspectors would launch surprise visits on sites that the CIA had pointed them to, and over and over again the U.S. intelligence would be proved incorrect.

We have been fighting in Iraq longer than we fought in the Second WorId War. Within a few months, we will have spent more money in Iraq than we did in the more than 10 years we were in Vietnam. And while a very small segment of our citizenry is being asked to make the ultimate sacrifice for this adventure by sending their loved ones to war, the Bush administration has given billions of dollars in tax breaks to the richest Americans. If this war were truly a national struggle, underpinned by the faith and support of the public, the sacrifices would be shared by all instead of borne by the few.

Since President Bush infamously declared ``Mission Accomplished'' over 4 years ago, the situation has only gotten worse and worse. The administration never had a plan to win the peace, and still does not, and as a result the peace cannot be won. Our brave men and women in uniform are caught in the midst of a multifaceted civil war which can only be brought to an end with political reconciliation, not military engagement.

Unfortunately, the President stubbornly refuses to understand the nature of the conflict into which he has dragged us. He refuses to change course, but more of the same cannot any longer be an option. We must extricate ourselves from a sectarian civil war which is bleeding our military every single day. This bill will begin the responsible redeployment of US forces out of Iraq within 120 days, and complete that deployment by April 1, 2008. On that date, we will have been in Iraq for more than 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Skelton for bringing this resolution before us and I urge its adoption.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise with an amendment that I am making in conjunction with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce). Our

language seeks to make some technical corrections to ensure that affordable housing is preserved in three housing developments, two located in Ohio and one in Massachusetts.

The low-income tenants of the Heritage Apartments in Malden, Massachusetts, are facing possible displacement once an outstanding HUD mortgage is fully paid in a few years. The development is also in need of major renovations and upgrades that simply cannot be delayed. Unfortunately, HUD is failing to ensure that the development remains affordable and livable by placing burdensome regulations and restrictions on prepayment of the outstanding mortgage and subsequent transfer to a new owner who is willing to finance the renovations. My amendment would allow income-eligible residents to qualify for enhanced housing vouchers following the prepayment of the HUD mortgage and the property transfer and directs HUD to approve such actions.

I will defer to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) to explain the portion of our amendment which deals with maintaining affordability in housing developments located in her congressional district in Ohio.

The Congressional Budget Office has determined that adoption of this language would result in $1 million in net savings to current mandatory spending over the next 5 years because HUD is currently paying mortgage interest reduction payments for the development which would be nullified upon adoption of the Markey-Pryce amendment.

The amendment is supported by the chairman of the committee and the ranking member. It is also supported by the Institute of Real Estate Management, National Apartment Association, and the National Association of Home Builders. And I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman and congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), for his enormously successful work; and Mr. Dingell as well, as well as the key Republicans who worked on this legislation.

I am pleased that the bill before the House includes language from the drug safety bill that Mr. Waxman and I introduced in March to strengthen the FDA's ability to monitor drugs after they have been approved and create a true post-market safety net system.

As we have seen with drugs such as Vioxx, new side effects and health risks may only surface after drugs are approved and are used by the general population. Yet the FDA has not had the authority to mandate label changes or require further studies to get more information about these risks once the drugs have been approved. This bill will empower the FDA with those important new authorities, and it will also establish a new post-market risk identification and analysis system to identify harmful side effects and uncover signals of unexpected adverse events without compromising patient privacy.

I am also pleased that the package includes a strong clinical trials registry and results database that is consistent with the bill that Mr. Waxman and I have been championing since 2004 when we learned that some drug companies were painting distorted pictures of their products by hiding negative trial results.

The current system, which allows companies to pick and choose which trials they want to make public, is like allowing students to just pick the grades they want to bring home. Everyone would have straight A's.

Our bill will establish one central mandatory registry of all clinical trials with strong enforcement mechanisms to require companies to make their clinical trials and the result of those trials available to the public, all of the trials. This is historic because the database of trial results will ensure that doctors and their patients have current, complete, and accurate information about all drugs on the market.

Finally, I want to thank Mr. Rogers from Michigan for working with me on the pediatric devices bill. It is an important bill that will help children get the devices that they need. I thank again Mr. Pallone, Mr. Dingell, and all the others who worked on this bill.

Madam Speaker, the goals of achieving energy independence and reducing our global warming pollution cannot be adequately addressed without a transformation in our transportation sector. This sector lies at the nexus of the twin problems of our energy dependence and global warming. Two-thirds of the oil we consume every day goes into the transportation sector. After Congress mandated a doubling of fuel economy standards from 13.5 to 27.5 miles per gallon, our dependence on foreign oil went from 46.5% in 1977 to 27% in 1985. But since then our fuel economy standards have been stuck in neutral or even reverse and our dependence on imported oil has climbed to 60%.

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) have the potential. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles represent a technology that can significantly address these problems. While the transportation sector is powered mostly by oil, the nation-wide electricity grid is only 3% petroleum- fueled according to the Energy Information Administration. Wide use of PHEVs can help transfer petroleum-intensive driving miles to nearly petroleum-free electricity. According to the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, if the cars, trucks and SUVs on the road were replaced by PHEVs, 84% could be powered using existing electrical generation infrastructure. This same paper found that replacing our Light-Duty Fleet with plug-in hybrids could reduce our oil consumption by 6.5 million barrels per day and our emission of heat-trapping gasses by 27%.

PHEV technology is beginning to become available and some automakers have produced prototypes and are beginning to announce long-term plans to manufacture plug-in hybrids. However, technology already exists making it possible to convert the roughly 1 million hybrid vehicles that will be on the road this year into plug-in hybrids, capable of getting 150 miles per gallon. This conversion would allow existing hybrids to begin traveling between 20 and 60 miles on a single charge, while using very little gasoline.

With initial conversion costs ranging from $6,000 to $9,500 depending on the size of the battery, the ``Plug-in Hybrid Opportunity Act of 2007'' would provide consumers with a vital tax incentive of 35% of the cost of conversion, cap the potential credit at $4,000 and expire after 3 years. It is essential that these conversions be included under the plug-in hybrid tax credit, after meeting all the appropriate safety and environmental testing certifications, so that we can begin reducing our dependence on foreign oil and global warming pollution by realizing the benefits of plug-in hybrids now.

Mr. Chairman, I rise so that we can note this important moment, and that moment is that, although it is with great sadness for this Chamber and the members of the Massachusetts delegation, but I think great joy for his family, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is about to cast his final vote as a Member of this Chamber, and I would like to give the gentleman the proper farewell that he deserves because he has served well and long in this institution.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to support the goals of National Aphasia Awareness Month

Aphasia is a disease that causes the loss of the ability to produce and/or comprehend language it can also impair a person's ability to read and write. Each case is different depending on the severity of the stroke or brain trauma and definitely does not affect everyone is the same way. This condition is a result of damage to the left hemisphere of the brain. The main cause of aphasia is stroke. Strokes are the third leading cause of death and disability in the United States today and their affects are felt not only by the victim but also by the victim's family and friends. Other causes of aphasia include blows to the head, gun shot wounds, and brain tumors.

Currently there is research being done on how to help people with Aphasia enjoy a better quality of life. Aphasia does not cause any kind of disability in thinking or learning but in the comprehension of things that are said and how to respond to people. People who suffer from aphasia are able to function in every day life, but they need assistance and attention. Moreover, further research is needed to improve our understanding of how to identify the risk factors that cause aphasia, prevent the occurrence of aphasia and improve the ability to function of those with the disease.

There are currently about one million cases of aphasia in the United States, and about 80,000 people are afflicted with the disease every year. By working with vocational specialists, speech-language pathologists and family and friends, many of those with aphasia may be able to obtain some sense of normalcy and regain some of their skills. I am introducing this resolution to support the goals of National Aphasia Awareness Month with the hope that it will bring more attention to this disease and give a voice to those who suffer from Aphasia who often cannot speak for themselves. This resolution recognizes June 2007 as National Aphasia Awareness Month in hopes of giving more attention to this illness and in hopes that more recognition will highlight the importance of research and compassion to the daily struggle faced by those affected by Aphasia.