Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Riverside-Corona Feeder Water Supply Act represents an important investment in the water infrastructure in western Riverside County, California, one of the fastest-growing regions in this country.

At a time when water demand continues to grow due to the West's increasing population, traditional water sources have been confronted by a prolonged drought and other environmental challenges. In fact, just last week California water officials turned off the huge pumps that send water to Southern California from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to protect a tiny imperiled fish. While the shutdown is only scheduled to last a week or two, it is a stark reminder that Southern California must continue to reduce its dependence on imported water from the Delta and the Colorado River.

The Western Municipal Water District provides water service to western Riverside County and serves a population of more than 600,000 people. The purpose of the Riverside-Corona Feeder water supply project is to capture and store water in wet years in order to increase Western's firm water supplies, provide a cost-effective water supply, and improve water quality.

New wet year water will come from local runoff, including regulated releases from Seven Oaks Dam and the State Water Project and stored in San Bernardino groundwater basins. To deliver the stored water to consumers in Western's service area, the project will provide for new groundwater pumping and pipeline capability. As an additional benefit, the Riverside-Corona Feeder will provide the means to control water tables, thereby reducing liquefaction dangers in the Colton and San Bernardino communities. Additionally, the project improves local water quality as perchlorate and other contaminants would be removed from the basin when water is extracted from the well heads via the Riverside- Corona Feeder.

I applaud Western and our local elected officials in Western Riverside County for taking bold, proactive steps in meeting our region's current and future water demand. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of Western's General Manager, John Rossi, as well as the Western board members, Charles Field, Tom Evans, Brenda Dennstedt, Don Galleano, and Al Lopez. I also want to thank my good friend Grace Napolitano, the chairwoman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, for her leadership and support of my legislation.

I think it is crucial that we recognize and assist communities that are working to reduce their reliance on imported water, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the Riverside-Corona Feeder Water Supply Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to an individual whose dedication and contributions to the community of Riverside, California are exceptional. Riverside County has been fortunate to have dynamic and dedicated community leaders who willingly and unselfishly give their time and talent and make their communities a better place to live and work. Dr. David Long is one of these individuals. On Thursday, May 24, 2007, Dr. Long will be honored at a farewell dinner at the Riverside Convention Center.

Dr. Long is originally from Mason City, Iowa, and obtained is Ph.D. from Iowa State University. Over the years, Dr. Long has served as a classroom teacher, coach, principal, and district superintendent. He was elected Riverside County Superintendent of Schools in 1998. The Riverside County Office of Education (RCOE) has 2,000 employees and a budget totaling more than $260 million. RCOE is a service agency supporting the county's 23 local districts with training, fiscal support, and certain state mandated educational programs.

The Riverside County Office of Education has been dramatically improved by Dr. Long's innovation and dedication to excellence. Under his leadership, RCOE created the nationally recognized Riverside County Achievement Teams (RCAT), which have helped Riverside County outpace the state in improving test scores, and focused attention on specific issues that create problems for students.

Dr. Long has been active in both state and national arenas, serving as the President of the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA), and chairing the national Safe and Drug Free Schools and Community Advisory Committee for the U.S. Department of Education.

Dr. Long has been honored as California Administrator of the Year by the National Organization of Partners in Education, Superintendent of the Year, and received the Governor's Award for school leadership. Dr. Long received the Inland Empire 2003 Entrepreneur of the Year award for his innovative approach to raising student achievement through the Riverside County Achievement Teams. Dr. Long is also the recipient of the prestigious Marcus Foster Memorial Award from the Association of California School Administrators for outstanding leadership and significant contributions to public education by a school administrator.

Dr. Long was recently selected by Gov. Schwarzenegger to serve as California's Secretary of Education and the Governor could not have picked a more qualified individual. Dr. Long's tireless passion for community service has contributed immensely to the betterment of the community of Riverside and the entire State of California. Dr. Long has been the heart and soul of Riverside County education and he will be sorely missed. I know that so many community members and leaders are grateful for his service and salute him as he moves on to the next stage of his career On behalf of Representatives Lewis, Bono and Issa, I also add my expression of admiration and appreciation to Dr. Long for his outstanding service to our children and our community. We wish him the best of luck and all blessings in his new position.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a hero from my congressional district, California National Guard Sergeant Rhys W. Klasno. Today I ask that the House of Representatives honor and remember this incredible young man who died in service to his country.

Rhys was born in Orange, California and attended Woodcrest Christian middle and high schools in Riverside, California. School officials and teachers remember Rhys fondly--he was a good student who was friendly with classmates and teachers.

Sergeant Klasno enlisted in the California National Guard in 2004 and was trained as an ammunition Sergeant before being reassigned in April 2006 as a heavy vehicle driver for the 1114th Transportation Company, according to the Riverside Press Enterprise. Members of Rhys's unit recall a young man who was ready to help others. After his enlistment in the National Guard, Rhys had planned to become a paramedic and to help save lives. Rhys deployed to Iraq in July 2006 and was killed Sunday, May 13, 2007, by a roadside bomb in Haditha, Iraq. Rhys received the National Defense Medal, the Army Service Ribbon and the Drill Attendance Ribbon. Today Sergeant Klasno was laid to rest at Riverside National Cemetery in California.

Rhys leaves behind his wife, Stephanie Ann Klasno and their soon-to- be-born daughter, London; his mother and father Michael and Lynn Klasno; and his grandparents Elisabeth Klasno of Temecula and Robert E. Jardinico of Arizona.

As we look at the incredibly rich military history of our country, we realize that this history is comprised of men, just like Rhys, who bravely fought for the ideals of freedom and democracy. Each story is unique and humbling for those of us who, far from the dangers they have faced, live our lives in relative comfort and ease. Today was probably the hardest day the Klasno family has ever faced and my thoughts, prayers and deepest gratitude for their sacrifice goes out to them. There are no words that can relieve their pain and what words I offer only begin to convey my deep respect and highest appreciation.

Sergeant Klasno's wife and family have all given a part of themselves today in the loss of their loved one and I hope they know that their husband, son and grandson, the goodness he brought to this world and the sacrifice he has made, will be remembered.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a group of individuals--heroes--who are receiving the recognition and honor they deserve for their service to our country. Operation Recognition is operated by the Riverside County Office of Education with assistance from the Riverside County Department of Veterans' Services. The program awards high school diplomas to veterans who missed completing high school due to military service in World War II, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War, or due to internment in WWII Japanese-American relocation camps.

A recognition ceremony will be held on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, for the following individuals who received their high school diplomas through Operation Recognition: David Gregory Aguilera, Benjamin Alcala, Walter Morton Anderson, John Angelo Jr., Ronnie D. Archer, William Armstrong, Luis Velos Aviles Sr., Herb Bacon, Thomas Louis Baier, David H. Bartash, Paul W. Bennett, Ronald C. Bissey, Alec Carson Boatman, David A. Bravo, William A. Bray, Aaron E. Bulin, James Elroy Butler, Robert Lee Chaffin, Arthur Charton, Israel Chavez, Gordon Michael Cody, Doyle L. Conklin, Ezra L. Craycraft, Donald Edward Davis, Moses F. Diaz, Howard Ellis, Scott Leslie Faust, John P. Flanagan, Frederick Lopez, Frank Garces, Benjamin Garcia, Robert George Greene, Patrick Roy Guaydacan, Gordon LeRoy Hall, Charles R. Hansen, Allen Hartley, William R. Haskin, Jimmy L. Henry, Arthur F. Hill, Ramon D. Holguin, Jerome Stephen Huggins, Barney M. Jensen, William Johnson, William L. Klaasen, Robert L. Knechtel, Edward Knight, Lonnie L. Lambeth, Joseph A. Landry, George Jefferson Lawrence Jr., Richard S. Leivas, August J. Liberino, Thomas John Martin, William Maycock Sr., Walter Maykulsky, Ray George McClintock, Eleuterio E. Medina, Forrest Leroy Mitchell, Frank R. Montejano, Curtis L. Murphy, William J. Murray, Jack I. Odell, Donald E. Pechous, Donald Edward Pedersen, Donald R. Phillips, Jerome Kern Pittman, John T.R. Pollock, John Puz, Walter S. Pynn, Gilberto Ramos, Rex Lee Reed, Richard M. Rego, Russell William Reichert, Alexander ``A'' Reyes, Raymond F. Reyes, William Leonard Robey, Juan M. Rodriguez, Luis Alfredo Rosado, Leo Marty Schlocker, Ernest George Schrader, Donald Clifford Secory, Robert Lewis Smith, Cecil T. Spires, Ronald Stiff, Steve P. Stone, John W. Swanson, Thomas Joseph Tarpai, Anthony R. Travers, David Scott VanNyhuis, Ralph Watkins, Michael L. Weir, Alvin Wilkiewicz, Donald Wohlt and Saturnino James Zabala.

Our country owes a debt of gratitude to all the above recipients for their service and sacrifice. I salute all the above individuals and congratulate them on receiving their high school diploma.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, for the hard work that she has put into all these water bills and for her desire to make sure that areas such as southern California have water for the future.

The South Orange County Recycled Water Enhancement Act is a relatively modest yet important step toward meeting the long-term water needs for the West. Water recycling is an approach that more and more communities are tapping to meet local and regional water demand. To address the continued growth of water users, communities are truly maximizing the use of every drop of water.

The South Orange County Recycled Water Enhancement Act authorizes two water reclamation projects in the South Orange County portion of my district. South Orange County relies heavily on imported water from sources such as the Colorado River and the Bay Delta in northern California.

Water reclamation projects and other steps which reduce demand for imported water benefit all regional water uses. The first project outlined in this legislation is the San Juan Capistrano recycled water system, which would enable the City of San Juan Capistrano to provide recycled water to users throughout the city and its neighboring communities. To meet the local demand, the City has developed a project that includes the construction of a water treatment facility as well as transmission infrastructure.

I want to thank the San Juan Capistrano Mayor Sam Allevato and the rest of the city council for their dedication to this important project.

The second part of this project is the San Clemente Reclaimed Water Project, which would expand San Clemente's reclaimed water infrastructure by doubling its production capability. When completed, San Clemente's recycled water project will reduce the city's demand of domestic water by 3,300 acre feet of water per year. I applaud San Clemente Mayor Jim Dahl and the entire city council for their entire commitment to water recycling.

Again, I want to thank my good friend Grace Napolitano, our chairwoman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, for her leadership and support of my legislation. I know she shares my belief that water recycling is an important tool in addressing growing water needs in the west. Mr. Speaker, I think it is crucial that we recognize and assist communities that are working to reduce their reliance on imported water, and I urge all colleagues to support the South Orange County Recycled Water Enhancement Act.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

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

Last week, as for many of us, I first heard about Juanita's illness. That is surprising because there is a group of us on both sides of the aisle that fly back and forth to California every week. I know there is a lot of talk about partisanship nowadays, but we have a pretty close group. Many times we sit next to each other on the airplane, and we talk about parents and children and golf or whatever. And Juanita was always a delight to be with, always had a positive attitude, always someone you looked forward to seeing.

I was deeply saddened to hear of Juanita's sudden passing. I was sitting at home writing a note to her this weekend; and, unfortunately, that note can't be delivered. But I hope she is listening right now as we state our condolences to her family and to her friends.

It has certainly been an honor for me to have worked with her for the last 11 years that she served in Congress. She was a faithful representative of her district.

I worked with her specifically on the C-17 factory in Long Beach, California, where they make the great C-17 aircraft, and she was a champion for that. She worked for the employees that worked at that plant to make sure that the aircraft which is doing a wonderful job for our country continues to be manufactured in Long Beach, California. As a matter of fact, the last conversation I had with her was about what we can do to keep that going.

There are no words I can use to convey the sense of loss when a colleague passes. She was a champion, and a champion for California. Our delegation will miss her very much. We will miss her smile.

I join all of my colleagues in supporting this bereavement resolution and extend my sympathies to her families and friends. Juanita Millender-McDonald was a patriot who faithfully served her country. Her contributions and commitment will not be forgotten.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Santa Ana, California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Madam Speaker, as my final speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who has also had a difficult week. He lost his brother this week, and our condolences are with him, also.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

I would close, Madam Speaker, by saying that we heard many great stories about Juanita and remembrances of her life, and we have lost a great friend, a great champion for our home State of California, and a great champion for our country. And as we mourn her loss, our condolences are shared with her family. Godspeed, Juanita.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the author of H.R. 988, I rise today to pay tribute to First Lieutenant Todd Bryant. The legislation would designate a post office in my district as the ``Lieutenant Todd Bryant Post Office.'' Todd was born on January 14, 1980, in Long Beach, California. Todd came from a military family and his desire and determination to join the military was nothing short of resolute. He enlisted in the Army Reserve and completed Basic Training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma before his senior year of high school.

In the fall of 1997, Todd came to my office seeking a nomination to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the following March, Todd accepted an Appointment to West Point. I was proud to nominate this ambitious young man who I knew would distinguish himself throughout his military service, just as he had done throughout his whole life.

Todd interned in my district office before his senior year at West Point and graduated with a degree in Political Science on June 1, 2002. He would often joke that he was going to run for my congressional seat some day--I have no doubt he would have succeeded. After graduation, Todd attended the Armor Officer's Basic Course at Fort Knox, Kentucky, graduating in December 2002.

On August 30, 2003, Todd and Jenifer Reardon were married in Pennsylvania, 9 days before shipping out with his unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. On Friday, October 31, 2003, Todd was killed by an improvised explosive device as his Humvee traveled on a road between Fallujah and Baghdad. He was 23 years old.

I ask you to support H.R. 988 to honor the service and sacrifice of Lieutenant Bryant. The naming of the post office in Rubidoux would be a fitting tribute to him, and the sacrifice of his wife and loving family. First Lieutenant Bryant was a true patriot and a brave young man, and our community feels his loss immensely.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the majority party's Iraq supplemental appropriations bill. I returned from Iraq last week where I met with our troops. The one question I was asked repeatedly was, ``Why doesn't Congress support us?'' I told them that I do support them. Unfortunately, this bill does not.

Right now, we have the A-Team in Iraq and they are producing results. I saw it firsthand:

Sunnis working with Shia and the United States Marine Corps in the al-Anbar province.

Sunnis looking forward to the next elections.

An oil distribution plan that is on the brink of completion.

The majority supplemental bill is simply defeat on the installment plan. How can Congress convey our support for the troops in Iraq and at the same time pass a bill which pulls the rug from the very people we claim to support? Plain and simple, this supplemental as written by the majority is a blueprint for defeat.

I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and pass a clean supplemental bill that provides support to those who are fighting and dying. We owe them that much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 545--the Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007.

As a cofounder and co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, I am keenly aware of the threat that is our Nation's meth epidemic.

Methamphetamine has devastating societal costs. It is the source of violent crimes against people and property; increased suicide rates; heightened risks of hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS; increased need for more foster care placements for children of users; and environmental impacts from manufacturing facilities.

This highly addictive drug is a killer that shows no deference to region, race or ethnicity--it preys on all mankind.

Unfortunately, meth use thrives in some communities more than others. Native Americans suffer from higher than average rates of drug use as found in a recent NIH study. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 1.7 percent of Native Americans used meth in 2004--a per capita rate more than double that of Whites--the largest user population.

It is imperative that we assist our Native American communities and that is exactly what this bill does.

A year ago the President signed into law the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 as part of the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization bill. The bill was a true bipartisan, bicameral effort that has provided comprehensive measures to address our Nation's methamphetamine problem. However, the bill did not specify that Native Americans would be eligible for funding within the three grant programs authorized and mentioned by my colleagues. H.R. 545 ensures that Native Americans will have access to the grant funds.

I urge unanimous support for this commonsense legislation.

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record an Editorial from the Wall Street Journal regarding the Iraq Resolution, H. Con. Res. 63.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 15, 2007]

Awaiting the Dishonor Roll

Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral

courage. But even grading on a curve, we can only describe

this week's House debate on a vote of no-confidence in the

mission in Iraq as one of the most shameful moments in the

institution's history.

On present course, the Members will vote on Friday to

approve a resolution that does nothing to remove American

troops from harm's way in Iraq but that will do substantial

damage to their morale and that of their Iraqi allies while

emboldening the enemy. The only real question is how many

Republicans will also participate in this disgrace in the

mistaken belief that their votes will put some distance

between themselves and the war most of them voted to

authorize in 2002.

The motion at issue is plainly dishonest, in that

exquisitely Congressional way of trying to have it both ways.

(We reprint the text nearby.) The resolution purports to

``support'' the troops even as it disapproves of their

mission. It praises their ``bravery,'' while opposing the

additional forces that both President Bush and General David

Petreaus, the new commanding general in Iraq, say are vital

to accomplishing that mission. And it claims to want to

``protect'' the troops even as its practical impact will be

to encourage Iraqi insurgents to believe that every roadside

bomb brings them closer to their goal.

As for how ``the troops'' themselves feel, we refer readers

to Richard Engel's recent story on NBC News quoting

Specialist Tyler Johnson in Iraq: ``People are dying here.

You know what I'm saying. . . You may [say] `oh we support

the troops.' So you're not supporting what they do. What

they's [sic] here

to sweat for, what we bleed for and we die for.'' Added

another soldier: ``If they don't think we're doing a good

job, everything we've done here is all in vain.'' In other

words, the troops themselves realize that the first part of

the resolution is empty posturing, while the second is deeply

immoral.

All the more so because if Congress feels so strongly about

the troops, it arguably has the power to start removing them

from harm's way by voting to cut off the funds they need to

operate in Iraq. But that would make Congress responsible for

what followed--whether those consequences are Americans

killed in retreat, or ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, or the

toppling of the elected Maliki government by radical Shiite

or military forces. The one result Congress fears above all

is being accountable.

We aren't prone to quoting the young John Kerry, but this

week's vote reminds us of the comment the antiwar veteran

told another cut-and-run Congress in the early 1970s: ``How

do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?''

The difference this time is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and

John Murtha expect men and women to keep dying for something

they say is a mistake but also don't have the poiitical

courage to help end.

Instead, they'll pass this ``non-binding resolution,'' to

be followed soon by attempts at micromanagement that would

make the war all but impossible to prosecute--and once again

without taking responsibility. Mr. Murtha is already

broadcasting his strategy, which the new Politico Web site

described yesterday as ``a slow-bleed strategy designed to

gradually limit the administration's options.''

In concert with antiwar groups, the story reported, Mr.

Murtha's ``goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest

political vulnerability of the antiwar movement--the

accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the

field.'' So instead of cutting off funds, Mr. Murtha will

``slow-bleed'' the troops with ``readiness'' restrictions or

limits on National Guard forces that will make them all but

impossible to deploy. These will be attached to

appropriations bills that will also purport to ``support the

troops.''

``There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start

with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense]

budget,'' Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D., Hawaii) told the

Web site. He must mean D-Day as in Dunkirk.

All of this is something that House Republicans should keep

in mind as they consider whether to follow this retreat. The

GOP leadership has been stalwart, even eloquent, this week in

opposing the resolution. But some Republicans figure they can

use this vote to distance themselves from Mr. Bush and the

war while not doing any real harm. They should understand

that the Democratic willingness to follow the Murtha ``slow-

bleed'' strategy will depend in part on how many Republicans

follow them in this vote. The Democrats are themselves

divided on how to proceed, and they want a big GOP vote to

give them political cover. However ``non-binding,'' this is a

vote that Republican partisans will long remember.

History is likely to remember the roll as well. A newly

confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers

on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad,

risking their lives for their country. And the message their

elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is

a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the resolution offered by the majority expressing the disapproval of President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.

This resolution, in my opinion, is nothing but politics. Opposition to a plan is not a plan. This resolution is using our service men and women in a debate that does not address policy. If this was an earnest debate about the administration's proposal, then the majority would have offered a bill that answers two pertinent questions: What is success, and how do we achieve it?

Instead, we stand here debating a bill that opposes sending reinforcements to Iraq. There are no amendments allowed, and there is certainly no plan offered in this bill.

In fact, this debate is incredibly ironic since many of those on the other side of the aisle were calling for more troops not too long ago. Once again, the debate was not about success, but about opposition to the administration's vision.

Let us talk about policy. First, nostalgic thoughts and longing for the times before the U.S. entered Iraq are not useful nor can they be used as a vision for the future. We are in this war. We must win. Anything less than an honest discussion on how to proceed forward is a disservice to this Nation and to our military.

Second, if our policy is to support a stable Iraq, then we must employ a strategy to achieve that goal. The President and our military commanders have stated that in order to fulfill that policy objective, Baghdad must be secured. In order to secure Baghdad, the Iraqi security forces need more American troops to reinforce their operations. President Bush agreed to this on the condition that the Iraqis lead the fight and that the Iraq Government take more responsibility for securing their country.

If the majority party disagrees with this policy objective and the strategy to achieve it, then I ask them, what is their policy objective, and how do they plan to achieve it? I have yet to hear a consensus from my friends on the other side of the aisle on what they believe our policy should be. They certainly cannot suggest that this resolution even faintly resembles a plan or vision for a successful resolution to the current conflict.

I will tell you what the debate is. It is a sound bite. It is a quick and easy way to feed the defeatists in this country. More than anything it is a disappointment. The majority would rather score political points than have a real discussion on the most important question of this generation, how to win the war against our enemies and keep our country safe.

We should be asking ourselves, what would failure in the Middle East mean?

Our enemies have stated that they believe that Western Civilization is rotten to the core. Unless we get out of the Middle East entirely and convert to Islam, we will always be their enemy. In chapter 2 of the 9/11 report, the authors answer what the terrorists want from America:

``To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda's answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture.''

Al Qaeda is closely watching Iraq, sending fighters and weapons and doing most everything in its power to bring about an American retreat. If we leave Iraq before it is secure, what will that do to our enemy, an enemy who has already stated that they seek to destroy us not for being in Iraq but for being in the Middle East and for being non- Muslim?

An American failure would bolster al Qaeda and every other terrorist organization in the world. It would give them a reason to believe that they can win and that it could give them confidence so they could surely breach our shores one day. It would let them believe that their plan, a plan to destroy Western culture for its godlessness, is correct.

As 9/11 taught us, warfare is no longer limited to the enemies within our region. Geographic boundaries and long distances do not keep us safe.

An enemy encouraged by a retreat in Iraq will be close to our heels. That is exactly why we must stay and confront our enemies.

So how is this enemy, who is at a military and financial disadvantage, seeking to win? They simply studied a little American history. Both Osama bin Laden and al-Zarqawi have referenced the Vietnam conflict in forming their strategy to defeat us.

Many in this body often rush to compare this conflict with Vietnam, and in one respect it is very similar: both enemies understood the way to victory was through American politicians. If they can weaken the American political will, they knew they could achieve victory. The majority often invokes the number of our war dead as the reason to leave or the fact that this conflict has gone longer than our involvement in World War II. These arguments play right into the hands of the enemy and their propaganda machine.

What people don't seem to understand is that we cannot fall into the trap of comparisons, or we risk losing sight of what our men and women in the Armed Forces need from us: they need our support. They need a coherent policy and strategy that does not make politics the long pole in the tent.

Courage to do the right thing is not always easy. I will not abandon those who have fought and given their lives in this conflict. I will not abandon the Iraqis who long for peace. Instead, I support the President's call for more troops. I believe it is the right thing to do. It is illogical to say you support the troops that are there, but not the reinforcements that they need.

In closing, I would like to remember those who have lost their lives to the acts of terrorism:

The Beirut embassy and Marine barracks bombing in 1983; the bombing of Pan Am 103, 1988; the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993; the bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in Argentina in 1994; the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia 1996; the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; the bombings of the USS Cole in Yemen in the year 2000; the attacks on New York City and the Pentagon, September 11, 2001; the Madrid train bombings, March 11, 2004; the London bombings, July 7, 2005.

Do not doubt that if they were given the chance, our enemies would come in this Chamber tonight and kill us all.

This resolution is not a solution. It is nothing but doubt, fear, and weakness. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and stand up for victory.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join Chairman Gordon, Mr. Hall and Mr. Wu as the lead sponsors of H.R. 365, the Methamphetamine Remediation Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, we were very close to sending this legislation to the President for signature at the end of the last Congress, so I greatly appreciate the chairman keeping this issue at the forefront of this Congress and for steering the bill quickly through the Science and Technology Committee at the start of the 110.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the committee's majority and minority staffs who have diligently worked together and with the Senate over the last few years to develop and revise this legislation.

As a founder and cochairman of the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, I know the meth epidemic in our country shows no deference to district or party line. This is an issue everyone can agree is wreaking havoc on communities across our Nation.

As mentioned by my colleagues, H.R. 365 focused its efforts on procedures and standards needed to decontaminate a site where a methamphetamine lab is found so our communities can more thoroughly remediate these sites.

The creation of voluntary health-based remediation guidelines for former meth labs, created by the Environmental Protection Agency, will protect and ensure the health of our citizens and the surrounding environment.

This is a distressing issue with many, and certainly my area of Riverside, California, and, quite frankly, most of America has been all too familiar. Meth poses significant environmental threats as its production leaves, as mentioned, 5 to 6 pounds of toxic waste per pound of methamphetamine developed.

The Drug Enforcement Agency estimates that more than 68 percent of all meth labs are located in ordinary homes in rural and residential areas. State and local agencies need all of the resources and tools that we can provide them to remediate the contamination that remains after meth labs are dismantled so that innocent families are not in danger.

Although we are all aware that more needs to be done to win the fight against this devastating drug, I am convinced that H.R. 365 will be an important step and will be welcomed by our communities.

So I thank Chairman Gordon for his good work, and I encourage all of my colleagues to pass this commonsense legislation.

Mr. Speaker, if I had been present earlier today, Friday, January 19, 2007, I would have voted as follows on today's recorded vote: rollcall No. 42, ``yea''--H.R. 475--House Page Board Revision Act of 2007.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to my leave of absence, I am submitting for the Record how I would have voted if I had been present earlier today, in addition to comments that I request also be entered into the Record.

Rollcall #34, ``yea''--Motion to Adjourn, rollcall #35, ``no''-- Ordering the Previous Question, and rollcall #36, ``no''--Agreeing to H. Res. 66.

H. Res. 66 is a closed rule that prohibits any amendments to the bill from being considered by the House. Madam Speaker, on November 14, 2006 you wrote in a Christian Science Monitor op-ed that ``Democrats pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.'' I am deeply disappointed that past pledges for an open Congress have been broken so quickly with H. Res. 66 and other closed rules imposed by the majority. I believe the People's House operates best when legislation moves through regular order and uses our Committee process where members from both sides of the aisle have an opportunity to work together to improve legislation. Under the new ``Closed-door Congress,'' the House has yet to consider a bill that was moved through regular order and considered by the Committee of jurisdiction. H. Res. 66 establishes the rules for considering H.R. 6, and, as a senior member of the Natural Resources Committee, I have significant

concerns about some of the provisions in H.R. 6. In particular, there are provisions addressing the 1998-99 Clinton Administration OCS leases that are ambiguous and may result in levies on all oil and natural gas lease holders in the Gulf of Mexico, not just the 1998-99 leaseholders. This and other poorly written provisions in H.R. 6 could have been corrected had the legislation been considered by the Natural Resources Committee or had the majority allowed amendments to be considered on the House floor. Unfortunately, the majority's ``Closed-door Congress'' chose to break its pledge of an ``open Congress'' and prevented these opportunities to improve the legislation.

Rollcall #37, ``no''--On Consideration of H.R. 6, rollcall #38, ``yes''--Motion to Recommit H.R. 6, rollcall #39, ``no''--Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair, rollcall #40, ``no''-- Final Passage of H.R. 6.

H.R. 6 represents the first vote for a tax increase in more than 13 years. I have repeatedly pledged to oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses-- and I stand by my pledge. The majority has claimed that passage of H.R. 6 will roll-back subsidies to the oil and natural gas industry that Congress passed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. However, a Congressional Research Service report released in December of 2006 concluded that, on balance, the bill imposes ``a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years.'' Further raising taxes on the oil and natural gas industry will do nothing to help lower the price of gasoline at the pump Americans are paying and, ultimately, increases our country's dependence on foreign sources of oil. Madam Speaker, I am truly stricken by the fact that the new majority has chosen to bring a bill to the House floor during its highly touted first ``100 Hours'' that will benefit and strengthen the hands of the likes of Hugo Chavez. I oppose H.R. 6 because it will result in job losses, increase the price of gasoline at the pump, increase the cost of heating homes, and increase dependence on foreign sources of oil. I support an energy policy that takes steps to truly reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of oil while our Nation continues to invest and improve the development of renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency.

Rollcall #41, ``yes''--Adoption of H. Res. 62--Congratulating the Grand Valley State University Lakers''

Madam Speaker, pursuant to my leave of absence, I am submitting for the Record how I would have voted if I had been present earlier today.

I would have voted as follows on today's recorded votes:

Rollcall No. 34, ``yea''--Motion to Adjourn; Rollcall No. 35, ``no''--Ordering the Previous Question; Rollcall No. 36, ``no''-- Agreeing to H. Res. 66, Rollcall No. 37, ``no''--On Consideration of H.R. 6; Rollcall No. 38, ``yea''--Motion to Recommit H.R. 6; Rollcall No. 39, ``no''--Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair; Rollcall No. 40, ``no''--Final Passage of H.R. 6; Rollcall No. 41, ``yea''--Adoption of H. Res. 62--Congratulating the Grand Valley State University Lakers.