Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, accountability is a word often used but seldom implemented. For the last 12 years it is as if Congress forgot one of its principal responsibilities is to demand accountability from the administration and protect the American people from waste, fraud and abuse.

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which this rule provides consideration for, will provide additional transparency and accountability for the way the Federal Government spends tax dollars of the hardworking Americans.

It is no secret that the only way we can truly gather firsthand accounts of instances where waste, fraud and abuse occur is from the people on the inside, the Federal employees. Unfortunately, not all Federal employees are currently protected from being fired if they unmask corruption or other fraudulent activities going on inside the administration.

This legislation goes right to the heart of the issue by extending much needed whistleblower protections to Federal Government employees working on national security, government contractor employees and transportation security employees, including baggage screeners at our airports. It only makes sense that Federal employees, especially those who have undergone extensive background investigations, obtained security clearances and handled classified information on a routine basis, be afforded the same rights and whistleblower protections as all other Federal employees.

In addition, this legislation takes some very important steps. It would abolish the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction for overhearing whistleblower appeals cases, taking away its Supreme Court-like jurisdiction and allowing the appropriate Federal appeals courts in the respective circuit where the incident took place to hear such cases.

For instance, if the instance of whistleblowing were to occur in New York, in my district, that is the Second Circuit. The initial decision rendered by the Second Circuit should be appealed in the Second Circuit. It should not be required to come to the Federal Circuit here.

The current appeals structures for hearing whistleblower cases not only places a hefty financial burden on individuals who would have to travel from across the country to D.C. just to have their appeal heard, it also provides a disservice to our Nation's legal system by overburdening one court.

As a former district attorney, I know from experience that having the ability to draw on decisions from similar cases rendered from different courts around the country would greatly improve our legal system. It would benefit all parties involved, and further enhance our Nation's exceptional legal system. Further, by allowing other Federal circuit appellate courts to hear whistleblower appeal cases increases the opportunity for those cases to be heard by the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to level the playing field for all Federal employees who have the courage to stand up for the American people.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.

Mr. Speaker, after 4 years, billions of dollars and thousands of lives lost, we simply cannot reward failure with a blank check in the war in Iraq. I refuse to rubber-stamp more failed policies.

In the weeks ahead, we have the opportunity as representatives of the people to change the direction in Iraq without jeopardizing the safety and well-being of our troops. We must finally require Iraqis to take control of their own country and their own destiny.

The President has threatened to veto legislation that contains his own benchmarks for success in Iraq; provides our troops with the training and equipment they need; and ensures that when our brave soldiers return home, they get the kind of care that they deserve. Our legislation also commits additional funds to fight the forgotten war in Afghanistan and against al Qaeda, strengthening our national security.

Mr. Speaker, the people of New York's 24th District sent me here to address the war in Iraq and to start this country on a long overdue new direction for America.

Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee intends to meet the week of March 12 to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007.

Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 55 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 1 p.m. on Monday, March 12.

Amendments should be drafted to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. A copy of that bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee. Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

In addition, the Rules Committee intends to meet next week to grant a rule that may structure the amendment process on H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act.

Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 55 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 1 p.m. on Tuesday, March 13.

Amendments must be drafted to the bill as ordered reported on March 8 by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. A copy of that bill will be posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee. Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Madam Speaker, the treatment some of our wounded military personnel are receiving at Walter Reed Army Hospital and other facilities around the Nation is outrageous and should be fixed immediately.

The conditions and the neglect that many of these wounded soldiers are facing is just another example of this administration's failure to plan for the war in Iraq. It was bad enough that the administration went into this war without properly planning for the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. It is inexcusable that the same administration does not have an acceptable plan to care for wounded soldiers who return from combat in Iraq.

We have all heard the stories about soldiers being moved into Building 18 with mold, mice, and cockroaches because Walter Reed had simply run out of space.

Time after time this administration has cut the Veterans Administration budget during a time of war. And now the President wants to send an additional 21,000 troops into Iraq. How can we think of sending more troops into Iraq when we don't have enough space here in our military hospitals to provide the wounded with the care they rightfully deserve?

We promise our veterans the quality care they need and deserve when they sign up to serve our country. It is time we make good on that promise.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 195 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 195 provides for consideration of H.R. 556, the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007 under an open rule with a preprinting requirement. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute reported by the Committee on Financial Services as an original bill for purpose of amendment, which shall be considered for amendment by section with each section considered as read.

The rule provides that any amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute must be printed in the Congressional Record prior to consideration of the bill. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee or her designee and shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, foreign investment creates jobs and serves as a vital component of our Nation's economy. However, we as a Nation cannot afford to sacrifice the safety and security with a foreign investment review process that jeopardizes American lives. Take, for instance, our Nation's ports, which employ thousands of Americans and handle a large majority of U.S.-bound cargo. New Yorkers and many of my colleagues take the security of these ports very, very seriously. We as a country cannot go halfway on port security. We must take all the necessary steps to ensure the safety and security of our infrastructure and, more importantly, our constituents.

We took a giant step in the right direction on port security a few weeks ago when we approved legislation that would require screening of 100 percent of all U.S.-bound shipping containers over the next 5 years. And today we are taking another step by reforming and strengthening the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, also known as CFIUS, process by which the Federal Government reviews foreign investments in the United States for their national security implications.

As a new Member of Congress, I am new to this institution, but the controversy surrounding the Dubai Ports scandal last year echoed far beyond the Washington Beltway. I, along with many of my constituents, was troubled by the administration's approval of a deal to allow a company owned by a government of the United Arab Emirates to manage terminal operations at six major U.S. ports. It was clear that the administration dropped the ball and that the national security review process for foreign investments had failed.

The National Security FIRST Act would significantly reform the foreign investment review process so that we never have another Dubai debacle, by ensuring that the proper steps are taken to keep our ports, our cities, and our citizens safe and secure. The National Security FIRST Act also requires the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to conduct a 30-day review of any national security-related business transaction. After a 30-day review is conducted, it would be required to conduct a full-scale, 45-day investigation of the effects the business transaction would have on national security, if deemed necessary.

In addition, the legislation requires the committee to file semi- annual reports to Congress, keeping the American people informed and shedding some much-needed sunlight and transparency on foreign investments in the U.S. infrastructure that could have potentially devastating consequences to our security and our citizens.

And while the legislation strengthens and reforms the process, it also allows the critical flow of foreign investment into the United States economy to continue, which is critical if we are going to successfully compete with the rest of the world in this age of globalization.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chairman of Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman, my colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. Sutton.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last night during the debate in the Rules Committee, some questions were raised as to the appropriateness of an open rule as opposed to bringing this bill under a suspension of the rules.

I think that question was answered clearly in that 12 amendments were filed on the bill, three by Democrats and nine by Republicans. I think that question was clearly answered, an open rule is preferable and there are amendments filed.

Protecting the safety and security of Americans is without question our top priority as Members of this institution. It is overwhelmingly clear that the current process is in place for the Federal Government to review foreign investment is broken.

The National Security FIRST Act will provide the necessary reforms to the process and keep our infrastructure, our cities, and most importantly, our constituents safe and secure.

It will also ensure that a debacle like the one that occurred last year at Dubai Ports does not happen again, while still continuing to encourage the very important foreign investment in our economy here in this country. I would strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the Auburn Maroons of Auburn High School for making history in winning the Class AA New York State Football Championship on November 25, 2006--their first-ever Class AA State championship.

The athletes of Auburn High School in New York's 24th district and their coach, Dave Moskov, proved their ability and dedication as they brought 10,000 fans to Syracuse University's Carrier Dome, cheering them onto victory. In the championship game, the Maroons defeated the Monroe-Woodbury Crusaders in overtime by a score of 27-26.

Having played football at Proctor High School and later, at SUNY- Albany, I know how much hard work and commitment goes into developing a successful football team. I commend these players and Coach Moskov for their outstanding efforts. They have certainly made their families, their friends, and their community very proud.

I am honored to have such skilled athletes and committed fans as part of my constituency and would once again like to congratulate the Maroons on this notable accomplishment.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the truly honorable life of Mr. William Griffen of Tully, New York. Mr. Griffen was a student, an educator, an activist, a writer, a father, a husband, a friend, a neighbor, and an inspiration. Mr. Griffen will be remembered for the enthusiasm and sincerity he brought to his work throughout his 78 years.

Mr. Griffen attended SUNY Cortland where he received his B.S. in Education and went on to attend Cornell University, earning his M.A. and Ed.D. Mr. Griffen taught in Brentwood and Marathon, New York, for several years before returning to Cortland to become SUNY Cortland's longest-tenured Professor of Education. A beloved institution, Mr. Griffen was also honored as a distinguished alumnus of the university, ``teaching for over forty years and diligently working for peace and social justice at the local, state, national and international levels.''

Mr. Griffen aspired to influence our country on many levels, running for Congress twice, in 1968 and 1990. His extensive contribution through his writings has been seen in over 50 articles addressing war, technology, civil

rights, and revolution. Additionally, he coauthored the book of Lessons of the Vietnam War--A Critical Examination of School Texts and an Interpretive Comparative History Utilizing the Pentagon Papers and Other Documents. During the Vietnam War, he was responsible for starting the Cortland Citizens for Peace organization and went on to become very active in the anti-war movement. Mr. Griffen's dedication to activism also led him to Mississippi and Tennessee with the historic, pioneering freedom riders, where he worked to register minority voters so they could have a voice in government.

Even in his later days, Mr. Griffen continued his spirit of activism, helping the American Cancer Society by participating in a new program for people diagnosed with prostate cancer. He trained volunteers in upstate New York to counsel cancer patients and served on the speakers' bureau at the Syracuse Man-to-Man Cancer Support Group.

Many say that Mr. Griffen was truly a renaissance man, with interests in baseball, jazz, nature, photography, and the environment. He and his wife, Judy, had three children: Mark, Kimberly, and Amy.

William Griffen gave his heart and soul to improve the lives of the people he touched. His contributions and his sacrifices will live on for generations in upstate New York and around our great country. Thank you, Mr. Griffen.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 161 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate purposes only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 161 is a rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act, under suspension of rules at any time on the legislative day of Friday, February 16, 2007.

This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must provide for consideration of these motions.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how honored I am as a member of the distinguished Rules Committee to manage the rule for consideration of such an important piece of legislation that will provide $1.3 billion of tax relief for our Nation's small business.

This legislation, the Small Business Tax Relief Act, is strongly supported by a host of business organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Restaurant Association.

Small businesses are the backbone of this Nation's economy. Every day we as Americans utilize the services of small business owners, whether it is dropping off our dry cleaning, grabbing a bite to eat at a local diner or pizzeria, or waiting in line to pick up a prescription at a local pharmacy. We depend on our small businesses.

It is a constant struggle for most small businesses just to keep the lights on. Utility costs continue to skyrocket, and larger companies continue to expand services, pushing out the mom-and-pop stores in cities and towns across the country. My constituents in Upstate New York have experienced this loss of economic activity firsthand, but that trend has continued.

The Small Business Tax Relief Act would help small businesses grow and hire new workers by extending and expanding tax provisions that encourage investment in new equipment and promote the hiring of disadvantaged workers, and it does so in a fiscally responsible way that meets the pay-as-you-go requirements. Small business owners have to balance the books and stay on budget each month. It is only fitting that we do as well.

Specifically, the bill would help small businesses invest in new equipment by extending and expanding expensing options for 1 year and increase both the amount small businesses can deduct from their taxes and the number of small businesses that can take these deductions.

The bill would extend the work opportunity tax credit, which provides incentives to employers to hire individuals that frequently experience barriers to work for 1 year, and expand it to cover disabled veterans. In other words, it helps those who need jobs by giving employers tax credits for creating jobs.

It would enhance the current tip credit for small businesses by maintaining the current tip credit that small businesses take for the Social Security taxes they pay on their employees' tips, instead of allowing it to drop with the long-overdue increase in the minimum wage this legislation will help achieve.

The bill also contains a provision that would simplify tax-filing requirements for businesses owned jointly by a husband and wife, providing much-needed relief for the many small firms throughout this country.

Right now, there is a glitch in the Social Security tax law which only allows one spouse, most often the husband, to get credit for paying into Social Security. This leaves women who work as equal partners in an unfair situation. The Small Business Tax Relief Act fixes this glaring inequality by ensuring that both partners, equal members of the team, receive their justly deserved entitlement benefits.

Moreover, this legislation does not only help small businesses. It is a win-win, because passage of the Small Business Tax Relief Act is also a critical step in finalizing an increase in the Federal minimum wage for 13 million hardworking Americans.

I made a promise to my constituents that I would go to Washington to fight for a long-overdue increase in the Federal minimum wage. Passage of this measure takes us one step closer to fulfilling that promise.

I want to be clear. I support a stand-alone increase in the minimum wage, like the legislation we passed a few weeks ago with overwhelming bipartisan support. However, 10 years is too long for any hardworking Americans to wait for a wage increase. Let's not force them to wait any longer. The time to act is now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the hardworking gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the chairwoman of the Committee on Small Business.

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I first of all would like to thank my fellow New Yorker and the dean of our delegation, Chairman Rangel, for his very hard work in bringing this very important bipartisan bill to the floor. I think it shows the depth of his knowledge and understanding of the issues, and I think it is very critical that we address this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, $1.3 billion in tax relief for our small business owners is the kind of sensible, responsible tax relief I am proud to support. Let's help small businesses do what they do best, and that is create jobs and strengthen our economy.

During the debate at the Rules hearing, some of my colleagues were asking the question why we had to move so quickly on this bill, why we couldn't wait until Congress came back in session.

I couldn't help but think of the old adage, why put off until tomorrow what you can do today. People who earn $5.15 who want the minimum wage raised have been waiting for 10 years. People in small business who pay more than they need to want tax breaks. It is the sensible thing to do, and it is the sensible thing to do right now.

As I said earlier, this is a win-win scenario, because passage of this bipartisan fiscally responsible legislation will also clear the way for a much-needed and well-deserved increase in the minimum wage. America's workers have been waiting far too long for a pay raise. Let's not make them wait any longer.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the previous question, because our small business owners need some relief and American workers deserve a raise.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 161 Offered by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

On page 1, line 6, strike the period and insert ``, and the

bill (H.R. 60) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to

make permanent the deduction of State and local general sales

taxes.''.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, Americans are outraged with the present course in Iraq. Here we are more than 4 years later with 3,100 of our brave men and women killed, fighting a war that has cost our Nation $370 billion.

It has become overwhelmingly clear that the current strategy to secure the peace of Iraq is failing. And yet the administration contends that sending more combat troops into Iraq is somehow a silver bullet that is going to quell the ongoing violence. I couldn't disagree more.

The resolution before us today establishes two overwhelmingly clear and concise principles that are supported by a large majority of Americans, and I am confident will garner a great deal of support for many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

First and foremost, we support our brave service men and women. They have done everything that has been asked of them, bravely and honorably; and for that, we in Congress and the people all over America will be forever grateful.

Second, and simply, we oppose sending additional troops into Iraq.

Madam Speaker, during this debate some of my colleagues have used the term ``victory'' in their remarks. Victory. But no one, not one of my colleagues in this Chamber, nor anyone in this administration, has yet to clearly define what victory in Iraq really means.

At one point we were told victory meant getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. Then, of course, we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction. When that didn't work, we

were told victory meant toppling a dictator, and that we would be greeted as heroes. We toppled the dictator, but of course we were never greeted as heroes. And yet, still no victory.

The administration then told us establishing elections would constitute victory. There have been several elections in Iraq, yet still no victory. And all the while, the casualties have continued to rise.

Earlier this week, I had an opportunity, for the first time, to visit with wounded soldiers recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital. Seeing firsthand the devastating injuries that some of our brave soldiers have endured has troubled me in a way that I have not known before. As an American who loves his country very much, and as a father of two teenagers, it became crystal clear to me right then and there what exactly victory in Iraq means. I think victory in Iraq means bringing as many of our troops home alive as possible, the way I would want to see my two children brought home, if they were in Iraq. That is what victory is about, is bringing as many Americans home alive as we possibly can.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had the better part of 3 years to use their position in the majority to change the course in Iraq. They did nothing. No resolutions; few, if any hearings; and no accountability. How many more American lives are worth risking to continue an ill-conceived and poorly planned strategy that is clearly not working?

The American people answered that question last November. They have had enough, enough political rhetoric, enough stay the course, and most importantly, enough of the loss of life.

Some of my colleagues are trying to mischaracterize this resolution. They say this resolution somehow demonstrates a failure to support our troops. That is ridiculous.

Let me be clear, perfectly clear. Everyone in this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats alike, support our brave men and women serving in the Armed Forces. Simply because we believe the best way to support our troops is to bring them home does not mean that we don't stand behind them. In fact, I think it means a greater commitment of support to them.

Madam Speaker, I was not elected to blindly follow along. I was not elected to accept the status quo, and I was not elected to be a rubber stamp. I was, however, elected to stand up when necessary and say no, I disagree. And that is exactly what we are doing here today, we are standing and saying we disagree.

The American people have run out of hope. They are tired of the failed policies of this administration. It is time for a new approach. It is time for a new strategy, and it is time for a new direction

Mr. Speaker, the American people and both Democrat and Republican Members of Congress are demanding a new direction in Iraq.

It is long past time for Congress to debate whether or not the President's latest troop escalation will actually change the situation on the ground in Iraq. This is a debate that Congress must have. We will all have 5 minutes to explain to our constituents and to the American people and to our troops why we either support the President's strategy or why we think it is time for a new direction.

This is the first time since the war began that every Member of the House will have 5 minutes to speak about the situation in Iraq. The last time Congress was allowed so much time for a debate on the war was during the lead-up to the first gulf war back in the 1990s.

Mr. Speaker, every single one of us in this House supports the efforts our troops are making in Iraq. Some believe the best way to support them is to allow the President to conduct the war in any way he sees fit, without question. I believe it is our job in Congress to ask the tough questions, and that is what we are doing this week.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Vermont for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would just like to respond to something that my colleague from Texas said just a few moments ago with respect to good ideas in the Rules Committee. I happen to agree with him. I think that the proposal was a very good idea, and it is something that certainly I would think very strongly about supporting. However, I voted against it because I felt that there were questions of both germaneness and also I felt that by not going through the committee process, it would somehow make it less likely that that bill would pass, and that was the reason that I voted against it. It had absolutely nothing to do with a partisan issue, but more because I feel it is a good idea and it would stand a better chance of passage by working through the committee process. So I think it is important that we point out here that the Rules Committee is, in fact, a committee that recognizes good ideas and supports good ideas; and simply because we disagree about issues does not mean we do not support good ideas on our side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of an open rule on this bill, and

I am pleased that my colleagues on the Rules Committee, including those on the other side of the aisle, voted unanimously to approve this rule. That level of support speaks volumes about the importance of bringing the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure bill to the floor of this Chamber for consideration.

During Science Committee Chairman Gordon's remarks before the Rules Committee yesterday, he pointed out an issue that requires our utmost attention if we as a Nation ever hope to truly address our Nation's addiction to oil. The issue is that cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels are highly corrosive and not compatible with the fuel distribution infrastructure currently in place to transport them in our country.

Biofuels are the wave of the future. Continued domestic production and use of biofuels will reduce air emissions, diversify our energy supply, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. A classic trifecta, if you will.

Unfortunately, this transportation barrier imposes increased cost burdens and could slow the transition we hope to make away from fossil fuels. The Advanced Fuels Infrastructure bill takes a giant first step in the right direction to address the biofuel infrastructure problem by tasking the Environmental Protection Agency to develop additives, blendstocks, technologies, and other methods to make biofuels less corrosive.

Members of my staff joke that I am hooked on talking about cellulosic ethanol. I am more than hooked. I think I would say I am addicted. No pun intended. But the truth be known, I would rather be addicted to some type of energy that is produced domestically rather than a foreign or fossil fuel that is produced somewhere else other than in this country. And so are many of my colleagues in this Chamber. Like me, they understand the substantial benefits that biofuels like ethanol will provide for our Nation's growing energy demand.

We in Congress and our counterparts at the State level also realize the role which government has to play in developing cost-effective methods of producing these fuels. Last December my home State of New York awarded $14.8 million to build and operate a cellulosic biomass- to-ethanol demonstration plant in Rochester, New York. A professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, was recently awarded a $10 million grant to upgrade Cornell's industrial biotechnology laboratories and improve researchers' abilities to liberate sugars from woody biomass and convert them into biofuels. In addition, the Biorefinery in New York Project is about to embark upon a $20.6 million public-private partnership to demonstrate commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol production in Lyonsdale, New York. Half of that $20.6 million is private investment from a Texas-based energy company that will be pumped directly into the New York State economy. For too long New York State has been exporting money out of state to meet our energy needs. Now we are importing those dollars back.

The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request includes many misdirected funding cuts; however, it does include a $292 million grant for research and development programs to promote biofuels, most notably the wide-scale production of cellulosic ethanol. This figure is more than double the fiscal year 2006 appropriation of $119 million. Cellulosic ethanol plants are starting to pop up all across Upstate New York and the rest of the Nation thanks to top-notch researchers.

I stand here today very proud to support this open rule.

Mr. Speaker, as a former DA from upstate New York, I know firsthand the scourge that methamphetamine has laid upon our rural areas. And I represented a district that was both urban and rural, and I saw that methamphetamines did to the rural areas what crack cocaine did to the urban areas. And I think that it is imperative that we take these steps that we are taking to fight methamphetamines.

The difference, however, between methamphetamines and crack is that there is a derivative effect that methamphetamine has, and that is that it affects the people who live in the households of people who produce methamphetamines and law enforcement officers when they go into those areas. So it is very important that this bill is passed because it does exactly what local law enforcement needs, and that is for the Federal Government to act in a way that develops strategies for fighting methamphetamines, strategies for protecting our law enforcement officials.

So I strongly support this bill, and urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to PFC Shawn Falter, who gave his life in service to our Nation on Saturday, January 20 in Karbala, Iraq.

Shawn grew up in the town of Homer, NY, and was a dedicated and loving son, brother and friend to many. As a student at Homer High School, Shawn excelled both on the field and in the classroom. He was a hard-working student, a natural leader, and a selfless friend who could light up a room with impeccable timing.

Shawn enlisted in the U.S. Army in August 2005, following in the footsteps of his three older brothers. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 377th Parachute Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division deployed out of Fort Richardson, AK. Sadly, Shawn was killed during an ambush in Karbala, Iraq earlier this week in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Shawn was truly an exemplary American who served his country bravely. Our Nation is blessed to have dedicated, talented men and women like Shawn Falter fighting to protect us and others around the world.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring PFC Shawn Falter, along with all of the other brave Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize Mrs. Ethel Hertline of Utica, New York who celebrated her 100th birthday on January 19, 2007. I am in awe of her years of experience and lifetime of joy. It is a pleasure to celebrate Mrs. Hertline's birthday and all that she has seen in her 100 years.

Mrs. Hertline was born in Chester, Pennsylvania, on January 19, 1907 to Edgar and Jessie House. She married John Charles Hertline on November 25, 1925 at St. John's Church in Camden, New Jersey. Together they had 4 children: John, Mary, Anna, and Harry; 18 grandchildren who reside in New York, Mississippi, Virginia, and the Philippines; 34 great grandchildren who reside in Florida, New York, Mississippi, Virginia, Washington, and the Philippines; and 2 great-great grandchildren who reside in Washington.

During her lifetime, Mrs. Hertline worked at Fort Schuyler Knitting Mill in Utica, New York, during World War II crocheting various items including afghans, bed dolls, and mittens. She also enjoys doing crossword puzzles and has a pet parakeet named Andy.

Mrs. Hertline has truly lived the American experience, and I would like to wish her another 100 years of happiness.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to this administration's call for 21,000 new troops in the surge in Iraq. As one of three New Yorkers in the Blue Dog Coalition, I am very proud of the position that the Blue Dog Coalition takes with respect to identifying issues of fiscal responsibility. They have done that very thing with the war.

There are many, many reasons why we shouldn't be involved in the war in Iraq, and the Blue Dogs have pointed out one additional reason for that in terms of the cost that this war has and the way it has burdened our country.

When I talk to people in my district, they always ask me, why are we spending so much money on the war, when we have such great needs for education or for health care or for housing? Those are all issues that people are very concerned about; yet we continue to spend billions and billions of dollars on a very unpopular war.

My other concern with respect to this war and this operation in Iraq is the fact that our Army is an army that is a volunteer army, which means that in order for us to continue to defend our country and to get the numbers that we need in the Armed Forces, we need to have high numbers of volunteers. Yet with this protracted engagement that we are involved in now in Iraq, it continues to lower morale and makes it more and more difficult to attract troops and to attract recruits to our military.

I am very humbled when I hear my colleague Patrick Murphy, a real patriot, a veteran of Iraq, get up here and speak and talk from his heart about the things that he experienced while he was in Iraq. It concerns me, because I believe that this war and this engagement in Iraq is doing more to hurt the morale of our military than any other operation that we have seen in recent history. It concerns me because I hear different anecdotal stories from people in my district. There is one I would like to share with you.

Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine who was a very patriotic young man enlisted in the armed services and actually did three tours of duty. He did one in Afghanistan and two in Iraq. He was wounded and received the Purple Heart and received a Bronze Star.

After his last tour in Iraq, he was ready to leave the military. He talked to his people in his outfit, and they asked him if he would stay and help to train troops in a non-deployment type of position stateside. Being the patriotic person that he is, he agreed to do that.

The problem for him was that because of the buildup and because of the steps that are being taken now, he was

told that he would no longer be able to continue in a nondeployment type of position, but would rather have to go into a third tour of duty in Iraq. It put a huge strain on him. It put a huge strain on his family.

These are the kinds of concerns that we have when it comes to the morale and when it comes to the future of our military.

And speaking from myself, I would just like to say that I believe that this type of action and this type of activity puts a huge strain on our military.

I strongly support the efforts of the Blue Dog Coalition because I believe that they point out the things that we need to do as a country. We are talking about a resolution that will create a Truman type of committee that will help to oversee efforts and oversee different actions which are taking place by different contractors in Iraq. So I am very pleased to be here today to talk on behalf of the Blue Dog Coalition.