Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a), paragraph 1 of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

H. Res. --

Whereas the Code of Official Conduct provides that a Member

``may not condition the inclusion of language to provide

funding for a Congressional earmark . . . on any vote cast by

another member'';

Whereas Chairman Reyes filed the Report to accompany the

bill H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2008;

Whereas the report states that, with respect to the

requirements of clause 9 of House Rule XXI, ``The following

table provides the list of such provisions included in the

bill or report,'' and includes a table of 26 items

identifying ``Requesting Member,'' ``Subject,'' and ``Dollar

Amount (in Thousands)'';

Whereas the referenced table includes an item denoted as:

Requesting Member, Mr. Murtha; Subject, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

PROGRAM COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT--National Drug

Intelligence Center; Dollar Amount, $23 million;

Whereas the Gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Rogers, offered

and voted for a motion to recommit the bill to change the

provisions of the aforementioned Murtha earmark during its

consideration in the House;

Whereas as a result of Mr. Rogers' motion and vote on the

Murtha earmark, the Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha

subsequently threatened to withdraw support for earmarks

providing funding for projects located in the Gentleman from

Michigan's district;

Whereas on May 17, 2007, in the House Chamber, the

Gentleman from Pennsylvania stated, in a loud voice words to

the effect, to the Gentleman from Michigan as a result of

offering and voting for the motion to recommit, ``I hope you

don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill

because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now

and forever.'';

Whereas the Gentleman from Michigan responded, in words to

the effect, ``this is not the way we do things here and is

that supposed to make me afraid of you?'';

Whereas the Gentleman from Pennsylvania raised his voice,

pointed his finger and stated, in words to the effect,

``that's the way I do it.'';

Whereas the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) is the

ninth most senior member of Congress, whose seniority ranks

him over 426 of his 433 colleagues in the House;

Whereas the gentleman from Pennsylvania chairs the

Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense;

Whereas the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the

second-ranking and second longest serving Democrat on the

Appropriations Committee, has been described in numerous

media accounts as a master of the legislative process and an

expert on earmarks; and

Whereas the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has

stated that he is a former member of the House Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct, whose members are among the

most knowledgeable in the House concerning the ethical

obligations of Members of Congress: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Member from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha has

been guilty of a violation of the Code of Official Conduct

and merits the reprimand of the House for the same.

Mr. Speaker, on this evening's rollcall vote number 333 I was detained and did not cast my ballot. If I had cast a ballot I would have voted ``nay.''

Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate the chairman on mostly good work. And a big budget doesn't necessarily mean a good budget. We have had some great discussions. There are some really good things in this bill. But there are some serious departures on the direction in which we take intelligence that I think are so important that we need to stand up and oppose this bill.

This bill jeopardizes our ability to listen to terrorists. It puts it at risk. This bill cuts very specific human intelligence programs. They will get less money this year than they got last year.

I just want to talk for a minute about global climate change. As mentioned earlier, the President's budget proposes over $7 billion for climate change activities. This bill should be about securing America. Instead, it is being used to secure a political agenda on these items.

Climate change is an important issue, and it should be taken seriously. Thankfully it is. Fourteen Federal agencies already have active climate change programs. Let me go through them: Agriculture, Commerce, State, Health and Human Services, Interior, Transportation, EPA, NASA, NSF, Defense, Treasury, USAID, the Smithsonian, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, DARPA and NASA all have active research, development, testing and evaluation programs. NASA's program already makes satellite images available to government researchers.

This legislation assigns intelligence agencies that have limited experience in this area the job of researching climate change. We are going to take analysts away from looking for Osama bin Laden and we are going to put them on the ``March of the Penguins.''

This bill requires intelligence agencies to use intelligence satellites to monitor environmental issues. Many of my colleagues have been in the field. You know that imagery is so important and so high in demand. This is the wrong direction for their mission accomplishment.

If you want to break the spirits of our intelligence agencies, if you want to destroy their morale, go ahead and give them this assignment. Tell them they should spend their day watching the grass grow, and see how it works. George Tenet referred to these kinds of assignments as ``bugs and bunnies assignments.''

We are making a mockery of the seriousness of climate change and a mockery of the important work our intelligence agencies do. If you liked building the rain forest in Iowa, you are going to love the Department of Environmental Espionage.

Vote against this legislation. The stakes are too high. The people in the field mean too much to us. Their mission is too crucial to have it diverted for a political agenda.

Madam Chairman, I just want to quickly respond to my colleague, who I have the greatest amount of respect for. Climate change is an important issue, and I think the point we are trying to make here is that there are 14 agencies, $7 billion already being spent on it. The time to train an analyst and a case officer to their optimum performance level is between 5 and 7 years. Five and 7 years. That is an incredible investment. And I want them looking for Osama bin Laden, for the next nuclear program that we don't know about around the world. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to get them where they need to be. This is the wrong direction for it.

We have, I am going to read them again, the Army, Navy, Air Force, DARPA, NASA, EPA, NSF, Defense, Treasury, USAID, the Smithsonian, Transportation, Interior, HHS, State, Energy, Commerce and Agriculture all looking at climate change. Don't waste these very precious resources.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

I have the utmost respect for the gentleman. We have had long conversations or at least short interrupted conversations over the past several days and in committee. I thought we had a fairly spirited debate in the Intelligence Committee about this very issue.

The good thing is we agree this thing has exponentially grown, not the direction Congress intended. It was supposed to be a small, efficient organization that was coordinating and not inhibiting agencies from doing their work.

I reluctantly, as we talked earlier, oppose this amendment, because really all it does is say give me another report, and you can grow as much as you want in 2008. This is what the staggering number is here. The number itself is classified, but it is over 37 percent growth from where they are right now to 2008, in headquarters.

Now, they are not catching one spy. They are not recruiting one asset. They are not out analyzing any particular image from the sky. They are getting more in boxes. They are getting more in computers. They are getting more bureaucracies and personnel staff and all of the other things that go along with growing your headquarters. That is all happening.

When you travel around the world, the folks who are out there at the front end of this store, the analysts and the case officers, will tell you, please, enough already, because they took all of those analysts out of that community.

Remember, it takes 5 to 7 years to get somebody to where they are really effective in this community. It's very difficult work.

I would gladly yield.

Reclaiming my time. I don't know if I can say it any better. I hope to work with the gentleman in committee. I wish you would consider this.

One point I think it is very important to make, this does not cut one analyst. They didn't even make all the hires they requested in 2007. Then they came back and asked for a significant increase in 2008, didn't even hire all the people from 2007. So the notion that they put forward that this somehow cuts the analyst doing counterterrorism work is wrong.

It scares me more that this bureaucracy is so hell bent on protecting itself that it would make that claim. That's why I think we need to send this message, work with them to make this right sized, so we provide value added to the people risking their lives around the world.

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

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time I may consume.

I want to thank Mr. Hastings for working with me on this amendment. We have watched this thing for 3 years, and we have watched it pretty closely. We all want it to succeed. There are some really dedicated and committed people really trying to make this thing work.

But one thing I have learned here in watching it in Washington, D.C., and going out to the field, where these case officers, the young ones, the middle-ranged ones and the older ones in the field, you can get a lot of insight about what happens between the difference of between there and back here.

We have seen, I thought, a very poor performance. I have had this conversation with many of my colleagues here about their briefings, about this increase, and what they really performed, and what their mission set was. There are some things that they do and do well and are value-added.

But this exponential growth, at the expense of analysts and officers in the field, I think is the wrong direction. I think it's so important that we make this statement to them that enough is enough.

They brought in, remember, everyone of those analysts came from an agency that's doing targeted work, the counterterrorism center at the CIA. They were doing real work, targeting bad guys, identifying, putting them on lists, trying to get our guys to bring them to justice.

What happened then is they disrupted some of those operations, brought those people in, and started tasking back to the people in the field. That's not value-added; it's just not.

We can live with this if we can work out the kinks. As a matter of fact, Senator McConnell said, he thought the thing was getting a little bit too big. He didn't really influence this budget, 37 percent increase. We must do better

by the people in the field, 5 to 7 years to train a case analyst and an officer.

Madam Chairman, I yield to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Reclaiming my time, I just thank the gentleman for his work and effort on this, and kind of us coming together on this conclusion over the past 3 years watching this process. Again, this is not anti-DNI. We think it serves a valuable purpose, but it is getting too big too fast.

Again, this does not cut one analyst from doing work in this country, not one. They couldn't even fill the slots we have for 2007 before they came back and said we have to get even bigger next year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I just want to clarify again, there is no one to be cut, with all due respect to my chairman. What they are talking about is what they have future planned, which would be pulled from the community as it stands now. It would actually allow the DNI to reprioritize the folks that he has in that shop. And many of my colleagues will remember that the number that the DNI gave was lower than the number that is even in Mr. Hastings' and my amendment. He thinks it is too big.

So there won't be any cuts, there won't be any jeopardizing of security, there won't be any analysts that get home once they are employed and fully engaged. They may go back to doing counterterrorism work, but they will not be sent home.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, I know the hour is late, but this is such an important issue. There are some good things in this bill, and my colleagues have rightly said this is the biggest expenditure we have ever seen in a very long time, as a matter of fact, ever, in our intelligence bill. But bigger isn't always better, because the priorities in the bill are what is important.

The folks who are on the front lines, our analysts, our case officers, our soldiers who are being protected by the feed of information that flows to them, are incredibly important. And make no doubt about it, my friends, this is a huge shift philosophically from where we have been in the past.

Nothing in here, nothing in here fixes the problem that we have today in not being able to listen to certain phone calls that might lead to an attack on the United States of America. Nothing. That lack of urgency should scare us all.

The fact that we cut human intelligence programs in this bill, they will get less money this year, some of them very sensitive, very classified, specifically cut out of this bill, jeopardizes soldiers in the field in not getting the proper assistance and information that they need.

We also take a political bent. There are also some disturbing things, things that we all sometimes don't like about the House that we serve in. Sometimes it was said because we did things that way for a long time, we should continue to do it. Those are the things that we can change tonight. Those are the things that we can at least tell the American people with this motion to recommit we believe in getting that information, we believe in human intelligence. Certainly the 9/11 Commission did. We believe in regular order and the rules, so that when earmarks go into very sensitive bills like this, and we have seen what happens when we don't follow the rules, it can cause trouble.

Think about what we are talking about. Right before Afghanistan, we dropped seven CIA officers in very remote places in a very difficult neighborhood, and on their own they committed to get around with this Northern Alliance that was together, but not really. They had tribal problems. They had cultural problems among themselves. And their duty, these seven CIA officers, was to pull things together. Human intelligence got us where we needed to be.

Many would say it saved thousands and thousands of lives of U.S. soldiers because of their brave actions in the mountains of Afghanistan in very difficult territory because we had human-on-human contact that gave us the information and the operations that we needed to be successful.

And in this bill, in this bill, they take away precious resources for those kind of human collection activities. When we have soldiers in the field, that is a philosophical departure from where we have been in the past.

We can't stand for that. We can't stand for the fact that we may lose our ears on terrorist activities being planned today. And we also can't take wasteful programming in something that is this important.

You know, for a time of war, the priorities of this bill are completely misplaced in critical areas. The motion to recommit would readjust those priorities by increasing human intelligence funding for the Central Intelligence Agency by $23 million. That money would come from an earmark funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center which a formal oversight report of the House Committee said: ``An expensive and duplicative use of scarce Federal drug enforcement resources.'' And the U.S. News & World Report called it a ``boondoggle.''

The motion to recommit would also direct the Department of Justice Inspector General to conduct an audit of the National Drug Intelligence Center to determine if this center was wasteful and duplicative.

For all of the talk about reform, the majority has blocked an audit by a party-line vote in committee with no substantive explanation. My amendment requiring the audit also was blocked by the Rules Committee. It shouldn't be controversial that these funds could be put to far better use in human intelligence. In numerous important respects, this bill fails to provide adequate support to the Intelligence Community's activities on the forefront of its ability to protect our national security.

In a classified annex, the majority cuts human intelligence programs, counter to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; and significantly cuts certain specific initiatives related to American efforts to counter radical jihadists and to support our Nation's objectives in Iraq.

A review of just this center, and why this $23 million is so important, it is going to human collection. A review of the NDIC, U.S. News & World Report in 2005 concluded: ``It is a boondoggle,'' and ``rocked by scandal and subject to persistent criticism that it should never have been created at all.''

You know, sometimes, and God love us all, we get pretty myopic on our districts. This is the time that we need to look outward to the rest of the country. We are United States Members of Congress. What is good for our backyard may not be good for the rest of the country.

There is a Marine right now that is counting on human intelligence to tell us if there is an IED on the road, if al Qaeda is around the corner. If we don't want to stand up for this motion to recommit, we will endorse the boondoggles of the past at the expense of our soldiers in the field. I would urge support of the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I also want to thank Bart Stupak from Michigan for working with us on this resolution.

I am proud to represent Michigan State University in the great State of Michigan. It is truly an extraordinary school with a proud history of world-class academics and championship athletics. Known for its quality in faculty, its research, it is certainly one of the finer universities, a proud tradition in

land grant institutions in this great State who is now headed by President Lou Anna Simon, who has done a tremendous job at the university in so many areas.

But last month we got to witness Michigan State's winning tradition once again, this time on the biggest stage in college hockey.

On April 7, the MSU hockey team won the Division I NCAA National Championship. The Spartans defeated Boston College by a score of 3-1, as we all know, and the winning goal came with only 18.9 seconds left in the game. It's no fun unless you make it close. Well, our Spartans certainly got our heart rates up that particular day.

It was a hard-fought game against a top-ranked opponent, but as many of you know, the Spartans' specialty is winning. They came out on top.

The Spartans scored three goals in the third period to spur a dramatic, comeback-from-behind victory. Justin Abdelkader scored the game-winning goal and was named MVP of the NCAA Frozen Four tournament. Chris Mueller put the game out of reach with an empty-net goal with just 1.2 seconds left on the clock. Goalie Jeff Lerg made 29 saves, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania discussed earlier.

Upon their return to East Lansing, showing the school spirit, certainly the community's support, there were over 4,500 fans turned out for a parade and a rally at Munn Ice Arena on the campus of Michigan State University.

Prior to the championship game, the MSU hockey squad burned through the NCAA Frozen Four tournament. The Spartans defeated Boston University, Notre Dame, University of Maine to reach that championship game.

In the tournament, the Spartans played top-notch defense against the Nation's best teams. They were 17 for 18 on penalty kills. Jeff Lerg made 104 saves and allowed only five goals in the tournament.

Let me tell you a little bit more about this historic championship season. The Spartans won the national championship for the third time in school history, the first since 1986 when current Athletic Director Ron Mason coached the team. Michigan State's Rick Comley, in his fifth year as head coach, won his first national title with Michigan State and the second national title as head coach. The Spartans compiled a 23-13-3 record and won the national championship as a number three seed in a field of 16 tournament.

There are many reasons to be proud of this Spartan team, and there are many reasons Michigan State fans are so proud of their hockey team and their university.

Michigan State remains the all-time winningest program in the history of the Central Collegiate Hockey Association. Former Head Coach Ron Mason has 924 victories, making him the all-time winningest coach in NCAA history. Current Head Coach Rick Comley has 714 wins, ranking fifth of all time.

I am proud to be a Spartan and represent that fine Michigan State University, and on behalf of myself, the entire Michigan delegation, Bart Stupak for his special assistance, I would like to congratulate our head coach, Rick Comley; his hardworking staff and assistants; and the best hockey players on the ice, the Michigan State Spartans; and certainly their fans.

Go Green.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Sarah Harris for her victory in the 2007 ``Poetry Out Loud'' Michigan State Championship.

Besting 8 other contestants from around Michigan to take the State title in March, Ms. Harris earned a trip to the National Finals held this week in Washington, DC. For the competition, each student recited three poems, and four judges graded each recitation based on five categories: Physical Presence and Posture; Voice Projection and Articulation; Appropriateness of Dramatization; Level of Difficulty; Evidence of Understanding; and, Overall Performance. The three poems recited by Ms. Harris were: The Cremation of Sam McGee, by Robert Service; Mrs. Krikorian by Sharon Olds; and, The Weary Blues, by Langston Hughes.

The ``Poetry Out Loud'' program, sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities, builds on the resurgence of poetry as an oral art form. Through this important endeavor, students master public speaking skills, build self-confidence, and learn about their literary heritage. I am proud that the Michigan Humanities Council has been a strong supporter of ``Poetry Out Loud,'' and that Holt High School has been so active in fostering a renewed interest in poetry.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to celebrate Sarah Harris's extraordinary achievement. Her passion, creativity and dedication indeed serve as an example to us all. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Harris for her State Championship and to wish her the best of luck in the National Finals.

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

I first want to thank John Dingell, a friend and colleague and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for working with us on putting together what I think is a great product, and really the first opportunity we are going to have in Michigan, I think the first really good opportunity to say ``no'' to Canadian trash. And for that, sir, I thank you. And Mr. Wynn, sir, thank you as well for working with us and standing tall, which is really an important issue. Michigan gets hit hardest, and your care and concern for those of us in the north is greatly appreciated.

Right now, the current law allows trash to move across international borders and States can do nothing to regulate this waste, as Congress has not given them the authority to do so. Canada has for years taken advantage of this situation by turning Michigan into the dumping ground for Ontario's trash. This bill, the fourth of its kind, really, since 2000, gives States the authority to regulate Canadian waste and directs the EPA to implement the existing U.S.-Canada Trans-Boundary Agreement. More importantly, it gives Michigan the authority to regulate trash coming from Ontario, no matter how the EPA chooses to implement that trans-boundary agreement.

In 2006 alone, over 3.6 million tons of Canadian trash was dumped in our great State of Michigan. As we lose landfill space, shipments of Canadian waste continue to increase every year, and this year was no exception, Madam Speaker.

While my colleagues and I have been trying to pass this law, the problem has only gotten worse. Since 2001, when I introduced the first bill to fight Canadian trash, over 17 million tons of garbage have been driven across the border and dumped into our back yards.

Since our first attempts to fix this problem, annual garbage loads from Canada have tripled. Of all the trash Canada sends to the United States, 90 percent of it ends up in Michigan. Six years ago, just 10 percent of the waste disposed in Michigan landfills came from Canada; today, that has doubled to 20 percent. Over 400 garbage trucks over a single day rumble through our neighborhoods and deposit and unload their waste in Michigan landfills.

Without the ability to regulate this out-of-control surge in Canadian waste, Michigan communities can only sit back and watch the trash pile up. And what have we been getting and why is this a concern? We have had human blood dripping from trash trucks; stopped the whole bridge crossing for almost 6 hours on one occasion as the local police tried to determine the cause of it. It turned out it was hazardous medical waste. Thank God it wasn't a body. But we didn't know, and there is no good way to search those trucks to find out. We had to find out because human blood was dripping from the back of a garbage truck.

We have found drugs in those garbage trucks. We have found, in the dumps that receive Canadian trash, that PCP levels have increased. It is a true and real environmental and security problem, not just for Michigan, but for the United States, that we don't get a handle and say to our good friends to the north, this is an unneighborly thing to do, let's work this out.

When we anticipated years ago in Michigan that we would cite landfills, which is a very difficult thing to do, we had 20 years' worth of capacity; pretty hard thing to do. You go in through neighborhoods, and we cited these landfills. And we did the right thing for the right environmental reasons. And because of Canada, we believe that our

landfill capacity, because we were diligent and were trying to protect our environment in the future, may have been cut in half because of Canada's inability to deal with their own household municipal garbage problem.

The best part of this is that in Canada they actually allow its provinces to restrict intraprovince waste. So if you think about this, Saskatchewan could say ``no'' to Ontario's trash, while Michigan is compelled by law to take it. That is a problem. And again, I argue, it is unneighborly, and we should be able to fix this problem.

It is important to note that this bill would not impact State shipments of trash, commercial waste streams; it is only that household municipal waste, that trash that is at the end of the revenue stream where you dig a big hole and you throw it in, that is the only trash that this bill narrowly focused on. 518 is a balanced, narrow NAFTA- compliant bill that gives Michigan and other States the authority they need to be good stewards of their land.

Ladies and gentlemen, and Madam Speaker, Michigan needs your help. My colleagues and I urge the support of this important bill.

I again want to thank Chairman Dingell and Chairman Wynn for their help and assistance in what really is not only an environmental issue, but a national security issue as well.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished lady from Michigan, the former Secretary of State there, a distinguished Member in this body, Candice Miller.

Madam Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, who has worked tirelessly on this effort in the past and has helped us craft this piece of legislation, Mr. Gillmor of Ohio.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time and would be honored to yield back my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member.

And the gentleman from Minnesota, I compliment you on your efforts here. It is important that we meet America's water needs all across the country.

I do have some reservations, however. My family owns a small construction company, and that is about the worst business you can be in in a State like Michigan where the economy is struggling. And they hire some union employees, not because the law tells them they have to do that but because they happen to find that their union subcontractors are the best ones to complete their job.

But what you have done in this bill is not for a prevailing wage and empowering people to make more money, you have stopped a whole segment of our society from even competing to get these jobs. There are hundreds and hundreds of regs and comments on how you compute Davis- Bacon. If you were going to go back and say, we will rework this thing so the average American understands what it is, we might be with you.

But the problem is, they can't afford consultants and lawyers. They can't hire people full time just to figure out the regulations so that they might be able to compete to fill out the application to compete for the bid. They are small, and there are a lot of small businesses.

What you are saying to the 80 percent of the entrepreneurs across America who are small business owners who are generating 80 percent of the growth in our economy, 80 percent: You don't qualify. We're sorry. Go get yourself a lawyer and a fancy accountant and spend a lot of money you don't have, and maybe you will have an opportunity to get a job if you can figure out the hundreds of pages of regulations and comments to comply with Davis-Bacon.

So it is not that you are going to get more on these projects, and I think your intentions are absolutely right, and I want to be with you because it is the right thing to do. But the problem is, it is not just going to cost more, you are going to get less. So the more money you put in means it is going to cost more, but we will get less pipe in the ground than if we had allowed a free market and the small entrepreneurs, who are creating jobs in America, to even have the chance to compete. Rules and regulations, taxation and litigation never met with prosperity. It has slowed us down, and it has slowed the small guy, the little guy, the people that you claim you want to support, from even competing.

I would hope that we could get over our differences on this particular issue and set it aside. We know that we want money to go to water infrastructure in rural America. Let's let them do that. Let's take this out. Let's let the little guy compete. Let's let that small entrepreneur who is working 7 days a week and doesn't know if they are

going to have enough money to pay the light bill, let alone take a salary this particular month in places like Michigan, let them compete. Let's take this divisive piece out of it. It won't change what you are wanting to do. That is the thing.

If you take this out, small America wins. Let's do that and stand together and be for water infrastructure around the United States.

Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty important debate, and I have to tell you I am a little confused by my friends' resolution. It is a very complex problem.

When you look at the problem in Iraq today, you have really two distinct problems. One is the ethnosectarian violence that is self- sustaining now in Baghdad. It was a precursor to al Qaeda activity to actually create conflict between the Sunnis and the Shias, and unfortunately, it has raised to a level that it is self-sustaining.

And you have an al Qaeda-Sunni insurgency happening west of Baghdad that certainly warrants our attention, and the troops there have called for reinforcements. They said, give us reinforcements, we need them badly. Al Qaeda is settling in to make safe haven here.

And part of the plan or the surge in fact says that we are going to reinforce those soldiers who are fighting al Qaeda, and they have asked to be reinforced.

The simplicity of the resolution concerns me greatly. I am not in favor of sending American troops, the other 16,000, into the streets of Baghdad to intervene in the sectarian violence. I am not.

I am in favor of supporting the soldiers who have asked and should receive reinforcements fighting al Qaeda in the west.

This resolution really makes no difference in that fight. It makes no difference in the complexities and how we win and get our soldiers home. This resolution does not bring one soldier home. This resolution does not make one soldier safer. This resolution does not bring to justice one terrorist. This resolution offers not one alternative.

I think we made some devastating mistakes in Iraq: The extent of our de-Baathification, and what that has meant for us winning the peace, the dismissal wholesale of military units and what that has meant to our ability to sustain peace, the shuttering of nearly 300 state-owned enterprises and what that has done for unemployment and not allowing us to sustain the peace, our failure to focus our national power on solving some of these basic problems.

We, in fact, and this is up to us, have allowed politics to creep onto the field of battle, and that has created some very real problems for us and our soldiers. We have seen, because of that politics that has crept into the battlefield in Iraq and what that has meant, it has created some inefficiencies. I, the other day, have counted up 12 different groups or agencies or Departments that have some ability to provide reconstruction money in Iraq. Twelve. That is a problem.

Some conflicting policies. Our soldiers will tell you that they feel that they are handcuffed. They at least have one hand cuffed behind their back because of the politics that have crept in

that changed the way they are allowed to engage the enemy as they see him and protect themselves. Politics crept onto the battlefield.

The turf battles between the State Department and DOD, I wish they didn't exist. We all know they do. We took a very large, bureaucratic, civilian organization and set it down in the middle of Baghdad and wondered why it has some inefficiencies. But these are things that we can change. We can do that.

And my mother told me that if you are going to tell me what I am doing wrong, you better be prepared to tell me how to do it right.

The resolution before us today says nothing of an alternative. We have soldiers who are getting up every day engaging themselves in the fight for liberty and defense and going after al Qaeda targets in the west and trying to find al Qaeda elements locating and spurring on to self-sustaining ethno sectarian violence. It does nothing to tell them that we, A, support them and, B, will give them all the tools and make the changes that we know we can to make it possible for them to come home to their families soon.

This afternoon I am going to do that. I am introducing a resolution, it is fairly comprehensive, that will allow us to focus our national power without sending 20,000 troops to Iraq. It will help target the unemployment that we know is fueling terrorism in Iraq today. Clear rules of engagement for our troops, calling for the repatriation of the one to two million Iraqis who are middle class Iraqis, their doctors and lawyers and engineers and their teachers who fled Iraq in this turmoil to engage our allies to get them back and invest them in the future of Iraq.

What disturbs me most, Mr. Speaker, about this resolution, is its clear purpose is to divide those of us in this Chamber.

As I said earlier, I don't support the surge in Iraq that targets sectarian violence in Baghdad. I think that must have an Iraqi face for that to be successful, and I think we can provide logistics and command and control and we can provide combat air support and special operation support to make them successful as they move through Iraq. I think we can do that.

But this resolution does nothing to bring Members together to solve this problem. If you win this vote today, and this passes, we will have solved not one problem for one soldier who gets up this morning hoping and praying that he can accomplish his mission and come home to his family, not one. It truly seeks to find the differences of those of us in this Chamber on how we move forward in Iraq. There is nothing constructive in that, nothing constructive in that.

There is a young soldier that I met, I visited him down in Brooks Army Medical Center. He asked that his leg be amputated so that he could have full range of motion so he could pass the physical training test for the United States Army and go back to Iraq. And he was going through all that very painful process of getting it fitted and going through the physical training and trying to rehabilitate himself.

And as I got ready to leave, I said, is there anything that I can do for you as a Member of Congress? And he turned and said yes, sir, there is. Just don't give up on us.

Now, if this soldier can believe in this mission, and he can get up every day and fight through the sweat and the pain and the anguish of a lost limb so that he can get back in the business, if he can roll up his pant leg every day and fit that prosthesis, isn't there a way, and shouldn't we do better and roll up our sleeves to work together to find a solution? We got in this together, we must get out of it together.

We need to stop the division that this resolution brings to this House and start working together. Our soldiers deserve better. America deserves better. The future of this country and safety and security deserve better.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Just so I understand, Mr. Chairman, have you reserved your point of order?

The amendment that is printed in the Record, sir, is another section of the bill. This amendment is for section 3, which we are discussing now.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is going to be an improvement to the bill.

This is a good bill. And what this, my amendment, does is deal with the issue of infrastructure. This bill talks about infrastructure. And we have asked the EPA, in this particular bill, to study what additives we add to make the process better when we are talking about moving alternative fuels through the infrastructure. But that sometimes infers that you are either at the point of origin, the refinery, or the point of sale.

But there are lots of places that we may be able to apply additives in the process of making alternatives fuels viable, and what we are asking with this amendment is very simple and noncontroversial. We are saying, when you are studying what additives to put in, you should also include where is the best place to put those in in the long process.

Our fear here is that we get isolated to only looking at a very small section of where those additives ought to go in this system. And one thing that we know, and we have talked about it here, the gentleman and my friend from Massachusetts made a great argument about the retrofitting gas stations and how important the infrastructure is.

Well, if we don't know where these additives go in the system, we, in fact, may be shooting ourselves in the foot here. All it does is take what is existing in this bill and expand it by saying, don't only look at what, but where, those additives can go in the system to make an improvement in our alternative fuels as we march to the future.

Very simple. I would argue it is certainly germane to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I was hoping for an 11th hour reprieve on this issue. We had sent up the call and the white flag to try to get this worked out. Hopefully, maybe in the few minutes I will take to talk about this, you will be moved to tears and be ready to accept the amendment, my friend.

One of the things that we have talked about today, and this is an important issue, is how we move forward on alternative fuels. This bill is important. It outlines some pretty important steps for us to move forward. But this amendment gives us the opportunity to have a concrete action that we can take that will immediately allow us to impact.

You think about my generation: It was going to the moon. The generation after me was the E-economy. This generation is going to be alternative fuels and how they change the course of our consumption of fuel both in our homes and in our cars; how national security, by getting us away from foreign oil, is changed forever, and not soon enough; how it helps our economy, how it helps our environment. All of that is right now. It is not 10 years, it is not 15 years, it is right now.

We have set up a pretty good system for research and development. We now have great amounts of resources going to get us to alternative fuels. We also have a look at the production of it. How do we produce biomass? How do we produce ethanol? What is the next level of cellulosic ethanol?

Then the big problem is the distribution of it. That is the one thing that we are just having a difficult time getting over. It is the one hurdle for an exponential growth in our ability to move to alternative fuels. Be it hydrogen, be it ethanol, be it biomass, all of those things have infrastructure problems.

The one thing that we know we can do is expand the number of ethanol

pumps. We have to do it. It must happen. But there is a problem. If you are a small, independent gas station owner, you have to take a huge risk, $30,000 to $60,000 to put in an ethanol pump on an economy of scale that isn't there yet. So we have to kick-start it. This is our opportunity to double the number of ethanol pumps available across the country.

I know we are going to get into some wrangling about germaneness, and about this paragraph doesn't jive with that paragraph, and this committee hasn't had a chance to talk about it, but this committee has. This bill passed by voice vote last year.

Voice vote, we all agreed in a bipartisan way. It went through committee. It had its hearing and moved on to the Senate. Unfortunately, that is where we didn't move it forward. But this is our opportunity to get it done and get it done soon.

My friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, talked about the urgency, about how fast we should go forward on this and how important it was that we get away from dependency on foreign oil; and what that means to our national security, our economic security, our environmental security. There are only 34 States where you can even get ethanol at a gas station.

Let us take this bold move now. If we are serious about moving forward, let's just swallow this one and say, this is the right thing to do. We have already had hearings. We have already voted on it in the House. Let's get this thing moving, so we can double the number of ethanol pumps and move forward for the safety and security of the next generation that will change the course of our economy here in the United States.

I ask my friends to reconsider their reservation, and I would urge the support of this amendment. I look forward to working with you on this and other issues in the future.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman. I look forward to working with you on the committee. I know you are a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I think we can all agree this is an important direction and I look forward to working together.

Mr. Chairman, I would move to withdraw my amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of WHMI radio in Howell, Michigan, on the occasion of the station's 50th anniversary celebration scheduled for one week from today, on February 14, 2007.

Serving Livingston County since Valentine's Day, February 14, 1957, WHMI has grown through the past five decades into a modern broadcast station serving the fastest-growing county in Michigan.

Awards for broadcast excellence and community service fill a wall at the station's state-of-the-art facility, exhibiting innumerable testimonies to the commitment of WHMI and its service to its community, listeners, and supporters.

Today, under the ownership of Greg and Marcia Jablonski, WHMI broadcasts a classic rock hits format with local news, sports, traffic, and weather via a signal that covers all of Livingston County and reaching into the outskirts of the Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint and Lansing markets.

When the station was launched in 1957, the Valentine's Day start-up was very fitting as the call letters, WHMI, stand for ``Heart of Michigan.'' The theme was drawn from an advertising campaign of the late 1950s that promoted Livingston County as a good place to live. WHMI has grown with the community and today reflects the pulse of Livingston County life. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring WHMI's 50th anniversary and in recognizing the station's contributions to the community it serves. The station, its owners and its staff are truly deserving of our respect and admiration.

Offered By: Mr. Rogers of Michigan

Amendment No. 1: Redesignate section 6 as section 7 and

insert after section 5 the following:

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express concerns with the College Student Relief Act, which passed the House on January 17, 2007.

As the author, while a Michigan State Senator, of legislation creating the Michigan Education Savings Plan, my commitment to helping families afford college has been a long-standing priority of my public service tenure. In fact, this program has helped thousands of Michigan families save for college expenses as well over 100,000 accounts have been opened since the program's inception.

Unfortunately, for many families, their ability to save cannot keep pace with the rising costs of post-secondary education. For these families, student loans represent an integral piece to the higher education puzzle, which is why we, as policymakers, must ensure that our actions meet the twin goals of reducing the cost of, and increasing access to, a college education,

The College Student Relief Act represents a short-term solution for student loan relief for a very specific group of student borrowers. This legislation reduces the student loan rate on only subsidized Stafford loans. It does not reduce the rates of undergraduate students borrowing from unsubsidized Stafford loans, nor does it provide relief to graduate students. Furthermore, this legislation does not permanently reduce student loan rates but cuts rates over five years, after which point they will go back to a higher interest rate, in effect providing only six months of relief.

Lastly, I believe students must be provided with borrowing choices, and they should be able to borrow from lenders who provide the most affordable option for them and their families. A competitive student loan marketplace is central to lowering the longterm costs associated with higher education

Rest assured, I will continue to work in Congress, must work, to help make college more affordable and attainable for every American family.

Madam Speaker, on the legislative day of January 22, 2007 the House voted on three measures under suspension of the rules. H. Res. 52, paying tribute to Reverend Waitstill Sharp and Martha Sharp, H.R. 390, to require the establishment of a national database in the National Archives to preserve records and H. Res. 29, supporting the goals and ideals of National Mentoring Month 2007.

On rollcall votes Nos. 44, 45 and 46 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, it is a three-legged stool if we are going to get to energy independence. It is alternatives fuels, which there is great promise. There is also the expansion of refineries. We knew that early, and if we were going to have a stable supply and cheaper prices, we needed more refining capability in America. And it was domestic production. You need all three so that we do not send more money to Ahmadinejad and Chavez.

Political theater is what we see here today. A bill that did not go through the committee process gives you this.

I agree, giving $400 million to a CEO of which they had no material stake in a company is wrong, but what is worse is giving more money to the very people who are targeting the United States and seek our destruction.

Do not fool yourself. This is where this money is going. You make it more expensive to refine gasoline in the United States, this bill does it, they will buy it offshore. You make it more expensive to produce energy in the United States, they will buy it offshore.

These will be the recipients of these dollars. Let us take this bill back and go do it the right way. We can come together on renewable energy. Michigan State University is doing great work on cellulosic research, so we can get to that next generation of ethanol that burns efficiently in American-made automobiles. But we cannot do it if we are sending money to the very people that seek our destruction.

Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge that we have a little common sense, we close the curtain to this political theater and we get back to the reality of what our policies will really mean for the future of this country. If you care about your children, stop sending the money to Ahmadinejad and Chavez.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

CBO said this will not save money.

Something interesting happened. You had the chance, my friends on the other side of the aisle, in committee in the negotiation of this bill, had the chance to set prices, what this bill would do. And when you went out to set prices, you said we cannot do it. The private sector cannot do it for any cheaper than $35; so let's protect the American people, and we are going to put an amendment into this bill that sets those premiums at $35.

Let me read just from the amendment that was offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle and, thankfully, didn't pass. It is to set the premium at $35 including, as it says here, for months in the subsequent year, and some legal hyperbole here, and then in the previous year increase by the annual percentage. So every year you were going to increase the prices because the government set the price at $35.

If we had believed that price-setting was the answer in providing prescription drugs to families who needed it, who were making the decisions between food and prescription drugs, we would have increased their cost in my State by 100 percent.

It doesn't work. You are empowering the same bureaucrats who came up with the $500 hammer, and you are asking them to go out and get into America's medicine cabinet. As a matter of fact, the ones that do it now, they are

even telling you that you can't have certain drugs because it is too big for them. There are 4,300 different drugs, 55,000 different pharmacies; and when the Secretary right after 9/11 knew that they had to purchase Cipro, it took them over a month to negotiate the price because government isn't designed to be in the business of negotiating prices. They set prices, and it doesn't work very well.

Why would we take away all of the savings that all of these seniors are enjoying today? And that is what you will do, just by your example.

I would strongly encourage this body to reject price-setting and raising the cost of prescription drugs to our seniors around the country.