Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise on National Health Care Decisions Day in support of health organizations all over the country who are educating the public about what it means to have an advance directive, or a living will.

Mr. Speaker, advance directives allow individuals to maintain control of their health care decisions even at the end of their lives, regardless of the circumstances that they may face at that time. It is crucial for individuals to understand the options that presently exist so that they may convey their end-of-life medical wishes accurately and effectively. Accordingly, I have introduced a resolution, H. Con. Res 323, supporting the goals of the National Health Care Decisions Day, which has garnered broad bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not express what those end-of-life medical decisions should be, rather, it simply encourages Americans to educate themselves about these very difficult issues and to talk about them with their loved ones.

I want to thank the more than 100 Members of Congress who have already joined me in cosponsoring this resolution. And of course I look forward to it being considered on the floor very soon. And I encourage all Americans to set aside time to have what may very well be one of the most important conversations a family can have.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 5719.

As we are all aware, today is April 15, and once again Americans from all

across this land and from all walks of life must fork over their hard- earned income to the IRS. So to ease the burden on the taxpayer, the House Democratic leadership, under a closed rule, no opportunity for amendment, brings up this so-called Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act.

However, Mr. Speaker, anyone who takes a good, hard look at the language in the bill, they might not think today is April 15 but rather April Fools Day. In fact, this legislation should really be entitled the ``Tax Evader Assistance and Simplification Act.''

For example, this legislation will provide assistance to those who just don't feel like paying their taxes by eliminating a successful debt collection program that my friend from Texas just mentioned. Instead of lowering taxes for hardworking Americans of over half a billion dollars, this majority would rather give a tax break to these tax evaders to the tune, Mr. Speaker, of about $600 million.

And, unfortunately, to pay for these tax-evader protections, this bill targets what? Health Savings Accounts and the millions of Americans who are trying to take control of their own health care decisions. This legislation will cost those Americans who use HSAs, as my children do, nearly $500 million. It effectively works to destroy market-based solutions in order to force government-run health care down the throats of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that this bill makes today seem more like April Fools Day. Well, that moniker already belongs to April 1; so perhaps we can just call today ``Thank a Congressional Democrat Day.''

I would say to the American people if they are happy that this Congress today will basically give away $600 million to tax evaders, thank a congressional Democrat.

If they are happy with the fact that this Congress has done nothing to repeal the deplorable death tax, thank a congressional Democrat.

If they are happy with the fact that this Congress has refused time after time to extend the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 when our economy needs it most, thank a congressional Democrat.

If they are happy with the fact this Congress has for 2 straight years passed budgets that included the largest tax increase in United States history, thank a congressional Democrat.

And if they look forward to the prospect of writing an even bigger check to the IRS next year than they did this year, well, you guessed it, they can thank a congressional Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, I again ask all my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to oppose this rule so this bill can be amended to provide real assistance to the American taxpayer. But if this rule passes, I call upon them to oppose the underlying ``Tax Evader Protection and Simplification Act.''

I thank my colleague from Louisiana, my fellow physician, for yielding. It's great to be here with two fine Texans, my classmate Judge Carter and also Mr. Conaway, and talk about this important issue, because this is a very important week.

Representative Conaway and I both serve on the House Armed Services Committee, and my colleagues, Madam Speaker, as you, of course, know, you are a member of the committee as well, that we heard from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker here on the House side. The Foreign Affairs Committee did as well yesterday, the same thing on the Senate side.

It was also just unbelievable the negative approach and attitude that so many members of our committee, this body, the other body, the majority party, had toward them in September, saying, you know, this surge is too little too late, the war is lost, it's a hopeless cause, there's nothing that you can do militarily, and, besides, there are all these benchmarks that the Iraqi Government has not met, and it's a failed state, we need to bring the troops home.

Well, thank God we did not bring the troops home at that time. Here we are, 10 months later, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker returned and reported to the Congress. Almost every, indeed, every measure, every metric that you look at, they presented to us in chart form. Dr. Boustany has one of those charts with him tonight in regard to the decrease in civilian deaths. He may want to talk about that later, but there is no question that in regard to security, tremendous, tremendous progress has been made. We are getting on top of this thing, and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker both said that.

There were questions from Members, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle, on the House Armed Services Committee, to suggest that while there was progress made militarily, there was none, no progress made politically.

These points were addressed, these questions to Ambassador Crocker, about, well, how about all these benchmarks that we asked for back in September?

Well, you know, the fact is the political surge, my colleagues, has been just about as successful as the military surge, and the progress that we have made, and Congressman Conaway talked about that just a little bit earlier in regard to de-Ba'athification, and he explained what is meant by that, and I know my colleagues understand that, to bring these people back in, the Sunnis that didn't have jobs, they had no way of surviving other than maybe getting paid to do bad things to our troops and to their Shia countrymen.

It was important that the Iraqi Government do that. The Iraqi Government scheduled provincial elections, which are now scheduled for October of this year, that the Iraqi Government do something in regard to oil sharing to actually have legislation in place that spells out that just because the oil in the country of Iraq happens to be located in maybe a Shia area or a Kurdish area, that the Sunnis still, as fellow Iraqis, should have a share in that revenue.

Well, de facto, they are doing that. Ambassador Crocker basically told us that of the 18 benchmarks, 12 of them have now been met, and that of the additional 6, there is significant progress on 4.

Anyone that suggests that there is not progress made politically just has to have a willing suspension of disbelief, as someone in the other body quoted, I think, last year and actually said that, too. I wonder what she would say today, based on these statistics, to ignore these metrics, would require the willing suspension of brain power. It is clear as the nose on your face, but yet certain people refuse to believe it.

What distresses me too now is those Members who want us to come home are using a different argument. They are saying not only that we've spent too much money but also making this statement, and if my colleague will bear with me for a couple of more minutes, they are making the statement that our troops are tired, they have been there too long, the equipment is wearing out and that, God forbid, there may be another conflict that's just going to break out somewhere in the world, which does occur, I guess, on average, maybe every 5 years.

They are saying that for that reason, totally ignoring what success we have achieved on the ground, that we really have victory almost in the palm of our hands. It's not there yet, it's fragile. We all admit that. But let's bring them home and prepare them for the next conflict.

Well, my colleagues, they may be, these troops that Judge Carter, Mr. Conaway and Dr. Boustany talked about, these personal anecdotes that they gave tonight, in talking about the enthusiasm, the morale and the patriotism of these troops, if you bring them back home when they are just on the cusp of victory, having left, then, 4,000 of their colleagues dead, men and women, and probably 25,000 severely wounded, they come home without a victory, like Judge Carter says, with a white flag rather than Old Glory, I don't care how much you rest them, I don't care how much you re-equip them, I don't care how much you give them, more manpower or reset them, when you send them to this next contingency, I am going to ask them how hard they are going to fight. What's their morale going to be like then?

I think that's what this is all about. I think that's what the American people need to understand and that's what our colleagues in this body need to understand.

We cannot let public opinion polls and political pressure, because of an upcoming election, drive the decisions that are so important to the safety and security and the well-being of this country. I think it's clear, it was very clear to me. I had this very question written out that I wanted to ask General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

Unfortunately, as my colleagues know, if you are down on the lower row, Madam Speaker knows that, a lot of times they don't get to you before the clock runs out. I did submit this for the Record. I would like to know the answer to that question, I think the answer will be just as exactly as I expect. We can't worry about the next battle, we have got to win this one first.

I wanted to make those points to my colleagues. At this point I will yield back to the gentleman from Louisiana.

If the gentleman would yield just for a second, just to follow up on what Judge Carter said, yes, this rally he was talking about was over on the Senate side in the park. John McCain, of course, was there and got such a round of applause and appreciation for his stance, his service, his patriotism, his service, his suffering during the Vietnam war. I stood on the dais with my fellow Members in a bipartisan way, there were Democrats there as well. I felt real proud.

I looked at these young veterans for freedom, just looking at their faces, one of them in the back had a sign, and the sign said ``General Petraeus, he is General Hooray Us,'' General Hooray Us is a take on what the New York Times did last year when General Petraeus came in anticipation of his testimony, ran that article. Of course, the New York Times didn't run the article, but it printed it. I think MoveOn.org or one of these organizations ran the article, half page, full page that said, ``General Petraeus or General Betray Us,'' a sad point in our history.

God bless these veterans for freedom.

Madam Speaker, this morning I was honored to join with Senator McCain and other Republican and Democratic Members of both the House and Senate to welcome over 400 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan that were here for a rally in support of all those who are risking their lives on the front lines in this global war against terror.

This morning's rally marks the single largest gathering of Iraq and Afghan veterans since the war began. Make no mistake, these heroes were gathering in support of victory, not a politically driven withdrawal, which would ensure defeat.

These veterans are so committed to success in Iraq and Afghanistan that they have formed a nationwide group, called Vets for Freedom, with a mission of educating the American public and Congress about the importance of achieving success in this global war on terror and what the failure to do so would mean for our Nation's security.

Every Member of this body should, this week, meet with these veterans, talk to them, learn of the benefits of their firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the words of the Vets for Freedom, it is time to put ``long-term national security before short- term partisan political gain.''

Again, I thank the Vets for Freedom, as well as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, for their great service to this country.

Madam Speaker, I thank you. And it's indeed an honor to be here tonight to talk with my colleagues about something that's going on in the world today that is of huge import. And no, I'm not talking about who was the victor in the NCAA Final Four Basketball Tournament.

I'm not here to talk to my colleagues about who might be the winner this year of the American Idol contest, as we get closer and closer and that draws the interest of so many of television viewers throughout the country.

What I'm talking about tonight, Madam Speaker, is probably the most important thing that this country has on its plate in a long, long time, and that is the situation in the Middle East and what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and how important that conflict is, not just to this country and its citizens, but the region in the Middle East and, indeed, the entire world, Madam Speaker, as we continue to wage, as we have for the last 5\1/2\ years, this battle, this war against global terrorism. And ground zero, Madam Speaker, make no mistake about it, ground zero is in Iraq.

Today our commander there, of the multinational force Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the United States Ambassador, Ambassador to Iraq, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, are here in Washington, D.C. to testify before both the United States Senate and in this chamber, the United States House of Representatives, to the Armed Services Committee of both the House and the Senate, and to the Foreign Affairs Committee of both bodies. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker spoke to the Senate today in a full, long day of testimony, and they will be speaking tomorrow to the House committees that I just mentioned.

Madam Speaker, along with yourself and many other very fortunate Members of this House of Representatives, I do serve on the Armed Services Committee, and I certainly look forward to hearing from these two great men who have served so well and for so long in a difficult part of the world, and also to have the opportunity to ask some questions, and I'm sure some of them will be tough questions, hard questions for Members of both political bodies, both the majority and the minority.

So, as I say, this opportunity tonight, on behalf of my party, the Republican minority, to take this hour and talk about this and try to explain to my colleagues that this is really, we are at a critical point in this war in the Middle East. And we have an opportunity, as I've felt for a long time, as I felt last September when General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker first came before the committees and explained that the surge that we enacted in January of 2007 is, indeed, working. And what they said last September is that we need to give it a chance.

Indeed, if you made an analogy to a sporting event, you might say that we're in the fourth quarter of a tough game, and at times, indeed, January of 2007 and several months before that, it did appear that we were losing. Members of this body and the other body in leadership positions made some pretty drastic statements, even to the extent of saying the war's lost, it's hopeless, it's a hopeless situation; we need to just pack up and come home.

But General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, last September told us, no, that is not the case because we did change courses. We listened to the recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group, co-chaired by a very prominent Democrat and Republican, and we listened very carefully to their recommendations in regard to what needed to be done. And this surge of about 30,000 additional troops has certainly given us the opportunity to regain control and get the upper hand against these Islamic extremists and thugs that could, and would, and are determined not only to destroy Iraq, but to make that country the base of their support. And, yes, of course I'm talking about al Qaeda.

Anyone who thinks, Madam Speaker, that Iraq is not ground zero now for al Qaeda simply is ignoring the words of Osama bin Laden.

So we are, as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker said, we are at a very critical point. And today, the evidence will show, and during this next 45 to 60 minutes of time that me and some of my colleagues on our side of the aisle will have to discuss this, we are going to present the evidence that we are succeeding. We have not won yet, but we're ahead in the fourth quarter, and this is certainly not the time to pull our team off the field and say, well, you know, they're tired, they're stressed; the ranks are thin. It's cost us too much money. And hey, you know, we may have some conflict break out somewhere else in the world, and we have to be ready for that. Maybe 6 months from now, maybe a year from now, maybe 10 years from now.

So this approach, strategy of giving up something that we have almost won, after sacrificing 4,000 killed in action, and closer to 20,000 of our brave men and women severely wounded, and an untold number, maybe as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians who have also given their lives for the cause, it makes no sense to this Member, Madam Speaker, that you would give up at such a critical, crucial time.

So what we're going to talk about tonight is really four things. I want to concentrate on four things. And as I say, hopefully, a number of my colleagues will be able to finish up their previous engagements and be here with me on the floor, because these Members are members of the Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States House of Representatives. And they, Madam Speaker, know of what they speak.

And what we're going to do is break it down, as I say, into four areas of discussion. The first area would be to talk about where are we today? What difference has a year made? Actually, it's a little more than a year. January of 2007. But it took until October, just this past fall, to get all of the additional troops and their support, logistical support into the theater. And you really couldn't expect a lot of change in the battle until we got the full force of those 30,000 additional troops. And you, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, we all refer to that as the surge. And this was what was recommended by General Petraeus.

And so we're going to talk about it, what a difference a year makes, and talk about some of the statistics about overall violence and progress. And the statistics don't lie. You can't put spin on numbers. Numbers are what they are. And I think the numbers, when we finish this special order hour, Madam Speaker, I think my colleagues will agree that by any standard, any parameter, any metric that I talk about, you'd have to say that the surge that was essentially envisioned, planned by General Petraeus, is, indeed, working, maybe even far better than he expected.

And the second thing that I'll talk about is, what would victory look like? You know, we're on track. We're not there yet. I think it would be presumptuous, maybe even naive of me to say that we have victory in our grasp, or to suggest that the mission is over, we won. No, we're not there yet.

And I think the violence that broke out recently in Basra, the second largest city in Iraq, after Baghdad, the port city where every drop of oil that's taken out of the ground, those 2\1/2\ to 3 million barrels a day from the reserves in the country of Iraq, they flow out of that port at Basra. And there's been a lot of violence there. And, you know, that's some disappointing news after we have had a string of several months of good news and great statistics.

But we know from that little wake-up call that there's still a lot of work to be done. Unfortunately, as has been the case in so many conflicts throughout the course of the history of our country, we have had to take the lead so many times. And we have had strong allies, certainly, the Brits have been a great ally of ours throughout history, and continue to be. But the fact is that they're citizens are, they're not as supportive, maybe, from time to time, as we would like for them to be.

And it's very difficult for their parliament to keep troops as part of our multinational force. There are some in Basra, but something like a thousand British troops were removed from that

critical area, which they have had responsibility for since day one of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A lot of those troops were brought home for political reasons in September of 2007, and it weakened our situation in Basra. We are paying the price today, I think, because of that, but we will talk about these statistics, and we will certainly talk about what victory would look like.

The third point that I am going to ask my colleagues to discuss, and I will discuss as well, is the fact that despite these overwhelming statistics and the progress that we've made, there are Members in this body, in this town, the media, voices, that say and continue to say, it is not worth it. It is not worth it. It is not worth the lives that we have sacrificed. It is not worth the money that we've spent. Even achieving victory is not worth it. We need to bring the troops home and spend that money on social welfare programs, on health care for everybody, and maybe a $5,000 tax rebate for every man, woman, and child in the country. There are other things that we could do to spend that $10 billion a month that this war is costing us. Now, I want to talk about that, and we will get into it.

And then lastly, and maybe most important tonight, we will talk about the consequences of failure, the consequences of withdrawal, which I am absolutely convinced, if done prematurely, will lead, inevitably, to failure.

So we will conclude by talking about the consequences of that. And I think, as my colleagues listen, it will be quite sobering to them as they think in their mind and understand, and this is an intelligent body of 435 great Americans, of people who have served this country well and representing their districts well, but sometimes we need a wake-up call. Sometimes we really, Mr. Speaker, need a wake-up call. And that's why we do these Special Orders on both sides of the aisle.

But tonight, I don't think there really is anything more important to talk about than the situation in the Middle East, and I'm proud to have this opportunity, and it's a great honor and a privilege.

I see my colleague from Tennessee, one of my classmates who joined with me in the 110th Congress. We were both elected in 2002. We both had served, me in the State of Georgia, she in the State of Tennessee, in the General Assembly; and we are part of a proud group of, I think there were 53 freshman back in 2003 as we got here. And we all, I'm sure, felt like we had the answers to all problems and that we were going to solve all of the country's problems and the world's problems. And I can tell you that we haven't, but we haven't given up, and we will continue to work hard.

So it's an honor to be joined now by the gentlewoman from Tennessee, my good friend and outstanding Member, Marsha Blackburn.

The gentlewoman remembers, I think we all remember, hopefully, that last year the Congress asked for the Iraqi government to meet certain benchmarks. And this is exactly what Representative Blackburn is talking about now in regard to certain laws that their parliament would need to pass. It was sort of like a, you know, we'll only continue to help you if you promise by a date certain that you will have provincial elections, that you will pass a de-Ba'athification law, which essentially meant that those Sunnis, those brave soldiers that we are calling now and referring to as sons of Iraq, and as I say, mostly Sunnis, that they would have an opportunity to be included, maybe to be officially a part of the Iraqi security force.

So the government had to get over the fact that there was this rivalry, if you will, between the Shias in the majority and the Sunnis in the minority and the Sunnis led by the brutal dictator. Saddam Hussein had suppressed, oppressed, murdered so many of the Shias for so many years of his reign of terror that it's difficult to all of a sudden reach out an olive branch, but that's what we asked them to do in regard to de-Ba'athification, and I think it's important. And also asking them to share the oil revenue with all parts of the country, not just where the oil is found in the oil-rich Kurdish region but also in the west where there's very little oil and in the south as you have sharing.

So that's what the gentlewoman is talking about, and I yield back to her.

I just wanted to say that, and I'll make this one last point before I yield back, if the gentlewoman will bear with me just a second. It was said that those benchmarks needed to be met before we would provide additional troops and security and help stabilize things on the ground. But you couldn't have an effective parliament, an effective government until the people on the ground, in the towns, in the villages felt that their new government that they voted for could protect them, that had the ability, had the military strength, had the training that they felt secure and that they could go forward with this government. So the provision of security on the ground was first and foremost, and that's what the surge was all about.

I yield back to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

Well, again, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee. And I would like to reemphasize the statistics that she was talking about that we said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, of this hour that we're going to talk about what a difference that a year makes and present those statistics, how particularly violence has decreased. And Representative Blackburn has already talked about that.

But I would ask my colleagues to reference this first slide in regard to its title. This is a little difficult to see in the back of the Chamber, but ``Civilian Deaths.'' And it is amazing, if you look at this top line going back to January of 2006 and then coming forward almost to present day, March of 2008, and you see that about the time of the surge, that peaked the civilian deaths. We're talking about on an almost monthly basis, 4,000 civilian deaths. I think if you follow the line down, that would be about January or February of 2007. And in March of 2008, at the far side of the chart, you're looking at a number just slightly over 600. So to go from almost 4,000 deaths to 600. And I have some additional charts to basically show the same thing, again, the statistics that we promised to present at the outset of the hour, to show you what a difference a year makes.

And this slide, my colleagues, says ``High Profile Attacks,'' basically explosions. And the blue line is the total. The next, I guess you would call that the brown graph, is car bombs. The red is suicide car bombs. And then on the bottom is suicide deaths. But this is a total. And that's where the rubber meets the road in these statistics.

And again, about a year ago, you were talking about attacks occurring in the range of 125 a day. And until this recent outbreak in Basra, they were down to about 40 a day. So, again, as I said at the outset, by any measure, by any parameter, any metric you want to take, the success of the surge is obvious.

I will be glad to yield. I will make one further point, and then I will yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

These success stories you don't see on the nightly news. I think it was Ann Murray that sang a very famous hit a number of years ago, and I think the title of that was ``A Little Good News Today.'' You don't hear about good news because, by definition, it's not news. It's only mayhem and violence and killings and rapes and people putting their children in the trunk of a car and leaving them there for a day as a disciplinary action for some minor infraction. These are the kind of things that are on the front pages of our newspapers and on the 24-hour news service. They only talk about it when there's violence. Unfortunately, there's not much credit given to a little good news, in fact, a lot of good news.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

And I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for those very intelligent remarks and understanding of what is going on. She has added so much to this hour.

We're getting into the final third of our time. And I'm very pleased that one of my colleagues, a freshman, it's hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, indeed, that he is a freshman because his wisdom is far beyond that. He serves with me on the Armed Services Committee. He will be there tomorrow when General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testify to us, to the House Armed Services Committee.

At this point, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado, Representative Doug Lamborn.

Well, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for being with us. And I hope that if time permits, he can remain with us for some of the additional time. I would be happy to yield to him if you'll just let me know. But, again, he is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and indeed, he knows of what he speaks.

Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, the testimony today that went on with the Senate Armed Services Committee was very telling. We are all busy on this side of the Capitol with committee meetings and other responsibilities, so you don't have the time to sit there glued to the television set and watch every single member ask questions of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. But I was able, on occasion, to hear some of the dialogue and the exchange. And I want to share just a little bit of that, Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues at this time. And this poster, this slide that I have, you can reference what I'm talking about.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the senior Senator from the great State of South Carolina where I spent most of my youth, I live and represent Georgia proudly now, but Senator Graham, formerly a Member of this body, the House of Representatives, and now serving so well in the United States Senate, asked this question of General Petraeus: ``Is it fair to say that when Muslims will stand by us and fight against bin Laden, his agents and sympathizers, that we're safer? Is it fair to say that?''

And General Petraeus's response: ``Absolutely.'' It only took one word, my colleagues, ``absolutely,'' we are safer.

And Ambassador Crocker responded this morning in a similar manner, and let me give his quote: ``In the little over a year that I have been in Iraq, we have seen a significant degradation of al Qaeda's presence and its abilities. Al Qaeda is our mortal and strategic enemy. So to the extent that al Qaeda's capacities have been lessened in Iraq, and they have been significantly lessened, I do believe that makes America safer.'' And this is the direct quote from Ambassador Crocker's testimony this morning before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

We will get into now the third point that I said, Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the hour that I wanted to emphasize, and that's the question of is it worth it? Despite the progress that we have talked about tonight that General Petraeus told the Senate this morning, there are those who would ignore that progress and still as they did last September. Maybe it was a more credible argument then. Of course, they were making it before the surge had even gotten there, not really giving it much of a chance. But today to argue for immediate withdrawal and to give up, to snatch defeat literally from the jaws of victory, that's basically what they're saying: It's not worth it. It's not worth it. It's time to quit. And this is what General Petraeus said this morning, another quote, and I share it with my colleagues:

``I do believe it's worth it. I took on the task,'' and just like General Petraeus he would say this, ``the privilege of command of Multi-National Force Iraq because I do believe that it's worth it and I do believe the interests there are of enormous importance, again, to our country, not just the people of Iraq and the people of that region, and the world.'' That's a quote taken from General Petraeus's testimony this morning.

I am pleased at this time, Mr. Speaker, to yield to another one of my classmates, the gentleman from Iowa, Representative Steve King. Representative King is not only on the Armed Services Committee, but I do believe he's on the Committee on Foreign Affairs. And he is extremely knowledgeable about foreign affairs, about national defense, about so many critical issues. So it's indeed a pleasure to welcome this evening another of my classmates, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, Representative King.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I will yield right back to the gentleman, but I think his point is just so well taken.

This morning, I started the day at 8 o'clock in the morning with a rally in the park on the Senate side, and it was organized by a group called Veterans For Freedom, Vets For Freedom. And 400 of them, 400, were there to give us that very message that Representative King is talking about, that it is worth it, it is worth it, and to beg us, literally to beg us. And I am sure, my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, you will be hearing from them. We will all be hearing from them. I did today. The members from Georgia that are part of the Veterans For Freedom are here, and they're going to make sure that we hear that message loud and clear.

And I yield back to my friend.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa so much for being with us.

As we rapidly approach the conclusion of this hour, I wanted to make a few other points. The gentleman from Iowa spoke of it when he said we are not there for their oil. We are not there for their land. We're not there for anything except to try to bring a democracy to the Middle East. And you think about the history of this country in other battles that we have been in, in World War I in Belleau Wood, in World War II on the beaches of Normandy, or in the Argonne Forest, in the Korean war, in the rice paddies of Vietnam or the sands of Iwo Jima, whom were we fighting for, and what did we ask for in return? We were fighting for other people as much as we were fighting for ourselves, and the only thing that this country asked for in return was a little

bit of dirt to bury our dead. We don't bury our fallen soldiers anymore on foreign soil, but that's really all we ever asked for.

The 4,000 that we have lost in this battle, how can we possibly turn our back on them? How can we turn our back on the Veterans For Freedom that I talked about that we met this morning?

And, Mr. Speaker, I have sufficient time, and I hope you will allow me to read these 25 names from my district, the 11th of Georgia, who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in this conflict to bring a little bit of democracy to the Middle East. And let me read quickly, Mr. Speaker:

Sergeant Michael Hardegree from Villa Rica; Lance Corporal Samuel Large, Jr., also from Villa Rica; Specialist Joshua Dingler from Hiram, Georgia; Sergeant Paul Saylor from Bremen; Captain Hayes Clayton from Marietta, my home; Private First Class Jesus Fonseca, Marietta; Lance Corporal Stephenen Johnson, Marietta; Airman First Class Antoine Holt, Georgia; Sergeant Brian Ardron, Acworth; Private First Class Marquis Whitaker from Columbus; Staff Sergeant John McGee, Columbus; Sergeant First Class David Salie from Columbus; Corporal Tyler Dickens, Columbus.

Staff Sergeant Rickey Scott, Columbus, Georgia; Corporal John Tanner, Columbus, Georgia; Sergeant Thomas Strickland, Douglasville, Georgia; Spec. Marvin Camposiles, Austell; Spec. Benjamin Bartlett, Jr., Manchester, Georgia; Lance Corporal Juan Lopez, Whitfield; Private John M. Henderson, Jr., from Columbus; First Lieutenant Michael Fasnacht, from Columbus; Lance Corporal Kristopher C. Warren, from Resaca; Specialist Justin Johnson, from Rome, Georgia; First Lieutenant Tyler Brown, president of the student body at Georgia Tech, died in Iraq, from Atlanta, Georgia; Jack Hensley, a civilian contractor from Marietta, Georgia was beheaded by the brutality known as al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, as I conclude my time, again, I thank you for allowing me to read those names.

And my colleagues, I hope that some of those families are listening because I pledge to you we will not turn our back on them. They have paid the ultimate sacrifice. You are continuing to pay the sacrifice, but God bless you for the support of this commander in chief and with your patience and our determination here in Congress, we will give victory a chance, and we will achieve victory.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 9, 2008, at 10 a.m.

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

H.R. 4847, the U.S. Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2008 reauthorizes USFA's activities in training, fire education and awareness, data collection, research and standards development and promotion. This legislation also authorizes $291 million in Federal funds for fiscal years 2009

through 2012 for the USFA. This authorization level, Mr. Chairman, is consistent with previously authorized levels and it only includes a very modest growth in funding that is capped at 3 percent in any of the fiscal years for the bill.

Mr. Chairman, as the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation, I am pleased to have worked with my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Mitchell, over these past few months to bring this bill, H.R. 4847, to the House floor today.

I am also pleased that this bill has gone through the regular order process. That is a refreshing phrase, Mr. Chairman, but I am certainly pleased that it went through regular order. In fact, in October, the Science Committee's Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, of which I am the ranking member, we held a hearing on reauthorizing USFA, and H.R. 4847 was unanimously reported out of our subcommittee earlier this year.

On February 27 of this year, the full committee, the full Science Committee, reported the bill after accepting both Republican and Democratic amendments that I think have improved the bill.

The mission of USFA is to limit economic and life loss ``due to fire and related emergencies, through leadership, advocacy, coordination and support.''

This organization provides vital assistance in the areas of training, fire education and awareness, and it awards grants to a number of our local fire departments across this country. We all have them in every district of all 435 Members. These activities have made a substantial impact over the last 30 years.

Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that because of the work of the USFA, smoke alarms are now standard issue in residences across the country. Over a million firefighters have received advanced training, and firefighter equipment and safety continually improves.

USFA should be proud of its record of achievement. However, it is also clear that certainly there are still improvements that can be made. In the last 10 years, deaths related to fires have decreased by approximately 25 percent, from nearly 5,000 in 1996 to 3,675 in 2006. Although that decrease in fire-related deaths is commendable, the United States still has one of the highest death rates from fires in the industrialized world.

Additionally, despite decreases in the numbers of fires, direct damage costs are increasing and have surpassed $10 billion per year. The number of fires have gone down, but the damage from them has gone up to $10 billion per year. In an average year, Mr. Chairman, fires caused as much damage in the United States as have hurricanes. The reauthorization of USFA will allow the agency to continue to improve our preparedness and to reduce our vulnerability to fires.

Unfortunately, last year we saw wildfires that literally ravaged southern California, and we need to develop a more cohesive way of combating these fires. I am happy to see that this legislation specifically addresses the issue of fighting fires in what we refer to as an urban-wildland interface by implementing methods to better respond and prepare for fires that move from wildlands to suburban and indeed urban areas.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased that this legislation now includes an amendment that I offered at full committee. It will allow the USFA administrator to perform studies related to the management of emergency medical services at the scene of a fire. Our brave firefighters, men and women, are called upon to extract victims from car crashes, building fires or collapses, and other emergencies, so it is critical that patients receive consistent care under medical direction.

While I do not expect USFA to pursue studies into the medical care EMS patients should receive, I believe my amendment, which was accepted by the full Science Committee, will give the administrator the authority to conduct studies into training, system design, on-scene patient management while making sure to work with appropriate Federal agencies and existing medical services in these local communities.

Mr. Chairman, the current bill is an important and well-crafted step forward for the USFA, and it represents months of diligent work by both the majority and the minority members and staff of the Science Committee. I want to make sure to commend the great staff of both the minority and the majority.

This legislation has been a bipartisan accomplishment of our committee. That is pretty much standard practice in the Science Committee, I am proud to say, Mr. Chairman. And it is being supported not only unanimously by the committee, but by a number of fire related advocacy groups, including the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Arson Investigators, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Firefighters, the International Fire Service Training Association, the National Fire Protection Association, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and the National North American Fire Training Directors.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on, but my staff didn't list any more.

I certainly want to say, Mr. Chairman, this is an outstanding bill and I urge all my colleagues to support it, H.R. 4847, because this bill will enable the USFA to continue its record of achievement, as well as prepare firefighters for the challenges that they will undoubtedly face in the future.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on both sides?

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield to the ranking member of the full committee, the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). I yield to him as much time as he might consume.

Mr. Chairman, if I might ask my good friend from Arizona how much time, first of all, does he have left, and does he have additional speakers.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time. But if the gentleman needs some time from our side, we will be glad to yield it to him.

Mr. Chairman, I will yield to myself such time as I might consume.

I was recently in Iraq. I've been a number of times, of course, to Iraq, and Afghanistan. And also just recently, I saw a news special back home highlighting one of our great heroes from the Middle East who was burned severely. His injuries, I think, were the result of an improvised explosive device, and he was an occupant of one of the up- armored HUMVEES or the new MRAP vehicles. I think, indeed, it was an up-armored HUMVEE.

And while he was not injured by shrapnel or a projectile, there was a fire, and there was a significant fire. And of course, as he was pulled from the burning vehicle, he sustained severe, severe injuries to his person from the fire. And he described how he just, he knew what to do. He rolled, he tried everything in his power. But of course, thanks to what happened to him at Landstuhl Medical Center in Germany, and then eventually at Walter Reed and Bethesda, he's alive and well and has a family and children. And this little news clip featured him playing with his kids. But you could certainly see the ravages that that fire inflicted upon his body, and the scarring of course. What a brave--I wish I could remember his name, Mr. Chairman, because it was, talk about a profile in courage.

But it just made me think about, as we've been discussing here today, and you talk about what these firefighters do and how important they are. And actually, as we know, 40 percent of the workload in Operation Iraqi and Enduring Freedom has been carried by our Guard and Reserve, many of whom are firefighters who, you know, they've been trained. And thank God for that. And I'm very hopeful. I want to look into this further. I'm sure that our military, our regular Army and Marine Corps, they're all well-trained in that. But that just goes to show you how important it is, not just to save a life, but try to bring that life back and so they can rejoin their family and friends in society, go back to their job.

One of the statistics that I think both Mr. Mitchell and I mentioned in regard to the fact that the latest year that we had numbers, there was still something like 37, 3,800 people that lose their lives every year in fires in this country.

Well, you know what? That's about the number, we're at 4,000 now, that have lost their lives in this 4\1/2\, 5-year war. And of course there were practically 3,000 lives lost, many of them from fire, a lot of them firefighters themselves, on 9/11. So it just brings home the message that fire is an awful thing. It is an awful thing. It might not kill you immediately, like one of these high powered projectiles, but it can certainly destroy one's life.

And so what we're talking about here today is so important, and that's why this bill is so important.

I just wanted to make those remarks, Mr. Chairman.

I, at this time, don't have additional speakers waiting for time, but I would like to reserve the balance of my time. And I still make the offer to yield to the gentleman from Arizona if he needs some more minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve.

How much time do we have, Mr. Chairman?

I would be happy, Mr. Chairman, if the Chair would allow, to yield up to 5 minutes for the gentleman from Arizona to close. But I want to make my closing remarks, of course, before that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To close on my side, again, let me just simply say as I did before, it has been a great pleasure to work with Mr. Mitchell on this bill. It has been an even greater pleasure to meet with the many firefighters and fire chiefs who I have consulted with over the past few months: our own fire chiefs in my county and city, Cobb County, Georgia; Marietta City, Georgia; Chief Jackie Gibbs, Chief Becky Dillenger. I see them literally every week in the district and the great work that they do, and it makes me awfully proud to be up here representing not only them but the other eight counties in my district. They know that we are fighting to help them protect us, and that's a comforting feeling.

H.R. 4847 is a very good bill. And this is the least that we, in this body, can do to support our Nation's fire services. And I want to again say I hope that we will have as many Members that are present today, close to 430, I hope, voting ``yes'' for 4847 to support this bill.

At this time, I am prepared to yield as much time as the gentleman from Arizona needs for the purpose of his closing.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time under the rule but I am in support of the gentleman's amendment, not in opposition to it.

Mr. Chairman, the men and women of our Nation's fire services are among the very first responders to an extraordinary wide range of accidents, injuries, and disasters. And the gentleman from New Jersey, he knows as well as anybody in this body. He was right there. His district's right there, very close to the scene of 9/11. And I think that his amendment is very, very appropriate because this was a fire caused by a terrorist attack. Unlike the Murrah Building attack at Oklahoma City, which was an incidence of domestic violence by our own, if you will, homegrown terrorists, this situation that occurred on 9/11 is the reason why I'm sure the gentleman from New Jersey has brought forth this good amendment. And he is so right to point out that firefighters will also be the first to the scene when many of these catastrophes happen.

Hopefully, it won't occur in this country again. We've been blessed. I think there has been a lot of hard work on the part of this Congress and this administration to protect our country on our soil from another terrorist attack. Thank God so far it hasn't happened. But that doesn't mean you don't

train for and prepare for it. And those firefighters that went to work that day, they were well trained, but I'm sure they weren't expecting a terrorist attack. And in such an event like that, their first job, of course, always is to heroically save lives. But fire services will also act to minimize the damage and property loss that a terrorist strike or ensuing events may cause. I mean, as the amendment addresses, there may be biological weapons of mass destruction, and there could have been, right behind the two planes, maybe another plane with a terrorist coming into the city in parachutes with nuclear or biological weapons, a sarin gas attack. God knows what could have happened in the subways of New York City. So the United States Fire Administration works hand- in-glove with other components of the Department of Homeland Security, and Chairman Thompson is here on the floor right now, to ensure that our Nation's fire services have access to the best training and resources available.

So I'm proud of the U.S. Fire Administration's work to date to improve our resiliency and our preparedness, yes, for terrorist events, natural disasters, and, of course, the daily accidents and fires that occur in communities across the country.

Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support the gentleman's amendment. I urge all my colleagues and expect all my colleagues to support his amendment.

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

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

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and the generosity of his time.

Mr. Chairman, in this decade, wildland fires have consumed 50 million acres in this country. While the term ``wildland fires'' brings to mind uninhabited areas in our Nation's parks, forests, and rural areas, wildland fires have done tremendous damage to urban and suburban development as well. I think that was the reason for the colloquy between Mr. Wu from Oregon and Mr. Sali from Idaho.

Last fall, western States were hit particularly hard by wildland fires that encroached into developed areas and destroyed homes, businesses, and livelihoods. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho addresses that concern. The amendment allows the Administrator of the USFA to distribute information on the importance of clearing in these areas biomass materials from Federal lands, not out in the interior of a National Park. That was a point that was made in the colloquy.

The amendment requires USFA to work in consultation, of course, with other Federal agencies to ensure that USFA provides the best possible recommendations. Removing hazardous fuels, biomass materials, from Federal forests and lands will help to prevent, and more importantly, to limit these forest fires as they begin to encroach on urban areas. So if you leave these materials susceptible to forest fires, the consequences, as Mr. Sali pointed out, can be disastrous.

So, Mr. Chairman, I support wholeheartedly his amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition. However, we are very supportive of the gentleman's amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, millions of United States houses today contain smoke alarms. They have been credited with saving thousands of lives. Yet, smoke alarms can only warn the occupants of a fire. They cannot contain or extinguish a fire. Fire sprinkler systems provide the means to limit fire growth and therefore save lives and property. We already mentioned $10 billion a year, I think, in property damage, 3,600 lives lost every year.

Studies by the USFA have shown that the installation of residential fire sprinkler systems could save thousands of lives and millions of dollars in property taxes. Bottom line. So together with their Federal partners, USFA has reported a potential 82 percent reduction in fire deaths if fire sprinklers, along with smoke alarms, were installed in all residential dwellings. With the cost of a home sprinkler system in new construction being estimated as low as $1.50 a square foot, or as low as 1 percent of the total cost of the house, and of course, many insurance companies offering discounts up to 15 percent on houses that contain sprinkler systems, it is clear that the benefits in lives and property saved far outweigh the costs.

The amendment from the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) supports the efforts of the U.S. Fire Administration to improve the awareness of the effectiveness and availability of residential sprinkler systems.

Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support the gentleman's amendment, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being labeled the skunk at the annual fragrance picnic, I do rise today in opposition to this structured rule.

I know compromises have been made to improve the underlying legislation, but I think there is plenty of room for additional improvement. Just because we have a good program, to increase the spending from $15 billion to $50 billion, I wonder if there is justification for that.

But here we are again, Mr. Speaker, considering a rule that restricts debate on another Republican-created program for which the Democratic majority is now proposing a massive expansion.

We already have more than our share of entitlement programs right here in the United States. And to me, it now appears the majority is on the verge of using taxpayer dollars to create a global entitlement program. Remember, Mr. Speaker, PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, was created back in 2003 to provide emergency relief for AIDS.

I will certainly say as a physician, that of course I am encouraged by the increased desire in the bill to also help fight against tuberculosis and malaria. However, Mr. Speaker, we should not devise a plan to treat these diseases without defining how to actually buy sufficient medications to provide the necessary care. The majority said that a treatment floor was not included in this bill as it was in the original legislation because the cost of medications have decreased. That may be true, yet while it has more than tripled the price tag for the PEPFAR expansion as I said in this bill, it has not tripled the number of people that it plans to reach with medication. So if the cost of medications have gone down, I think they have and the majority states they have, shouldn't the massive increase in the cost of this program be matched by a proportionate increase in the people that we target through the program?

Mr. Speaker, I was at the Rules Committee yesterday. I offered an amendment to just simply say keep that floor of 55 percent of the money going to treat the patient. The Rules Committee, unfortunately, did not make that in order.

Since the majority is not allowing adequate input on this legislation, particularly from the minority, I would urge my fellow Members to vote against this rule, give us a chance to go back and make some of the needed changes in an otherwise good bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Georgia School for the Deaf's football team on winning the 2007 National Eight- Man Deaf Prep Football Championship. It's located in the heart of Cave Spring, Georgia, Floyd County, in my 11th District. The school has now won three national football titles since it was established in 1846, almost 160 years ago. This year's team finished the season with an outstanding 7 and 1 record, and they defeated schools from six other States.

Madam Speaker, the Tigers exhibited dedication, teamwork, and perseverance all season long, and it certainly paid off. I want to congratulate their Athletic Director and Head Football Coach, Erik Whitworth; his Assistant Coaches, Sidney Sharp, David Conti, Eugene Neal, B.B. Chubb, and Shawn Self, as well as the entire Tiger football team on a great season. Four of the team members, Patrick Bryant, Andy Sugg, Timothy Simmons, and Andrew Henderson were all selected as members of the All American Deaf Football Team.

Madam Speaker, all of these athletes have brought much pride to Georgia, to the School for the Deaf, and the entire State, and I ask you to join me in celebrating their accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We have heard, particularly from our side of the aisle, the objection to this bill, H.R. 1424, in regard to procedure and in regard to pay- fors, which basically I agree with. The fact is that this is the 50th time that the Democratic majority has brought forth a bill, an important bill, with a closed rule and no opportunity for our side. In the case of myself as a physician member, I think I had some good thoughts about this bill. In fact, I was proud to support the extension of the original Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. I thought that was a good thing. But now my objection to the rule and the underlying bill, Mr. Speaker, is mainly about policy. I think they have taken this bill and adulterated it to an extent that it is unbelievable that the gentlelady from Florida in her opening remarks said that this is a business-friendly piece of legislation.

Now if we were talking about covering things like bipolar disorder, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress syndrome, certainly this is very important that we have mental health parity. But as one of the previous speakers on our side of the aisle said, what you have done in expanding this to cover things on a mandated basis to our employees, diseases in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses, jet lag fatigue, caffeine intoxication, sibling rivalry, substance induced sexual dysfunction, transvestite fetishism, can you imagine any employer being willing to cover things like that?

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You had a good bill. I was proud to support it, and I would proudly support it today, but to expand it to the point where no employer will offer mental health coverage, that means so many of these people, families with adult children, adult dependent children, who are suffering from some of these conditions that we know of that I mentioned, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, they desperately need help, and they need health parity. I am in favor of that and I would support it. That is why I am supportive of the Senate version.

But I stand here, and I ask all of my colleagues to look at this and read it and understand why hardly any employer would accept this and provide health coverage when it provides all of these things that are totally unnecessary.

With that, I ask my colleagues to defeat this rule and this underlying legislation. Let's take it back to the drawing board and do probably what Paul Wellstone intended originally, and my friend Patrick Kennedy as well. We have ruined an otherwise good bill.

Well, I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank all of my colleagues for bringing this important issue to the floor tonight to make sure that each and every Member on both sides of the aisle has a good understanding of this issue. And anybody who might be listening or tuned in, but mainly for our colleagues here to understand.

The gentlewoman from New Mexico clearly understands the issue. The gentleman from Texas, having worked in the Justice Department, clearly understands the issue. Our colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) who was here last week with us, I know that he clearly understands.

But it can be confusing. And you know, you listen to this, and I think sometimes eyes glass over pretty quickly when you get into the weeds of it.

But I think the bottom line is what my colleagues have already said. This law originally passed for the reasons Representative Wilson outlined back in the late 1970s. And it was very much based on the technology of the time.

And here we are in 2008, and I don't even have a hard line at my apartment here in Washington. We have a cell phone. And we have a cell phone that has a yearly contract. But, of course, the bad guys, what they do, in regard to cell phone technology, is they buy these throwaway cell phones and these burn cards and it's very difficult to track them.

So in the modernization of FISA in the Protect America Act, and indeed in the PATRIOT Act, we tried to bring that law into the 21st century. And I'll tell you this; I trust the three Michaels on this. I trust the Attorney General, Michael Mukasey; I trust Michael McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. I trust Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA. And I think they would tell us what they are telling us no matter who was in the White House, no matter who the Commander in Chief was. This is not political. They're basically saying to the Congress, we need these tools. We need these new tools. We need to grant immunity to the telecommunications companies so they can provide phone records to us, so that our intelligence experts can look at this data, if you want to call it data mining. I don't know exactly how it's done. But you have to have that ability.

And indeed, the telecommunications companies in this country are required by Federal law under the penalty of both civil and criminal if they don't provide this data. So they're darned if they do and they're darned if they don't. And the Democrats seem to want to insist that this liability persist. I don't know. Maybe it's a sop to the trial lawyers. But it's absolutely essential that we pass this bill.

And as my colleagues pointed out, here we are 18 days since the FISA law expired. I heard Mr. Reyes say on television this weekend on one of the Sunday morning TV shows, well, you know, we've talked to the telecommunications companies. He, of course, I'm referring to the gentleman from Texas, who is the chairman of the Select House Committee on Intelligence basically saying it's time, now that we understand, he understands the need that let's go ahead and pass this law.

And here we are this week and what happens? You know, this is the 18th day. It just goes on and on and on.

So clearly, I think when you strike right to the bottom line, it's exactly what my colleagues have said. You don't have to understand it any more than that. We need this renewal. We need this modern technology of this law to continue to protect our citizens.

I'm honored to be here with my colleagues and to share my thoughts, although I don't have the depth of knowledge that they do. I don't need to have that. I just have a little faith in what my colleagues are telling me and the need to protect our citizens.

So with that I will yield back to the gentleman from Texas, and be glad to be with my colleagues for the rest of the hour and continue to dialogue with them.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

It's just like I said earlier about the chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who I have tremendous respect for, and I think on both sides of the aisle, my colleagues would agree with me, a good man, a good Member.

And what he said Sunday morning, this past Sunday morning, was, look, we have now had the opportunity to talk with the telecommunication companies and understand what it is they need to provide under the law and why they did that, why they did it in a patriotic way, and yes, Mr. Moderator, we are ready to move forward and modernize this bill. And I'm reading his lips. I'm listening to what he says, and I believe him and I sincerely believe that he wanted this bill to be brought to this floor this week.

As my colleagues have already said, it would pass overwhelmingly, but unfortunately, I can't help but believe that a good man, Mr. Reyes, is being trumped by his leadership. And as the gentlewoman from New Mexico just said, why? Why would they do that unless, again, it's more concern for this special narrow interest group of trial attorneys that want to bring more lawsuits against telecommunications companies who were just obeying the law that they were required to obey.

I just want to point out, too, that as my colleagues have said, the 9/11 Commission, which was insisted upon by the 9/11 families, led by a distinguished Democrat, Lee Hamilton, former Republican Governor of New Jersey, Governor Kean, they clearly understood that we had a stovepipe system pre-9/11 in regard to intelligence gathering, as my colleague from Texas said, not really finding the dots, much less connecting them.

And it was a clear outline, a clear blueprint that that commission asked us to do. That, indeed, is what ultimately led to creation of a directorship of national intelligence so that those 16 or 18 communities of intelligence, many of which are within the Department of Defense, could talk to one another so that we could win this war. This global war on terrorism is not going to be won with air superiority, sea superiority, greater weapons systems. It's going to be won with greater intelligence, and that's what this is all about. And I yield back to my friend from Texas and I thank him for the time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 88 on H.R. 1143, I am not recorded because I was absent due to flight delays returning to Washington. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall No. 89 on H.R. 1311, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall No. 90 on H.R. 816, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 47th anniversary of the Peace Corps, which occurred on Saturday, March 1.

Since its establishment in 1961, more than 190,000 United States citizens have served our Nation in the cause of peace by living and working in 139 developing countries, world-wide. Coming from all walks of life, these public servants have furthered the message of peace and freedom as they developed long-lasting relationships and good-will with nations around the world.

Madam Speaker, I would specifically like to recognize the efforts of individuals of Georgia's 11th District, who are currently serving with the Peace Corps. I want to personally thank David Egetter, who is furthering the message of peace in Honduras, Hannah Garland, who is serving in Micronesia, Wilbert Newhall, serving in Tanzania, Katy Nicholson, serving in Albania, and Davin Stogner, serving in Vanuatu.

Madam Speaker, I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in thanking all of our Nation's eight thousand plus Peace Corps volunteers for their work to advance the ideals upon which our great Nation was founded.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 85 on S. 2272, I am not recorded because I was absent on the account of the birth of my granddaughter. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 86 on H.R. 3936, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 87 on H.R. 4454, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I know that as we go through our time in the Congress, each of us wants to be remembered for some signature accomplishment, and Madam Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from New Mexico. I would say that maybe she's got many signature issues that she brought before the membership of this body, but certainly this issue of intelligence and national security is a signature issue. I commend her for her will and determination in trying to explain to her colleagues on both sides of the aisle an issue that may be somewhat difficult to understand.

There is a lot of arcaneness about this issue when you try to get into the weeds of it. So it's important to have Members like Representative Heather Wilson and Peter Hoekstra, ranking member on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, to help frame this issue for us.

But I think it's important to understand, as my neighbor, my colleague and friend from Oregon, Representative Walden, just pointed out, the bottom line, when you cut right to the chase, is that last Thursday we left this place

and went home for our district work period during the Presidents Day recess without addressing this issue and we took a break. Maybe some Members were even out of the country. I know, Madam Speaker, I stayed in my district the whole time hoping, literally hoping every day that I would get that call to come back to Washington to fix this because, as my colleagues have pointed out, this is just so important to let something like this lapse.

I would like to have our colleague leading the hour, Representative Wilson, maybe explain to the membership here so they can get a better understanding of why we need to modernize this 30-year-old FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978, why it is so important to be able to bring it into the 21st century. And maybe she could explain to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle the importance of data mining, of being able to get the cooperation of telecommunication companies, if she has not already done that, why it is important to get that information and look at patterns of communication so that we can understand what these terrorists and what these foreign intelligence agents are doing, and why it's such a tremendous threat to this country.

I yield back to my colleague. And I will remain here during this hour and hopefully engage her in more colloquy, and with the gentleman from Oregon, but I would like to hear some discussion on that.

And I appreciate my colleague from Pennsylvania bringing that out. In fact, I will use some of the quotes. And I think this is important that my colleagues understand this, Madam Speaker, because this was a decision that the Democratic leadership made, almost 9 days ago now, to leave this place without reauthorizing and giving that liability protection to the telecommunications industry that is so important and that has made this program work ever since 9/11. This is basically what the majority leader of this House said, and I quote from Representative Steny Hoyer: ``I don't think anything is going to erode.'' And that's basically what he said when he left here. But the truth is, and my colleague from Pennsylvania alluded to comments made by the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, J. Rockefeller, the Democrat from West Virginia, and basically he said, clearly, what people have to understand around here that the quality of the intelligence that we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded, it is going to be degraded, it is already going to be degraded. And he said that on the Senate floor on Valentine's Day, 2/ 14.

Here is what 21 Blue Dog House Democrats said when they wrote a letter to Speaker Pelosi: ``We have it within our ability to replace the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong, bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed into law, and we should do so.''

And then finally, as we have said here several times tonight, Madam Speaker, Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, after all, it was the Democratic majority that wanted a Director of National Intelligence, it was the 9/11 families that wanted a Director of National Intelligence. And here he says to us: ``Some have claimed that expiration of the Protect America Act would not significantly affect our operations. Such claims are not supported by the facts. Without the act in place, vital programs would be plunged into uncertainty and delay, and capabilities would continue to decline.''

I yield back to my colleague from New Mexico, but it's clear, it's so clear.

If the gentlewoman would yield, I would say the ultimate disrespect was 9/11.

Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

I appreciate so much the gentlewoman's yielding.

Madam Speaker, I think one of the most important aspects of this hour, and I know we are running short on time and I want to yield back to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, but one of the most important things for people to understand, Members of this body on both sides of the aisle, is the telecommunications companies voluntarily but yet under the law, under the PATRIOT Act, were required to provide information of their records, their phone records, under the threat of criminal and civil penalties from our own Justice Department. So that's why it's so important that they have retroactive immunity in regard to this issue. And these records are so important, and I will quickly say this, what people are doing today that's part of the modernization, they are not using hard lines. My colleague from Pennsylvania held up those two cell phones. They're buying these throw-away $49.95 cell phones and burn cards, and the only way you can develop a pattern is if our intelligence experts have access to the records of the telecommunications companies so they can look at it and develop a pattern. So that's why that's so important.