Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, prior to 1986, the district court appointed interim U.S. attorneys to fill vacancies until a replacement could be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In 1986, the process was changed to authorize the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for 120

days. After 120 days, the district court would appoint an interim to serve until the Senate confirmed a permanent replacement.

Last year, Congress addressed concerns that allowing the judiciary to appoint the prosecutors before their court created a conflict of interest. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization eliminated the 120-day time limit for an executive-appointed interim to serve, and eliminated the authority for the district court to appoint an interim. S. 214 returns the authority of the judiciary to appoint interim U.S. attorneys if a permanent replacement is not confirmed within 120 days.

Mr. Speaker, it is fairly obvious that the motivation behind this legislation was the dismissal of several U.S. attorneys earlier this year. Congress has been investigating the circumstances surrounding those dismissals for several months now. Notwithstanding the heated political rhetoric from some of my colleagues, this investigation has turned up no evidence of criminal wrongdoing or obstruction of justice.

Let me just try to lay this issue out as fairly as I can. Some of my colleagues still have concerns about allowing a judge to appoint the prosecutors before their court because they feel that is a conflict of interest. On the other hand, some of my equally smart colleagues have suggested that we should return to the way interim U.S. attorneys were appointed for 20 years, from 1986 to 2006, before the recent PATRIOT Act changes, to ensure that the process is not used to circumvent the Senate confirmation process.

The House Judiciary Committee has held hearings on this matter. We held a markup on the companion legislation, H.R. 580. The Justice Department does not object to this legislation, and I will be supporting it myself personally.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is painfully obvious to the American people that the price of gasoline is going up. The nationwide average for regular, unleaded gas is at a record $3.20 a gallon, according to AAA, up almost 34 cents from a month ago, and the peak summer driving season hasn't even started yet. The American people are mad as heck, and they don't want to take it anymore.

To heck with OPEC. How about NOPEC? That's what this legislation is all about.

Last week, the Antitrust Task Force of the House Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, held a hearing on prices at the pump, market failure, and the oil industry. The experts at this hearing, including the Connecticut attorney general, Mr. Blumenthal, insisted we do something about the OPEC cartel.

The price of gasoline at the pump closely tracks the price of a barrel of oil on the world oil market. That is because the price of crude oil comprises 56 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. American refineries, which import over 60 percent of their oil from foreign countries, compete for those oil resources with China and India. Demand for oil in those two countries has dramatically increased in recent years. As the demand has increased at home and abroad, supplies have not kept up and the price of oil has gone up.

Complicating this problem is the fact that we haven't built a refinery in this country in 30 years. And recent, unexpected refinery shutdowns have constricted supply. Of course, there are also anticompetitive forces in play that manipulate the law of supply and demand to their selfish benefit and our detriment.

For example, the world oil price is dictated mainly by the quantity of oil that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, is willing to supply. The 11 current OPEC members account for 40 percent of the world oil production and about two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves. Most would argue that the presence of this cartel, controlled in large part by totalitarian or hostile regimes like Iran and Venezuela, is not helpful.

The question is: What can Congress do about it? NOPEC is one possible solution to this problem. Because of the ``act of state'' doctrine and the concept of sovereign immunity, Americans are precluded from suing the cartel that controls a good portion of the world's oil supply. This bill would change that.

Under this NOPEC legislation, the U.S. Attorney General would be allowed to bring an antitrust lawsuit against the oil cartel members for collusion, price fixing, and other anticompetitive activities designed to gouge American consumers.

I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) for their leadership on this NOPEC legislation.

I would point out, in the interest of straight talk, that the White House this morning issued a statement saying that the President will veto the NOPEC legislation. I would point out that they misspelled the word ``President'' in this release; President is spelled P-R-E-S-E-N-T. Apparently, the White House cares even less about spell-check than they do about OPEC with regard to this matter.

I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do something about OPEC's price fixing misbehavior and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2264.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) who is the lead Republican cosponsor of NOPEC and has worked hard on this legislation for 3 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to close.

Let me just say this. Gas prices are at a record high, and Hugo Chavez is laughing all the way to the bank. Coddling and jawboning leaders like Mr. Chavez of Venezuela has not worked. If you are serious about doing something about OPEC's price-fixing misbehavior, then please vote ``yes'' on NOPEC and allow us to bring antitrust lawsuits against these oil cartel members for collusion, price fixing and other anticompetitive activities that continue to gouge American consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on NOPEC.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 1104 expands an existing program that provides 50 special immigrant visas per year to Iraqi and Afghani nationals who have served as translators for our Armed Forces.

Translators and interpreters would be eligible to petition if they are an Iraqi or an Afghani national, have served with our military for at least 12 months, and receive a favorable recommendation from the unit in which he or she served. Many of us have heard stories about Iraqis who have faithfully served alongside our troops bridging the language divide. They have been a valuable resource for the United States and its allies.

Yet many Iraqi and Afghani translators have faced intense persecution from their communities as a result of serving the U.S. military. It is because of this persecution that the translator visa program was first established. This program allows us to reward those who worked directly for the United States Government in supporting our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

S. 1104, as amended in committee, increases the number of special immigrant visas available to translators to 500 per year for the next 2 years. The increase to 500 visas is a direct response to the number of petitions that have been received and approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Without this increase, many translators will continue to face persecution while they wait in their home country for a visa to become available.

This bill has already been approved unanimously in the Senate, and I urge its passage here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), who is the sponsor of the companion House version of this legislation and has been a leader in the House on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss H.R. 2399, Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

Let me address a few basic issues about this legislation. First of all, what is alien smuggling? What is the existing law? What are the changes that we're proposing? And what, if any, are the problems that we need to fix with regard to this issue of alien smuggling?

Well, let's begin with what is alien smuggling. Alien smuggling is the process whereby people often known as ``coyotes'' take someone from a country like Mexico and sneak them in, often under the cover of darkness, into the United States for an average fee currently of approximately $1,500 per person. It requires specialized skills; and folks often feel that they can't come over, say, from Mexico to California and bypass all the border security agents without having a coyote or alien smuggler to help them. So they often have their family members pay the $1,500 fee.

I wanted to know more about this, so I personally went to the San Diego-Mexico border and spent a week traveling around at 2, 3 in the morning with Border Patrol agents as they arrested illegals and alien smugglers as they came across the border. And I learned from the Border Patrol agents that their biggest frustration is that they have arrested the same alien smugglers more than 20 times. In fact, the agents I met with were so demoralized they had what's called a wall of shame.

And it's hard to see from where you sit, Mr. Speaker, but this is a wall showing over 200 photographs of alien smugglers who they have repeatedly arrested, some of them more than 20 times, such as Antonio Amparo Lopez. And it is currently the law that if you smuggle someone into the United States for financial gain you will be sent to Federal prison for a minimum of 3 years. And yet, agent after agent told me they arrest the same people and they weren't prosecuted by the local San Diego prosecutor.

Well, the existing law, 3 years mandatory minimum if you smuggle someone into the United States. What does this bill do? It keeps the existing law at 3 years for smuggling someone in for financial gain, but adds some newer, stiffer penalties for certain people that you bring in. For example, if a smuggler brings someone in who is a known terrorist, then instead of being a mandatory 3 years in prison, you could be subjected to up to 30 years in prison.

And here is the challenge that I want to talk a little bit about this issue and why it's so important: When Attorney General Gonzales came before the Judiciary Committee on April 6, 2006, I relayed to him the story that I just relayed to you, Mr. Speaker, about the problems with these alien smugglers not being prosecuted. I happen to have a transcript, and I said on April 6 to the Attorney General, ``The pathetic

failure of your U.S. attorney in San Diego to prosecute alien smugglers who have been arrested 20 times is a demoralizing slap in the face to Border Patrol agents who risk their lives every day. It also undermines the credibility that you and President Bush have when you talk tough about enforcing laws. And it renders meaningless the laws this Congress passes to crack down on alien smugglers.''

Then I asked him, ``What, if anything, will you do to see that the U.S. attorney in San Diego prosecutes these alien smugglers, at least those that have been repeatedly arrested by Border Patrol agents?''

This is what the Attorney General said: ``I'm aware of what you're talking about with respect to the San Diego situation and we are looking into it. We're asking all U.S. attorneys, particularly those on the southern border to do more, quite frankly. We need to be doing more.

``But the U.S. attorneys along the southern border tell me that the existing law regarding alien smugglers could be tighter. There is a discussion and debate now about what the language should be. No one wants to prosecute those who are engaged in Good Samaritan activities. We are looking into the situation in San Diego, and we are directing that our U.S. attorneys do more because you're right; if people are coming across the border repeatedly, particularly those who are coyotes and they're smugglers or they're criminals or felons, they ought to be prosecuted.''

Now, I bring this up because there happen to be a few of us in Congress, and I happen to be one, who are pretty familiar with this issue of alien smuggling, familiar enough, having been there and talked with the Attorney General, talked with the Border Patrol agents. But we didn't have any input to this legislation.

I have the bill before us that we are debating. This is the last version, the one we're debating on. And the date on it is May 22, at 1:35 p.m. It is now 3:40 p.m. It's as thick as a small town phone book, and yet we've only had it for a couple of hours. There have been no hearings. No subcommittee markup. No full committee markup.

Now, I'm not someone who usually gets up and complains about process, but this is an example where someone like me and others of the committee could have been quite helpful if we had had hearings, could have had a markup. There are a couple of major flaws in this bill that I'll talk about. And I say this in good spirit. I'm going to actually vote for this bill because I think your intentions are correct. But let me just give you two examples.

First, if you help smuggle in a terrorist, you can go to jail for up to 30 years. Under the language of this bill, you have to show that the smuggler knew that the person was a terrorist and knew that he intended to engage in terrorist activities.

Now, you don't have to be Johnny Cochran to successfully defend a defendant in that particular case. The standard is just almost impossible for a prosecutor to prove. For example, let's say that you have Mohammad Atta on the stand, and he's just been detained by a Border Patrol agent and we want to apply this new provision.

If I was the defense attorney, my first question to the Border Patrol agent would be, Mr. Border Patrol Agent, you've arrested my client. You want to send him to prison for 30 years. Did Mr. Atta show you his al Qaeda ID card? No? Did Mr. Atta show you the picture that he has with Bin Laden and his family? No? Did he show you some videotape showing him on the monkey bars in the Afghanistan training camps? No? Well, if not, how do you know with mathematical certainty that this guy is a terrorist?

It's almost impossible to prove.

That's an example of something we could have fixed during the markup, saying, if you brought this person into the country for financial gain and he's a member of the terrorist watch list, we're going to give you an enhanced sentence up to 30 years. But we didn't have that chance because there was no markup.

Another thing that's flawed is, it doesn't fix the Good Samaritan exception. There's language in this bill that talks about Good Samaritans. Specifically, it says it is a defense, if you are arrested for a religious organization or one of its members to provide room, board, travel, medical assistance or other basic living expenses. That's the situation of a nun, for example, helping someone who's going to die out there in the 110-degree heat. We all believe that that should be provided.

But I read you the transcript of the Attorney General; he said, because this Good Samaritan exception needs to be tightened, and it does. For example, under this law, because you didn't talk with us about fixing it, if you are a member of the Red Cross or you're a member of the United Way, which is not religious affiliated, you could still be prosecuted.

Now, none of us wants that to happen.

My point is, as this bill moves forward, I'm willing to support it because I support the intent behind it. I support getting tough with alien smugglers. But the bottom line is, we need to fix this in conference. We need to work with Republicans and Democrats to include our input to make sure that at the end the day we have a much better bill that we can be proud of.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the lead Republican original cosponsor of this legislation which will reauthorize the COPS program and put 50,000 more cops on our streets.

The COPS program is responsible for putting nearly 120,000 cops on the streets nationwide, including 774 cops in central Florida.

Violent crime is on the rise, and we need this legislation now more than ever. For example, in my hometown of Orlando, Florida, the murder rate is up 122 percent. I recently met with all of central Florida's chiefs of police and sheriffs, and 100 percent of them support the COPS program. This legislation is also endorsed by the National Sheriffs Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Is the COPS program successful? Absolutely. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft described the COPS program as a ``miraculous sort of success.'' A 2005 GAO study concluded that the COPS program successfully played a role in the decline in violent crime in the 1990s. And more than 95 percent of law enforcement officers hired by a COPS grant are still on the street today.

Now, some might say that putting cops on the street is not a priority worth funding with Federal dollars. Well, I would rather put cops on the street than build bridges to nowhere or give subsidies to spinach growers. Let's be practical. There are children in Orlando, Florida, growing up in neighborhoods where 49 people were killed last year. Those kids want to be able to walk home from school safely and play in their neighborhoods without fear. These kids don't care if the cops' salary is paid for with purely local funds or a mixture of local and Federal funds. They just want to feel safe.

This legislation is a step in the right direction. I want to thank the cosponsor of this legislation, Congressman Anthony Weiner, for his leadership and strong support of the COPS program. He and I worked together earlier to get $70 million added in the supplemental.

Some have said that some Republicans are new to this. I can assure you that I've been an original cosponsor of this bill ever since I got here to Congress. If I can quote L.L. Cool Jay, the rapper: ``Don't call it a comeback; I've been here for years.''

This COPS legislation was approved by the Judiciary Committee by a full voice vote and is worthy of our bipartisan support. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1700.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I appreciate the Freudian slip by Congressman Chairman Miller. I still am Republican. I am reminded every day when my parking space is now out in Maryland that I'm a Member of the minority party here.

I rise today in support of the Student Loan Sunshine Act, H.R. 890, for three specific reasons.

First, this legislation fully includes legislation that I authored called the One-Stop Financial Aid Information Act, H.R. 1522, which creates an easy-to-use one-stop Web site for students and their families about financial aid information for college, including information about Pell Grants, student loans and scholarships offered by various Federal agencies. Far too many young people give up on their chance to go to college because they lack information about the various grants and scholarships available to them. Now they will have all this information right there at their fingertips as a result of an easy-to- access link right there on the home page of ed.gov.

I want to especially thank Congressman Henry Cuellar of Texas. It was Congressman Cuellar who actually conceived of this idea and shared it with me on a codel that he and I had to Iraq based on his positive experience with a similar Web site in Texas, and he is a coauthor of this provision.

The second reason I support this legislation is because it specifically includes a financial aid code of conduct that must be adopted by colleges; and that language is taken out of the bill authored by Congressman Buck McKeon called the Financial Aid Accountability and Transparency Act, H.R. 1994. In a nutshell, it provides that there shall be no conflicts of interests, gifts or revenue sharing between lenders and colleges or their employees.

The third reason I support this legislation is because it does not ban preferred lender lists under the market-based FFEL program. Now after the recent student loan scandal, some of which was highlighted by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, there was a temptation on a handful of people's part to overreact. Some wanted to abolish or place a moratorium on preferred lender lists. Some even suggested that we switch from the market-based FFEL program to direct lending. This appropriate legislation doesn't contain that overreaction, and I'm proud that it doesn't, and the reason is preferred lender lists play a very positive role when done right.

There are literally over a thousand student lenders. Some of those lenders have lower interest rates, low origination fees, more flexible terms for deferring repayments and better customer service. On the other hand, there are lenders that have higher rates and fees, bad customer service and can be characterized as fly-by-night operations. It's pretty hard to tell if you're an 18-year-old kid which lender is which, but if you're a financial aid administrator who has been in the business for two or three decades, you can give some guidance into that issue.

This bill specifically allows these preferred lenders to still have a preferred lender list, provided that each college gives a choice of at least three lenders, the college disclose why they were selected as a lender, and the college disclose what terms they remain a lender. That is a pretty fair and appropriate response to the scandals that we have had and a pretty good contrast to what we have with the Federal direct lending program where a college says you only have one lender, it's the Federal Government, and there is no competition for lower fees or rates.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, this legislation helps to rein in some of the bad apples in the student loan industry, while preserving the healthy and appropriate competition between the direct lending and FFEL program. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Florida's men's basketball team on their second consecutive NCAA, Division I championship. On April 2 of this year, they joined only six other teams in NCAA history to win back-to-back championships. My congratulations also go out to Coach Billy Donovan, who has done a fine job with these young men, not only leading them to back-to-back championships but also for preparing them for what lies ahead in life.

The University of Florida is a fine institution with many standout athletes. My home State of Florida and I are tremendously proud of their accomplishments on and off the field. The University of Florida is the only Division I college in history to win the national championship in basketball and football in the same calendar year. In fact, between the Gator championships in basketball and football, I don't think there will be an athlete on campus who has not met the President by the time they graduate.

Now, so many of these Gator basketball and football will be heading off to the NBA and NFL where they will have to struggle to make due on their multi-million dollar salaries. The good news for many of these other schools is that a lot of the starters will be moving on. The bad news, of course, is I am hearing they are having their best recruiting classes ever in both football and basketball. Ohio State was such a worthy opponent both in football and basketball and handled themselves with so much class, much praise is warranted to the Buckeye fans as well. Congratulations on a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, today is tax day. Millions of Americans will write big fat checks to Uncle Sam. Who is paying the bill? The top 10 percent of households, families with incomes of $100,000 or more, pay 70 percent of all Federal income taxes. Coincidentally, 70 percent of all the new jobs in America are created by small businessmen.

The tax cuts of 2003 have created 7.8 million new jobs and have given us the lowest unemployment rate in four decades. Unfortunately, the Democrat budget proposal contemplates allowing these tax cuts to expire which will give Americans the largest tax increase in history.

Under the Democrat tax increase, small businesses will be hurt and 42 million families with children will see their tax bill go up by an average of $2,100. A married couple with two kids making $60,000 will see their taxes go up by 60 percent.

On tax day let's remember the hardworking families who are paying the bills to Uncle Sam and oppose all new taxes.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to support the Baker amendment and to oppose the underlying bill, H.R. 720.

I had hoped to support this legislation, which would allow States and municipalities to build water treatment plants and other necessary infrastructure.

Unfortunately, our friends in the Democratic majority have taken away the rights of States and municipalities by forcing them to comply with Federal Davis-Bacon requirements, which waste taxpayer dollars by inflating construction costs.

My state of Florida does not have a state prevailing wage law. This legislation would force small, rural communities in my district and throughout Florida to pay vastly inflated Federal prevailing wages to build these critical infrastructure projects. Studies have shown that Davis-Bacon inflates the cost of construction by up to 38 percent in rural areas.

I cannot support imposing the antiquated Davis-Bacon requirements on my local communities--wasting their hard-earned tax dollars on inflated construction costs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and yes to the Baker Amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 800.

The secret ballot is absolutely critical to the integrity of the election process. Workers shouldn't be intimidated by corporate executives, labor bosses, or fellow workers. That is why nine out of ten Americans oppose stripping workers of their right to a private vote when determining whether or not to join a union.

Now, let us be honest about what this bill is really about. Union membership is down, Democratic influence is up, and the secret ballot is headed out. I have to admit that I find it very ironic that just months after our Nation went to the polls and voted in secret ballot elections putting our Democratic friends in control of the Congress, they are now in turn trying to strip that very same right away from workers across this country.

I believe that unions have done a lot of good for our society and have played an integral role in establishing and protecting the rights of workers. They have a very proud history and continue to provide competitive benefits, training programs, and workplace protections for millions of workers across the country.

However, this legislation does nothing to level the playing field for a worker trying to determine whether or not to be represented by a union. Rather, it undercuts the law that it was designed to protect workers' rights in and terminates a vital right afforded to our Nation's workforce.

The bottom line is that workers should want to join a union because of the benefits of that union, not because they are scared not to do so. I hope my colleagues will listen to the union workers for whom this legislation is purported to benefit. In 2004 Zogby International polled 70 union members regarding this very issue. Seventy-eight percent of these union workers said that Congress should keep the existing secret ballot election process in place and not replace it with another process.

I urge my colleagues to listen to the rank and file union workers and vote to protect the sanctity of the secret ballot. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 800.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the ranking member on the Higher Education Committee and a strong supporter of the Pell Grant program to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Pell Grant Equity Act of 2007.

The rationale for this legislation is pretty simple: It is unfair that 100,000 college students are penalized for attending community colleges with low tuition rates. These students will now be able to use the additional $108 in Pell funding, on average, to pay for legitimate education expenses beyond tuition, such as books and mandatory lab fees in their science classes.

At a time when college tuition is skyrocketing across the Nation, we should praise and not punish those community colleges who are doing their part to keep tuition low and reward those students who are going to those colleges who otherwise wouldn't have a chance at the American Dream of a college education.

I want to praise Chairman Miller and Chairman Hinojosa as well as Ranking Member McKeon for their leadership and moving this legislation along. I think it is a great piece of bipartisan legislation that deserves all of our support, and I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war is the central issue of our time. We are spending $2 billion a week and we are losing 100 American lives a month. Under these conditions, I feel I owe my constituents my best judgment.

Interjecting more young American troops into the cross-hairs of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right approach. If the President sends these troops anyway, I will support their funding 100 percent so they have the bullets and equipment they need to defend themselves.

I approach this decision with a great deal of angst and humility. I am not trying to micromanage this war. I am just a Member of Congress, not a four-star general. But I have listened to what our country's most well-respected four-star generals have to say about this matter, and Generals Abizaid, McCaffrey and Colin Powell have all said that sending more troops into Baghdad now is not the answer.

Some people will say, if you are not for surging more American troops into Baghdad now, what are you for? What is your plan?

I am for a different kind of surge. I am for a surge of Iraqi troops to take out al-Sadr and his militia, especially since the Iraqi security forces outnumber the Sadr militia by a ratio of 5 to 1. That is 325,000 versus 60,000. I am for a surge of political process by the Iraqi Government to finally reach a deal on sharing oil revenue. I am for a surge of action in implementing the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which were adopted in a bipartisan, unanimous fashion. I am for a surge of gratitude by the Iraqi people, 61 percent of whom think it is okay to kill American troops and 79 percent have a mostly negative view of the United States.

Some people argue that we should support President Bush's decision. I like and respect President Bush. I want him to be successful. Three years ago I could have voted for this surge. But the situation on the ground in Iraq today is very different than it was 3 years ago.

Three years ago, Iraq was not in a civil war. Now it is. Three years ago, Iraq did not have 325,000 of its own security forces to defend itself. Now it does. Three years ago, we didn't know whether surging more American troops into Baghdad would give us a long-lasting impact. Now we know the answer, because we tried the same thing last summer. The benefits were temporary. The body bags were permanent.

We are now told we should trust the Maliki government. I have been down that road before. I personally went to Baghdad and met with the Maliki government officials last summer. I was told by December of 2006 they would have enough security forces that they would need to defend themselves and we would then be in a position to start bringing our troops home. Now they say, give us another year.

We were told when America sent 15,000 of its own troops to surge in Baghdad last summer that the Iraqi troops would be right there beside them. Well, Iraqi troops didn't show up. The benefits of the surge were only temporary.

Mr. Speaker, I voted to authorize the use of force in 2002 because I did not want Saddam Hussein to give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda. Now Saddam is dead and there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

We have remained in Iraq for 4 years because we want a unified and secure Iraq, so it doesn't become a haven for terrorists. Unfortunately, it seems the Americans want a unified and secure Iraq more than the Iraqis do.

Let me give you an analogy. Imagine your next-door neighbor refuses to mow his lawn and the weeds are all the way up to his waist. You decide you are going to mow his lawn for him every single week. The neighbor never says thank you, he hates you, and sometimes he takes out a gun and shoots at you. Under these circumstances, do you keep mowing his lawn forever? Do you send even more of your family members over to mow his lawn? Or do you say to that neighbor, you better step it up and mow your own lawn, or there are going to be serious consequences for you.

Mr. Speaker, sending more young American troops now into the middle of Iraqi civil war violence is not the answer. I will support the troops 100 percent. But we are not going to solve an Iraqi political problem with an American military solution. And that is my best judgment.

May God bless our troops, our President and our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 131, a resolution recognizing and honoring the lifetime contributions of Rafael Jose Diaz-Balart, on the dedication of the Rafael Diaz-Balart Hall at the Florida International University College of Law.

I would like to thank my friend Mr. Meek for introducing this important resolution.

The founding of the Florida International University College of Law did not become possible until 2000. The college of law received full accreditation from the American Bar Association in December 2006.

The law school is home to 382 law students and 25 faculty members. The Rafael Diaz-Balart Hall was designed by the renowned architect and dean of architecture at Yale University, Robert A.M. Stern. It incorporates two interior courtyards, an atrium, a reading room, an auditorium, a legal clinic, and two teaching courtrooms. In addition, the hall will have two additional rooms solely for expanding international and foreign law collections.

Of particular interest to the students and the school are volumes focusing on international organization and Caribbean and Latin American law.

Rafael Diaz-Balart, for whom the hall was named, was born in Cuba and earned a law degree from the University of Havana in 1919. He later served as a lawyer, a judge, president of the city council and was eventually elected mayor of the city of Banes and then was elected congressman. Diaz-Balart went into exile in 1959 and earned his second law degree from the University of Madrid in 1965. He died in Miami in

1985. Mr. Diaz-Balart is also the grandfather of two distinguished Members of Congress, Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

I congratulate the Florida International University College of Law on receiving its full American Bar Association accreditation and the inauguration of this beautiful new hall.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the first Hispanic woman elected in the history of the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the grandson of Rafael Diaz-Balart, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would totally agree with my colleague, Mr. Meek, that the Diaz-Balart family has made America a much better place for all of our children to grow up. I have been very honored to serve with both Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart, and I know they both have a lot of pride in their grandfather.

I am very happy that Mr. Meek introduced this resolution honoring Rafael Diaz-Balart. Mr. Meek also obviously has a lot of pride in the bloodline he has with the famous Congresswoman Carrie Meek. I was reminded of her just this past weekend when I was down in Miami for the football game on Sunday and I parked on Carrie Meek Boulevard down there.

I explained to the parking lot attendant that I served with Carrie Meek and I am friends with her son, Kendrick Meek. He said, Yeah, man. That will be thirty bucks. It only gets you so far. But I have a lot of pride in knowing both of these families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because it is a closed rule that does not provide a fair and open amendment process.

On the positive side, the underlying continuing resolution increases funding for Pell Grants and COPS while not exceeding the spending caps set by the President's budget. As the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee, I am pleased that the Pell Grant maximum awards go up $260 from $4,050 to $4,310.

I also believe in putting more cops on the street through increased funding to the COPS Program, especially since my home town of Orlando saw its murder rate more than double in the past year. I sent a letter to the appropriators signed by Anthony Weiner and 101 Members calling for an increase in COPS funding. I am pleased that this bill increases COPS funding by $70 million, which is enough money to put 900 new cops on the street.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss student loan interest rates. As the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee, I believe in higher Pell Grants, lower student loan interest rates, and a leveling off of tuition.

If you ask a college student, would you rather have a 6.8 percent loan or a 3.4 percent loan, he will tell you 3.4 percent. If you ask him, would you rather have a 3.4 percent student loan that you have to pay back or a Pell Grant to help you go to college that you will never pay back, they will say Pell Grants.

The Democrats should have taken the $6 billion in spending and invested it in Pell Grants to help students on the front end instead of only helping those college graduates on the back end.

Education should not be a partisan issue; no one party has all the answers. Today, I will show a little good faith and vote for this bill. Tomorrow, I hope the Democrats show some good faith and listen to people like me when it comes to Pell Grants.