Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I submit the following resolution on Iraq by the Broward County Veterans Council passed on January 16, 2007.

Whereas: The President of the United States has put forth a

plan to the American people and to Congress which calls for

an escalation of 20,000 or more of our troops going to Iraq

to combat the insurrection in the Bagdad and Anbar provinces.

Whereas: The majority in Congress has put forth several

plans that do not include escalation of combat troops.

Whereas: The General Election of Nov. 7th showed that the

American people voted for a new direction in Iraq and

Afghanistan.

Whereas: The Administration has tried four times to

escalate the war with the additional troops in Iraq, all to

no avail in stopping the bloodshed among the Sunnis and the

Shites.

Therefore: The Broward County Veterans Council, believes

that the best plan is to bring our troops home now, in a

phased redeployment, and start redeploying our combat troops

to the outer borders of Iraq and into Kuwait. Let's get them

out of harm's way, without our troops getting involved in a

bloody civil war, expedite the training of Iraqi military and

police forces and let the Iraqis settle their differences

among themselves. At the same time bring all the regional

Arab nations to a summit meeting to discuss a final political

settlement as recommended by the Iraq Study Group.

Bill Kling, Chairman, Broward County Veteran Council.

This resolution was passed by the BCVC members present at

the meetings and does not necessarily reflect the views of

the National Veteran organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to now yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 157, and as the designee of the majority leader, I demand that the time for debate be enlarged by 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the leaders or their designees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my friend and

colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my esteemed friend and colleague, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63 which opposes the President's decision to deploy 21,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq.

I am also here to specifically honor the Broward County Veterans Council, who recently adopted a resolution concerning the war in Iraq. The Broward County Veterans Council represents a host of veterans groups throughout Broward County, Florida, including the Broward chapters of the American Legion, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Fleet Reserve, Gold Star Mothers, Italian American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans, Marine Corps League, Navy League Council, The Order of the Purple Heart, The Paralyzed Veterans Association, Reserved Officers Association, Retired Officers Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, and World War I Barracks.

The Broward County Veterans Council led by its Chairman, Bill Kling, adopted this resolution unanimously on January 16, 2007. And the spirit of this resolution is as follows:

Whereas, the President of the United States has put forth a plan to the American people and to Congress which calls for an escalation of 20,000 or more of our troops going to Iraq to combat the insurrection in Baghdad and the Anbar province; and

Whereas, the majority in Congress has put forth several plans that do not include an escalation of combat troops; and

Whereas, the American people have made it clear they want a new direction in Iraq and Afghanistan; and

Whereas, the administration's attempts to escalate the war previously by sending additional troops to Iraq have unfortunately failed to stop the bloodshed between the Sunnis and the Shia;

Therefore, the Broward County Veterans Council believes that the best plan is to bring troops home in a phased redeployment so that we may get them out of harm's way.

Veterans groups, along with families across my district, are very concerned about the direction this war has taken and are demanding a change in strategy.

To President Bush their message is loud and clear: This war has been mismanaged, the strategies for success have failed; our national and personal security interests, most importantly, are not being enhanced and in fact may be undermined. And, therefore, they overwhelmingly oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.

Traveling through my district, people in South Florida are demanding that Congress ask the tough questions concerning our policy in Iraq. Well, we have asked these tough questions, and I along with many of my fellow Members of this House, both Democrats and Republicans, have come to the same conclusion: The President's plan to increase troops is wrong.

The administration has based this plan in part on the readiness of the Iraqi Security Forces to stand up and take control. I have heard nothing from our military experts that would indicate that the Iraqi troops are anywhere near prepared to bring order to this troubled country.

General Colin Powell recently told the associated press, and I quote, ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops in Baghdad, for the purposes of suppressing this violence, this civil war, will work.''

And four-star General Barry McCaffrey called the President's surge plan last month, ``a fool's errand.''

These are some of the experts we should be listening to.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, as the civil war in Iraq spirals out of control, as Iraqi Security Forces continue to be ill-prepared, and as we continue to alienate our allies around the world, what warrants this administration to continue on the same path in Iraq and add more troops? So far, nothing.

We have no business sending over 21,000 additional troops in the middle of a growing civil war. We have no business sending over 21,000 additional troops when, as it is, our military is already stretched too thin. And because our military is already dangerously pushed to the limit, we have put ourselves in the precarious position of dealing with real threats like Iran, while at the same time protecting our allies like Israel and some other Middle Eastern friends.

For these reasons, I am advocating for a plan, as others are, devised by our military experts that supports a phased withdrawal of our troops. But while our brave men and women in uniform are serving, it is critical that we provide them nothing less than the best protection and support. We have more than a responsibility to support our troops; we have a solemn obligation, and that obligation extends to asking the tough questions and getting our policy right.

In honor of the Broward County Veterans Council and the veterans living in Palm Beach County, in recognition of their heroism and commitment to our country, I support this resolution

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of H.R. 63, which opposes the President's decision to deploy 21,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq.

I am also here today to specifically honor the Broward County Veterans Council, who recently adopted a resolution concerning the war in Iraq.

The Broward County Veterans Council represents a host of veteran groups throughout Broward County, FL, including the Broward chapters of the American Legion, Am Vets, the Disabled American Veterans, the Fleet Reserve, the Gold Star Mothers, the Italian American Veterans, the Jewish War Veterans, the Marine Corps League, the Navy League Council, the Order of the Purple Heart, the Paralyzed Veterans Association, the Reserve Officers Association, the Retired Officers Association, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the World War I Barracks.

The Broward County Veterans Council, led by its chairman, Bill Kling, adopted this resolution unanimously on January 16, 2007.

The spirit of their resolution is as follows:

Whereas the President of the United States has put forth a

plan to the American people and to Congress which calls for

an escalation of 20,000 or more of our troops going out to

Iraq to combat the insurrection in Baghdad and the Anbar

province; and

Whereas, the majority in Congress has put forth several

plans that do not include escalation of combat troops; and

Whereas, the American people have made it clear they want a

new direction in Iraq and Afghanistan; and

Whereas, the administration's multiple attempts to escalate

the war by sending additional troops to Iraq have

unfortunately, failed to stop the bloodshed between the

Sunnis and the Shiites.

Therefore, the Broward County Veterans Council believes

that the best plan is to bring our troops home, in a phased

redeployment, so that we may get them out of harm's way.

Veterans groups, along with families across my district, are very concerned about the direction this war has taken and are demanding a change in strategy.

To President Bush, their message is loud and clear: This war has been mismanaged, and the strategies for success have failed; our national and personal security interests are not being enhanced and in fact, may be undermined. Therefore, they overwhelmingly oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.

Traveling through my district, people in south Florida are demanding that Congress ask the tough questions concerning our policy in Iraq.

Well, we have asked those tough questions and I, along with many of my fellow Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have come to the same conclusion: The President's plan to increase troops in Iraq is wrong.

This administration has based this plan in part on the readiness of the Iraq security forces to stand up and take control. I have heard nothing from our military experts that would indicate that the Iraqi troops are anywhere near prepared to bring order to this troubled country.

GEN Colin Powell recently told the Associated Press: ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops in Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.''

And four-star GEN Barry McCaffrey called the President's surge plan last month ``a fools errand.''

These are the experts we should be listening to.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you--as a civil war in Iraq spirals out of control, as Iraqi security forces continue to be ill-prepared and as we continue to alienate our allies across the world--What warrants this administration to continue on the same path in Iraq and add more troops?

So far, nothing

We have no business sending over 21,000 additional troops into the middle of a growing civil war.

We have no business sending over 21,000 additional troops to Iraq when as it is, our military is already stretched too thin.

And because our military is already dangerously pushed to the limit, we have put ourselves in a precarious position dealing with real threats like Iran, while at the same time, protecting our allies like Israel and other Middle East countries.

For these reasons, I am advocating for a plan, devised by our military experts, that supports a phased withdrawl of our troops.

But while our brave men and women in uniform are serving, it is critical that we provide them nothing less than the best protection and support. We have more than a responsibility to support our troops--we have a solemn obligation. And that obligation extends to asking the tough questions and getting our policy right.

In honor of the Broward County Veterans Council and the veterans living in Palm Beach County, in recognition of their heroism and commitment to our country, I support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak about the budget this morning and the concern that I have that the budget President Bush has proposed makes it very clear that his priorities are out of touch with everyday Americans. President Bush would rather maintain his tax cuts for the wealthiest in our communities, while leaving seniors, veterans and working families behind.

He also believes that his budget will rid our Nation of debt in 5 years, even though he wants to keep spending billions of dollars in Iraq and maintain these tax cuts for the most wealthy.

Further, President Bush continuously fails to be up front with the American people about the true cost of the war. Even in the supplemental that he proposed, he fails to acknowledge the additional cost of the troops and support personnel that will be required by the troop surge. Folks, the numbers simply don't add up.

I am disappointed that the budget fails to include ample funding for the Everglades restoration and beach renourishment, which are an important asset and resource in our country. The Everglades and our beaches in Florida are not only important to Floridians, but also national treasures enjoyed by millions of Americans each year.

It is time for our government to step up to the plate and fulfill its commitment to the Everglades, our beaches, and all our other natural assets; I am going to fight to make this happen.

President Bush's priorities are out of step, and as we continue to debate his budget, I am confident Congress will restore funding to many of the programs our American families deserve and depend on.

Mr. Speaker, the health of the American economy depends on having a highly educated skilled workforce, but studies show the number one reason that students fail to attend college today is cost.

In addition to tuition, fees, interest rates on student loans have also risen. Over the last 5 years the interest rates on student loans have jumped by almost 2 percentage points, further increasing the cost of college. Many of us were dependent on student loans to go to college in the first place. I am one of them.

Recently, when I visited Pompano High School in my district, I met many exceptional students who were concerned that they would have difficulty managing tuition costs. These students in Pompano High School deserve better, as students do all over the United States. This Democrat bill would cut the interest rate in half from the current 6.8 percentage to 3.4 percent over the next 5 years.

This proposal will help over 5.5 million low- and middle-income students and their families afford a college education and a way to a better life. As a case in point, a study this year by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group estimates the average cost for a Florida student, what it will save over the cost of its life is $4,400. That is a powerful incentive, and I ask everyone to join us in passing this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to be here with Mr. Hall, my good freshman friend from New York, and my good friend from the State of Washington. I know you have been leading the fight for a number of years and trying to get our focus, not only in your State, but throughout the country on the idea of renewable energy sources.

Many of us in the freshman class came to this year's campaign and this Congress with a view that this is an opportunity of historic proportion. This is an opportunity for us to recognize that this is a once-in-a-generation calling, no different than our predecessors had with the Manhattan Project. I know that many seniors in my district in south Florida have talked about that, the calling of their generation to make sure that World War II would end

with an atomic weapon. Of course we all know that when Sputnik went up in the early 1960s, a little before my time, but at a time when this country saw this little tin can up in space and thought this could be a threat of possibly bombs coming from outer space into our country, and John F. Kennedy saw this as a time and place for us to engage our private sector, our universities, our public, to create a new generation of scientists and mathematicians who would put a man on the Moon by the end of the 1960s. By 1969, they did that. And now the science and technology that came out of the space program has broad applications to our daily lives.

I view this, as do many Democrats and Republicans, as a time in our country's history when we need to make ourselves energy independent. I believe it. There is nobody in this room or in this country who doesn't believe that Americans, when they put their nose to the grindstone, can't accomplish anything. We can. We can and we will.

This has the unbelievable capacity of recognizing three great elements in this day. One is national security. We should never, ever have to make another foreign policy decision based on where the next drop of oil is coming from. That is a strategic mistake of unbelievable proportions. To have to import 60 percent of our oil from unstable countries around the world that in many cases are taking some of the dollars that we send over, the millions and billions of dollars, and financing both sides of the war on terror is wrong.

Recognizing that is something we need to do for our own national security, inside the United States, is crucial.

Secondly, we all understand the environmental impacts. I know my colleagues that are speaking tonight have led the fight on this, and many others. And recognizing whether it is global warming or any of the other environmental impacts of some of the technologies that are used today with oil and other things, these are issues that we need to take up.

I live in Florida. We have had a battle in Congress, and I was not in Congress last year, but many of us fought the fight back home: We don't want drilling off the coast of Florida, or in Alaska in the refuge. Those are false choices made by the administration.

The right choice is we don't have to have more oil drilling. Oil drilling will be a part of our energy solution, but we don't need drilling in places which will have a potential of having a tremendous long-term environmental impact. Off the coast of Florida, we have a very large tourist industry. We have wonderful reefs. We have a beautiful environment in our oceans and bays and the Gulf Coast. We can't afford to do that. It is not good for anybody in this country. There are choices that allow us to have alternative energy.

And of course the last thing is the new economy. Many have talked about the fact that in this economy today we have lost jobs overseas. We don't have steel manufacturing like we used to. We don't produce a lot of the products. The science of alternative energy sources and the commercialization of that technology and those products can once again be our big technology boom like we had in the 1990s in this decade, and for decades to come. It will make us energy independent, and it will be exportable science to the rest of the world.

One of the beauties of what we are talking about, and what Americans are talking about, is there is a lot of technology and a lot of science and businesses that are already out there doing these things. That is a very exciting thing. If you listen to the national picture that 60 percent of our oil is imported, and that is a major source. And we obviously have lots of other fossil fuels being burned at this point, but there is solar power.

I am from Florida, and we call ourselves the Sunshine State. And we constantly hear in Florida you can't use solar effectively because the panels are too big and they can't store the energy.

My personal feeling, and I think you believe this, if we put our mind and science to this, we could probably have a solar panel the size of this 8\1/2\ by 11 piece of paper on every house that powers that house. Individual power plants, and it will happen. It is going to happen. There is wave power. There is wind power and corn-based ethanol and sugar-based ethanol like they use in Brazil.

Again, they may not be perfect in their present form. That is the point. Let's further them and use our innovation agenda that we are pushing in this Congress to get all of the economic incentives in place to encourage the businesses, to encourage our science and university academics as well as business leaders to come together.

I thank the gentleman, and I think that is exactly the point. The point is, there is not necessarily one source of energy alternative that is going to be for everyone. We have a big country, with lots of existing resources that have been mentioned by the gentlemen on the floor this evening, and the choices and the competitive ways that we as a country can competitively grant resources to companies, to scientists to come together and say, listen, we think there is enough coal in this country to power the country for 300 years, but we have a high sulfur and carbon dioxide problem. Is there a solution? If there is a solution, that can be a wonderful thing. So there is coal in certain parts of the country and maybe that works there.

Wave power, wind power, all the things we are talking about, it is this competitive way of approaching this. Not one solution necessarily to fit all. There is still going to be oil out there to some extent, but the point of all this is, it is there. And the most exciting part about this is that there is a solution, and Americans need to engage this.

The Congress is way behind the American public, and the administration is even further behind. And the part where we, I think, are coming together tonight and tomorrow, as you and many others are going to be leading this fight for energy independence in the first step we are taking now, which will continue with additional steps, is, we want to ask the American public to come forward to their Members of Congress, to their business leaders, and to their Chambers of Commerce and start talking about the technologies that they have. What can we do to collaborate with each other to take some of these ideas and make them commercially viable? The more competition out there, the more resources in, the lower the price will be.

It is almost like the discussion we have had for so many years, public transportation versus road building. People have said, well, you have to subsidize public transportation. Well, absolutely you do. But guess what road building is? Who pays for the roads? It is your gas taxes in every State of the country and the Federal Government that pays for that. So it is a question of reordering our priorities.

In this case, it is the reordering of priorities from more oil drilling and giving those types of resources and support to putting that into places and with people that can create the new generation of energy alternatives, and it is very exciting.

If the gentleman will yield for a second, the next level of this, just like any start-up business in this country and the success of the capitalistic system that we have is, business entrepreneurs realize value. What we are talking about here is start-up capital for many of these businesses. We are not talking necessarily the United States taxpayer funding these things indefinitely.

The great part about this is that many of them are already in place. They just need a little additional push or a little additional resource, and then you will see venture capital and lots of business entrepreneurs, and probably even oil companies who will see a good opportunity, who will even invest. But whoever it is, we want to see the direction of this jump-started, and that is what the gentleman is talking about.

Well, exactly. And the incentive that is being used to encourage a company to make the investment in some type of scrubber or some type of way of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide should be just that. It should be an incentive to do that and make that capital investment in that technology, versus not having to pay for it. There is no economic incentive to change. Obviously there is a huge environmental impact for all of us who are breathing the air and the entire impact on the climate and the environment. But those companies that continue to burn coal don't have an incentive. So if we flip it around and say, all right, there is going to be a charge, in order for you to do this there is going to be an expense associated with it, whereas if you invest, if you are going to have to pay something in, if you are going to invest in something that is good, good for the environment, good for you. You get some type of benefit out of it then it is a good swap for the company, and it is a particularly, it is exactly what we need in terms of our encouraging private investment in technology that will clean our air.

To follow up, if, the whole idea of gas, miles per gallon, which people have a tendency to look at cars today and look at the miles per gallon, there have been a lot of games that have been played with that over the years, sport utility vehicles being viewed as trucks, therefore, not having the same limitations that most automobiles in the United States have.

As the gentleman from New York mentioned, there are many cars made in other places around the world that have figured out how to make 40, 50 miles per gallon, base car and some hybrids as well. I don't believe there is any inhibiting factor in the United States for our car companies to do the same.

Now, do we need to give a little incentive? Maybe. I think we have all seen the statistics. For every couple of miles per gallon you increase in efficiency, we are dropping some amount of oils per barrel, gas that has to be imported from the Middle East or wherever every day. So there is a trade-off here.

There is also this issue of importing, which is a current issue which we need to reduce. The technology is going to take a little bit of time. We need to do exactly what we are doing tomorrow and over the next number of weeks and months. But there are some immediate things we can do.

I certainly would suggest to Americans on a patriotism basis, on a smart basis on the thinking of your children

and your grandchildren and what's right, we will sacrifice. We are all in this together here. Let's make the right decisions, do what you can. It's not the right thing for everybody. But to the extent that you can buy a car that gets better gas mileage and focus on that cars that maybe use regular instead of premium. Those are all choices that people make. Everybody is in this together. Let us make some smart decisions.

Mr. Speaker, my name is Ron Klein, and I represent Florida's 22nd Congressional District, which is in Southeast Florida. I am truly honored to be here today and to be part of this incredibly important effort led by Congresswoman Diana DeGette and Congressman Mike Castle, both of whom have been relentless crusaders toward leading this bipartisan effort in Congress to expand the use of embryonic stem cell research.

As a member of the Florida State Senate for the past 10 years, leading efforts to utilize and fund embryonic stem cell research was not just a priority of mine but a passion. We all have our own family stories about why medical cures need to be discovered today, not 10 years from now.

In my district, which includes Ft. Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Pompano Beach and West Palm Beach, we have so many retirees who moved to Florida to live out their golden years. But as they age, as we know with our own

families, many of them are afflicted with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and many other serious ailments. To them, the stem cell battle is critically important, and every day that passes without scientists and researchers having all the tools at their disposal is another day of suffering.

From juvenile diabetes to paralysis, the potential of stem cell research in all of its forms presents one of humanity's greatest leaps toward the ultimate goal of preserving, prolonging and improving the quality of our lives.

Funding stem cell research is also a great investment in our future, not only from a personal health standpoint but also from an economical and cost-efficiency perspective. Finding cures and therapies may reduce the cost of hospitalization and other expensive aspects of our health care system. It will also create careers and jobs in the 21st Century that will lead the world.

I am incredibly proud to be part of this effort to increase stem cell funding resources, and I look forward to casting my vote and doing whatever is necessary to support comprehensive stem cell research and funding in the United States.

Thank you for your attention, your vote, and thank you to the millions of Americans who are watching and waiting.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida and my new friend from California. My name is Ron Klein, and today I am proudly sworn in as all of us were in the new Congress, and I represent Florida's 22nd district. I believe I can speak on behalf of all my fellow freshmen colleagues today in saying that we are all truly honored to be here to represent the value of America's families.

It is time to bring a new direction to Washington and promote honesty, integrity, and real leadership in the United States Congress. That is why we have introduced an ethics reform package that will restore the public's trust and confidence in Congress. Those of us who were just recently on the campaign trail heard that frequently, and we know we need to do something about it.

One of these reforms has been introduced by my colleague, Zack Space from Ohio's 18 district, and it is a measure banning Members of Congress and their staff from accepting gifts from lobbyists. This bill will also put a stop to the common but inappropriate practice of allowing Members of Congress to use money from their campaign coffers to pay for corporate jets for travel purposes.

Letting special interests run the Congress is simply not right, and we have a responsibility to put a stop to this unscrupulous practice.

Simply put, it is time to return Congress to the people's House, not the auction house. I congratulate Speaker Pelosi, and all of the Members of Congress who were sworn in today, and I ask all Members to join us in these new policy changes.