Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, tonight we do something different. Tonight we may do something that may even be unprecedented. Tonight I am joined on the floor of the House by my distinguished gentleman and my partner from Long Island, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and we will be joined by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and perhaps others.

Tonight, for the first time that I know of, Republicans and Democrats take to the floor of the House to discuss Iraq, but not to criticize one another about Iraq, not to beat each other up about Iraq, not to cast aspersions and blame about Iraq, not to talk about what divides us on Iraq, but to find ways to come together on Iraq.

I don't think that's happened before on this floor, but I do believe that the American people have an unquenchable thirst for Democrats and Republicans not to take the time of this Congress for sloganeering and name calling and the impugning of motives, but to take the time of this Congress to have an intellectual debate over those issues, to take the time of Congress to really honor those troops and our veterans, and to discuss not what is left and what is right, but to discuss the way forward.

The gentleman from New York knows that every time the people from our districts and the American people tune into C-SPAN, what they see are Republicans and Democrats arguing and fighting and criticizing, attacking each other's ideas, impugning each other's patriotism, impugning each other's motives. Tonight is different, because we are not going to discuss what separates us and divides us, but we are going to discuss what, in fact, can unite us.

War in Iraq has caused an outbreak of war on floor of the House of Representatives, and tonight we declare a ceasefire. For me, this is not just a professional obligation, but, for me, it is personal, for two reasons.

The first is that several days ago I made a phone call to the father of Matthew Baylis. He was killed in Iraq last week. It was small arms fire in Baghdad. I have no idea whether Matthew Baylis or Matthew Baylis himself was a Democrat or a Republican or an independent or perhaps not registered to vote.

I don't care. I do believe that Matthew Baylis would want Republicans and Democrats to come together to talk about the way forward; that Matthew Baylis and those like him, who died in the service of his country, would want us to spend more of our time talking about moving our country forward than moving our country to the left or the right.

And the second reason that this is personal for me, Mr. Speaker, is because it's being organized by the House Center Aisle Caucus, which is a bipartisan group of 50 Democrats and Republicans who have come together, based on certain propositions. The first proposition is, we can disagree agreeably; that we can state our differences without calling each other names; that we can debate the issues without having this Chamber sound like a fourth grade elementary school auditorium that's run amok.

And the other premise of the Center Aisle Caucus, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats and Republicans will disagree on perhaps as much as 70 percent of the issues, which means we have a fundamental obligation to agree on the 30 percent that's left.

The problem is that even when we agree we haven't moved forward, because we've allowed our disagreements to paralyze areas where we, in fact, have consensus. And so the Center Aisle Caucus, which was sponsored, actually which was founded by the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Tim Johnson, and me and the gentlewoman from Missouri, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), the Center Aisle Caucus has been meeting on an ongoing basis to find areas of agreement. We recently met with the ambassador from Iraq to the United States, and he gave us some ideas.

Before I yield time to my friend from New York, I just want to focus on some of the principles that we do agree on.

If you would listen to the debate here on the floor of the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, you would think that there are actually Members of Congress who want us to lose in Iraq. There's not a single Member of Congress who wants us to lose in Iraq.

If you listen to the debate on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, you would think that there are actually Members of Congress who do not care about the lives lost in Iraq. There is not a single Member of Congress who has a callous disregard for the lives lost in Iraq.

You would think that there are two types of Members of Congress, either Members of Congress who want defeat or Members of Congress who want to be in Iraq forever. I don't know of a single Member of Congress who supports either option.

The fact of the matter is we are not the enemies, Democrats and Republicans. Americans aren't the enemies. The enemies are the people that we're fighting, and we need to focus on this.

And the Center Aisle Caucus has gathered and has endorsed several principles that we're going to discuss tonight, and I'll run through them quickly and then yield my time to the gentleman from New York.

Here are the shared principles that Democrats and Republicans who are interested in finding common ground have articulated:

Number one, we support our Armed Forces. We want to make sure they have adequate force protection. We want to make sure they have everything they need to keep them safe and keep them sound, and we want to bring them home as fast as possible.

Number two, we want to take care of our veterans. And I am so proud to announce on this floor tonight that earlier today the Appropriations Committee, which I have the privilege of serving on, unanimously, Republicans and Democrats, Democrats and Republicans, passed a $109.2 billion package that addresses the critical health care and housing needs for our veterans. $18 billion above last year's level and $4 billion more than the President requested, and I hope that he will not veto that bill.

Our bill includes $87.7 billion in crucial funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is a $6.7 billion increase in discretionary funding over last year's level. That is the largest single increase in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration.

Our bill addresses the backlog in claims by adding 1,000 new claims processors, and that's going to help veterans who now wait an average of 177 days for the benefits they deserve. I am very proud that Democrats and Republicans today in the Appropriations Committee voted to take care of our veterans.

We agree that we need to secure Iraq's borders because there are too many reports that Syria and Iran are sending fighters and equipment and technology over those borders to make the situation in Iraq even worse, not resisting Iraq's sovereignty, and threatening our troops and Iraqi civilians.

We agree that we need to stand up Iraqi security forces because we cannot be there for a prolonged period of time. I would imagine that we all agree that we've all been there too long already, and so we need to find ways to stand up Iraq security forces, and we're going to discuss that tonight.

We agree that there's a need for regional change. We agree that the Middle East is a very dangerous place in the world, and we need to transform it, using all the tools in our toolbox, from a place where children are taught how to blow things up to a place where children are taught how to put things together.

We agree that Iran needs to be responsible, and we need to engage Iran with the carrot and the stick. And we're pleased that the administration, which had resisted having any talks with Iran with respect to what is happening in Iraq, in fact, held those talks recently.

And, finally, we want to defeat al Qaeda, and we are prepared to use all the tools in our toolbox to do that. Because it was al Qaeda in Afghanistan that launched the attacks on the United States which killed hundreds of Long Islanders, those represented by myself and those represented by the distinguished gentleman from Long Island, from New York's First Congressional District, Mr. Bishop.

And on that I would be privileged to yield time to my colleague, the gentleman from New York.

I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his raising this issue of one for one, because I think it's a perfect example of Members of this body having different ideas that may make sense, trying to offer those ideas in the spirit of some compromise and reasonableness. Let's go into the basis of that one for one and explore it as a possible, not a way out, because Iraq is certainly complex and complicated, but at least one measure of improvement.

The President has said that, in the past, and has stated this publicly, that for every Iraqi that stands up, an American will come home or be redeployed. And he has said that on several occasions. On other occasions, we've heard that there are between 250,000 and 300,000 Iraqis that have been stood up. Well, the gentleman can help me do the math. If in fact there are between 250,000 and 300,000 Iraqis that have been stood up and if for every one that stands up an American is going to redeploy, how come 250,000 to 300,000 have not redeployed?

The answer is in how you define ``training'' and what it means to say ``stand up.'' In fact, go you take a look at the textbook definition of ``training'' in military terms, combat proficiency is what is important, and there are different levels of combat proficiency. If you are trained at level one combat proficiency, you are capable of fighting and winning convincingly anywhere in the world and you don't need any U.S. support. If you are trained at level two combat proficiency, you can fight and win almost anywhere in the world, but you need some measure of U.S. support, maybe some intel, maybe some reconnaissance assistance, maybe some logistics support. So if you take a look at the numbers of Iraqi forces that are actually trained at level one or level two combat proficiency, you will find that it is not 250,000 to 300,000 but far less. And the numbers ought not be repeated in a public forum, but far less than 250,000 to 300,000.

So the idea that we came up with was why don't we ask the President to report to the Congress on a monthly basis how many Iraqis have actually been trained at level one or level two combat proficiency, certify that to the Congress, and then we will redeploy an equivalent amount. Now, I am not suggesting that we withdraw that number necessarily. We might redeploy them to the borders so we can prevent Iran and Syria from inflaming the situation in Iraq.

The point is, Congressman Bishop, that I don't claim to have all the answers and I know that this isn't the perfect answer, but it is an idea that we have tried to set forward.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And, again, this was just one idea.

And the true value of the Center Aisle Caucus and this kind of dialogue, this unprecedented dialogue, and civil dialogue between Members on both sides is that we all have good ideas and we have all been trying to advance those ideas. And it is so refreshing to be joined by three members of the other side of the Center Aisle Caucus who have been extremely constructive, who have been true leaders in trying to forge bipartisan alliances in order to move the country and the debate not to the left, not to the right, but forward. And I am very proud that we are joined by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and I know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has joined us as well.

And I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, a leader in the Center Aisle Caucus (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.

Before yielding to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, just to clarify on the issue of Status of Forces Agreement, Mr. Dent was kind enough to join the Iraqi ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Sumaydi, and me and other members of the Center Aisle Caucus for a dinner where the ambassador himself talked about the importance of a Status of Forces Agreement.

Will it end the war tomorrow? Absolutely not. Will it end it next week? No. Is it one good, reasonable idea that will lower the temperature in Iraq, that will reduce the animosities that are flaming out of control there? I believe it will. And I am appreciative that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has cosponsored a bipartisan resolution that asks the President to submit a Status of Forces Agreement to the Iraqi government, not conclude one because it has got to be negotiated, but at least submit one to send a signal and a message that we don't want to own the place; that we are there and we will leave when the Iraqi government wishes us to.

With that, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for his bipartisan leadership and his great measure of thoughtfulness on issues with respect to Iraq, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

I thank the gentleman.

Before recognizing Mr. Bishop, I want to follow up on a very important point that the gentleman made about the lessons that history teaches us with respect to the importance of having a dialogue with our adversaries. I wish we understood those lessons here in the United States Congress. Because if you take a look at those lessons of history, the Cold War, The Space Raid, World War II, all of the great challenges that confronted Congresses in the past have been solved with bipartisan dialogue. Think about the Cold War. It was the bipartisanship, the bipartisan approach of a John F. Kennedy and a Richard Nixon and that helped end the Cold War. Think about World War II. It was the political leadership of FDR and Harry Truman and the military leadership of Dwight D. Eisenhower. There was always great bipartisanship with respect to enormous foreign policy challenges in our country. Democrats and Republicans found ways to talk to one another. I guess there was a saying that ``politics stops at the water's edge.'' One of the concerns I have is that we have kind of lost that sense, that we have made foreign policy and made issues of war and peace partisan issues. And what we are trying to do here in the Center Aisle Caucus, with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) is bring Democrats and Republicans back to the water's edge in the Center Aisle.

And with that, I will yield to Mr. Bishop.

I thank the gentleman.

I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania

I thank the gentleman.

I would pose a question, if I may, to the gentleman from Connecticut, who as Congressman Dent said has been to Iraq 17 times and chaired the Subcommittee on Terror. I know he was consulted with respect to the Iraq Study Group report or at least I believe was consulted with respect to the Iraq Study Group report and see if he would share his perspectives on the value of the Iraq Study Group report in terms of generating some bipartisan cooperation and moving us in the right direction in Iraq.

I would yield to the gentleman.

Well, I thank the gentleman. I think it is a very sound idea. The Iraq Study Group proved its value as an independent entity. And I have the highest regard for General Petraeus. In fact, he was in my office the day that the President announced the surge. And I was skeptical about the surge, personally I did not support the surge, but I thought it was important to reach out to General Petraeus and at least give him an opportunity to explain it to me.

I think he is the best we have. I have a very high regard for him. I think his report is going to be indispensable. I think it would be extremely useful to send the Iraqi Study Group back to take a look so that, like President Reagan said, ``trust but verify.'' I think that verification would be extremely useful.

And I will yield to the gentleman from New York.

Before yielding to the gentleman from Maryland, I want to again remind my colleagues and those viewing that what you've heard here on the floor of the House is different. You've actually heard Members from both sides generating ideas and agreeing to them rather than impugning each other's integrity. And that is exactly the purpose of this Special Order.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut whether he is proposing any specific initiative to formally request that the Iraq Study Group reconvene and make an assessment in Iraq in the near future. If he is, I would be pleased to join with him on a bipartisan basis.

I would welcome that partnership.

I am going to yield to my friend from New York, Mr. Bishop.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. If my colleagues have any final comments, I would be happy to recognize them, and then I am prepared to close.

The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest.

I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania?

I thank the gentleman.

I will close by thanking each of our colleagues to join with us this evening. Of the American people are accustomed to tuning into these so- called special orders and seeing a Democratic hour, which is usually spent beating up Republicans, and a Republican hour, which is usually spent beating up Democrats.

Tonight they saw something different. They saw Mr. Dent talk about a status of forces agreement, which Democrats can agree with. They saw Mr. Bishop talk about the one-for-one agreement, which has bipartisan support. They saw Mr. Shays discuss an idea to have the Iraq Study Group reassess conditions, which has Democratic support. And they heard the historic perspective of Mr. Gilchrest, a perspective that only a Marine that was wounded in Vietnam can properly give to the United States Congress.

The point is that I believe that without sounding overly enthusiastic, that in the past hour there was more bipartisan, reasoned, rational discussion of ideas to move us forward rather than left or right than has happened on the floor of this House over the past 4 years. That is precisely what the Center Aisle Caucus was created to generate.

Tonight we close by sharing our principles: That we support our Armed Forces. We will take care of our veterans. More assistance passed in today's appropriations bill to veterans than at any time in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration, passed unanimously by the Appropriations Committee today. We will secure Iraq's border. We want to stand up Iraq's security forces. We understand the need for regional change. We will push for that. We understand the threat of Iran. And we want to defeat al Qaeda.

Today's discussion was not about left or right, it was about moving forward. I know the gentleman talked about the servicemember that he represents who was lost in Iraq. Again, I would ask the American people to continue to support our Armed Forces.

I can think of no better evening and no better person to inspire this special order than Matthew Baylis, who we lost in Iraq last week, and I believe he would be very proud of what we are doing this evening. As I said before, I don't know whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. I have no idea whether his family are Republicans or Democrats. I do know that they would be proud that this evening, Democrats and Republicans joined together to talk about a way forward, without a single one of us calling another one a name.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, and I rise in support of this very important resolution.

I want to thank the sponsor of this resolution, the gentlewoman from California, not only for authoring it, but for working with me several weeks ago on an amendment that passed by a bipartisan margin in the House of Representatives to send a message to the leaders of Sudan that we will not tolerate genocide and in fact we will explore the upgrade of the Abeche airbase, which is located 100 miles from the border in Chad.

This is a very important resolution. I rise in support of this resolution today because too few people rose in support of those from my faith who were victimized by a holocaust in the 1930s and 1940s.

When I came to this body, Mr. Speaker, I made a vow that I would stand up and oppose and fight against and speak out against any genocide, and speak out against any power that was wittingly or unwittingly empowering or assisting in a genocide, which is what brings me to the floor today.

I was recently in China just 2 months ago engaging the Chinese government on a broad range of energy security issues. China has one of the world's fastest growing economies, arguably the world's fastest growing economy. By the year 2030, it will have more cars on its roads than we have on our roads. It is expanding its defense budget. China can be an important partner with the United States in leading the world, but with that role in leading the world comes a responsibility not to empower, not to assist any kind of genocide. It is time for the leadership of China to stand up with our democracy and say no to the genocide that is occurring in Darfur, and China has a critical opportunity to do that. They purchase 70 percent of Sudan's oil. They invested over $10 million in the Sudanese energy sector over the last two decades. They are the main supplier of arms to Sudan with $83 million exported there in 2005.

Mr. Speaker, we want to work with China. We want to engage China. We want to work with China to lead the world in a constructive way on stability and peace and economic development and environmental stewardship, but China needs to show the world that it is willing to engage those who are perpetrating a genocide, to draw the line and say it will not be tolerated. That is precisely what this resolution does. I am very pleased and proud to support it.

I thank the gentlewoman from California again for her leadership, and I will continue, with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis, to stand up and speak out when genocide is committed, or against those who assist in the commission of a genocide.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have drafted this amendment with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) to send a clear and unequivocal message to the Government of Sudan that we will proactively explore every option and bear the burdens necessary to help stop the genocide in Darfur.

400,000 innocent people have been murdered in Darfur, 2 million refugees, and through it all, the Government of Sudan tests the will and the patience of the United States, the United Nations and the entire world. This amendment says that we have the will and we are running out of patience.

One hundred miles from Darfur in Chad is the Abeche Air Base. If diplomacy fails, if Sudan continues to defy the world and perpetuate this genocide, that air base can be used for potential NATO operations. It can be used for a possible U.N. peacekeeping force. It can be used for humanitarian missions.

Our amendment expresses the will of Congress to make the upgrades necessary to that air base and requires the Department of Defense to report within 90 days on specifically what upgrades may be necessary and what the costs will be.

It says to Sudan, we will not turn our backs, we will not close our eyes, we will prepare.

I urge passage of this amendment.

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

I very much thank the gentleman, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. The gentleman is correct. That is, in fact, exactly what we are trying to get at, and that is embodied in this resolution, and I want to thank the gentleman.

This is an example of where Republicans and Democrats can agree. We argue about a lot on this floor, but let there be no mistake. When there is genocide, when there are massacres, Republicans and Democrats will stand together in opposition to that genocide.

Talking about it is not enough. We need to prepare for all contingencies, and that's what this resolution does.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will wrap up. We have heard this evening that this resolution enjoys bipartisan support and support with Members with different ideologies.

The cosponsor of this amendment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and I have different ideologies. I tend to lean to the right on national security issues, she tends to lean to the left. But we are united in sending a message around the world that we will not allow genocide to occur.

After the Holocaust, the world embraced the slogan, ``Never Again.'' What this resolution does is say that we will explore every option to keep our promise to that slogan so that it is not just words.

I also want to point out that the resolution, in addition to having the support of the distinguished ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Republicans and Democrats, also was supported by Citizens for Global Slogans, Enough, the Project to Abolish Genocide and Mass Atrocities, the Genocide Intervention Network, the Save Darfur Coalition and the Truman National Security Project. This is something that we can all agree on. I am grateful to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

I will yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's exuberance. I certainly will work with him and with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee to work on a truly bipartisan effort that genocide will not be tolerated, and we will explore every option and push every button we need to.

I thank the gentleman. We will work with him.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I fully respect the views of the gentleman from California, but I do get troubled when I hear anybody on this floor questioning the commitment of any other Member of this floor to our troops.

I did not suggest for a moment that the other side was not supportive of our troops when they underfunded our troops, when they didn't provide enough up-armor for their Humvees, when they didn't provide enough armor for their vests, when they allowed Water Reed Hospital to deteriorate.

When these things happened, I never questioned the commitment of the other side to our troops. And I think we would all appreciate it if we confine our differences to honest policy debate and not suggest that any Member of this body does not support the brave men and women who are fighting for our country.

I support this resolution because it is another attempt at good- faith, honest compromise with the President of the United States. Two weeks ago we offered a compromise to the President. We said we will give you everything that you have asked for, for operations in Iraq, and we will give you more for operations in Afghanistan, where the war on terror began. We will give you more money for Walter Reed, for post- traumatic stress disorder, for traumatic brain injuries. And the President

said, no thanks. I want a blank check and I want to be able to spend a blank check eternally.

And now we are back offering a new compromise which says we will fund operations in Iraq. We will strengthen our capabilities in Afghanistan. But we want accountability for the first time, Mr. President. And all we are saying is this: report to the United States Congress, certify our progress, and in 2 months we will have a choice. Some people can say the status quo is working fine, progress has been made, the management of the administration is going well, and vote to continue operations in Iraq. And others will have the opportunity to draw a different conclusion and suggest a strategic redeployment. That is a commonsense compromise. And, frankly, if the President of the United States vetoes this compromise, he is saying to the American people I don't want accountability. I don't want oversight. I want it my way. I want it myself.

I just want to thank the gentleman for including language that was originated by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) that codified the President's own language that for every Iraqi soldier that reaches combat proficiency, an American is redeployed. The President has been saying that for 4 years.

If 378,000 Iraqis have reached combat proficiency, why did we need a surge of 20,000? Why do we need another 13,000 that the President called for? All we are doing is codifying the President's own language: for every Iraqi soldier that is trained, an American is redeployed.

I thank the chairman for including that language. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for originating it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Alec Ornstein, who will be recognized tomorrow on Long Island by the Long Island Builders Institute.

Mr. Ornstein is a leader on Long Island. As the co-founder of Ornstein Leyton Company, he has been involved in the real estate development community for over 15 years. He is dedicated to offering a wide range of housing alternatives to hundreds of satisfied home owners on Long Island and neighboring counties. Mr. Ornstein is committed to responsible economic development of Long Island and has worked towards this goal as the President of the Long Island Builders Institute. As the President of the LIBI, Mr. Ornstein has supported the philosophy of protecting Long Island's valuable resources and making our community accessible to everyone. He has also taken on a new role as a member of the Board of Directors for the Long Island Housing Partnership.

Mr. Ornstein has also taken on significant charitable and philanthropic causes. He and his family established the Ornstein Scholarship Fund at his alma mater, Syracuse University. For the past nineteen years, he has bestowed the American Jewish Committee's Franklin H. Ornstein Humanitarian of the Year Award to those that have battled racism and inequality in our communities. Mr. Ornstein has held executive positions and served on many philanthropic boards in the past, including Long Beach Memorial Hospital, the Science Museum of Long Island, Temple Emanuel of Great Neck and Temple Beth-El of Huntington.

I am proud to honor Mr. Alec Ornstein for his service to the Long Island Builders Institute, and his dedication to the betterment of our community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk with my colleagues about a visit I recently made to Deer Park High School in my Congressional District, where the students invited me to participate in a hearing on college affordability.

The Seniors at Deer Park High School and I discussed the skyrocketing costs associated with getting a college education and the ways in which many middle class families on Long Island are put at a critical disadvantage--being too rich to qualify for student aid but too poor to pay for college. They shared their personal thoughts and concerns about how they'll pay for college. And they advised me on legislation I'm drafting to make college more affordable.

Higher education is so important--but so many parents and students simply cannot afford to pay for college. And many parents and students who find a way to struggle through end up thousands of dollars in debt. Total expenses for public universities (including tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, transportation and other expenses) now average $12,796 per year. Total expenses for private universities now average $30,367 per year. And New York has the highest number of subsidized student borrowers in the country.

How can the United States compete in the global economy if our young people cannot afford a college education? We've made a start. In the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, we passed the College Student Relief Act of 2007. This legislation will make college more affordable and accessible by cutting the interest rate on subsidized student loans for undergraduates in half over the next five years--from the current 6.8% to 3.4%.

In closing, I'd like to commend the students at Deer Park High School for all of the hard work and preparation they put into our college affordability hearing and I want to thank them for all of their wonderful suggestions. The time I spent at Deer Park High School truly helped reinforce my commitment to making college more affordable for Long Island families.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Harry Haft, a Holocaust survivor and inductee into the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame.

Born Hertzka Haft on July 28, 1925 in Poland, Harry Haft was only 16 when he was sent to the infamous concentration camp, Auschwitz. Here, the brave teenager was forced to fight other prisoners for the amusement of German SS guards. These perverse, bare-knuckled bouts were held while Mr. Haft routinely faced starvation, torture, and a culture of death.

However, Mr. Haft's determination and instincts kept him alive long enough to escape from the camp. After World War II ended, Mr. Haft married Miriam and traveled to America determined to find freedom, Here, he became a professional boxer, one who would battle elements of corruption and organized crime as he worked to establish himself as a professional athlete. His winning career would culminate in a bout against the future undefeated heavyweight champion of the world, Rocky Marciano. After his retirement from the ring, Mr. Haft had three children, Alan, Marty, and Helene, and today is a proud grandfather of six: Hartley, Jamie, Stephanie, Ethan, Melodie, and Jonathan,

This Sunday, April 29, 2007, Mr. Haft will take his place as a deserving member of the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame in Commack, New York. His story is one of perseverance and survival--of a man who escaped from unimaginable horror to find a new life and success at the top of his profession. I am proud to honor him today.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, not to quibble over a rule, but to get to the heart of this very important legislation, in 1957 the American people were terrorized when Sputnik orbited the Earth, and it looked like the Soviet Union had beat us into outer space. What we did then, in the face of that very grave threat to our national security, was to launch a new generation of engineers and scientists.

What we did then was went into our classrooms and nurtured a new generation of people who could engineer, research, develop, manufacture and mobilize. That generation of engineers landed us on the Moon.

People say that NASA landed man on the Moon. I have a very high regard for NASA, but NASA didn't land us on the Moon. The Grumman Corporation landed us on the Moon. NASA provided the incentives and the support and acted as a catalyst to help mobilize that generation of engineers that figured out how to get us to the Moon. We won the Cold War with that generation.

I believe that today our dependence on foreign oil is just as grave a threat as Sputnik was; just as grave a threat to our security, and my children's security, as the Cold War was. We need to engineer again, to research and develop, to mobilize and motivate and inspire a new generation of engineers who can develop plug-in hybrids and fuel cells, hydrogen fuel cells and batteries and cellulosic ethanol.

I was in China just 2 months ago on an energy security congressional delegation. The seventh wealthiest person in China is manufacturing solar panels in China and selling them to Germany; not here, but selling them to Germany.

In Brazil, seven out of every 10 cars is running on flex fuel. We beat Germany and Japan in World War II. They are now ahead of us in solar energy.

If we could win the Cold War and World War II, if we could defeat Germany and Japan in World War II, we should be able to get ahead of them in solar energy. If Brazil can do it, we can do it. It starts in the classroom. It starts with our schools. It starts with that generation.

We can no longer afford to turn our backs on the future. It is time to harness that energy so that generation can provide us with the energy and security we need. It is time to stop borrowing money from China in order to fund our military, to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to fuel our weapons to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf.

This is a national security issue, and it's time for us to treat it as that and invest in that next generation of engineers and scientists. That is what this bill does, and that is why I am so proud to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.

Is this the perfect solution? No. But how can there be a perfect solution to a war so imperfectly devised, so catastrophically planned, so horribly managed by the Bush administration?

This resolution turns in a better direction. It provides health care to our veterans.

It provides support to our warfighters.

It demands accountability from our President.

And it creates the process to redeploy our troops.

I voted for the use of force in Iraq, Mr. Speaker. I believed then, as I believe now, that the Middle East is an exceedingly dangerous region on the brink of an eruption that threatens global security.

But the war in Iraq did not stabilize the Middle East. It has destabilized it.

Before the war in Iraq, Iran was concerned about Israel. Today, Israel is concerned about Iran.

Before the war in Iraq, there was no such thing as ``Al Queda in Iraq''. Today, there is.

Before the war in Iraq, our military was capable of swiftly and decisively responding to multiple threats, foreign and domestic. Just yesterday, the New York National Guard reported to my office that it has only 37 percent of the mission critical transportation it needs to respond to a homeland security emergency in my state: whether it's a terrorist attack or a severe hurricane.

This resolution reinvests in the priorities we need. And it says to both the Iraqi government and the Bush Administration:

``No more blank checks. No more endless commitments.''

Many are troubled with the inclusion of a strategic withdrawal of our troops between December of this year and August of next. Mr. Speaker.

And I must be honest. I have struggled with this as well. The decision should be hard. It should be contentious. It should torment us all. Because no matter what we do, the stakes are high. The consequences are great.

If you lean to the right, an August 2008 redeployment is way too soon.

If you lean to the left, an August 2008 redeployment is way too long.

I reached my own judgment a few months ago. Based not on polls, not on politics, not on the convenience of sound-bytes on either side of the aisle and not on righteous absolutism that can only be formulated in a vacuum. I formed it after listening to the Commanding General of CENTCOM testify to the Armed Services Committee that we had until the middle of this year before Baghdad spins out of control. Shortly after that, the Iraq Study Group, after months of non-partisan work and study, reached the judgment that: ``By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.''

The middle of this year to the middle of next year.

Those are the benchmarks, Mr. Speaker. Those are the nonpartisan, nonpolitical, balanced and reasoned benchmarks.

And those benchmarks are contained in this resolution.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say this: Today Republicans and Democrats will disagree. Fair enough. But it's time to stop thinking about our disagreements and begin working together on our agreements.

Last week, several members of the House Center Aisle Caucus, which I have the privilege of co-chairing, met to discuss cooperating on several Iraq initiatives. This week. I introduced the first of these bipartisan measures with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.

Boustany). Our resolution requires the President to submit a Status Of Forces Agreement to the Iraq government, just as we have with other governments where we have a military presence. This will send the message that we are not occupiers of Iraq. And we follow the rule of law.

I mention this now, Mr. Speaker, in the hopes that my colleagues who wish to join us in constructive ways forward will join us. That the debate will turn from left and right to forward.

That is what our troops want. That is what our constituents want. That is our obligation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in great sadness. My community has lost a great leader and a humanitarian: Ken Berkman.

Of all the things that can be said of Ken Berkman, the most profound is that he made a difference in his community. And to every good cause and every community project he brought a sparkling wit, a wry smile, a deep compassion, and an exuberant dedication. He built one of the leading law firms on Long Island, but understood that the foundation of a strong law firm is a good and flourishing community.

I have known Ken and his wife Irene for many years, but anyone involved in any facet of community life or any issue confronting Long Island has also known them.

Ken cared about his country. He cared about the town of Huntington. And cared most about his family. His legacy will be a standard of grace and commitment that to which others will aspire. He made our community better, and those who follow his example will continue to push our community forward.

That, Madam Speaker, is the true legacy of Ken Berkman. We lost him, but not the standard he set, and the difference he made to the people I represent in the United States Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Huntington Jewish Center.

In 1907, some of Long Island's first Jewish families arrived in the Huntington area bringing with them a rich spirit and culture. Their desire to set down roots and to belong to a community has led to the creation of one of the nation's most enduring religious establishments. These Jewish families gathered to pray, learn and socialize in the old firehouse on Main Street and the Huntington Jewish Center was born.

The current building, located on Park Avenue was completed in 1961. It was designed to meet the diverse needs of the membership. The elegantly modern building houses two sanctuaries, a Hebrew school and nursery school, a family life center, youth wing, social hall, library, meeting rooms and an office.

One hundred years later it is celebrating its centennial anniversary. The devotion and dedication of its generations of members has translated into 100 years of worship in the Huntington community. The Huntington Jewish Center is now the oldest synagogue in Suffolk

County, in my district, yet it remains a vibrant spiritual, cultural and social center.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the vast contributions that past and present African American leaders have made to our country. As February and Black History Month come to a close, it is time for us all to reflect on the crucial role that African Americans have played in this great nation.

As we commemorate the achievements of African American leaders, we must remember the efforts of their predecessors who dedicated their entire lives to opening the doors for those that followed. If it were not for the commitment of civil rights leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers and countless others, today's accomplishments may not have come to fruition. Their diligence and bravery paved the way for future African Americans and for that they deserve our deep recognition and praise.

Standing here today, I am honored to serve in this historic 110th Congress particularly because we have a record number of African Americans holding leadership positions. As a Democrat, I am proud to have Representative James Clyburn serving as the Majority Whip making him the highest ranking African American in Congressional history.

Additionally, we are privileged to have Chairman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi of the Homeland Security Committee, Chairman John Conyers of Michigan on the Judiciary Committee, Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs- Jones of Ohio on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and Chairman Charles Rangel from my home state of New York on the Committee on Ways and Means. I am grateful to be serving in this body with such distinguished colleagues.

I hope you will all join me today on this the last day of February in recognizing and honoring the profound contributions of African Americans to the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I had not intended to speak either, but after listening to some of my friends from the other side of the aisle discuss how the House has finished and we have concluded business, they may be going home for the day, but I want to share with America and my constituents what I am going to be doing. I am not leaving. I am going to continue to work.

At 2:30, I will be meeting with a constituent group from my district. I am going to return to a hearing of the Energy and Water Subcommittee. I will be meeting with another group from my district at 3. I am meeting with the adjuvant general of the New York National Guard at 3:30. At 4, I am meeting with a member from the other side, Congresswoman Emerson, to discuss the Center Aisle Caucus.

Then I have a 4:30 staff meeting, then a Humane Society meeting, then a U.S.-China Working Group meeting. Then I will be going to George Washington University to give a speech.

My friends, it is okay for you to go home at 2:00 when the legislative business is done, but many of us on this side, we are going to continue to do the work that the American people want.

Madam Speaker, we are all so proud on both sides of the aisle of the work that our servicemembers are doing in military theaters abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan and so many places around the world. And we should be just as proud of the work they do when they come home.

I rise today to share with my colleagues the extraordinary heroism of Brian James Ivory. Mr. Ivory was a very proud member of the United States Marine Corps. He served in Iraq. He crewed aircraft flying in and out of some very dangerous places.

He was also stationed in North Carolina where he assisted in search and rescue missions, and he came home to Long Island when his deployment ended.

On December 17, he was driving home from work at night and he saw a vehicle in front of him hit a utility pole and erupt into flames. This young man, who had already served and sacrificed for his country, who had already paid his dues, rather than driving on and just calling the police, stopped his car, called the authorities and then pulled the driver out of the car, risking his life one more time, not in Iraq, but on the Long Island Expressway.

I want to commend this gentleman for his heroism. This is a story that I know is not unique. The point here is that we not simply celebrate the sacrifices and the heroism of our servicemembers when they go abroad to fight our battles, but we also keep in mind their bravery, their courage, their commitment, their dedication, their loyalty to protecting human life when they return home.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by setting the record straight. I have heard my friends on the other side talk about this resolution as calling for withdrawal, as calling for retreat. There is nothing in this resolution that says withdraw; there is nothing in this resolution that says retreat; there is nothing in this resolution that says exit.

What this resolution says is that we support our troops, and we do not believe that it is a good idea to add 20,000 more troops to a policy that has not worked.

In October of 2002, I voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. I believed then, as I believe now, that the Middle East is a dangerous place and that you have to use a combination of hard power and soft power to help change the trajectory of the Middle East from a place that teaches kids how to blow things up to a place that teaches kids how to put things together.

In January of 2005, I visited our troops in Iraq, and I remember sitting with General Casey and asking him, How many foreign fighters are here and how many insurgents? And at that point, January 2005, the General said, Congressman, there are about 500 foreign fighters and there are about 5,000 insurgents. And so what to do? We committed more force to try and solve that problem.

And then I went back to Iraq in April of 2006, 15 months later, and I asked General Casey, How many foreign fighters are there and how many insurgents? And General Casey said, Congressman, there are 5,000 foreign fighters, there used to be 500, now 5,000; there used to be 5,000 insurgents, now there are 20,000 insurgents. And so what did we do? We threw in more force.

And now a year after that we stand here debating a resolution on whether we should commit another 20,000 troops to a mission that is poorly planned, from a military that has been strained by that poor planning and that is ill conceived.

Now, I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker. If the President of the United States asked me to support additional troops into Afghanistan tonight to find Osama bin Laden, who by the way was the one who killed over 100 of my constituents, or to stop the resurgence of the Taliban, which by the way was the group of people who really gave aid and comfort to the enemy, I would vote for that tonight. I absolutely would vote for that tonight. But this decision by the President to put 20,000 more people into Iraq is the wrong number at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mr. Speaker, during this debate I have heard my colleagues talk about the messages that we are sending our troops and how it will affect their morale, and I have an obligation as somebody who supports our military to suggest that if we had given our troops up-armor for their Humvees, Kevlar for their vests, night-vision goggles that work, and consistent rotations, their morale would be much better.

Our troops are not afraid of democracy being waged on the floor of the House of Representatives. And, in fact, on the chance that our enemies are listening to this debate, let me suggest that this debate doesn't give aid and comfort to our enemies. It tells our enemies what democracy is about. So for our enemies who may be listening: welcome to democracy. This is what it sounds like, this is what it looks like, and this is what we are willing to fight for.

What our servicemembers deserve to hear is the truth. What they deserve is a government that confronts reality rather than simply hoping for the best. So here is the truth, Mr. Speaker: somewhere between those who believe that we can stay the course in Iraq indefinitely and those who believe that we should leave Iraq tomorrow is the painful truth. The truth is that neither of those options will work.

Now, if you agree with me that that is the painful reality, then you are left with a hard choice: add 20,000 troops to continue the administration's ineffective plan, or try something different. 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, or rebuild our readiness here at home to deal with the growing challenges of Iran or naval expansion in China or genocide in Darfur or the other dangers in the world. Hold the Iraqi Government accountable for accelerating the training of their troops, or continue hoping for the best while putting the burden on the backs of 20,000 more U.S. troops.

Let me make two other points. The gentleman who preceded me, my friend from California, said, what do you have to offer? We have offered ideas; we have offered ideas from day one. The problem has been the stubborn resistance by the administration to listen to our ideas.

I have been advocating with my friend from California (Mrs. Tauscher) a status of forces agreement in Iraq, so that we would send the message that we are not occupiers, that we don't want to be there for one day longer than we need to be. The administration has rejected that.

I have been advocating with my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney) a one-for-one resolution. I and others have been advocating a formula, a one-for-one formula that says that for every Iraqi security force that stands up an American will be redeployed.

So we have provided ideas. And I want to once again offer a bipartisan invitation to my colleagues to work with us, because whether this resolution passes or not, the war is not going to end the next day. We still have many challenges ahead, and we are going to have to work together.

And, finally, Mr. Speaker, let me make a point about some of the characterizations that we have been listening to. As a Democrat, I know that there is not a single Republican who wakes up in the morning wanting this war to last for one day longer than it has to last. And in the same spirit, I am offended by anyone who would suggest that there is a Democrat who gives aid and comfort to the enemy, who wants us to be defeated, who wants us to lose. That is not what we are about.

We need to end the sound bites and the partisanship and the war rooms off the floor of the House that tell people what to say, and begin formulating effective policy for the troops that are listening to us tonight.

I visited my VA hospital yesterday, and I saw men and women in wheelchairs and gurneys. It didn't say Republican or Democrat on those wheelchairs and gurneys. When the time came, they went to fight for us. Our obligation is to stand by them, not with sound bites, not with policies that haven't worked before, but with new ideas for a stronger country.