Floor Statements

I thank my good friend for his leadership in the Blue Dogs, his leadership in the Congress, and my good friend from Georgia who, as he noted, cochairs with me the Democratic Study Group on National Security, which is intended to ensure that this Congress and Democrats in Congress continue to lead the fight on behalf of our troops, to lead the fight on behalf of our national security. We were founded in the acknowledgement that we need a robust, muscular military to protect us from the threats that are out there.

I think this topic is critically important, the topic of war profiteering. And who pays the price for war profiteering? Our taxpayers pay the price, our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world pay the price. But there is another group that is paying the price, and I would like to address that this evening, our National Guard units at home.

This morning there was a report in the National Journal's Congress Daily. It was headlined, National Guard May Lack Needed Gear to Deal With Domestic Crisis, GAO Says. And the report raises questions about whether the State-run National Guard units have adequate supplies to respond to disasters and emergencies on U.S. soil. It says it will remain unclear whether the Guard is equipped to respond effectively to the consequences of a large-scale terrorist attack or natural disaster.

The article in the National Journal states, ``Over the last several months, many State Guard leaders have complained that their unit took their best equipment with them when they deployed to Iraq, leaving the personnel at home short of trucks, radios and other equipment needed for domestic missions. Indeed, Lieutenant General Steven Blum, chief of the Pentagon's National Guard Bureau, told Congress last year that at least two-thirds of his units in the United States are not combat ready.''

Now this, to me, is just incredible that Halliburton made money, that these contractors made money. In my view, they gouged the military, gouged our taxpayers, marked up the services they provided, and National Guard units at home are short of the equipment they need.

I represent a district on Long Island. The World Trade Center was 40 miles from my hometown. We know what terrorism is like. We needed our emergency responders when that happened. We are likely to need them again, the gentleman from Georgia knows that very well. But when two- thirds of their equipment is sitting in Iraq, that creates a very serious problem. That is the cost of war profiteering.

Now, I understand the exigencies of war and I understand that when you go to war, you know, you have to make sure that your troops have everything they need, and there are all sorts of funding issues; but my goodness, Secretary Rumsfeld said, You go to war not with the Army you want but with the Army you have. You have got to budget for that Army. You never send people into war unequipped, underfunded, underequipped without the right number of coagulant bandages, without the right number of night vision goggles and up-armored Humvees.

If they found the money to pay these contractors that ripped us off, they can find the money to make sure that our National Guard units have the equipment they need. If they found the money to pay the excessive bills of these contractors so that they could raise their bottom lines, they could find the money to raise the equipment that the National Guard needs for the mission-critical equipment that will be required-- not just in an act of terrorism, by the way, but when we have a major hurricane as we did with Katrina.

Long Island stands a very good chance of suffering a Category 3 hurricane or more. And it is going to be very difficult for me to explain to my constituents that they didn't have the National Guard equipment resources that they were depending on to respond to a Category 3 hurricane because that equipment was in Iraq; but Halliburton got what it wanted, its CEO got the salary increase he needed.

This isn't very complicated. We are short-funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; we are undersupplying our National Guard units at home. The big corporations who are contracted as part of this war are making more money than ever. And there are still companies in the United States that can register their international headquarters at a P.O. Box in Bermuda so they can avoid their fair share of taxes at home. That is a disgrace.

It is time for accountability. It is time for oversight. It is time to put our money where our mouths are. It is time to quit talking about funding our

troops here and abroad and then not giving them the resources they need.

The Blue Dogs believe in fiscal accountability. We take second place to nobody when it comes to supporting our troops and supporting our military, to nobody. But we also understand that you can't say you are doing that; you have got to actually do it. You can't fight a war abroad, short-fund our troops there and be left with degraded National Guard units at home. It is time for accountability, for oversight. It is time for a different direction, and that is precisely what the Blue Dogs are going to insist on.

I thank the gentleman for recognizing me.

Mr. Speaker, I would just close with one point.

I want to echo what the gentleman from Georgia has said. This soldier comes first. If you go into fight a global war on terror you better make sure the fighters have everything they need. Do not ask them to stand in line behind the corporate executives at Halliburton. Do not ask them to stand in line behind the CEO of Exxon Mobil who got a huge tax cut on top of his bonus, on top of his huge salary. Do not ask them to stand in line behind the big pharmaceutical companies that also got a windfall from the government in the Medicare part D program, despite their record-breaking profits.

The gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Arkansas and I believe more than anything else that our primary obligation in this place, in this House, is to support our Armed Forces and to keep this Nation safe. That takes the right priorities.

In the past, the priorities have been wrong. How do I know? Two- thirds of our National Guard units do not have the equipment they need to respond to an emergency or an act of terrorism at home because the equipment is sitting in Iraq because we did not fund the war fight properly.

It is time to put our soldiers first, not just in our rhetoric but in our budgets; and to do that, you need accountability.

Mr. Speaker, as we debate this rule and debate how we are going to debate this rule, an F-16 is burning 25 gallons of fuel every minute. A Stryker combat vehicle on which our troops travel is traveling at the rate of about 7 miles per gallon. I was on a C-17 recently. It is burning 3,000 gallons an hour.

Energy is a national security issue. It is a vital national security issue. And we can't afford to continue to debate the debate to adjourn this House. The decision before to ask this House to adjourn, I think, is emblematic of failed energy policies. There is no more debating or delaying. It is time to act.

Last year the Department of Defense spent $10.6 billion on basic energy costs. Of that, the Air Force spent $4.7 billion on one thing, buying fuel for its planes.

Now, I believe in a robust defense. We have got some significant challenges in the world. China is a significant challenge. Iran is a significant challenge. But the policies on energy that we have had for the past 6 years have put us in the position where we are borrowing money from China to fund our defense budgets, to fuel our military, which requires buying oil from the Persian Gulf to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf. How does that make sense? It makes no sense.

I was in China just several weeks ago. They are going to reduce their energy consumption by 20 percent and keep growing, and increase their use of renewables, while we continue to rely on our adversaries to power our military to protect us from our adversaries.

This dependence on foreign oil, Mr. Speaker, is as glaring a threat to our national security as Sputnik was, as the Cold War was, as the space race was. And our answer to those threats was, we will research and develop and manufacture and engineer and land men on the Moon by the end of the decade. We confronted those threats and beat those threats.

It is time to quit debating and quit delaying and quit stalling. It is time to put the protection of our troops ahead of the profits of the big oil companies. It is time to understand that this is a critical national security issue that has been tried and debated and delayed for 30 years. It is time to act now.

Mr. Speaker, on September 11th, 2001, my congressional district lost well over one hundred people; and tens of thousands of lives were shattered.

So it is on their behalf that I rise today and support passage of this bill, to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission.

I am grateful that the first bill to be passed in the first hours of a new majority is this one. Because America can't afford to wait another minute. We've had 5\1/2\ years of excuses, delays, postponements and lobbying. That's 5\1/2\ years too long.

Even today, Mr. Speaker, there are some who doubt we can meet the deadlines to screen air cargo in 3 years and shipping cargo in 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, America's greatest triumphs were not achieved by saying ``it's too hard.'' They were secured by refusing to take no for an answer.

In 1962, 5 years after Sputnik was launched, John F. Kennedy said, ``By the end of the decade we will land on the moon.''

In 2007, over 5 years after 9-11, we are saying, ``by the end of the decade we will screen all air cargo on our planes.''

If we could research, develop, engineer and build the systems that lifted people into space, out of orbit, propel them to the moon, land them on the moon, bring them back to their capsule, return to earth, survive a fiery re-entry and deposit them safely in the ocean--then we should be able to figure out how to screen air cargo in a way that minimizes risk and inconvenience to people who get on planes.

Mr. Speaker, when it came to securing America's place in the world, President Kennedy didn't say ``I wish we could land a man on the moon but it's not easy enough, so instead we'll send a bus to Des Moines.''

Mr. Speaker, when it came to preserving our national survival, President Roosevelt didn't say, ``Yesterday was a day of infamy, so let's spend 5\1/2\ years figuring out how to respond with the least inconvenience to the American people.''

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the safety and security of my constituents, there can be no more excuses, no further delay, no higher priority.

And to those who disagree with me, who earnestly and honorably believe we must continue to study feasibility and practicalities, I will share other words of President Kennedy, from that same speech when he told America we would go to the moon:

We choose to go the moon in this decade and do the other

things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,

because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best

of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one

that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to

postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others,

too.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Arkansas with whom I have served for 6 years. We were elected together in 2000, and it has been my privilege to work with and under him in the Blue Dog Coalition.

Mr. Speaker, one of the critical obligations we have as Members of Congress, it does not matter whether you are a Blue Dog or Republican or Democrat, one of the most critical obligations we have, in my view, is keeping

our country strong and safe, making sure that our military continues to be the strongest and greatest on earth; making sure that our children, as they advance in years, inherit a military that is strong and a country that is safe and secure. That is what we all think about. That is the obligation that we all have.

But if we continue these unsustainable budget strategies on this unsustainable budget path with $8 trillion debts and multibillion- dollar annual deficits, we are undermining our military and we are doing a disservice not only to our children but to the brave men and women who count on us to ensure that we are appropriating the funds adequate for them to fight the fight.

I have the great privilege of being on the Armed Services Committee, which has jurisdiction for all military and national security issues. We have a $500 billion national defense budget this year. We need to continue providing our forces with the critical funds that they need for force protection, for night vision goggles, for up-armored Humvees, for Kevlar, for pay increases, for health benefits, for decent housing, for education. We are going to continue to need to do that because the world will continue to be a very dangerous place. We want to make sure that our men and women have all of the resources that they need to confront those dangers.

The problem is this: These unsustainable budgets, the lack of balanced budgets, the lack of true prioritizing and the lack of true bipartisanship is not going to provide our military with what they need. Let me give an example.

At a recent Blue Dog meeting, I was very concerned to receive a report from the GAO, and that report is eye-opening. It is jarring. It should be a matter of concern to everybody who makes budget decisions.

According to that report, in 2005 Federal revenues as a percentage of GDP were just over 20 percent; just over 20 percent of our gross domestic product was Federal revenues. Federal revenues will be flatlined all of the way through 2040. Federal revenues, now over 20 percent of our GDP, in the year 2040 Federal revenues will continue to be just over 20 percent of our GDP. The problem is this: that Federal spending is going to far exceed our Federal revenues. Last year, 2005, Federal spending as a percent of GDP, might have been sustainable. But by the year 2040, Federal spending as a percentage of GDP will be so high, without the appropriate balanced budget controls, that this is the condition that our kids will find themselves in. In the year 2040, Federal revenues will be ample to pay for two functions in the Federal Government: interest on debt and a little bit of Social Security. Everything else will be in the gap between the money we have and the money we need. That includes all defense spending. It includes the FBI. It includes payments to farmers. It includes the CIA. It includes all of our national security spending. That is what we are saying to our children.

If we continue these unsustainable budgets, by the year 2040, Federal revenues will only pay for interest on debt, credit card interest, and a little bit of Social Security. They are either going to have to cancel all other programs or tax themselves catastrophically to pay for them. Now, that is not a value that any American sitting around their kitchen table would agree to. That is not a work ethic that any of us would agree to.

So how do we fix this problem? How are the Blue Dogs proposing that we give our kids the ability to pay for the strongest military on earth? It is very simple, not very complicated at all. The Blue Dogs say balance our budgets. Don't spend if you don't have the resources to spend. The Blue Dogs say impose fiscal discipline on this Congress and on the administration. The Blue Dogs say prioritize, meet your critical needs first, pay for a strong military, don't try to balance budgets on the backs of people who are fighting on our fronts and then have them report to us that they didn't have coagulant bandages in Iraq because nobody paid for adequate amounts. Pay for those things first and watch and measure your spending on other less important things. That is what we are saying. But make sure at the end of the day the budget is balanced.

Finally what the Blue Dogs are saying is this: We don't care whether you are Democrat or Republican. We don't care whether you are from the south shore of Long Island or from the deep South. It doesn't matter to us. Work with us. Work with us. We will work with you.

The seat that I stand in front of here is three seats from the center aisle of the Congress of the United States. Blue Dogs have demonstrated time and time again our willingness to cross that aisle and work with anyone who is as committed as we are to the values of a balanced budget and a strong defense.

So as we go into the majority, which is a very sober responsibility, and face the difficult choices to be made, we assert again our willingness to cross that center aisle and forge partnerships with Members on the other side of the aisle to do what is best for our children: Pay for a strong defense, an excellent military, a well- trained military, and do it as we balance our budgets. Give our children the ability to be protected and pay for that protection at the same time.

It is about simple, fundamental commonsense priorities, and few organizations are as equipped and as expert to pursue those priorities as the Blue Dog Coalition, which is why I have been so proud to be a member.

If the gentleman would yield, this is such a critical point. This is a national security area. And I know that the gentleman understands that so well.

Mr. Speaker, last year the Department of Defense spent $10.6 billion on basic energy costs. That is what it costs the military to fuel itself. Of that, the Air Force spent $4.7 billion, about half on one thing: fuel for its airplanes. With this $8 trillion debt, we have to fund the defense budget. How do we do it? The gentlemen know well, we borrow the money from China.

So here is what we are doing: We are borrowing money from China to fund defense budgets to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to fuel our Air Force to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf. This is not just an energy policy, it is a national security vulnerability. We will balance our budgets, have fiscal responsibility and pursue energy independence so that we are safer and we are much better off in terms of our budgets.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns with S. 3880, The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

I believe that individuals and groups cannot resort to intimidation, vandalism or violence in the advancement of a cause. Protests must be lawful and disagreements respected. But, this bill, as drafted, could criminalize lawful and constitutionally protected activists.

This bill criminalizes conduct that ``intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property,'' however, the bill fails to define what ``real or personal property'' means. As a result, legitimate advocacy--such as a boycott, protest, or mail campaign--that causes an animal enterprise to merely lose profits could be criminalized under S. 3880.

It also fails to adequately define the term ``animal enterprise.'' Nothing in the current definition requires that an enterprise be lawful. Therefore, investigations into unlawful animal enterprises, such as animal fighting organizations or illegal puppy mills, could be deterred as employees, citizens, and legitimate animal activists may be afraid to cooperate or provide information to law enforcement agencies for fear of prosecution under the terms of this bill.

I am a strong supporter of research, but I also believe that animal rights need to be vigilantly enforced. In order to achieve that goal, I have been working with the Humane Society on amendments to the Animal Rights Act, which is the law that governs the humane care, handling, treatment and transportation of animals in laboratories and dealers who sell animals to laboratories and animal exhibitors. My bill would provide two keys changes to this law. First, it doubles the fine for violations (from $5,000 to $10,000) and increases the number of annual inspections at laboratories.

I will be introducing this measure when the House comes back for the 110th Congress, and I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in providing these additional animal protections.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, all of us can celebrate this conference report and the support that it provides to our troops. It is a good product, and we have had some hard-fought differences on various issues.

For me, we have been grappling with the proper balance between religious expression and tolerance in the military. I am very pleased that this conference report struck language that in my view would have made it easier to engage in certain practices by overturning existing DOD standards on tolerance of all faiths. And I thank my ranking member, Mr. Skelton, and I thank Senators Warner and Levin of the other body, the Department of Defense, and many, many different religious organizations, from the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces, to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to the American Jewish Committee and so many others. They understand this is not just an issue of tolerance, Mr. Speaker, it is an issue of good order and discipline and unit cohesion.

We maintain the overall language requiring respect of all religious faiths, but this language does reopen a loophole, a loophole that allowed commanders and chaplains at the Air Force Academy to chastise cadets for not attending certain religious services, a loophole that allowed one chaplain to tell cadets of all faiths that some of them would burn in the eternal flames of hell for not following his faith. So we still have some work to do, and we still have some good-faith discussions ahead of us.

And I want to take this opportunity to say something to my friends on the other side of the aisle and on the other side of this issue, people who I respect and admire a great deal. I want to continue working with them. I have been troubled by the occasional rhetorical excess that has suggested, because I am opposed to proselytizing of any specific religion on any military base, I am somehow trying to stop people from invoking the name of Jesus in their prayers.

Nothing could be further from the truth. People should be able to pray how they want, when they want, where they want, and to whom they want. They just can't compel others to join them.

For those of you who truly believe that the chaplain who told cadets willing to die in the defense of freedom that after they died they would burn in the eternal flames of hell, well, you and I have some profound differences on that issue. So profound that I don't think the issue should be decided in 3 weeks of discussion in a House-Senate conference. It ought to be put before the American people in hearings.

And I want to close, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting that, as we move forward in trying to resolve this issue, we all rededicate ourselves to the spirit of openness, sensitivity, tolerance, and respect. And don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker, because behind me, carved into this wood dais on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, is the word ``tolerance,'' right in the center. That word must remain with us. My speech will come and go. This word will always stay. That is what makes our military great. That is what makes our country worth fighting for.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. The distinguished chairman of the committee, who I have a very strong respect for, opened this debate by saying that in the global war on terror we cannot read terrorists their Miranda rights. No one has said that. No one has proposed it. No one has suggested it. That is not what is being debated here. That is not what we should debate here. It is absurd.

When it comes to terrorists planning mass murder on the American people, I want to find them. I want to capture them. I want to kill them. I want to try them. If they are found guilty, I want to kill them. I believe in capital punishment for terrorists perpetrating genocide.

But because I think that we should fight and kill terrorists, I want there to be fewer of them to fight and kill. This bill says to potential terrorists, the U.S. is surrendering the moral high ground. It is unilaterally relaxing the Geneva Conventions, that we are willing to keep people locked up indefinitely without a trial.

And since I believe in executing people found guilty of perpetrating or planning a genocide on the American people, I want to make sure we are executing the right terrorists. Government is imperfect. We make mistakes. How do I know? Katrina. We lose records. How do I know? The long line of veterans at my district office who cannot get their back pay because we lost their records.

When it comes to capital punishment for terrorists, I want to make sure that we are giving them the proper trial, that we are getting the facts. If I am willing to execute them, I want to make sure it is based on fact.

And because I believe we should fight and kill terrorists, I also know that

Americans in that fight are going to be caught; and I want them treated by the same standards that we would treat our enemy's prisoners. I do not want any one of our military people to be subject to the whims and the arbitrariness of a current interpretation by a foreign enemy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close by suggesting and telling my colleagues that I recently asked a service member, who received a Bronze Star for valor in Fallujah, what he thought about this. He said, Congressman, I do not think our enemies really care about the Geneva Conventions, but I am fighting for my country because I care about morality, because I care about strong values, because this is a good country that leads the way, and I want to continue leading the way.

If I am asking young men and women to die for what we stand for, I want to stand for something. If I am asking people to fight to kill terrorists, I want to be in the pursuit of our values, not the terrorist's values.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for bringing this bill to the floor today. I also want to thank my colleague from Connecticut, Representative Simmons, and the rest of the members of the Long Island Sound Caucus for their very hard work on this legislation and their ongoing efforts to preserve and protect the Long Island Sound. I have the privilege of serving

as co-chair of the Congressional Long Island Sound Caucus with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and we have worked together for many years in the hope that this bill would become a reality. I was proud to introduce it with the gentleman from Connecticut, and I am proud of the Long Island Caucus for standing behind it every step of the way.

This bill is bipartisan. It is bicoastal. It is bicameral. It is one of the most important initiatives that we can take to protect the Long Island Sound, to identify and enhance sites with ecological, educational, and recreational value in Connecticut and New York. And it does so in a way that is consistent with the vision put forward by a consortium of local groups who have been working for over a decade to save the sound.

The Long Island Sound is one of our Nation's great natural wonders. It sustains a diversity of birds, wildlife, and marine organisms. It is a very important part of the national economy. It remains a vital component of our identity, our way of life.

Today over 8 million people live in the sound's watershed and 20 million people live within 50 miles of its shores. The sound alone contributes $5 billion to the regional economy through sport and commercial fishing, recreation and tourism.

Mr. Speaker, I served for 8 years as a member of the Huntington Town Board, and I worked with our local baymen and worked with different organizations to preserve the Long Island Sound, and I am acutely aware of the many environmental challenges that confront our community. In fact, my town and many others initiated bond acts, asking local taxpayers to come up with a few more dollars to support and protect the Long Island Sound. And I always believed that the Federal Government should be more of a partner with local townships. And tonight we take the first big step in that new partnership.

This bill creates a purely voluntary process to protect coastal areas along the Long Island Sound. It creates a process that will bring together stakeholders on a committee, including Connecticut and New York representatives from the Federal Government, the State government, local governments, nongovernment organizations, academic, private and development interests. This is a critically important step.

And, Mr. Speaker, before I close, I just want to mention that, in fact, this bill has been the product of cooperation at all levels of government with advocacy groups in both New York and Connecticut, and I am grateful to all of them for their input.

On a personal note, I have been very fortunate to have a wonderful staff for working on this legislation for most of the last 4 years. And I want to thank Karen Agostisi, who devoted so much of her time to this effort and helped navigate this bill through the sometimes choppy and turbulent waters of the Long Island Sound. I was privileged to work with the gentleman from Connecticut.

This is a very important step for this Federal and local partnership. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill. And again I thank the gentleman for his cooperation. I thank my colleagues for their consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the dedication of my constituent, Thomas Ronayne. As commander of Post 1469 in Huntington Station, he has devoted himself to the betterment of life for veterans on Long Island. In fact, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States honored Thomas Ronayne as an All American Post Commander last month. This is one of the most esteemed titles within the Veterans of Foreign Wars organization.

Commander Ronayne is one of only 101 VFW post commanders around the world to be designated with this prestigious honor. With his hard work ethic, Ronayne has increased membership and services provided at Post 1469 in Huntington Station, NY. I am pleased to say that he has also contributed to the flourishing involvement in VFW programs on Long Island.

It is an honor to have All American Commander Thomas Ronayne working and living in the Second Congressional District of New York. He has dedicated his entire life to serving his country and I am grateful for his service. We should all be so lucky to have citizens like Thomas Ronayne in our districts.

I hope you will join me in applauding Commander Ronayne for his dedication to the VFW, his country and particularly Post 1469.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. Army SPC Jose L. Ruiz made the ultimate sacrifice for his country on August 15, 2005 while conducting security operations in Mosul, Iraq. SPC Ruiz who served in the Army's 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, also known as the Stryker Brigade Team, was killed by enemy forces using small arms fire shot from a passing vehicle. Brave Americans like SPC Ruiz are the reason that our country has been able to overcome adversity throughout its history.

SPC Ruiz was inspired to join the military following the attacks by terrorists on our Nation on September 11, 2001. In a phone conversation with his wife shortly before his death, SPC Ruiz said that he felt like he had fulfilled his duty as a soldier and was proud to be defending his country. Sadly, SPC Ruiz was scheduled to return home just 6 weeks after his death.

Raised in Brentwood, New York, SPC Ruiz went on to graduate from Brentwood High School in my district and then the New York Institute of Technology before joining the Army. Ruiz was devoted to his education, his family and his country.

The courage of SPC Ruiz is a testament to the dedication of our young soldiers. He is survived by his parents, Eduardo and Juliana King, his wife of 6 years Alexa, and his baby daughter, Liana. I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to his family and thank SPC Ruiz for his selfless devotion to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland, and I thank Chairman Davis for his cooperation on this very important bill. I also want to thank Ranking Member Waxman for considering this resolution, and also Representative Foxx for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution supports the goals and ideals of a National Myositis Awareness Day. I was first introduced to the myositis community through my work to improve Medicare access to intravenous immune globulin, or IVIG. The myositis community is one of many patient groups that rely on IVIG. However, since there are several forms of myositis that affect different people in different ways, the disease is often misunderstood and cannot be treated with a single remedy. This is one of many reasons that it is important that we pass this resolution.

As the chairman said, each year an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 Americans

are affected by myositis, a general term used to describe swelling of the muscles. Myositis patients suffer from their immune systems attacking their body's own normal tissue, resulting in inflammation or swelling. The disease can cause muscle weakness, and patients often live in chronic pain and have long-term health problems that can lead to permanent disabilities.

Myositis affects individuals of all ages and can come in many different forms. Many patients with treatable forms of myositis often have severe long-term disabilities because of failure to diagnose and treat the disease. In addition, the effects of inflammatory myopathies are much more severe than just inflammation. They are thought to be autoimmune diseases such as that the body's immune system, which normally fights infections and viruses, does not stop fighting once the infection or virus is gone.

Mr. Speaker, because myositis varies so much from patient to patient, no single existing treatment works for everyone. Myositis can be treated with steroids, various medicines and intravenous immune globulin.

The Myositis Association is the national patient advocacy organization serving the myositis community and has designated September 21 as Myositis Awareness Day. Myositis advocates traveled to Capitol Hill last Thursday in an effort to educate the public and Congress on the need for more research funding, accurate diagnosis, and effective treatments for this disease. This resolution thanks them for their work and dedicates the United States Congress to continuing the research for treatments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from Illinois for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank my friend from Long Island, Congressman Peter King, for sponsoring this resolution and for allowing me to cosponsor it with him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jacob Fletcher and his family, and urge my colleagues to support this resolution to name the Babylon post office in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, the Babylon post office no longer resides in my congressional

district, but I do have the privilege and the honor of representing Jacob's mother, Dorrine Kenney. She is a constituent; she is also a dear friend. She has become an important advisor to me on so many military issues that I confront as a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Her son, Jacob Samuel Fletcher, was a native of Long Island, and if this bill is passed, all of Long Island will know about his life and his untimely death. Jacob Fletcher grew up on Long Island, he dreamed of serving his country on Long Island. He represented us proudly when he went to Iraq.

On March 23, 2003, he and the 173rd Airborne Brigade jumped into northern Iraq and made their way to Kirkuk. On November 12, 2003, Jacob was killed by an IED on Highway 1 in Samarra.

Mr. Speaker, this kind of news does not tell us the fullness of a life. We see a name in the newspaper, we see a face, we see statistics and numbers, but none of that really describes the fullness of a life, and so I want to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues and with all America the life of Jacob Fletcher.

He was an athlete. He was an artist with a talent for drawing. He played drums. He wrote poetry. He was described as having a big heart, and of being a good listener. And those are the traits that I see in his mother.

In response to her son's death, Dorrine Kenney had every right to retreat into her own grief, to wait for the entire world to feel sorry for her and to support her. But she refused to do that. Instead she created the Jacob's Light Foundation. It sends care packages to our servicemembers in dangerous places around the world. It sends toiletries and food and snacks and reading materials and sunscreen and writing materials, all of the necessities that our troops require.

Rather than retreating into her grief, Dorrine Kenney felt it was her responsibility in her son's name to help improve the quality of life for her son's comrades.

A few months ago she came to my office, Mr. Speaker, and she was angry. We sat down and she said that she was receiving e-mails from troops in the field in the theatre in Iraq complaining that they had not received coagulant bandages, which the Department of Defense has said could save 50 percent of casualties in Iraq, and she asked me to look into it.

We called the Pentagon, and it took us a few weeks, but, in fact, we were able to solve that problem. And we are working with the Army even today to make sure that those bandages are arriving in dangerous places like Iraq and saving lives.

Another example, Mr. Speaker. This woman could have felt sorry for herself. Instead, she dedicated herself to coming into my office and working with the Army to make sure that those who were still in Iraq and Afghanistan had the life-saving supplies that they need.

The Army did not respond because of me, it did not respond because of the hearings we had in the Armed Services Committee; it responded because this mother of a son who was killed was contacted by men and women in Iraq who asked for her help.

That is exactly what Jacob Fletcher was all about, helping when people needed help, listening when people needed to be listened to. It is fitting that there is a foundation named for Jacob Fletcher which sends parcels to servicemembers who need them. And it would be even more fitting, Mr. Speaker, to name a post office in honor of Jacob Fletcher where parcels will be sent, and where the American people and those who live in Long Island will understand what he stood for, what our country stands for, and will remember him always.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for giving me this time. I thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5682, the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006.

In January of 2004, I had the opportunity to visit India with my wife and colleagues. During that trip I spoke with Defense Minister George Fernandes, and we discussed closer military cooperation between India and the United States. Even at that time, India favored closer military cooperation, but there were too many regulations, restrictions and laws on the books in a post 9-11 world. These laws inhibited closer military strategic cooperation. Fernandes explained that India and the United States hadn't been able to pursue a defense relationship because of outdated and insufficient export control policies. This, he said, had compelled India to develop a defense partnership with other nations. Until recently, approximately 70 percent of India's imported military equipment was from Russia.

One cannot help but ask why this is so? While we were having that conversation the United States military was conducting hip to hip joint military exercises with the Indian military in the Indian Ocean to fight against the global war on terror. If our men and women in uniform can conduct military exercises side by side with India's men and women against the enemies of democracy--we can develop a partnership between the Indian defense industry and the U.S. defense industry. We are partners. We share the same values. We share a partnership on the war on terror.

And in a short time that relationship has advanced. The two countries have been working closely on joint technology developments. And we need to expand that partnership, not only on a security basis, but also as we look at another key challenge we face: energy.

India, America's strongest ally in the region, is on the verge of energy insecurity: India does not have the domestic energy resources to sustain its rapidly growing economy, and consequently must meet its requirements through foreign energy resources. India's oil demand has doubled between 1990 and 2003 and will double again within the next 25 years. As India consumes more energy from the world's finite energy supply, the cost for energy for ordinary Americans will increase significantly. Two-thirds of India's annual oil consumption is imported, and it is projected that India will import over 90 percent of its annual oil requirements within the next 15 years. Currently, nuclear energy only comprises 3 percent of India's energy consumption, and this number cannot increase substantially without civilian nuclear cooperation with the United States. That is why I think that along with civilian nuclear cooperation, a renewable energy partnership is equally as important. Many people don't realize that this deal will help keep energy costs down for ordinary Americans by reducing demand in the global oil market.

So I would like to spend a few minutes speaking on U.S.-India renewable energy cooperation. Something that is extremely important for both countries. After 6 years in Congress I have found that every single threat we face here at home is either derived from or based on one thing: our dependence on foreign oil. Renewable energy cooperation between the U.S. and India would help both countries tremendously.

When we dropped 2,500 pound bombs on Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the order was given to 2 fighter planes. Only one could respond, because the other was in mid-air refueling. What better metaphor for the dangers of our current energy reliance!

Before leaving for India in 2004 I read the book ``India'' by Stanley Wolpert. In his book he wrote--``if India ever learns to harness its solar energy economically, the desert states of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh could become valuable centers of power generation and transmission. Even as oil reserves have catapulted Arabia to affluence, solar power might launch central India into an age of rich growth and development, especially were it used to help tap mother Ganga's Perennial flow. India's major liability might then become her greatest asset.''

We have some plans in place but we need to keep pushing to make sure that the two countries work together.

The Indian minister of non-conventional energy sources (MNES) recently met with experts at the National Renewable Energy Lab to discuss potential areas of collaboration. These areas include solar thermal power generation, low wind speed technology research & development, renewable energy resource assessment and the use of resource data in relevant analysis tools. The Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) has proposed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOE'S National Renewable Energy Laboratory to focus on hydrogen and biofuels research. This MOU will be the basis for future joint research. I am asking that Congress fully fund these programs and bring them to fruition, and work with India.

Mr. Chairman, we will need democratic partners in meeting threats and defending our national security. We will need democratic friends and allies with shared values and principles.

I saw that demonstrated last July not in India, but on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I was one of the Members who urged the congressional leadership to allow Prime Minister Singh to address a joint session of congress.

There it was for the whole world to see. the head of the largest democracy on earth (India) . . . speaking in the Congress of the oldest democracy on earth (America). That gave me great hope that we will triumph over our mutual challenges of terrorism and energy dependence.

Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 2006, I mistakenly voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 384. I intended to vote in support of Mr. Watt's amendment to preserve the authority of the United States Supreme Court to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in 4 U.S.C. section 4, or its recitation.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Promoting Transparency in Financial Reporting Act, and I want to thank my very good friend from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for introducing this important measure. I was pleased to cosponsor it and I am very pleased to work with him on the bill.

I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Oxley and Mr. Frank, for bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor today.

H.R. 5024 requires that the chairpersons of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board provide oral testimony to the Committee on Financial Services on their efforts to reduce the complexity in financial reporting to provide more accurate and clear financial information to investors. These appearances before the committee would begin in 2007 and continue annually for 5 years.

Madam Speaker, the ability of America's investors to make informed decisions is severely compromised when financial reporting is inaccurate, when it is incomplete, when it is unclear. We saw the consequences of bad financial reporting years ago during the corporate accountability scandals at Enron and WorldCom, among others. Those bankruptcies not only revealed weaknesses in many aspects of our financial reporting system, but showed the devastating financial impact when their financial statements are not held to the highest standards.

In many cases, the complexity of financial reporting requirements has made it very difficult to detect purposeful violations of those standards. Congress, regulators, and the industry assessed these financial reporting failures and reacted with efforts aimed at strengthening the financial reporting system. Sarbanes-Oxley made very important initial strides to this end; however, more needs to be done.

This measure is an important next step. By calling on the SEC, PCAOB, and FASB to testify each year on the steps they are taking to improve financial disclosures, Congress is ensuring that it can and will effectively carry out its oversight function. We can gather the necessary information to ensure that, should we need to act legislatively, we are doing it in a sober, thoughtful manner based on data rather than in haste as we respond to the latest news cycle.

Madam Speaker, this legislation will help us as we work with the FEC, FASB and the PCAOB to improve our financial reporting system. It is important that we maintain a consistent focus on this issue. And, to that end, I urge all of my colleagues to support the measure. Again, I was pleased to work closely with the gentleman from Kentucky.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, everything that can be said has been said. We have no speakers, and I yield back my time.