Floor Statements

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

H.R. 735 designates a Federal building under construction at 799 First Avenue, New York, New York, as the Ronald H. Brown United States Mission to the United Nations Building. Ron Brown was born in Washington D.C., grew up in New York City, and had a distinguished career and exemplary life. This is a good piece of legislation

Ron Brown was born in Washington, DC and grew up in New York city. After attending Middlebury College, he commanded several units in the United States Army and served with distinction. Following his service in the Army, Ron Brown attended St. John's Law School.

After finishing law school, Ron Brown began a career as a lawyer and a lobbyist. He served as chief counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Ted Kennedy. In addition, he chaired the Senior Advisory Committee of the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and was an elected member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ron Brown's career culminated in his appointment as Secretary of Commerce by President Bill Clinton. Tragically, his life ended abruptly while on a trade mission to Croatia in 1996. Secretary Brown was an accomplished politician and diplomat.

I would like to note that after the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure marked up this bill, the State Department raised concerns about setting the precedent of naming a U.S. Embassy. I hope the chairman could work with the State Department to resolve this issue before this bill is signed into law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I speak on this motion with the greatest respect for the gentlelady from Tennessee. But I would say that in my prior life, before coming to the Congress I was a prosecuting attorney, and I was responsible for sending a lot of people to prison.

I also had a responsibility to go down and visit people that I'd sent to prison. And I remember the first visit that I made down to one of the prisons in Ohio, and there's these trustees outside the prison gates with white stripes on the side, and they were given trusted positions within the prison.

And I said, who are the trustees? How do you get to be qualified to be a trustee? And they said, well, they're murderers. And I said, what do you mean, they're murderers? They said, they're murderers.

What we find is that in the crime of murder, most murders in this country are committed in crimes of passion, a husband murders a wife, a wife murders a husband, a boyfriend and so forth and so on. But they are also the least likely people to ever commit crime again.

And what concerns me about the requirement of receding to the Senate provision in this is that it ignores the opportunity for rehabilitation. It ignores the opportunity that people

make mistakes, and they're not a threat to national security, and they can be good productive people. They can work in our ports.

And I am concerned that murder is one of the automatic disqualifiers. I am also concerned that the other list of crimes that have waiting periods of 5 to 7 years, they have nothing to do, in my mind, with terrorism or port security.

And I am all for a system where the Secretary or even in law the Congress of the United States says, you know what, if you committed a crime of violence we're going to take an extra look at you; but to be automatically disqualified, either forever or for a considerable period of time, I think disturbs me.

I intend to vote against the motion. I respect the gentlelady's opinion and why she's brought this motion, but sadly, I can't agree with it.

I want to thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding, and I want to thank the body for its indulgence as we wrap up this important debate.

I want to describe and discuss an amendment I was going to offer but did not and some of the reasons for it. Contained in this bill is a $2 million earmark for the Parker Hannifin Company of Cleveland, Ohio, for the hybrid drivetrain program.

I am not going to offer the amendment for three very important reasons. One is the earmark was requested by my good friend and neighbor, Congressman Tim Ryan; two, in doing research on the hybrid drivetrain program, it is a good one, and three, Parker Hannifin is a great company that I am going to talking about in a minute.

But my amendment would have redirected the $2 million from the hybrid drivetrain program to their plant in Eastlake. Parker Hannifin has announced their intention in the near future to close a plant in Eastlake, Ohio, and cause the loss of 177 jobs.

Most of the folks that work there have been working there for a number of years and are members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. But I want to talk a little bit about Parker Hannifin and why I am not offering the amendment and then have a request at the end.

Parker Hannifin Company was started in 1918 by a guy named Arthur Parker. Just to show you how some of our entrepreneurs have had tough experiences, in 1919 there was a truck accident that wiped out the entire inventory of the company, and he had to go back to another job. He started again; and at the height the Depression, he bought an auto plant in 1935 in the City of Cleveland, and then during the height of World War II, employed 5,000 people in Cleveland, Ohio, supplying the war effort.

The war ended. Mr. Parker died. Again, the defense contracts dried up. It looked like there wasn't going to be any progress for the company. His widow said no, and they continued to reinvest in northeastern Ohio and northeastern Ohio continued to reinvest in them and they rewarded them as well. Today, they are a $10 billion company employing 50,000 people worldwide.

My simple request is, I am not going to ask to redirect this money to the plant in Eastlake, Ohio, but as this bill moves forward, I would hope that we can continue to talk to the folks in Cleveland and Parker Hannifin, because if you think about this $2 million, some of those 177 machinists who potentially will lose their jobs paid into the Federal Treasury some of the money that comprises this $2 million that is going to the hybrid drivetrain project, and I hope that we are able to resolve this in a way that we not only have the new technology for fuel efficiency that comes from the hybrid drivetrain technology, but given northeastern Ohio's solid commitment to this company since 1918, that they take that into consideration as we move forward and they make tough decisions in this global economy as to whether or not these jobs remain in northeastern Ohio.

Again, I very much thank the ranking member and the chairman for their indulgence.

To the distinguished chairman of our full committee, I just want you to know how well your staff is taking care of you today. As we were calling up the bill, knowing you were traveling back, I didn't know you were coming from Appalachia, but Mr. McCarragher came over and said, ``Could you talk as long as possible so we can get the chairman back here?'' And now I don't have to do that, so I don't think I will need the full 5 minutes.

I do want to remark on the ARC, Madam Speaker. No one can stand up and say that the vision of John F. Kennedy implemented by legislation in 1965 by Lyndon Johnson has not been a wonderful success in dealing with the abject poverty of the Appalachian region.

The chairman rightly talked about the infrastructure part of our committee's assignments. But one of my favorite hearings, when I had the pleasure of being the chairman of the subcommittee, is when the ARC stakeholders would come in and talk to the Republicans and Democrats on the subcommittee. And aside from industrial parks, aside from roads, aside from bridges, aside from safe drinking water, they beamed with pride about how their graduation rates had improved and how the young people in their region were now taking pride in the education they were receiving, and they were graduating from high school at record numbers, something that would not have happened had it not been for the ARC.

I came to the floor this afternoon to specifically thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, and also the chairman of the subcommittee, Ms. Holmes Norton, together with Mr. Graves and Mr. Mica. One of John F. Kennedy's most oft quoted quotes is: ``A rising tide lifts all boats.'' And so Congressman Tim Ryan and I looked around and we saw, boy, everybody around us, to the east, to the south, to the west, seems to have participated wonderfully well in the Appalachian Regional Commission. And if you put a map of the Midwestern United States up, there's only a few little white squares, and they are regions that Congressman Ryan and I represent, Ashtabula, Trumbull and Mahoning County. We had a discussion with Chairman Oberstar during the course of the markup of this legislation, and it seems that Congressman Ryan and I weren't the only ones interested in this. And as a result of those discussions, Chairman Oberstar has added 13 additional counties to the purview of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

So I came down today, Madam Speaker, to thank the chairman for working with us. And I firmly believe that the addition of these three counties in Ohio, together with the 10 counties located throughout the region, are going to permit our people in transitional counties to benefit the same way as other counties have benefited since 1965.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you on the way you have conducted this debate. In happier times I had the privilege of being where you are, and I have to tell you, you have done a tremendous job and I appreciate it very much.

I am pleased to offer this amendment with my friend, a colleague from Cleveland, Ohio, Congressman Kucinich.

This amendment basically recognizes what I think that every Member of this House should recognize: that the implementation of the passport travel requirements in the Western Hemisphere has been a disaster. The State Department and Department of Homeland Security made an estimate, and they have been swamped. My constituents call me on a regular basis saying that they have applied for passports 12, 14, 20 weeks. They don't have their passports. Their trips are canceled. And this is a bad thing.

You would think in the face of that track record that perhaps we wouldn't go to phase 2. Phase 2 says that we need to have documents as we cross the border by land into Canada. Where Congressman Kucinich and I are from, we go through Detroit or Buffalo and the southern border as well. But that hasn't been the case.

On Friday the two agencies announced, reluctantly, that, you know what? We have got it wrong, and as a result we are not going to require passports for air travel to the Caribbean or to Canada anymore, and that a photo ID will be sufficient. However, even with this chaos, the administration has vowed that it will move forward with phase 2 on January 1.

Now, I want to commend the chairman of the Rules Committee, Congresswoman Slaughter, for the work that she has done to put in this bill triggers that say maybe we don't have it right. Let's do some pilot programs and things of that nature. But those provisions were put in this bill before this disaster happened. And I don't assume that I am the only Member of this body that has received angry phone calls from their constituents and say, you know what? Maybe, maybe, we just need to slow it down.

So this is a complete prohibition. It says to the Department of Homeland Security in this bill, and we will do it again in the State Department bill, saying we gave you until June of 2009 to get this right, to come up with the Pass card, to come up with whatever you are going to come up. But please, please, don't do this to our constituents on January 1, 2008.

Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Cleveland, Ohio, Congressman Kucinich.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

I would like to thank Chairman Price for not only accepting this amendment, but also for the work that he has done on this bill.

This has been a very difficult process. And just like you, Mr. Chairman, he has also had a tough go of it. It's tough to lead, it's tough to be in the majority, it's tough to govern, and I think Chairman Price has done great work.

I commend the committee for the work they have done on this bill. And I mentioned Chairwoman Slaughter for the work that she put in, and that was her language, that $100 million.

I don't want to be an obstructionist, but because the Republicans and Democrats are being killed on this passport issue, even though the chairman has indicated he will accept the amendment, I will ask for a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. LaTourette

Amendment No. 113: At the end of title V, add the following

new section:

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

Madam Speaker, today we recognize the 50th anniversary of Lake Sidney Lanier, an Army Corps of Engineers facility located in the State of Georgia.

Lake Lanier is one of 464 lakes in 43 States constructed and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Our Nation is blessed with considerable water resources that support our Nation's economy and quality of life. We need water for our homes, farms and factories. Water also supports navigation, generates power and sustains our environment.

Congress authorized the Buford Dam Project in 1946 just after the end of the Second World War. Groundbreaking for the project began in 1950. Constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Lanier is a multipurpose, 38,000-acre lake that provides flood protection, power production, water supply, navigation, recreation, and fish and wildlife management.

Nestled in the foothills of the Georgia Blue Ridge Mountains, Lake Sidney Lanier is one of America's favorite lakes. Over 7.5 million people a year choose to visit Lake Lanier. With over 692 miles of shoreline, the lake is well known for its aqua-blue colored water, spectacular scenery and variety of recreational activities.

When completed, the total cost of construction, including land acquisition, was almost $45 million. When the gates of the dam were closed in 1956, it took more than 3 years for the lake to reach its normal elevation of 1,070 feet above sea level.

The lake is named for one of the Nation's most famous poets, Sidney Lanier. Born in Georgia in 1842, Mr. Lanier entered Oglethorpe College at 14 years of age, graduating at the top of his class in 1860.

While serving on the blockade runner ``Lucy'' during the Civil War, Mr. Lanier was captured and contracted tuberculosis while imprisoned in Maryland. Following the Civil War, Mr. Lanier played the flute for the Peabody Symphony and lectured at Johns Hopkins University.

While he is known for works like ``The Harlequin of Dreams,'' ``In Absence,'' ``Acknowledgement,'' and ``Sunrise,'' he is best remembered for ``The Song of the Chattahoochee,'' an enduring legacy for the native Georgian.

I urge all of our Members to support this legislation.

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

I thank the leader for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, this is a very sad debate. I was one of the members of the Ethics Committee that was not reappointed that was referenced to in the distinguished majority leader's presentation. I will tell you this; before coming to Congress I was a prosecuting attorney in my hometown.

I served on the Ethics Committee for 4\1/2\ years. I found the Ethics Committee to be a place where five Members of each party came together and treated the rules fairly, treated the Members fairly, and treated the rules of this House more than fairly.

I sat through and listened to only the second time since the American Civil War that a Member of this House was expelled, my friend, James Traficant of Ohio, but the evidence warranted it.

These competing resolutions, in my opinion, continuing the dumbing down of the House. Now, I don't know whether Representative Jefferson is guilty or not guilty of the things that he has been indicted for by the Justice Department. But even Members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen, are entitled to a presumption. And there was a reason that in the Traficant case the Ethics Committee waited until the judicial process worked its will, and that is two things; one, you've got to find out whether the person is guilty or not guilty of what they are accused of. Two, when you have competing investigations, you can actually impede the prosecution of someone who has committed a crime with the Department of Justice.

Your side started this ``culture of corruption'' last year; we're going to start the ``House of hypocrisy'' this year. Stop dumbing down the institution.

Members of Congress are human beings. When they are charged with a crime, they should get the full weight of the law. If they are guilty, they should suffer the penalty not only of going to prison or jail, but they should be expelled from the House. But to rush to judgment and to permit the United States Department of Justice or some rogue district attorney, like I happen to believe in Tom DeLay's case, I know you guys aren't big fans of Tom DeLay, but you are sending a message that a common prosecutor in my district, your district, your district, your district can indict you tomorrow, and on the basis of that you are removed from your leadership position, you are removed from your committees, and you may not have done a darn thing.

I think this is a sad day for this House. And I know that I am going to be in the minority tonight, I'm actually in the minority, so it will be a double minority, but I intend to vote against both of these resolutions. I am sorry we've come to this.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the COPS Improvements Act of 2007. I want to congratulate Chairman Conyers, Mr. Weiner and Mr. Keller for bringing this bill forward.

My written statement talks all about the importance of adding a police officer school, resources officers and things of that nature. I want to talk about an aspect of the bill that I am particularly excited about, and that is the technology grants contained in the bill.

The police departments in my district were recently notified that the backbone radio system that we basically spent millions of dollars on a number of years ago is now going to become obsolete in 2011 because the manufacturer is no longer going to make the spare parts. In the small communities that I represent, it means a bill of $10 million. The technology upgrades in this particular piece of legislation are going to give my communities the opportunity to bid for grants that hopefully will replace that radio system and make our community safer.

Secondly, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, I have heard from most of the school districts in my district that we need to build on the success of the last COPS bill where 225 school resource officers were added to the schools in the State of Ohio. And they are excited again about the opportunity to add new school resource officers in the schools to make them safer for all of the students in our school system and across the country.

So again I want to congratulate the sponsors of this legislation. And I thank Mr. Forbes for yielding.

I rise today to speak in support of the COPS Improvement Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, when I meet with law enforcement officials across my district, their biggest concern is that Washington keeps asking them to do more with less, especially in the aftermath of 9-11. Each year, they beg me to adequately fund the COPS program and to reinstate the hiring portion.

In my State of Ohio, the COPS program has been a godsend:

It has funded nearly 3,800 additional cops and deputies.

It has infused about 640 departments across Ohio with more than $227 million in Federal help.

More than 225 school resource officers have been added to Ohio.

More than $55 million has gone to Ohio departments to improve crime- fighting technologies.

In my district alone, in the Akron-Cleveland area, nearly $20 million has gone to local departments and 285 officers have been added to streets and schools in my district.

I met with about 50 police chiefs throughout my district early last month to tout this bill, and share the news that it was coming. They are thrilled with this legislation. Many departments in my district were able to add officers thanks to the COPS program, and they have kept them on their payrolls.

They have patiently waited for us to beef up the COPS program, especially as violent crime experiences an uptick. They want and need the Federal Government to help fund cops on the beat, new cops in schools, and they are thrilled that $350 million will be available for competitive grants to pay for laptop computers, radios, cameras, and all the technological marvels our police departments must have and can barely afford.

My police chiefs in Lake County recently found out that they have to replace their entire radio system because the manufacturer will no longer be able to repair or replace them.

My chiefs are thrilled that this bill recognizes the importance of school officers. They spoke of the need to keep schools safe, and the bond that develops with students so students can feel safe to confide in them. These school officers serve as mentors, friends and protectors--they are worth their weight in gold. It's a small investment to make.

In the days following the shootings at Virginia Tech, I heard from many school districts pleading that funding be made available for school resource officers. This bill will allow law enforcement to partner with the schools. I also heard from the Ohio School Resource Officers Association in the aftermath of Virginia Tech. They say passage of the COPS Improvement Act can't happen fast enough. The Senate passed it in March, and I am proud that the House will today.

This is great legislation. It's a good value for taxpayers. We ask our police to protect our homes, our businesses and our schools and for too long we've asked them to do it on the cheap.

I thank the chairman, and I thank Ranking Member Mica for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee for bringing this important legislation to the floor. As Mr. Shuster indicated, there are some good provisions in the bill that will improve our Nation's rail network and the flow of freight and passengers using that. However, there is something very troubling in the manager's amendment which will be discussed soon.

Without careful consideration, there is a provision in the manager's amendment that could be detrimental to anybody who wants to ship anything on rail in this country or any passenger who wants to ride on Amtrak.

Unfortunately, section 3 of the manager's amendment is crippling to the bill. This section will undermine the efforts of the U.S. Department of Transportation and FRA's efforts to create a sound national safety policy. As Mr. Shuster indicated, for decades the preeminent jurisdiction has been maintained by DOT. Section 3 destroys that Federal preemption.

Under current law, States can enact safety laws as long as they address the unique local safety hazard. The amendment before us will change that and will allow States to effectively override Federal policies. With this amendment, the railroads could have 50 different sets of local laws to follow, and Federal law would no longer provide the blanket policy for the carriers to follow.

A few of the things that we look at on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is how DOT and FRA are doing with the implementation of our laws and regulations relating to the safety and security of the Nation's railroad. In addition, as a committee we also look into issues such as capacity on railroad network, and how efficiently and effectively the network is working for the freight passengers using the network.

Because this provision has been inserted into the manager's amendment without the benefit of bipartisan testimony and hearings, the catastrophic consequences of such provision have not been debated or considered, in my opinion, in regular order. I call for regular order today, Mr. Chairman. I know that the chairman of our full committee and the ranking member of our full committee are thoughtful Members, deliberative when it comes to our Nation's transportation laws. This provision severely cripples the good work of our committee, in my opinion, the good work of DOT, and FRA. We should not make radical changes to the law without careful bipartisan consideration. The consequences that has not occurred.

I would indicate that Chairwoman Brown has had a hearing. And I know the gentleman from North Dakota is preparing to speak on the horrible events that occurred in Minot, North Dakota. We also had the benefit of what used to be the American Trial Lawyers Association. I think in the greatest PR stunt in the universe they are now the American Association for Justice; they are no longer the Trial Lawyers.

I think that the gentleman's concern can be addressed without throwing out the Federal preemption, and I am saddened that the manager's amendment does that, and I hope my colleagues will oppose the manager's amendment because of section 3.

How much time is left, Mr. Chairman?

I want to thank Mr. King for yielding.

I listened very carefully to the colloquy between someone I have the greatest respect for in the entire Congress, Chairman Oberstar, and the gentleman from North Dakota. We had the gentleman from North Dakota and some of his constituents and people from the American Association for Justice before the committee.

I happen to believe that anybody who is injured as a result of fault by another person should have his or her day in court and should be compensated when that is required. But the problem we have with section 3, section 3 undoes decades of Federal preemption when safety matters are concerned on the Nation's railroads, and the situation that we are going to find ourselves in is the one that Mr. Shuster described: States will be free to pass 50 different sets of safety regulations, and trains are going to have to stop at the border and comply with this, that or the other thing.

If section 3 simply said what happened in Minot, North Dakota, is horrible and those people should have their day in court to have the ability to seek compensation, I would be the first one to support it.

I am afraid, however, and with as much respect as I have for the chairman of the committee, Mr. Oberstar, when the title of the document, section 3, is ``No Preemption of State Law'' it is going to have an unintended consequence. It is going to undo the fabric of our Nation's rail system. I think for that reason alone, notwithstanding whatever Mr. Mica had to say, for that reason alone, we should have come together in a bipartisan way, recognizing the strengthens of both the Homeland Security and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and gotten this right.

This, in my opinion, is a ham-handed approach that should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

H.R. 753, as amended, designates the Clifford Davis Federal Building in Memphis, Tennessee, as the Clifford Davis and Odell Horton Federal Building. The bill honors Judge Horton's dedication to public service.

After service in the United States Marines during the Korean War and acquiring a law degree from Howard University, Judge Horton engaged in the private practice of law from 1957 until 1962.

His career included serving as an Assistant United States Attorney in Memphis, an appointment to the Shelby County Criminal Court, and serving as the President of LeMoyne-Owen College.

Judge Horton was appointed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee by President Carter in 1980. He served as its chief judge from 1987 to 1993 and became a senior judge on May 16, 1995. Two years later, he retired from the Federal bench; and, sadly, Judge Horton passed away last year on February 22.

I support this legislation and encourage our colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1019, introduced by my friend and colleague, Congressman Fortuno of Puerto Rico, designates the United States Customhouse Building located at 31 Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the ``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building.'' This bill honors Rafael Martinez Nadal's contributions to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Rafael Martinez Nadal was born in the city of Mayaguez on April 22, 1877. In 1912, he became a lawyer and entered the Puerto Rican political arena. He was considered one of the most famous criminal lawyers in Puerto Rico at that time.

In 1914, Rafael Martinez Nadal was elected to Puerto Rico's House of Representatives for the District of Ponce. In 1920, he was elected to Puerto Rico's Senate, where he served as its President from 1932 to 1940.

Rafael Martinez Nadal was a strong defender of statehood in Puerto Rico and has been described as a political leader, a writer, a successful businessman, a brilliant orator and a distinguished lawyer. He passed away in July of 1941.

I support this legislation, congratulate my friend Congressman Fortuno, and urge our colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, if the majority has no additional speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1138 designates the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as the J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States Courthouse. The bill honors Judge Small's service to the legal profession.

Judge Small served in the United States Navy during the Second World War and received a law degree from the University of North Carolina Law School at Chapel Hill. He began the practice of law in 1949 and practiced for over five decades.

His career included serving on the Congressional Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, as county attorney for Pasquotank County, and as judge of the Superior Court of the First Judicial District. Judge Small served as Senior Resident Judge for 17 years.

I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume to congratulate the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) for his legislation today and also to advise my friend from Tennessee I have no further speakers and if he is in the same position, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 802, the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2007. H.R. 802 was introduced by our full committee chairman, Jim Oberstar, and is similar language that was approved by voice vote in the House during the last Congress. I say ``similar to'' because there are some differences, and we noted those differences at the time of the markup of this legislation.

I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, and I also want to thank the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee, Mr. Cummings, for working with me and others on my side of the aisle to address our concerns with the introduced version of the bill.

The bill will implement international requirements for air emissions from

ships for purposes of U.S. law. Under this bill, the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency will be required to develop regulations that establish standards for emissions of ozone-depleting substances and other pollutants as well as marine fuel oil quality that are used in U.S. waters. I am happy to see that we are considering this legislation that will reduce our emissions from vessels operating in U.S. waters this early in the year.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Cummings for working with us to improve the bill. I urge our colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

Chairman Cummings, if I could clarify, through this colloquy, the language that was included in sections 4 and 5.

First, section 4 authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Coast Guard, to designate special areas where vessels would be required to comply with vessel emission regulations under Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention. This section also directs the EPA to consult with a State if such an area is established in an area that is under the jurisdiction of that State.

Is it the chairman's understanding that the committee does not intend to require the agencies to consult with a State or to give a State any authority over a special area that is not wholly established outside of the three or, in some cases, nine nautical mile belt of waters that fall within the jurisdiction of a State?

I thank the chairman.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, section 5 of the bill grants the EPA certain authorities to establish, administer and enforce regulations to implement MARPOL Annex VI. Is it the chairman's understanding that this language does not replace or reduce the Coast Guard's parallel authorities to administer and enforce regulations to implement Annex VI or other regulations under the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships?

I thank the chairman very much for his response. And, again, my congratulations to both chairmen, the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Cummings, for bringing this legislation forward. And, again, my thanks for working with us to make the slight improvements to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my friend and classmate, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, for yielding me the time, and also for his leadership on this issue, and had the President followed his very respectful letter of January 10, we would not be having this debate on this resolution drafted by the Democratic leadership.

Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I desperately want us to succeed in Iraq, and I was heartened by the Iraq Study Group report, and I was heartened when the President of the United States said we were going to take a fresh approach in Iraq. I fear, however, that this is not a fresh approach, that this is more of the same. I also fear that our course of ``more of the same'' could lead to the deaths of more Americans.

I know that the President believes in his heart that the surge will succeed. I like and respect the President of the United States, but we tried last year a surge of about 12,000 troops in Operation Together Forward. The result has been an escalation of sectarian violence and attacks on our troops that has been unprecedented and unrelenting.

If I thought that the presence of 21,500 additional American troops in Iraq would quell sectarian violence and stop the killing and aggression towards Americans in Iraq, I would support it. If I thought that the presence of 21,500 new American troops would cause the Maliki government to get their house in order and their country in order and make the Iraqis step up and do their duty to protect their country, I would support it.

Instead, we find ourselves with an Iraqi security force that has more time in training than the young people that we are sending from our country to defend theirs, yet they cannot get the job done. It is time to ratchet up diplomacy, make the Iraqis accountable for their own security, and kick off the training wheels that we have tethered them to.

Even the Pentagon has warned that an escalation of troops in Baghdad could fuel the jihadists, cause an uptick in attacks and embolden al Qaeda even more. What shakes me to the core, however, is that we plan to send these additional troops into harm's way without adequate equipment and vehicles. General Speakes, the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Force Development, recently laid out a bleak scenario, a surge without enough armor kits and without enough up-armored trucks.

Others within the military add there won't be enough up-armored Humvees, which even as fortified as they are offer no match for the destruction and the power of the IEDs that are used against our troops. One senior Army official speculated that the only way, the only way, there will be enough Humvees for this surge is if five brigades of up- armored Humvees fall out of the sky.

This prognostication takes me back to what I thought was one of the most insensitive remarks uttered by a public official during the course of this war, the former Secretary of Defense in 2004, who indicated you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.

Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that 26 months later we are going into a surge with what we have got instead of what we need. It is not fair to the men and women already in Iraq, nor those on the way, and the costs are too high, both in American lives and also the toll on the American spirit. Make no mistake, like all Americans I support our troops and am eternally grateful for their courage and their sacrifice, and I hope and I pray that we succeed in Iraq.

Some of the troops that will be part of the surge are already in Iraq. I wish our President had chosen a different path, but he did not. I wish my Democratic colleagues had chosen a different approach and allowed my party to offer alternative language, but they did not. It is what it is, but that does not change my resolve that this surge is not in the best interests of this Nation.

May God bless our country, our troops in the field, and the President of the United States.