Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. With this resolution, Congress puts the Bush administration on notice we take the first step toward a course correction in Iraq that the American people voted last November. We also put the leaders of Iraq on notice that our troop strength there will be redeploying, not escalating. This House cannot stand by and expect our courageous troops to win the war against terrorism militarily while the Commander in Chief loses it strategically and ideologically. Some have said passage will make bin Laden smile. They are mistaken. He is already smiling due to the devolving chaos in Iraq. He is achieving exactly what he set out to do: forcing us to destroy a nation to save it, while embroiling our military in an unending Islamic civil war of attrition that produces more terrorism and anger toward America. Our mission in Iraq is struggling, but it is not due to a shortage of supplies or a lack of will or poorly trained forces. To the contrary, we have the best military in the world, with every dollar appropriated by this very House. Our mission is faltering because the President misjudged the field of battle. Our troops are poised against a borderless political movement determined to mobilize downtrodden people. That idea emboldens its adherence to confront the largest military force in the world. That idea enlists the weak to confront the powerful. It pits puritanical religious followers against kingdoms, against the superrich, and against corrupt regimes they deem to be unfaithful. And in Iraq it propels Sunni against Shia. Despite the heroic efforts of our troops, the paradox is that the war in Iraq cannot be won in Iraq. Indeed, the war in Iraq becomes counterproductive in winning the war of ideas across the region. We cannot ask our troops to bear the burden of winning a ground war when the President's policies have lost the idea war. We know the truth. There were no chemical labs, as pictured here, when Secretary Powell laid out the case against Iraq before the U.N. and said there were chemical labs in Iraq. There were no such chemical labs. There was no yellow cake uranium from Niger, and there were no weapons of mass destruction. We cannot ask our troops to win military victory when the administration's reason for invasion were falsehoods and debased our Nation throughout the world. The intelligence was not faulty. No one should be allowed to blame this on the Central Intelligence Agency. Our intelligence community, including the CIA, tried to tell President Bush and Vice President Cheney, but they refused to listen. Madam Speaker, though I voted for the NATO mission in Afghanistan, I spoke out strongly against the resolution authorizing President Bush to wage preemptive war against Iraq because I feared what would happen: more terrorism, not less; more instability, not less. Since that vote I have supported our troops at every turn and will continue to support them. And I do not regret my vote against the war in Iraq, and I do not apologize for my support of our troops. But now is the time to take the first step toward course correction to redeploy them more effectively. The roots of terrorism did not spring from Iraq. Terrorism sprang from diplomatic and political failures in undemocratic states, from an Afghanistan that was let fester after the Soviet defeat. Terrorism springs from an Iran whose Shia majority our Nation has isolated for the last quarter century and tried to throttle for the prior quarter century. Terrorism springs from Saudi families who pay to promote the most radical form of Islam in other nations to hold onto power in their homeland, one of the most undemocratic places on Earth. Terrorism springs from the unaddressed Israeli-Palestinian standoff. Terrorism springs from a Lebanon where the Shia majority has been underrepresented in the institutions of government. Terrorism springs from a view, fair or not, that the United States allies with the rich but not the poor across the undemocratic Islamic world. How can America stand for democracy in Iraq but not in all of the oil kingdoms and theocracies to which this Nation has been unfortunately tethered for our entire adult lifetimes? How can we ask our troops to bear the brunt of war in the most oil rich region of the world when we have refused to become energy independent here at home? Madam Speaker, we cannot ask our troops to bear the burden of war when real diplomacy has been absent and political coalitions for victory are missing in action. In the end, war is the breakdown of diplomacy. Now is the time for a course correction: redeloyment of U.S. forces, benchmarks to measure strategic achievements, diplomatic alternatives such as a soft partition of Iraq enforced by the world community to quell the rising Sunni-Shia-Kurd standoff. Chances are the violence in Iraq could continue for years to come. The danger now is that our actions to date exacerbate it and encourage this violence to spill over into Jordan, Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia. This resolution begins to resurrect America's reputation among the freedom-loving nations of world. America has always been a nation that believes in containment, not preemption. We have always known defense, not offense, is the best war strategy. We have always been strong enough to ferret out, wait out, outsmart, and counterweight the enemy. 3,117 U.S. dead; 23,000 injured; hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead; the rejection of the world community. These facts should lead us to face a future of a new possibility. This resolution opens that door. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, our Nation needs a course correction in our foreign policy, and we are being given the chance by the Democratic leadership this week to debate it fully, as we should have when that resolution was first debated in this House. Our country needs many course corrections, including on the economy. President Bush's trade policy has clearly failed, as his foreign policy has, as American workers and American businesses find we are losing more jobs to imports again. The confirmed numbers for 2006 released today show that the annual trade deficit in 2006 doubled since this President took office. In fact, for 2006 the trade deficit equaled $763.6 billion and broke the prior year's trade deficit by adding another 6 percent more deficit from 2005's level of $716 billion. Five straight years of record deficits have left millions more Americans with displaced jobs, outsourced jobs, unemployment across regions of this country, and putting our financial future in the hands of foreign creditors such as China and Saudi Arabia. Mr. Speaker, to grant renewed fast track authority to this President would be a serious mistake and irresponsible. This administration needs a course correction by this Congress, both in foreign policy and in domestic economic policy.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I imagine that I am not the only Member who hears from constituents regularly when oil companies report record profits, particularly with gas prices being what they have been over the past year. Last Friday, the New York Times had this headline: World's Largest Oil Companies Gushing Profits. The Times story followed a report that ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded company, had enjoyed the largest annual profit for any company in history, almost $40 billion in 1 year, at a time when extraordinarily high gasoline prices were punishing the budgets of almost every family in our country and punishing the budgets of every business in our country. Did ExxonMobil lower the prices at the pump to adjust for these egregious profits? Absolutely not. In its first order of business, it spent almost $10 billion to buy back its own stock, and then it took some of its profits to create a disinformation campaign against the panel on climate change. And, finally, this week what did ExxonMobil do? It went after the State of Alabama, and lawyers for the company asked the Alabama Supreme Court to overturn a $3.5 billion punitive damage award that was made by a jury 3 years ago when it found that Exxon had defrauded the State of royalties for natural gas production in Mobile Bay. Actually, the original fine had been $11.9 billion. You know, it must be hard being a giant oil company these days. It must be hard work making so much money you don't know how to spend it. That is not a problem most American families can relate to, but that is the problem that the giant oil companies face today. The New York Times article reported that the world's 10 biggest oil companies made more than $100 billion in profit in 2004, more than the gross domestic product of all of Malaysia, and their sales were more than $1 trillion more than the gross domestic product of Canada. The Associated Press reported earnings of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, their earnings exceeded $142 billion, enough to buy every person in the United States 175 gallons of midgrade gasoline. Those combined profits, said the AP, surpassed the gross domestic product of Iraq and more than 160 other nations. Keep in mind, 6 years ago before President Bush was placed in office, crude oil futures were trading below $15 a barrel, one-fourth less than today. The price of oil when President Bush was placed in office was $23.19 a barrel; last month, it was $52.25 a barrel. The dollar value of imports to the United States for the first 11 months of 2001, President Bush's first year in office, was $69.9 billion, but last year it was up 187 percent to $201.2 billion. When will we learn the true cost of our dependence on foreign oil? It is no surprise that the world's largest oil reserves are located in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates. And the hot new area, of course, for exploration is Africa; and I imagine that may be a reason President Bush this week announced a new U.S.-Africa Command. Not to take a back seat, the Peoples Republic of China has offered more than $5 billion in grants and loans in Africa, not out of the goodness of its heart, because we saw the compassion of the Chinese Government in Tiananmen Square, but China is interested in Africa's natural resources, including oil. And now the Bush administration is trying to play catch-up. A cynic would say you could look at that list of nations and probably discern where the next war will break out, but that would be tantamount to saying that the Bush administration started a war with Iraq over oil, and we all know that cannot possibly be true. But it is not hard to make the case between record high gasoline prices, record high oil company profits, and record high U.S. trade deficits. The American people understand the connection. They live the connection every day, and they expect this Congress to do something about it. Not 25 years from now, not 20 or 15 years from now, but this year, to move our Nation toward energy independence with dispatch.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Continuing Resolution for Fiscal 2007 and I join in complimenting our distinguished chairman, Mr. Obey, for accomplishing in a few weeks, with the distinguished Senate Appropriations Chairman, Robert Byrd, what their predecessors were both unwilling and unable to do. A mess was inherited from the prior Congress, and this bill cleans those up and corrects them in a very responsible fashion. If any of our colleagues on the other side want to criticize this package, I ask why didn't they fix it when they had a chance? I also ask why did they create this irresponsible problem by delaying passage of these necessary measures in the first place? It should have been done by the end of September of last year. Despite the constitutional expectations to pass all appropriation bills by September 30 in time for the new fiscal year, the last time all appropriation bills passed on time was 1994, when the Democrats were in charge, and thank goodness we are again. The action today roughly provides cuts in over 60 programs and rescinds unobligated balances in order to transfer $10 billion in savings that are used to address critical investments such as our veterans' health care and health accounts of the Department of Defense to care for our returning wounded veterans. It will keep our Social Security offices open rather than shutting them down. Community policing is increased by $70 million. And it provides important help for students, Pell grants, about $260 more per year for each of them. It covers additional children with disabilities. It provides $103.7 million for Head Start. It provides funding to expand some of our community health centers to take care of people who don't have any health insurance. It keeps our Public Housing authorities utility costs at least paid for the moment. It provides $125 million for 38,000 additional students below grade level. And we provide an additional $197.1 million for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund. Federal Highway funds are provided at levels guaranted in SAFETEA and Amtrak funding is maintained at 2006 levels. We know that is still $266 million below 2004 levels. We just don't have the funds to do everything we want to do. But at least we want to move forward. Our Nation has many needs, Mr. Speaker, and we need to understand and meet those responsibilities for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But surely we have responsibilities here at home, and we have a responsibility to meet the need for a defensible budget policy that imposes tough decisions in tough time. I want to congratulate Mr. Obey as our new chairman of the Appropriations Committee, somebody who is not only well suited to this position, but probably the finest chairman of Appropriations I have ever had the opportunity to serve with. Thank you for doing what you had to do for the Nation. Congratulations. Please, I ask all my colleagues to vote for this continuing resolution on behalf of all the citizens of our country.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this evening we are going to listen to the President of the United States, and I have no doubt in the State of the Union he will talk about the war on terrorism, and he will talk about the need to create jobs in Iraq to stabilize the terrible situation there, and he will talk about more funds for reconstruction of Iraq. Our Nation has already spent over $500 billion and rising in that sad country. But I would like to focus on the United States just for a second, if I could, and talk about the terrorism focused inside of this country and point out that 90 percent of all the drugs that are smuggled into this country enter through our border with Mexico, and that is according to our State Department. In fact, under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which his father negotiated, drug and drug-related smuggling across the Mexican border has risen to over $142 billion a year, according to our Drug Enforcement Agency. Every single community in our country is affected, not just border communities. Every single jail, every single sheriff, every single law enforcement official, every single prison. Our communities are infected with burglaries, with robberies, with personal assaults related to the abuse of drugs in our country. I will be very interested to see what the President has to say about that war on terrorism tonight that affects every single neighborhood in this country. NAFTA brings a significant increase in cargo traffic across our southern border and thus strains the enforcement efforts of our border patrols and enables traffickers and terrorists. In fact, 9,300 commercial trucks cross our border daily. 9,300 more trucks. And do you know how many we inspect? Five percent. Five percent. So there is a 95 percent chance for smugglers who are out there, whatever they want to get into this country, that will be their rate of success. Now, the Mexican Government is working very hard to build a four-lane highway which they call La Entrada al Pacifico, the Entrance from the Pacific. And the idea there would be to redirect so much of the traffic from Asia, from China, these big ships that are bound for the United States, from the west coast, Ports of Los Angeles and Oakland, further south, and stretch the actual shipping lanes into Mexico versus the United States. It is estimated that as much as 30 percent of the truck traffic will also be diverted from California and El Paso to the ports of entry at Presidio. The idea is that the highway into our country would begin further south where goods would come in in deepwater ports, and the completed route would save up to 4 shipping days for goods moving between the Pacific Rim countries and Texas, which would be one of the major ports of entry into our country. The problem is that we really haven't addressed the issue of drug smuggling as a part of this. Ninety percent, again, of all drugs smuggled into this country come over the Mexican border. That area has become almost lawless. Hundreds of murders related to drug trafficking go unaddressed both on the Mexican side of that border and our side. We really need to have a border enforcement organization that is negotiated by treaty by amending NAFTA in order that we can have proper enforcement along that very porous part of our country which makes us so vulnerable. Our border guards are overwhelmed. We know that pedestrian traffic has increased by 55 percent across that border, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, and all kinds of vehicular traffic. Can you imagine that one place on that border accounts for 70 to 90 percent of the cocaine sold in the United States smuggled through that region? In fact, the drug cartels have moved up their major source of operation in Colombia up to the state of Juarez, and now control the state of Juarez just south of the State of Texas. This is real terrorism poised at our country. Let's say the people in the Middle East want to get something into the United States. You mean to tell me they haven't thought about this? Of course they have. And we know that drug presence leads to more violence and more corruption at every level. An unreleased Drug Enforcement Agency report notes that drugs, weapons, people traffickers, and terrorist organizations have to cross the border from Mexico into the United States, and they will use one of the many corridors available to them. I hope that the President of the United States tonight talks about securing our southern border. [From the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Dec. 27, 2006] Crossroads of Conflict--World Trade Bridge Has Changed the U.S.-Mexico Border, for Good and Bad (By Sara A. Carter) Laredo, Texas.--The mammoth globe on the World Trade Bridge spins in the glow of the Texas moon, welcoming hundreds of cargo trucks from Mexico to the United States' largest inland port. Nighttime is the slowest time for the bridge. During the day, literally thousands of trucks cross the span into the U.S., headed for destinations scattered throughout the Midwest and East and north into Canada. Traffic between Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, on Mexico's side of the bridge, is only expected to increase in coming years with Mexico anticipating billions of dollars in new trade, mainly from China, on its way to the United States, according to a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration executive summary. Increasing trade has, however, been matched by growth in corruption and death in both border cities, though U.S. and Mexican officials are loathe to admit it. $142 billion in drug trade between the U.S. and Mexico, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. 86,000 Transportation jobs created as a result of the World Trade Bridge. 9,300 Commercial trucks pass through the World Trade Bridge daily. 90% of all drugs smuggled into the United States enter through its border with Mexico. The prospect of expanded trade in Mexican states controlled by some of the country's most dangerous cartel leaders could pose serious national security challenges for the United States, an internal DEA report obtained by the Daily Bulletin explains. The report, which has never been released, examines how already strained federal law enforcement agencies monitoring border security and narcotics will be challenged by not only Mexican and South and Central American drug trafficking organizations, but also by Asian cartels. With slim resources to monitor cargo and inadequate border security measures in place, it will be next to impossible for U.S. agencies to stem the tide of contraband expected to enter the country from Mexico, the DEA report warns. Agencies will be hard-pressed to monitor the billions of dollars in contraband expected to enter the nation if U.S. officials don't take heed. ``Contraband can be anything from narcotics, pirated videos, humans or weapons of mass destruction,'' said David Monnette, spokesman for the DEA in EI Paso, Texas. ``These drug trafficking organizations know that we are spread thin, and many times they use legitimate trade routes to move their contraband into the United States. This report explains the possible dangers of not addressing these issues.'' Trade route A joint venture of Texas and the Mexican government, La Entrada al Pacifico (Gateway to the Pacific) which also is the title of the DEA report is meant to get more goods from Asia north into the United States. The plan which involves redirecting more than half of East Coast-bound Asian cargo from the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to Mexico will stretch the power of Mexican cartels while aligning them with Asian drug-trafficking organizations, according to the DEA report. That report focuses on the Mexican port of Topolobampo, Sinaloa, on Mexico's southwestern coast. But Topolobampo has taken a back seat during the past year to another port, Lazaro Cardenas, just 72 hours from Laredo. Lazaro Cardenas, the deepest container port on the Pacific, is in southern Mexico, in Michoacan. The volume of re-routed trade through it is expected to explode within the next four years. And that's troubling to U.S. authorities. ``The (plan) represents an expanding threat to the U.S. for drug, weapon and alien smuggling, as well as related crime, through a 260-mile stretch of Texas into the heartland of the U.S.,'' the report states. ``(Drug trafficking organizations) will be able to exploit the new corridor through the use of established smuggling networks and associations with Mexican drug trafficking organizations. ``They may evade U.S. law enforcement under the guise of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and use established Asian communities in the U.S. for the distribution of drugs.'' Piggy-backing Ninety percent of all non-domestic narcotics enter the U.S. through the Mexican border, according to a 2005 U.S. State Department report. Drugs are a multibillion-dollar industry for cartels in Latin America. The National Drug Intelligence Center conservatively estimates more than $108 billion roughly equal to the combined gross domestic product of Ecuador and Guatemala in drugs comes into the U.S. yearly. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration puts the figure at $142 billion in drug trade just between the U.S. and Mexico. Other estimates soar even higher. ``NAFTA has made smuggling drugs across the border easier by several means,'' including via cargo trucks, the DEA report notes. ``The volume of truck traffic coming across the border necessitates the expediting of inspections to the point that few trucks are thoroughly inspected.'' More than 9,300 commercial trucks, carrying everything from pinatas to electronics, pass through Nuevo Laredo into Laredo each day, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials. As cargo shifts from Los Angeles to Mexico, it is expected to triple the amount of traffic moving from Mexico through the Texas highway system. At the same time, drug cartels are using the trucks to piggy-back more than $10 million a day in drugs through the Laredo corridor into the United States, according to senior DEA officials interviewed by the Daily Bulletin. The numbers aren't surprising, said TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council. In July, Bonner testified before Congress that less than 5 percent of the 6 million cargo containers entering the U.S. each year are physically inspected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents. ``From the standpoint of homeland security, this plan (Gateway to the Pacific) is a nightmare,'' Bonner said. ``Any possible benefit of expedited trade is going to be totally eclipsed by the increased amount of contraband . . . slipping across borders.'' Hidden among the televisions, pinatas and clothing are heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, law enforcement officials say. Worse are weapons and people, and the possibility of terrorist organizations using gaps in border security to put their agents in the United States. ``. . . All such ventures have one common factor: They have to cross the border from Mexico into the U.S., and they will use one of several corridors available to do so,'' the DEA report points out. ``La Entrada al Pacifico is one of the corridors.'' The Bridge With the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles already stretched to capacity, Lazaro Cardenas' ability to handle billions of dollars worth of cargo from Asia is proving a godsend to global corporations and city leaders in the American southwest. For their part, Port of Los Angeles officials say they don't expect the Mexican port to siphon off anywhere near the amount of cargo called for in the Gateway to the Pacific Plan, though they admit business is booming. Theresa Adams Lopez, the L.A. port's media director, said she disagrees with the assumption that half of the Asian cargo headed to Los Angeles will be diverted to ports in Mexico. ``Our cargo is expected to double and triple in the upcoming years,'' she said. ``The bulk of it is still going to come in through the Port of L.A. and through our partner, the Port of Long Beach. ``A lot of the problem with new developments like the one in Mexico is the infrastructure rail and roads to get things out. Coming here is literally one stop, and going there would be two stops first from their original destination, and then through Mexico to the United States. ``There is plenty of cargo to go around,'' she said. ``But the contention that half of our business will go away is not true.'' Regardless, Laredo officials are pinning their hopes on increased port business, and tout the World Trade Bridge and its ability to handle cargo from places like Lazaro Cardenas as the lifeblood of Webb County, Texas. Born out of NAFTA, the bridge signaled the beginning of a bright future with Mexico as a significant partner in North American trade. According to a 2004 U.S. Census Bureau report, the most recent data available, the Port of Laredo handles more than $130 billion worth of goods and merchandise each year. Nearly 86,000 transportation jobs have been created since the World Trade Bridge was built. More than 90 percent of the truck traffic between Laredo and Nuevo Laredo goes over it. Expansion of Lazaro Cardenas will allow delivery of cargo to the East Coast via the World Trade Bridge four to five days faster than from California, say proponents of the plan especially officials in Laredo, which benefits every time traffic and trade increase. ``NAFTA started moving Laredo away from being the frontier land to the center of something very significant,'' said Roger Creery, executive director of the Laredo Development Foundation. ``We're not the U.S. vs. Mexico vs. Canada anymore. We are the Americas.'' Even as Congress held numerous immigration field hearings during the summer to determine the extent of security failures at the U.S. border, private corporations, local and federal government officials and international investment corporations were planning for trade expansion. Those plans include finishing the Trans-Texas Corridor, which would open the highways to future shipping of cargo from Lazaro Cardenas, whose biggest investors are Hong Kong- based Hutchison Port Holdings Group and Wal-Mart. Those two firms already have invested more than $300 million to expand the container port. For many business and political leaders, the economic growth promised by Gateway to the Pacific and the Trans-Texas Corridor outweighs any perceived danger about national security or increased drug trafficking. That philosophy seems to be heard even in the words of former Laredo Mayor Elizabeth Flores, who was criticized publicly earlier this year for playing down the escalation of violence in Nuevo Laredo. ``We've lived with the cartels all of our lives,'' Flores said in an interview a few weeks before she left office. ``They are a part of life on the border. Eventually, one will take control, and the killings will slow down.'' The business Lazaro Cardenas will bring to Laredo and Nuevo Laredo could transform both cities, Flores added. ``It's about growth, not death,'' she said. With billions of dollars in legal trade at stake, bad publicity simply isn't something business leaders or politicians are willing to acknowledge, others say. ``See no evil, hear no evil,'' said Webb County Sheriff Rick Flores, who testified before Congress numerous times this year about growing violence in Laredo, the county's largest city, and along the border. ``That's the way they want it, and that's what they have done.'' Violent Neighbor Lost in the talk about bigger business and improved trade is the picture of life on the street in Nuevo Laredo. The drug cartels have compromised truck drivers, U.S. Customs inspectors at ports of entry and business owners on both sides of the river, according to residents and law enforcement officials. And then there are the killings, which come on a stunningly regular basis. The sound of gunfire in the distance doesn't seem to shock residents in the heart of Nuevo Laredo. Many of their homes are fortified with thick cement blocks, iron gates and barbed wire protection from the high-powered weapons used by the cartels. ``The government is owned by the cartels,'' said an older woman returning home. ``As the trucks make their way to America freely, we are forced to live like animals. While the rich get richer, we are here dying, and nobody really cares.'' Residents in Nuevo Laredo say that the violence has only become worse over the past year. Expansion of trade routes will only heighten the tension and violence among Mexico's cartels, they contend. ``They want to control the routes into the United States,'' said Nacho, a Nuevo Laredo resident whose real name was withheld to protect his identity. ``In a way, they already do. And U.S. officials should be worried, because the cartels will do anything for money. They will kill anyone, help anyone, do anything to get what they need to move contraband across the border for the right price.'' The DEA report echoes what Nacho and other residents believe. The possibility of a ``direct, nearly inspection- free route to the central U.S. and expanded market for drugs'' has or will result in the following, according to the report: Networks created by Mexican and Asian organized crime organizations to smuggle illegal aliens, counterfeit products and pirated intellectual property into Mexico. Cargo containers being used to smuggle drugs into the U.S. Distribution networks being created by Asian gangs in communities. Creation of legitimate businesses in the U.S. to cover up smuggling, contraband and money laundering. Expedited truck inspections ``to keep substantial backup of trucks from regularly occurring.'' The cartels' reach extends well beyond the streets and people of Nuevo Laredo and the border, however. On Dec. 12, newly elected President Felipe Calderon sent more than 6,500 troops to Michoacan, where the Port of Lazaro Cardenas is located, in an effort to get a handle on the growing violence. Calderon also transferred 10,000 troops from the army and navy to the federal police force on Dec. 13, the largest move against narcotics traffickers since his predecessor, former President Vicente Fox, sent nearly 1,000 troops to Nuevo Laredo to squelch a drug war that has killed more than 3,000 people across the country during the past two years. Calderon may have learned how deadly dealing with the cartels can be. First Lady Margarita Zavala, Calderon's wife, lost her cousin, Luis Felipe Zavala, on Dec. 12 when gunmen open fired on his SUV in Mexico City. According to DEA intelligence officials, Zavala's assassination was retaliation for Calderon's promise to take down Mexico's drug kingpins. ``It was an assassination of opportunity,'' said one DEA intelligence official who requested anonymity. ``... It was directly related to Calderon's move into Michoacan.'' However, Mexico's attorney general, Eduardo Medina Mora, told reporters the incident was a coincidence. ``There is at this time no indication ... that would suggest or make us guess that this unfortunate event was related to the Mexican government's efforts against organized crime,'' he told reporters at a press conference a day after the killing. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Department of Homeland Security has tried to beef up security along the border. Officials say new technologies radiation portal monitors, hand-held radiation detectors and X-ray machines assist front-line agents in detecting dangerous materials that may be in trucks at ports of entry. U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Pat Jones said striking a balance between increased traffic and inspections is challenging. New programs implemented by the Department of Homeland Security have assisted in better checks at ports of entries along the southwest border, he said. ``It may be possible to improve the flow of legitimate trade and improve security,'' Jones said. ``Prior to 9/11, the thought was that if you improve security, you're going to slow down cargo trade. We've learned that if you actually could identify and separate the risk-free cargo, the flow of cargo could be expedited.'' But once the illegal cargo finds its way into the U.S., there's little law enforcement can do. Laredo police can barely keep up with the violence spilling into their community from their sister city across the border. Sheriff Flores said growing violence and corruption in Mexico is spilling into the U.S. and becoming increasingly difficult to manage. ``The cartels have more power, money and weaponry than we do,'' he said. ``The cartels know how to get their narcotics across the (World Trade) bridge. They're not afraid to lose some of their loads; they expect it. The risk is worth it because the possibility of getting caught is minimal, at best.''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I was pleased to cast my vote today for the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. Some of us have been urging energy independence for decades. In fact, President Jimmy Carter had it right over three decades ago when he said the Arab oil embargo was the moral equivalent of war. But America lost sight of his compelling vision for energy independence. We need to give birth to a new sustainable energy age that is bold and develops alternative energy supplies and the infrastructure to support it. President Bush suddenly realized last year that we have become addicted to foreign oil, of course, most of it coming from the most undemocratic regimes in the world. But during his administration, we are importing 1 billion more barrels of oil from those very undemocratic places since he assumed office. Simply put, his rhetoric doesn't match reality. I am pleased today that we took some important steps in shifting how Federal resources are dedicated, taking them away from preferential treatment to an oil industry with record profits and little social conscience. Instead, we must incentivize a domestically owned energy industry that has record potential, a shift that America wants and we must take. While $14 billion over 10 years is nothing to ignore, it is still far too little, especially since more than a third of this amount, a little more than $5 billion, doesn't become available until the 10th year. According to the Government Accountability Office, this government has spent more than $130 billion on subsidies to the oil industry over the last 3\1/2\ decades. So today's step forward is the first rung of the ladder to energy independence. As this country spends billions on oil addiction, 75 percent of it being imported from the most undemocratic places in the world, I might repeat, consider an estimate by the Congressional Research Service which shows the recent increase in oil prices accounts for an additional $60 to $75 billion rise in our country's abysmal trade deficit. While the oil companies manipulate the market, they continue to rake in billions. During President Bush's tenure, their profits have been record. From 2001 until the first quarter of 2006, ExxonMobil, alone, made $118.2 billion. Now, in the bill today we talk about $14 billion over 10 years. They made $118.2 billion over the last 3 years. Shell has earned $82.3 billion. Shell, one company. BP has made $67.8 billion. Our bill today had $14 billion over 10 years. Chevron Texaco has made $43.1 billion, and Conoco Phillips made $31.1 billion. We are talking $14 billion over 10 years, with $5 billion in the very last year. Recognizing that those companies' profits were beginning to infuriate the public, does it surprise you that gasoline prices just happened to drop 75 cents a gallon during the run-up to last year's election for Congress? As we consider this bill today, prices across our Nation, conveniently, are dropping. Imagine, in a place like Toledo, Ohio, they dropped from $2.40 a gallon to $1.75 a gallon. Isn't that strange during the week that we considered this bill? Imagine an industry earning so much in profits it can manipulate the world and manipulate every single person in our country. Imagine the jobs we could create if we were to dedicate $14 billion, not over 10 years, but each month, rather than spending that money on oil wars in far-flung places, invest it in solar, in wind, in geothermal, in photovoltaic energy, in fuel cells and hydrogen and clean coal production and distribution. Imagine the jobs we could create if we had vision. These accomplishments that we seek will require not just real imagination, but real leadership. Hopefully this bill today offers a glimmer. America will, at long last, at long last, take seriously what President Jimmy Carter envisioned. He was right then. He remains right today: America must become energy independent. Our people want it. Why shouldn't this Congress deliver it?

Mrs. KAPTUR

Mrs. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007. Although the bill before us today does not go as far as it needs to go, it is an incremental step towards a long-overdue solution, a solution that continues to be blocked by moneyed pharmaceutical interests that are more interested in the profits their medications can bring than in the good their medications can do. The American people deserve better, and that is why I continue to say that if we are to achieve real reform in this institution, we need to start with campaign finance reform. In my view, Medicare represents a covenant between the U.S. government and its citizens. During my tenure in the House of Representatives, I have always supported Medicare and Social Security as important lifelines for seniors in our country. As part of these efforts, I have advocated fair, affordable, easy-to- use prescription drug coverage for seniors under Medicare. Unfortunately, the Medicare Modernization Act falls far short of these goals. Ever since its inception, the MMA has been a nightmare both for legislators and, more importantly, for the seniors who must try to navigate it. Under this law, the government is prohibited from using its buying power to negotiate lower prices for America's 30 million seniors. I object strongly to this provision because I believe firmly that something must be done to bring down the cost of prescription drugs in America. In fact, when the MMA was first being developed and passed through the House, I attempted to offer an amendment that would have allowed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices under the auspices of the Medicare program. Unfortunately, after being kept waiting until the wee hours of the morning, while the Rules Committee met far from the watchful eye of the American public and even most Members of Congress, I was not allowed even to offer my amendment for consideration. Therefore, I am glad that today we are debating a bill that will accomplish my goal, and under a system that has already worked to save our veterans money under the VA's healthcare system. H.R. 4 will begin to save money for beneficiaries both through lower drug costs at the pharmacy counter and lower plan premiums. Lower prices will also slow entry into the donut hole, when beneficiaries must pay the full price of their medicines. And since taxpayers fund more than three-quarters of the cost of the drug benefit, we will be saving them money, too. This bill does not, however, prevent the prescription drug plans from getting deeper discounts. And the bill does not allow the HHS Secretary to establish a national formulary or otherwise restrict access to medicines. Mr. Speaker, our nation's seniors, members of the ``greatest generation,'' deserve better than having to choose between buying food or buying life-sustaining and often, life-saving medications. I am pleased today to support this legislation which represents a first step in eliminating that cruel choice and helping to ensure that seniors can live their lives in good health and with dignity.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I thank Congresswoman Maxine Waters from California for bringing us together here and for her great leadership in the Out of Iraq Caucus. And I also thank Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio for his great intellect and great passion. It is a joy to serve with all of you. I made more formal remarks earlier this evening on the subject of the President's proposal to escalate the number of troops in Iraq. But I wanted to spend a couple of minutes this evening reemphasizing the broader region and how U.S. policy is really impacting a growing anti- Americanism not just inside Iraq, but in many other countries, and how the United States is serving to create destabilization inside nations that is very, very dangerous for those countries, yet we play an immense role in that. We see what has happened in Iraq. That is kind of the prism that we are looking through now, and we see the Sunni and Shia pitted against each other, and Christians fleeing across the border by the hundreds of thousands, thinking they have no more home inside Iraq. We have done a lot of damage in that country. And then we look at what is happening inside nations like Bahrain. In recent parliamentary elections, we saw that almost a dozen, 20 parliamentarians were elected from very, very anti-American postures. And, of course, our Fifth Fleet is ported in Bahrain. Were it not ported there, I doubt that the Government of Bahrain would hold. We look at what is happening in Pakistan and in the provinces of Pakistan. And in every single one of those provinces, the most anti- American candidates are being elected to and rising within the political structure of those countries. We think about what just happened at the Horn of Africa, and we look at Ethiopia and the arms that the United States is providing and the soldiers that have entered into Somalia and our gunships shelling off of the coast into Somalia itself and the conflict that is brewing between Ethiopia and Somalia. And you begin looking at what is happening in the general region. It isn't just Iraq. That is kind of a place where we need to keep our eye, but we need to open our eyes to what is happening across the region. Inside of Lebanon, a country that I remain very close to because of the constituency that I represent, and the struggles we have had during our tenure here in the Congress to try to help Lebanon to be a leader in terms of signing the peace agreement with Israel and remaining a major center for education, for trade, for business, for diplomacy in that part of the world, and the United States standing back and allowing Lebanon to be shelled around its entire perimeter, and a most unfortunate war between Lebanon and Israel, and we saw the Bush administration sit back. And then we watch these demonstrations in the streets of Beirut. I mean, a million people from Hezbollah demonstrating against the United States. And then of course the Government of Lebanon, Prime Minister Siniora's government trying to hold on, trying to maintain a posture where all sects are able to participate. But if you look at what is happening across the region in almost every single country, there is this destabilization. In the Palestinian Authority where we thought during the Clinton administration we were making some progress, of course difficult, of course painstaking. Yet we see Hamas clashing in so many countries. What we have is destabilization rather than a movement toward reconciliation. The policies of the Bush administration almost seem to result in destabilization in many, many countries in that region of the world. In Afghanistan, we know that our work is cut out for us. Afghanistan in many ways is a capital without a country, and we are seeing the loss of more life from soldiers from the international community that are attempting to assist us to try to bring some functioning nation-state in place in Afghanistan. I mention these issues because the President of the United States doesn't. He acts like they are not there. And the rising anti- Americanism that we see across the broader region is very, very dangerous. It is dangerous not perhaps so much for my generation, but for our children and grandchildren that will follow us. There are 1 billion people who subscribe to Islam in this world, and we have to not alienate every single one of them. We have to help them reconcile their internal differences, their tribal tendencies, their tendencies to talk across one another rather than with one another. I would like to thank my colleague for allowing me a few minutes this evening. I could speak about the oil imperative and my deep, deep concerns about what is happening not just inside Iraq but with the powerful, powerful involvement of global oil companies in letting their power be felt in what happens in this capital and with the likely placements of pipelines across the regions that I am talking about and who are likely to be winners and losers in those efforts. There isn't time to do that tonight. Without question, the United States, when people ask what can we do at home, what we should be doing here at home is becoming energy independent within a decade. No question. No blinks, no hesitation, no doubts. Not by 2025, within one decade, because that would help free America from the bondage that we are held to from all of the dictatorships from whom we are importing oil. And those dictatorships are extremely important for the American to understand. If you really look at where terrorism sprouts from, where did the majority of the 9/11 terrorists come from: Saudi Arabia. Why would they hit the United States? What might that have to do with? Where did they come from in Saudi Arabia, and what were they trying to do? They were trying to get us out of Saudi Arabia. And you know what, they succeeded in doing that. We moved our forces out. They are about the task of cleansing, in their view, their part of the world from those who control those important oil resources. The United States shouldn't be joined at the hip to oil dictatorships. The American people are beginning to understand who really controls rising oil and gasoline prices in this country, and the importance of us becoming energy independent here at home. We need to focus the American people on what is happening across a broad region of the world that is extremely dangerous to us long term as the Bush policies are so narrowly focused and really counterproductive long term.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, America needs a foreign policy that does not put the interests of oil and oil dictatorships above the interests of human life. It is not surprising that I don't support the escalation of U.S. troop levels in Iraq as asked for by our President last night. President Bush cannot lead America to military victory in Iraq, absent a viable, political solution that puts Iraq's internal affairs back together and redeploys our soldiers out of the role of being an occupying force. His statement is 3 years too late and hundreds of thousands of soldiers short. The President refuses to see that his strategy to combat terrorism is transforming Iraq into an Islamic Shi'a state with the relegation of the Sunni and the escape of Christians. Is this lop-sided result really in the interests of regional peace long term? Why should our U.S. forces, the President says he wants to deploy to Baghdad and Anbar Province, be used to do the cleanup work for the new Shi'a-led government. The growing insurgency inside Iraq, and any American sentiment both inside and outside of Iraq, will not be quelled by sending more U.S. troops. It will ripen it. There is now only one choice: Iraq must take responsibility for its own security as part of a broader political solution that works. But how can that political solution work when minorities in Iraq feel so underrepresented? That is why the international community and Iraq's neighbors must, no matter how difficult, become engaged in diplomatic efforts. Throughout the Muslim and Persian worlds, the President's policies have emboldened anti-American leaders in Lebanon, in Iran, in Syria, in Bahrain, in the Palestinian Authority, in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, in Pakistan, even the Horn of Africa now. The Bush doctrine of preemptive war, test marketed in Iraq, succeeded in deposing Saddam Hussein and determining whether or not he possessed weapons of mass destruction. It is time, therefore, for the President and us to declare victory and transform the operation. As decorated CIA intelligence officer Robert Baer has written: ``We are at war in America and throughout the Western world, at war with an enemy with no infrastructure to attack, with no planes to shoot out of the sky, with no boats to sink to the bottom of the seas, and precious few tanks to blow up for the amusement of viewers of CNN.'' Baer contends the only way to defeat such a faceless enemy is by substantial increases in human intelligence, and I agree. But that intelligence has been lacking. Even in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, almost no one speaks Arabic. Dr. Edward Luttwak, a strategic affairs expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, observed that the U.S. general who led the operation to apprehend Osama bin Laden neither spoke Arabic nor showed any interest in learning it and depended upon translations of intercepts to detect him. Importantly, we can ask ourselves, after 5 years, why hasn't the administration filled that human intelligence gap so fundamental to success. Maybe they really don't want to know. So now with the President's proposal to accelerate more forces, those units are going to deploy with too few personnel or with significant numbers of new personnel. This decreases unit cohesiveness and individual proficiency. Many units are facing three or more deployments, far beyond what was originally anticipated. We know that previous escalation of troops in Iraq have yielded no more success. Without a political solution the President cannot hold the ground by dispatching more U.S. groups or by continuing his escalation of the employment of greater and greater numbers of unaccountable, contracted forces and mercenaries to compensate for the lack of security and rising anti-Americanism. Our military's time-honored values of duty, honor, and country are being eviscerated by an operation that is depending more and more on hired guns to police the streets, on bounty-seeking contractors to guard important sites such as the oil wells, and foreign nationals to carry out internal security operations in Iraq. I don't call that the freedom the President talked about last night. Iraqis have proposed dividing Baghdad into nine sectors and policing them with Iraqi troops as American soldiers are redeployed as backups. That might work. But the U.S. most of all needs a broad political strategy that addresses the rising levels of global terrorism the Bush policy is yielding and the growing anti-American sentiment that is brewing in Iraq and the Muslim world beyond. That strategy demands significant new human intelligence networks, not standing armies. Moreover, we need international diplomacy to engage all nations that border Iraq to seek a resolution to the strife. Mr. Speaker, America needs a foreign policy that does not put the interests of oil and oil dictatorships above the value of human life. Just as the Bush administration took office, this country is importing an additional 1 billion more barrels of oil per year. Tell me there is no connection between our utter dependence on imported petroleum and the deployment of our precious troops to the Middle East and Central Asia.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman of the committee for bringing this important bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage is a women's working issue, and it is an issue for our children with over 1.4 million working mothers across this country who earn the minimum wage. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what is it worth to you to have someone lift and bathe your elderly sick relative in a nursing home and empty their bed pans? Is it worth more than $5.15 an hour? How about cleaning the bathrooms of the Democratic and Republican Conventions? People tend to not pay attention to those workers. How about washing dishes in restaurants across this country? How about caring for dozens and dozens of 3-year-olds in daycare centers across this Nation? How about those women that lift all those heavy trays at those restaurants that you all eat in, bringing food to the people across this Nation? Surely it is worth more than $5.15 an hour. Even when it is raised to $7.25 an hour, if a woman has children, she is going to live in poverty anyway, so she has to work two jobs, most of them without health insurance. Preserve the value of work in this country. Vote for the increase in the minimum wage. It is the right thing to do.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, today our community bid special praise and farewell to a beautiful human being, Howard Zwyer of Monclova, Ohio. A lifelong farmer, along with his wife, Eleanor, his brother, Ray, and his wife, Thelma, farmed over 1,000 acres as their father had before them. And the Zwyer family, and Howard, carried on an ethic of stewardship of our land, of husbandry, soil conservation and community mindedness that surely is not equaled by any other American. He was 83. He lived to be 83, and he died within a mile of his birthplace. He and his brother, Ray, and their father, John, began growing corn, soybeans and wheat in the early years, even raising beef cattle. Now, their father died in 1963, and the brothers took over. And they loved the land. When he retired formally from agriculture, he gardened and shared the produce with others. He really needed to work with the soil. It was part of him. And he never complained about being a farmer. Mr. Zwyer retired formally about 20 years ago, and his brother died in 2002. I can tell you, they represented agriculture in Northern Ohio. There was nothing like getting on a combine with the Zwyers beaming ear to ear. I had some of those experiences. He inherited so much of his spunk from his father, and he was also political. Howard was a Township Trustee from 1972 to 1979 and sought public office because he thought there needed to be changes for the better. Without complaint, he accepted constituents' phone calls of praise or blame and made sure the telephone was at the dinner table so he could answer. And during late night snowstorms, he helped plow the roads. He really was a builder of our community. Throughout his public service, he attended most trustees meetings and recruited others to run for township office. His daughter said he was a little sad about how Monclova had evolved into more of a suburban community, but he understood how progress may change life as we have known it. In retirement, Mr. Zwyer made bluebird houses, which he installed and tended, lots of bluebird houses. The family joked about how he could do anything if he had a roll of duct tape, a Snickers bar and a can of WD- 40. And that is so true. He loved adventures with his grandchildren, and he gave out cards that gave you hugs and kisses, and he handed out lots of tulips. He was a member of St. Joseph's Church, Maumee, and became an usher until he became ill about 6 years ago. He was a 1941 graduate of former Monclova High School, and his beloved wife, Eleanor, survives him. They have been married since 1945. They have a daughter, Jeanne Counts; a brother, Bob Zwyer; and two grandsons. It is such a joy to be able to talk about the life of this wonderful, wonderful Ohioan who did so much to create a culture of caring and of fatherliness across our region and who helped make agriculture in Ohio, our leading industry, what it is today. We shall truly miss Howard Zwyer and all of the values that he represented. We know that he, his brother Ray, their father, are in a very, very special place in the city beyond the stars. We shall miss them. We wish their families Godspeed. Our thoughts are with them particularly at this difficult time. [From The Blade, Jan. 7, 2007] Howard John Zwyer Howard John Zwyer, 83, of Monclova, passed away Friday, January 5, 2007, at the Hospice of Northwest Ohio in Perrysburg. Howard was born May 13, 1923, in Monclova, the son of John and Sophie Grossheim Zwyer. He graduated from Monclova High. School in 1941. Howard was a farmer and gardener his entire life, never living more than one mile from his original home. He loved sharing his raspberries, blackberries and other produce from his garden with neighbors and friends. Howard was a lifelong member of St. Joseph Catholic Church and ushered for many years. He served as a Monclova Township Trustee for eight years and after his service, he stayed active in the township and politics. He was a member of the Monclova Democrat Club, Lucas County Farm Bureau, the Maumee Eagles and the Lucas County Soil and Water Conservation District. Howard loved his family, International tractors, duct tape, WD-40, Snickers bars, adventures with his grandsons, hugs, Tulips, bluebirds and smiles. He is survived by his wife of 61 years, Eleanor; daughter, Jeanne (Jim) Counts; grandsons, Buck (Heather) Counts and Will Counts; brother, Bob (Eleanor) sister-in-law, Thelma Zwyer and many special nieces and nephews. He was preceded in death by his parents; son, Jimmy; a daughter, Julie; brother and sister-in law, Paul and Geneva; brother, Raymond, and sister and brother-in-law, Helen and Gilbert Sattler.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, late in the night of January 2, 2007, our community lost a giant. Our beloved ``once and ways'' Mayor Harry Kessler, who symbolized honest and dedicated leadership in the public realm, has passed from this life. He set a community standard that endures. His tenure as Mayor from 1971 through 1977 brought growth and vitality to a struggling city, and his imprimatur is everywhere. He followed his Mayoral leadership by holding other elected offices for two decades after he decided to retire as Mayor. Few have defined the Mayor of Toledo as did Mayor Harry Kessler. A beloved father for our City, he lived and breathed his life to better our city and region. His kind and gentlemanly manner, his eternal smile, and his deep commitment to integrity, learning and libraries, community service, and athletics have left permanent legacies to future generations. Mayor Kessler was a builder, a healer, a leader who knew how to bring our community together not just for today but for tomorrow. We can each learn much from him as we emulate his life of service to us, in the private sector, in public office, and so many other community ventures. His deep love for our City that he always called home inspired us all. He did all he could to make our place on earth a finer and more humane place in which to live. We extend deepest sympathy and gratitude to his soulmate and partner for over half a century, Mary Lou, his children and extended family. We wish them strength and peace as, together, we adjust to his passing from life with us. May God rest his soul and place him in a leading role in the City beyond stars to watch over our earthly pursuits.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I want to agree with what the gentleman is saying, and look back at the last century, which was the century of hydrocarbons. This century will be the century of carbohydrates and unlocking the power of the carbohydrate molecule in a way we have never understood it before. Those who came before us were on this track but got derailed from it. In the early part of the 20th century, in our district, we had a car that was kind of famous called the Clyde car. It was built by the Clyde Bicycle Works, and it was built around 1898 or 1902, somewhere in there. You see this Clyde car and you look at the steering wheel and it has two levers on it. One lever is for alcohol-based fuel. You know, they knew how to build stills back then. And the other is for petroleum-based fuel. And I have been amazed to open the trunk of the car and see two different fuel tanks and think, my gosh, how did we move from that, which was what the gentleman was talking about, choice at the pumps and choice of vehicles, and where we are today. Because certain people made certain choices. I just mention that particular example and say that as our industries and our small businesses try to bring up these new technologies, what the gentlemen are saying tonight, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Blumenauer, and Mr. Holt about financing and the tax aspects of this, if you look at certain farmers in Ohio who have tried let's say to raise the capital to build a plant, amazing things are happening that are not so good out there. The big buck players come in and they offer people on the board money so they never bring up that production, because there is an effort by those who are currently big buck dealers, in alcohol-based fuels, let's say, to want to control the market just like the oil companies are controlling the market. We see that some farmers do not have the organizational structure that they need in order to own some of this so that our rural communities across America will be able to find new value added and lift themselves to a new economic future. I think, and I am not sure that everyone on the Agriculture Committee agrees with me on this yet, but we need some type of loan guarantee program or long-term financing in a structure like the Federal Land Banks or our Rural Electrics, which we started years ago, so that we have a system that is long term and permits them to stay in business so that some big buck operator does not come in, drive the price down in a given small market, and not permit them to be able to bring up and let this industry flower. So the tax and financing aspects that we have been talking about are very, very important. I also just wanted to say something about the science, as a member of the Agriculture Committee. It is amazing that in 2007, we do not know, in terms of row crop production, how to get the most yield out of a carbohydrate-based plant and a planting system that does the least damage to the atmosphere and yields the most combustible product. For example, everyone is into ethanol from corn because we have subsidized corn up to here. But what about beans that have more oil? What about canola? What about castor? We stopped growing castor beans because of the by-product of ricin. But could we biogenetically take ricin out of castor beans and get more oil per acre? We have got to do the science of planting, and we are just at the beginning of that age. We only have a glimmer of what that could be like. This is a major area for research where we could make a huge difference.

Ms. KAPTUR. I will attest and sort of end with this. In our district today, Dr. Al Campaan, the head of Physics at the University of Toledo, has a solar-powered house from equipment made in Toledo. He takes his truck, with six batteries home, maybe eight, every night. He drives it from the university back home and he plugs it into his house. The technology exists in Toledo, Ohio. He drives it the next morning, a fully charged truck, back into the University of Toledo. As we move to develop the technology of future, I would just recommend to those who are listening tonight, here in the Chamber and elsewhere, a wonderful book by a former decorated CIA agent, Robert Baer, for whom I have great admiration. He retired. He is in his 50s. We have probably had no better human intelligence officer throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. He wrote a book, Sleeping with the Devil. When I read that book, I thought I have to meet this man, because he is speaking my language. The life he lived is very different than the life that we have lived, but he looked the problem straight in the eye. The subtitle of the book is: ``How Washington Became Addicted to Saudi Crude.'' And I think it is important to note that the American people know this. They want us to do something. They want us to help transform the country. And I thank all my dear colleagues for allowing me these few minutes on the floor this evening. I was not intending to come here, but you have hit sort of the bull's eye of what this Member of Congress has been involved in for several years, and you could not be on a more important job creation, environmentally right set of initiatives for this country, and it will be a joy to be here working with you on this.

Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank Representative Inslee for taking this special order tonight on the very first night of the new Congress, the 110th Congress which is going to be so historic. And Speaker Pelosi's remarks today about energy independence for our country just rang so true. In a district like ours, which is a major new solar manufacturer, as well as wind turbine manufacturer and research region of the country. Coming from the auto belt, you don't think about that. But yet we are a biofuels leader. We have four plants being built now, both soy diesel and corn-based ethanol within our radius of 25 miles of our major community of Toledo, and in fact, some of them right in Toledo. And I wanted to just take a few minutes, if I might, and I thank Congressman Blumenauer and Congressman Holt. These gentlemen who are with us tonight are really the new age energy thinkers for our country, and I am really so happy to join you on this first night that we are here together. And I just wanted to put on the record some interesting information that I have been sharing in the committees that I serve on. This particular chart talks about total petroleum consumption in our country, and looks at the growing share of imported petroleum as a percentage of everything that we consume. And of course, since the beginning of the Bush administration, America is consuming one billion more barrels of oil per year, largely imported. Imports now constitute nearly three-quarters of what we use in this economy. Americans need to understand that. And over a period of time, from the beginning of the 90s, the share of imports has just risen until where now it comprises a majority of what we consume. This is a diminishing resource. Actually it is a dirty resource. And I wish to place on the record tonight an article that was in The Financial Times back in December that lists the major companies in the world that are privately held. And I won't read the whole list tonight, except to say, of the top 20 companies, three-quarters are all oil companies, and they are not based in the United States. So all this money that the United States is spending on an imported product could be invested here at home in the new technologies that these fine gentlemen and I are talking about tonight. Just to give you an idea, Saudi Aramco is number one on the list. Its value, estimated market value, is three-quarters of $1 trillion. $781 billion. And of course, Saudi Arabia has been a very important back up supplier to our country. I wish it were not so, but we have become very addicted to that supplier. Petroleos Mexicanos, that oil and gas company worth $415 billion, our hard earned dollars flowing to that privately held company. I won't go through all of them, but the next, Number 3 on the list, and the gentleman discussed Latin America, is Venezuelan Petroleum, valued at $388 billion. Go down to Kuwait Petroleum, Number 4, $378 billion. Malaysian Petroleum, $232 billion. The idea is you go down and then you get into the companies financing this import, such as the Carlisle Group which has moved up now at $71 billion to Number 22 on the list. So I would like to submit this to the Record. The top three-quarters of these companies, the top 20 largest privately held companies in the world are all oil and gas. I wanted to make sure this was placed on the Record tonight, and to say that as the author of the first title in any farm bill in American history, a biofuels title, Title IX, we have been incentivizing at a very small level, about $23 million, not billion, $23 million dollars a year, efforts to try to help agriculturalists across this country own the future. It has been such a fight. And I heard the gentleman saying earlier this evening, finally, I think Mr. Blumenauer said, after 12 years, we finally have a chance to uncork this really developing answer for our Nation. And we hope that with the new farm bill and with the leadership of Congressman Colin Peterson, who is the right man at the right time in the right committee in the right country, from the Red River Valley of Minnesota, in the farm bill that will be produced this year, that we will be able to piece together the solutions that we know exist.

Ms. KAPTUR

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to pay special tribute to our beloved colleague from Illinois, Congressman Lane Evans. Truly, Lane has been a man for others throughout his entire life; a patriot, a marine, someone who began his career after serving in Vietnam as a marine as a legal aid lawyer. He was always there for others. He truly is a beloved Member of this House, probably one of our most humble Members, and yet heroic throughout his service; a very, very strong human being. I was privileged to be elected with Lane back in 1982 as we became classmates in the 98th Congress of that year. It was quite a large class, over 60 new Members at that time. I can remember meeting him at the very beginning, another son of the working class of people who came here to make a difference. Lane ultimately became a leader in veterans affairs, a leader in fighting for better jobs with wages and pensions that people can depend upon, and taking on causes that were close to his heart, obviously representing rural Illinois. He cochaired the Ethanol Caucus long before we had the kind of attention paid to it today. But in his capacity on the Veterans Affairs' Committee where he served from the very beginning, he was successful in spearheading efforts to pass legislation to compensate Vietnam veterans for diseases linked to exposure to Agent Orange. I can remember the debate in those days back in the 1980s when the scientists would come up and say, Well, you know, we can't really prove why those cancers are caused, all these soft tissue cancers related to Agent Orange. The committee, with Lane's leadership and personal experience, came to conclude that there is a difference between doing what is morally right and what is scientifically provable, and Lane Evans always stood for what is morally right. Many words come to mind when I think of Lane: his honesty, his trustworthiness, his likability. He was a man of his word, a really good human being, and a good humored human being. He always had a joke. He was kind to all of us, intelligent, persevering and very, very unselfish. He won passage of a law that delivers health and compensation benefits to children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange who were born with spinal bifida, a crippling birth defect. It represented the first time children of veterans received that benefit. And he led efforts to expand services to women veterans and pushed for increased help for veterans suffering from PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder, and crafted legislation to direct services to the large numbers of homeless veterans. I can remember his efforts to set up the storefront homeless centers all across our country so that homeless veterans would feel comfortable. Many of them were not going into the traditional veterans facilities. He understood that. He played a leadership role in helping us to recognize the health needs of First Gulf War Syndrome. In 1995, he rose to become ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and he was the chief House sponsor of legislation to ban the use of anti-personnel land mines. He knew a lot about that, having been a veteran himself. In recognition of his outstanding leadership, Congressman Evans in 1990 was awarded the Vietnam Veterans of America first annual President's Award for Outstanding Achievement, and then in 1994 he received the AMVETS Silver Helmet Award, called the Oscar of veterans honors. Lane is the son of a firefighter and a nurse and has been a tireless advocate and champion of the rights and needs of working Americans, from fighting for higher minimum wage, to seeking affordable health care for all Americans, to protecting good jobs at good wages in Illinois and throughout our country. Throughout our two decades here, that has been a monumental struggle, and he never let up on his persevering efforts. I want to thank the people of Illinois tonight for sending such a great human being to this Congress. Eight years ago, Lane Evans contracted Parkinson's disease. As he has served with us and we have sat by him and worked with him, he never complained once. We watched him as it became more difficult for him to smile and to lift his arms and to come here to the floor, and he has done that through his 24th year. I can remember when he started the basketball games over at Georgetown to raise money for philanthropic causes here in the Capitol for the needy. He was always helping others, and he did not pay that much attention to himself. In fighting Parkinson's disease, which he is still fighting, he became a model to all of us on what the words ``Semper Fidelis'' mean. So, Lane Evans, I want to thank you on behalf of the people of Ohio and on behalf of your colleagues here in the House. You truly have been a worthy servant and it has been an honor to serve by your side. We wish you Godspeed, and we thank you so very much for making us better by knowing you.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, today the Iraq Study Group released a reasonable working document that affirms the situation in Iraq, and I quote, ``is grave and deteriorating,'' and, I quote again, ``time is running out for a U.S. success strategy.'' Indeed the report attests that 79 percent of the Iraqi people do not believe that the U.S. presence there is constructive; 79 percent of the people of Iraq do not view our presence as constructive. I have affirmed many times since the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that the Bush administration policy has forfeited our moral authority in Iraq. Those polling numbers prove it again. On the very day that this report was released, today, another 10 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. Attacks against U.S. forces now total more than 180 a day. And this figure doubles with each passing year. The report also restates our Nation's financial commitment to the Iraqi war, now soaring over $400 billion a year, sapping strength from U.S. domestic priorities such as health care, education, energy independence, all much needed here at home. Unfortunately, the report begins with this sentence, and I quote: ``The U.S. has long-term relationships and interests at stake in the Middle East,'' but then, amazingly, fails to identify them. Obviously, one of them is oil. And the U.S., again, does not commit itself in this report to a strong effort to restore America's energy independence here at home. In addition, the report is very iffy on how the oil bounty of Iraq, which has the second largest set of reserves in the entire world, will be handled in the future. Though it makes suggestions on how to manage that oil reserve, the prospects of that being accomplished are quite remote. The report makes many recommendations that apply in Iraq, but not to end America's chief strategic vulnerability, our dependence on imported petroleum surely from the Middle East. Importantly, the report places the Iraq situation in a regional context, explaining how what is happening in Iraq is operating to harm America's standing throughout the Middle East. It states how tepid international support is for the U.S. engagement in Iraq, despite the President's acclamations that there is a coalition of the willing. In addition, the report acknowledging that for the United States to draw down forces, Iraqi units must replace them. And then the report details that the 138,000 Iraqi Army troops and 188,000 police units have some state of readiness. Half of them are not up to the task, with many functions infiltrated by the opposition. The report presents a confusing picture on the issue of how long the United States might need to maintain its presence in Iraq. It recommends unit withdrawal by 2008 at some level. But then, in a different section, the report states that not all U.S. combat brigades would be needed in the future for force protection for backing up Iraqi units, but, of course, says many units would still be needed. At least that is the inference, but it doesn't say how many. In the end, it fails to address the issue of how many combat units would actually be needed and, therefore, leaves the door open for an extended U.S. presence. Admitting the difficulty it will entail, the report recommends restoring broken diplomatic relations with nations the administration has publicly ridiculed, such as Syria and Iran, as well as factions within Iraq and throughout the region with which the administration has no dialogue, such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi faction. The report properly identifies the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict as paramount to reaching a regional peace settlement, stating clearly that neither Democrats nor Republicans would ever abandon Israel, but making strong recommendations on how to restore the peace process. The report also makes some statements I find implausible. One is that only 5,000 civilian contractors are operating in Iraq, from hired guns to transportation specialists, when in fact that number now exceeds over 100,000, and represents a serious and worrisome departure from past U.S. military operations. If that private presence morphs into a mercenary force that occupies Iraq as the U.S. military withdraws, this would be a first in American history and a development I would not welcome. Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to read that at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which was the largest in the world with over 1,000 employees, only 33 Americans speak Arabic. This is shocking and dangerous and another indication of the shocking mismanagement of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise this week to praise passage of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act. With an estimated 40 million people relying on the Great Lakes basin for jobs, drinking water, and recreation, the health of this resource is paramount and should remain a priority for Congress. Our Great Lakes constitute the largest body of freshwater on the face of the earth. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you about a treasured spot in the Great Lakes--the north coast of Ohio. It is a true sapphire jewel, enjoyed by large communities of birders, sport and commercial fishermen, hunters and recreational boaters. And it is vital to life for every living creature in our region. While the value of this treasure should be obvious to all, it is undeniable that the resources it provides remain threatened. This is a region whose wildlife populations are under attack by invasive species like the Gobe, Asian Carp and Zebra Mussel and where encroaching sprawl constantly jeopardizes the region's priceless wetlands. Without addressing the social and human costs posed by these problems, we face an incalculable menace of inaction--a menace that this week, this body took a step to fight. Mr. Speaker, the reason that I wish to praise passage of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act is not because this bill solves all the longstanding problems that our Great Lakes face, but because it serves as one step in the journey toward restoring the integrity of our lakes. The bill authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service for grants of up to $12 million per year and gives legal authority for the Fish and Wildlife Service to receive $2 million per year. These funds will be used to implement recommendations of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration that are consistent with water quality, fisheries, and wildlife agreements. Though the House has taken a tremendous step towards restoring the Great Lakes by passing this bill, we must not rest. Instead, we must continue on with the next steps, taking up the additional priorities of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration not addressed in this bill. Let us find the will to expand the Ottawa and Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuges. Let us preserve more wetlands for the migrating birds that pass through the Great Lakes. Let us stop the flow of invasive species in the ballast water of transport ships. Let us celebrate victory for the crown jewel of our refuge system by fully funding the grant programs that we have just authorized. Mr. Speaker, we are the only species with the capability of precipitating the wholesale extermination of other species; but, through compassion and conviction, we are also capable of protecting the things we treasure. We are unique in our ability to affect the fate of the planet, but also unique in our ability to predict those effects and to change our ways in light of what we foresee. So now, let us take this one moment to appreciate the importance of passage of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act. I would like to thank the many friends who made passage of this bill possible and ask them for the strength to continue the battle in restoring the Great Lakes to the pristine beauty that we can all foresee. great lakes fish and wildlife restoration act of 2006--bill summary Summary: This bill would reauthorize the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, a program first enacted in 1990 and again in 1998. This bill ensures that both fish and wildlife is included throughout the bill and ensures that this Act is consistent with the goals of Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. Fish & Wildlife Grants: The bill reauthorizes the state and tribal grant program. Under this bill, grants will be used to restore fish and now wildlife in the Great Lakes. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service would award grants based on the recommendations of the Great Lakes states and tribes. Grants must be consistent with water quality, fisheries, and wildlife agreements as well as the recommendations of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. The grants would be authorized to receive up to $12 million per year. Fish & Wildlife Regional Projects: The bill authorizes up to $6 million each year for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to undertake projects that have a regional benefit to fish and wildlife. Under this new authority, the Service would undertake projects based on the recommendations of states and tribes. Studies and Reports: The Fish & Wildlife Service will submit a report to Congress in 2011 that describe the fish and wildlife grants that have been awarded and the results of those grants. Under this bill, the Service will provide updated information through a public access website to the states and tribes on what grants have been awarded, priorities proposed for funding in the budget, and actions taken in support of Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. The bill calls upon the Service to complete the overdue 2002 Report on actions taken under this Act, which was called for under existing law, to be released by June of 2006. Fishery Resource Offices: Maintains Fish & Wildlife Services Offices, which were authorized in 1990, and the Offices have the same operational duties. The offices are authorized to receive $2 million per year.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, President George Bush, in creating fear about terrorists in the American people rather than understanding, often says, ``If we don't fight terrorists over there, we will have to fight them right here.'' He never bothers to explain in detail who the terrorists are or what motivates them or how his policies are creating more of them. The President's explanations are too simplistic, and they are wrong. The President tried to convince us if we got Saddam Hussein and brought him to justice the battle for peace in the Middle East would take a favorable turn. Indeed, the opposite has happened as Iraq descends into chaos. Indeed, despite the military firmness and bravery of our soldiers, the Iraq war has actually failed politically by failing to win the hearts and minds of the people. Equally bad, the Iraq war has strengthened Iran and those loyal to it. By removing Saddam Hussein as a counterweight to Iran, President Bush has left a vacuum now being filled by increasingly radicalized Shia populations and disillusioned Sunnis. The Shia and Kurd factions inside Iraq and the outnumbered Sunnis are now at one another's throats. Great instability is being created in a region where rising religious fundamentalism, unleashed by Saddam's ouster, is the glue that is binding a rising revolution of expectations by formerly suppressed populations. The President's own White House was forced this week to declassify an intelligence report that I am going to put in the Record. This is a summary, called ``Trends in Global Terrorism, a National Intelligence Estimate,'' and this report says the Iraq war is shaping a new generation of terrorists. Anyone who knows anything about what is causing rising levels of hatred against the United States in the Middle East would have anticipated this eventuality. The key question the President and we must address and face is, why do his policies yield more and more terrorists who want to harm us, and harm us in many places beyond the boundaries of Iraq and Afghanistan? The complete story will show terrorists will continue to plot ways to harm America because more than wanting to come here, although some of them are capable of doing that, they want America and American influence out of their countries and regions. They want us out of there more than they want to come here. Rather than striking fear in the American people, the President ought to do more to explain the forces creating this anti-American and anti- Western sentiment across those troubled regions. Which American interests have caused this antagonism to our Nation? An important question to answer. In what countries has this hatred been fomented? Another important question to answer. And what is the face there of America that is hated more and more? Let me suggest part of that face involves U.S. oil alliances in cahoots with some of the most repressive and brutal regimes and leaders who hold down the potential of their own people. There is not a democracy over there, and we are totally reliant on all of those oil kingdoms. Let me suggest that the presence of U.S. military bases that ensure the status quo of those repressive regimes doesn't help. Let me suggest America is hated more because we are not viewed as being evenhanded at arriving at fair and just peace settlements between Israel and the Palestinians and their neighbors. We need to do a better job of cultivating evenhanded diplomacy in the region. Let me suggest our U.S. popular culture and many of its excesses are regarded as abhorrent to the fundamentalist legions that have gained even greater ascendancy after the disgusting and outrageous behavior by Americans at Abu Ghraib. Let me suggest the U.S. now is being viewed by the multitudes of Muslims as fighting a religious war against Islam. President Bush made a huge blunder at the start of the Iraqi war by calling it a Crusade hearkening back to the Christian wars. His battle cry gaffe echoed across the Muslim world and became a rallying point for the opposition. How tragic and inappropriate. Let me quote from a wise American voice who tries to enlighten about the roots of terrorism, rather than strike fear in our people: Robert Baer, author of best selling book See No Evil, is a decorated CIA agent who put his life on the line for our Nation for three decades. He tries to build understanding about the conditions giving rise to terrorism. He defines our problem as larger than just a few men--like Bin Laden and Hussein--and their followers. He argues the reason animosity is growing against the U.S. is the result of much larger forces spanning several decades. To name but one element of the challenge we face--he discusses the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood was an amorphous, dangerous, unpredictable movement that shook every government in the Middle East to its bones. Founded by an Egyptian, Hasan Al- Banna, in 1929 it was dedicated to bringing the Kingdom of God to earth. The Egyptian Muslim Brothers had unsuccessfully tried to kill Egyptian President Abdul Nasser. The Syrian branch had tried to kill Syrian President Hafiz al-Asad a couple of times. In 1982, its followers seized Hama, a historic city in central Syria, provoking Asad into shelling them and Hama into the next life. The Muslim Brothers are also distant cousins of the Wahabis of Saudia Arabia, the most puritanical sect in Islam. Underwritten by the Saudi royal family, the Wahabis spawned Osama bin Laden. They also served as the inspiration for the Taliban in Afghanistan and other radical Sunni movements. Many Muslims consider the Wahabis dangerous because they adopted the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyah, a 14th century Islamic scholar who condoned political assassination. Al-Jihad, the Egyptian fundamentalist who murdered Egyptian President Anwar Sadat relied on Ibn Taymiyah as justification for what they did. Understanding the forces that generate terrorism is fundamental for solving it. The National Intelligence Report summarizes some of the essential steps our Nation must take to broaden our understanding of what it will take to break our dependence on oil regimes, resolve peace settlements that have been let languish, and form alliances that are broadly representative and democratic in their focus. The world needs more understanding, not fear, to counter terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that my time is out. I will continue tomorrow with an additional statement including complementary remarks about the book ``See No Evil'' by Robert Baer that gets the picture right. The NIE report I referred to earlier is as follows: National Intelligence Estimate--Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate ``Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States'' dated April 2006 Key Judgments: United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa'ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa'ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and U.S. interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement--which includes al-Qa'ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells--is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts. Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion. If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide. Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa'ida, could erode support for the jihadists. We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups. We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to U.S. counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland. The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings. We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. The Iraq conflict has become the ``cause celebre'' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight. We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate. Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq ``jihad;'' (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims--all of which jihadists exploit. Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists' radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens. The jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution--an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the Muslim world--is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists' propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade. Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror. Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders. If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit. Al-Qa'ida, now merged with Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi's network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role. The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to U.S. interests than does al-Qa'ida. Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat. The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qa'ida in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations. Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al-Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation. We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-Qa'ida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to U.S. interests abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones. We judge that most jihadist groups--both well-known and newly formed--will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics. CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups. While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists. Anti-U.S. and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack U.S. interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint. We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, the latest trade report out of Washington spells more trouble for working families; most immediately for Ohio, Michigan and Indiana, and our Nation's heartland, but, in fact, for our entire Nation. The U.S. Department of Commerce reported this week that America's trade deficit in the second quarter of this year hit its second highest level in history, rising 2.4 percent to $218.4 billion more imports into our Nation than exports out. That is just in one quarter. We are well on our way to another record trade deficit likely to exceed $800 billion. At this rate, the United States might well post its first trillion-dollar trade deficit this year. That level of trade deficit throttles real growth in our country and continues the unfortunate path of selling out America. We are not winning the global trade war, we are losing it badly. President Bush's trade policy is no more successful than his foreign policy. Since President Bush took office, we have lost 3 million more good jobs. America's trade deficit in motor vehicles alone has climbed by approximately 20 percent, and the recent announcement by Ford Motor Company of production cutbacks and plant closings will only exacerbate the situation. Still, the administration clings to the same failed policies. The President will not even meet with the executives of the Big Three. I never thought I would see a day that the President of the United States refused to meet with the leaders of America's automakers. No industrial nation can afford to cash out its domestic automotive industry. One of five jobs here in our country are directly tied to it. But it is true. Apparently that is what this President thinks of the industry that has been the backbone of our economy. Back in 1975, New York City was in dire fiscal straits, and Gerald Ford refused to help. The New York Daily News ran a famous headline: ``Ford to City: Drop Dead.'' Maybe it is just a matter of time before we see a similar headline about George W. Bush and his lack of concern about the U.S. automotive industry. The same Commerce Department report showed other statistics which showed the deterioration in our Nation's financial picture. Foreign- owned assets in the United States increased by $366 billion more during the second quarter. U.S. liabilities to foreigners reported to U.S. banks increased by $84.2 billion more in the second quarter following an increase of $148.9 billion in the first quarter. Who owns the assets of our Nation? Increasingly, foreign interests own our assets, and we owe them money. No wonder people think our country is headed in the wrong direction. It is. Increasingly, Americans don't own America. Transactions in U.S. Treasury securities shifted to net foreign purchases of $10.1 billion in the second quarter, almost double the rate in the first quarter. I don't like the fact that foreign interests are buying our country. Indeed, I detest what is happening as un-American and unpatriotic. But foreign official assets in the United States increased $74.9 billion in the second quarter following an increase of $75.7 billion in the first quarter. It came as no surprise as a result that our dollar depreciated an additional 3 percent. What the trade deficit means in real-life terms is that money, usually U.S. currency, is leaving American hands and ending up in the hands of foreign competitors, from the United States to Saudi Arabia and other major oil producers; from the United States to China, now the second largest holder of U.S. dollar assets; from the United States to Japan, Korea and other major automobile and truck makers who keep their markets closed. So we are left with padlocked factories, a shrinking middle class, diminishing tax bases and all the problems that accompany a shortage of good jobs. What a shame. What a shame that Washington is so out of touch with the real America. People are rapidly losing hope and trust. They believe their government has been captured by special interests and no longer cares about them, and they are right. When they see these statistics about what is happening to our country, it is no wonder people are beginning to despair. So our people vote less, they become more cynical, and they conclude their government no longer stands up for them or indeed belongs to them. That, my friends, is a recipe for a rising political radicalism across our Nation. I cannot predict when it will happen, but it will happen.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the United States is spending $250 million a day in Iraq, over $11 million an hour. This week, as we celebrated Labor Day across this country, President Bush continued to proclaim the strength and health of the U.S. economy. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, whom he appointed, said recently, the American people are clearly better off as a result of strong economic growth and job creation. Well, for the wealthiest 1 percent, that tiny slice that President Bush has called his core supporters, things might be looking up. But for everybody else, we are having to work harder for less. As someone said to me, not only have we had the race to the bottom, we are now bouncing off the bottom. So as Congress left Washington for an entire month, the economic anxiety felt palpably by the American people increased. The debt piled up more, now over $5 trillion. Interest rates are up as a throttle on economic growth. Unemployment is up, surely, in America's heartland. According to the Census Bureau, working families fell even farther behind in the past year as they have every single year since this president took office. President Bush's own Census Bureau reports that the median income of working age households fell by another half of a percent last year. According to the University of Michigan, consumer confidence hit a 9- month low in August, and authors of a confidence report say the gap between rich and poor in the United States is quite different than anything else observed in the prior half century. Truly America is in uncharted economic waters. According to The New York Times, for the first time since World War II, though productivity is up by our people, real wages have failed to increase for most workers at a time when the overall economy was even growing. Even though President Bush and Secretary Paulson might claim the American people are better off, working people know better. They trust their real life experiences, not White House press releases. The reality for America's families is that high gasoline prices, higher natural gas prices, rising health care costs, credit card debt increasing and borrowing against home equity have topped out. They are eating away at disposable income, and everywhere they turn, many middle class families are getting squeezed. Job losses due to more outsourcing and foreign competition have left working families wondering, what does the future hold? Does work have a value in America anymore? The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003 despite their increased productivity. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that real median income for households headed by someone under age 65 has declined 5.4 percent since President Bush took office. Is anybody here in Washington paying attention? The net result, according to the New York Times, is that wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the Nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947. But yet corporate profits represent the larger share of gross domestic profit since the 1960s. There is a little imbalance there. The Times quoted a report from economists at Goldman Sachs. The most important contributor to higher profit margins over the past 5 years has been a decline in labor's share of national income. Our mother used to ask the question for the super wealthy and the super rich, did they ever fill up? When is enough? How many homes? How many cars? How many chauffeurs? How many trips? How much do you really need? How much? So the bottom line on Labor Day 2006 is this: The strong economy that President Bush and his Secretary of the Treasury keep talking about has benefitted big business, but it has clearly bypassed the vast majority of the American people. It is time we change this Congress. It is time we have people here in Washington who again represent the vast majority of the people of the United States who believe in hard work, who want to follow the rules, and they have a right to live a better way of life for investing themselves in the beliefs of this country and for putting their lives on the line for it. Mr. Speaker, America, this Congress, and, frankly, this President simply have to do much better.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to tell a little story. This week, a wonderful family from my district in Ohio brought to Washington a little sketch that they left with me. It is a scene from inside a home, and a little boy is standing at a window holding what looks like a prayer book. He is looking out this window into a sunlit day, and outside the window are these beautiful, beautiful apple trees. You do not realize as you are looking at this child, who may be 4 years old or so, looking outside his window, you do not realize that what is walking by his window are bayonets pointed straight up, because in the way the artist has drawn the picture, the gun butts parallel the trunks of the apple trees. You look at this picture and it causes you to pause, and in the distance in the sky, you see a small bird flying, a bird of peace. As I watch what is happening in the Middle East and the carnage that comes over our television screens every evening, I cannot help but ask myself, what is wrong with humankind that we cannot stop the killing? Is the United States of America so strong militarily that it also cannot be strong morally and stand up and say to those involved, Cease fire? Cease fire on all sides, now, now. Would the world not stand with us? Why should the United States not just be silent but step away, step away for all the thousands and thousands and thousands of young people whose futures are being destroyed, whose countries are being leveled? In the Palestinian Authority, in Israel, in Lebanon, I say to myself, what is it about human nature that makes us as creatures so marauding and so hateful and apparently so incapable of saying drop the bayonets, just for a day, just to see if peace is possible? I am just appalled at what is happening. I look at our world, I look at all of its leaders, I look at all of our material wealth, all of the arms, the bunker-buster bombs that are on their way, and I say to myself, I thought the 20th century was the century of utter destruction and that we had finally contained those forces in the world that were so harmful to human life, and that when we turned the new page on the new millennium, we would usher in a millennium of peace, and now this. I would urge the President of the United States to not just look at the military side of the equation but to deeply consider both political and diplomatic efforts, initially through back channels. No country should be isolated, whether it is Lebanon or Syria, or Jordan or Iran. Because out of isolation, even in a marriage, comes an icy standoff and no resolution. It is no different with countries. You cannot have that kind of icy standoff and think the world will be at peace. I can tell you that the southern part of Lebanon that is the object of the invasion right now is an area where development was not allowed to occur, where the west literally backed away and allowed the forces of Hezbollah to gain greater and greater footing. And we are yielding the policies of isolation that allowed this to occur. So I would say to my colleagues, I would say to people of good conscience everywhere, now is the time to stand up to stop the killing on all sides in a part of the world where the soils are blood drenched from Bethlehem to Gaza to northern Israel, and Haifa now, to southern Lebanon again. Haven't we had enough of killing one another? I would urge the Secretary of State, the President of the United States, the Members of this Congress who are going to be leaving Washington tomorrow in this House and I guess next week in the other body, to devote your August to thinking how we can all be voices to stop the killing and to call for a ceasefire on all sides for the sake of the world. Surely we are destroying a part of the earth that will take generations to restore, and we every day are watching young people and innocence killed by the hundreds and thousands. Can't the world do better than this? I think about the drawing of the little boy looking out the window at a beautiful sky and apple trees with the bayonets walking by.