Steve Pearce

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I do not have other speakers and would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill authorizes Federal participation in a water reuse project in McLennan County, Texas. As central Texas cities experience rapid population growth and increased water demand, these communities are being proactive to better utilize their existing water supplies. We have no objection to this well-intended bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 786 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of a water recharge demonstration project in southern California. To meet the needs of future population growth in this arid region, capturing storm-water runoff and recharging groundwater could substantially increase local water supplies. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 815 and yield to the author of the bill, the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

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

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the comments by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva). H.R. 309, introduced by me, would establish an innovative 4-year demonstration program in the National Park Service to improve and expedite landscape restoration programs within 24 units of the National Park System to better preserve and interpret resources associated with American military history. One of the tenets of the Park Service is to preserve the look of national battlefields as they existed at the time of the conflict. Often this involves removing trees and other woody debris that encroach on sightlines. Under current law, these trees are removed and any funds from their sale are returned to the General Treasury. As a part of this new program, selected parks would be permitted to retain receipts from any timber sales and use those funds on the respective landscape restoration programs and interpretive services. While this would not involve a lot of money, every little bit helps, especially given the National Park System maintenance backlog. This noncontroversial bill was favorably reported last Congress by unanimous consent, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 309. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 865. The majority, Mr. Grijalva, has adequately explained this bill. I thank him for his consideration on behalf of the author, Don Young. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the majority, Mr. Grijalva, for his support of H.R. 1191, and I would yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished author of the bill, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), who has worked tirelessly for 4 years on this bill.

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

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Benjamin Cline for recently earning his Eagle Scout Award, the highest award in Scouting. His keen interest, work ethic and drive in the pursuit of excellence have led Ben to complete all the ranks along the trail to Eagle, including 29 merit badges. Benjamin's Eagle Scout Service Project was completed by installing two flag poles at Belen's Alexander Airport. He has enjoyed Boy Scouts through many camping trips, building his own raft and river rafting, canoeing 50 miles down the Rio Grande and bicycling over 100 miles. Ben is the son of Doug and Ann Marie Cline of Los Lunas and a junior at Belen High School. At BHS he holds the rank of Lt. JG in Naval ROTC and is the Color Guard commander. He is involved in the new Sea Scouts Ship recently formed at Belen High School as well as with MESA. He is a member of the First United Methodist Church Handbell Choir. Ben also holds a second degree Black Belt at Belen Goju Ryu Karate School. He attended Dennis Chavez Elementary then was home-schooled for several years before entering Belen High School. He has two sisters who are currently attending UNM in Albuquerque. After graduation in 2008, Ben plans to attend San Juan Community College and earn two associate degrees--Aviation and Law Enforcement. He then plans to attend the University of Minnesota to complete a BS degree in Aviation Law Enforcement and begin a related career. Ben encourages all young men to explore the Scouting experience--``It has helped me grow in outdoor and leadership skills and helped to mold my character and make me a better person. The Scouting program teaches valuable life skills.'' I am proud to recognize Benjamin Cline for his accomplishments. It is my honor as a Member of Congress to have the chance to congratulate this outstanding young man on an achievement he will celebrate the rest of his life. Congratulations Ben Cline, your family, your congressman, and your country are all proud of your achievement.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for working with me on this motion to recommit that we are offering today. I believe that we are going to make this legislation much better. Ever since 9/11, law enforcement agencies have been telling the American people that they should immediately report any suspicious activity. This important step is one of the best ways that we have to stop terrorism. In essence, the public is the eyes and ears for the security of the Nation. Sadly, a lawsuit has been filed in Minnesota which named as defendants the Americans who were simply trying to protect themselves and their country. These everyday people have now found themselves subject to a lawsuit for simply reporting what they thought in good faith was suspicious activity. We are in grave danger when terrorists and their sympathizers use our freedoms against us. Terrorists have abused our Nation's immigration system, our foreign student travel visa opportunities, and open society's freedom to travel. On 9/11 the hijackers knew how the crew on the plane would respond and used that knowledge against the air crews to carry out their deadly attacks. Now, we have imams who behaved in methods similar to those 9/11 terrorists and are now using our courts to terrorize the Americans who reported the behavior. They used a seating pattern that was similar to the 9/11 attackers. They asked for seatbelt extensions, and then didn't use them but laid them at their feet in an ominous gesture of disrespect. They did not sit in assigned seats. The loud criticism of President Bush and the war all added together to create a mood of uncertainty among passengers who were watching them. If we allow these lawsuits to go forward, it will have a chilling effect on the future of American security. Today's USA Today opinion stated the ``Clerics' lawsuit threatens the security of all passengers; efforts to name those who reported suspicious actions has chilling effect.'' I will submit the full article for the Record. If we are serious about fighting terrorism, if we are serious about protecting Americans and asking them to help protect each other, then we must pass this motion. If I leave my colleagues with one message about this motion, it is simply, no American should be sued for trying to stop terrorism. Recently, I visited Israel. There they were much more open about it. They said, the stakes are too high. The danger is too imminent. There is no room left in the world for political correctness. Today we are going to make that choice on the floor of the House, to choose political correctness or to choose to protect the people in this country and the people who would bring the attention of suspicious activities to the Nation's authorities. Vote ``yes'' on today's motion to recommit and help protect Americans. [From USA Today, Mar. 27, 2007] Our View on Post-9/11 Travel: Clerics' Lawsuit Threatens Security of All Passengers ``If you see something, say something.'' Since the terror attacks of 9/11, that common-sense message has been displayed prominently worldwide for obvious reasons. Police and transportation authorities can't be everywhere. Whether at an airport, bus or rail station, officials need passengers to alert them to unattended baggage that might contain explosives and behavior that appears out of the ordinary. Now the reward for being vigilant apparently includes being dragged into a lawsuit and accused of bigotry. The wry adage about how no good deed goes unpunished seems apt, though not so funny. The lawsuit grew out of an incident last November when six Muslim clerics, returning from a religious conference in Minneapolis, were removed from a US Airways flight after passengers and crew raised alarms. The imams were questioned by authorities and released. The six say they are innocent victims of ethnic profiling for merely praying quietly in Arabic at the terminal. Their lawsuit, filed earlier this month, accused the airline and Metropolitan Airports Commission of anti-Muslim bias. That was expected. What's unique and especially troubling, though, is the effort to identify an unknown number of passengers and airline employees who reported suspicions so they might also be included as defendants. For example, the imams want to know the names of an elderly couple who turned around ``to watch'' and then made cellphone calls, presumably to authorities, as the men prayed. This legal tactic seems designed to intimidate passengers willing to do exactly what authorities have requested--say something about suspicious activity. The imams' actions last November appeared to be either deliberately provocative or clueless as to how others might perceive them. Several passengers and crewmembers told authorities that the men loudly chanted ``Allah'' several times, cursed U.S. involvement in Iraq and switched their seat assignments. Three imams asked for seat belt extenders, which include a heavy metal buckle that could be used as a weapon, but left them on the floor. Under the circumstances, the pilot made a reasonable judgment call to remove them from the plane. Some of the facts are in dispute: The imams deny making any anti-American remarks and say seats were changed to accommodate a blind cleric who might need assistance. They accuse the airline of slandering them. US Airways can afford to defend itself and the crew in court. Passengers who notified authorities don't have those resources. Several lawyers have promised to represent such passengers for free. The American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a moderate Muslim group, will raise funds for their defense. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., has introduced a bill to shield from legal liability those who report suspicious behavior. It shouldn't have to come to that, especially if a judge has the wisdom to throw out the complaints against the ``John Doe'' passengers before they're identified. As for ethnic profiling--the reprehensible practice of discriminating solely based on ethnicity--this incident doesn't qualify. The imams were tossed off the plane because of suspicious behavior, which obviously can't be ignored. Suing passengers who merely report such behavior threatens everyone's ability to travel securely.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, ever since 9/11, law enforcement agencies have been telling the American people they should immediately report suspicious activities. This important step is one of the best ways we have to stop terrorism. Sadly, last week, Americans who were simply trying to protect themselves in their country have now found themselves subject to a lawsuit for reporting suspicious activity. In a lawsuit filed against US Airways, 60 moms removed from planes in Minneapolis have named ``John Does'' as defendants. These are simply people who were watching suspicious activities and called to report those suspicious activities, and now they are going to be terrorized in our court system in this country. Mr. Speaker, I think that that is unconscionable, and so I am presenting the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act to keep people safe who report suspicious activity in this country to law enforcement officials to protect the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure to help us be able to police ourselves and report suspicious activity.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am here to support H.R. 902 introduced by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). I have cosponsored legislation authorizing the Department of the Interior to study the potential use of extracted water from oil and gas production for irrigation and other purposes. It will not surprise anyone in this Chamber that water is the most important resource in the West. Water is the lifeblood of the American West and the foundation of its economy. Yet it is also the scarcest resource in some of the fastest-growing areas of the country. But we can go beyond that and declare that water is the most strategic asset in the entire world. It may surprise some in this Chamber that the potential source of good-quality water lies just beneath the surface and is being wasted every day. During the process of oil and gas development, approximately 924 billion gallons of water is extracted throughout the year, with most of that water being pumped back underground. Some significant share of that water is already being used for irrigation and livestock watering, but converting just 1 percent more of that total to additional beneficial use would yield over 75 billion gallons of more usable water for irrigation, ranching, fish and wildlife enhancement, stream augmentation or drinking water. The produced water that contains the lowest concentration of total dissolved solids, or TDS, less than 10,000 parts per million, is found in the western United States where water is a critical resource. Often the largest hurdle to beneficial use of water produced from oil and gas production is finding the technology to accomplish water treatment in a cost-effective manner. Water treatment must compete with the lower-cost option of deep well injection. And while deep well injection is the most environmentally sound method of disposal, it forgoes the opportunity to use millions of gallons as a resource. Beneficial use of this water in these arid environments will be a win-win situation for the energy industry, water consumers, and oil and gas consumers. This legislation will facilitate the potential use of this abundant water for irrigation uses and other beneficial purposes. It could potentially help us find new water from what is now a virtually untapped water resource. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for introducing this legislation, and urge my colleagues to support the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, many times people have asked exactly how does this work on the ground. For instance, in my home county of Lea County, New Mexico, we have the Ogallala Aquifer. We are right at the very edge of it. And in the 50 years we have been pumping out of the aquifer, we have used about 50 percent of the water that is available to us. There is no surface water available, only that aquifer water is available. We have used 50 percent of it, and it would take 1,900 years to recharge what has been used, and so we understand that we are on the downward slide for having water available to us. In Lea County, New Mexico, we produce over 150,000 barrels of water yearly, and that water is reinjected. If that water were available to be cleaned up, that water would be available for development, industry and jobs. It is a very important thing. The county right next is Eddy County. Water is produced there that is fresher than water in the Pecos River, and yet law and regulation requires the disposal of that water back down into salt zones. Everyone in the West understands that at some point we are going to go back and repump that water to the surface, this time for use as water. Right now it is free at the surface. It is a by-product of the oil and gas exploration, and yet we are required to put that water back down into wells, into the salt zones, where it is going to be very much harder to clean up the next time we use it. So this bill represents a great opportunity for us to take a step forward to benefit the industry in the West, to benefit the residents of the West, and to help lower the cost of production of oil and gas. It seems to be a win-win situation every way that we look at it. I compliment the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Colorado for introducing this legislation. Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 902, the ``More Water and More Energy Act, and to express my thanks to Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Don Young of the Natural Resources Committee for making it possible for the House to consider it today. The bill's purpose is to facilitate the use of water produced in connection with development of energy resources for irrigation and other uses in ways that will not adversely affect water quality or the environment. It is similar to a bill I introduced in the 109th Congress that passed the House last year but on which the Senate did not complete legislative action. It is cosponsored by Representative Pearce of New Mexico, who is the ranking Republican member on the Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources and also by Representative Edwards of Texas. I greatly appreciate their support. I think the bill may help change an energy-industry problem into an opportunity, not just for oil and gas producers but for everyone else who would benefit from increased supplies of useable water. Especially in the arid west, that covers everyone--not least our hard-pressed ranchers and farmers. The focus of the bill is the underground water extracted in connection with development of energy sources like oil, natural gas or coalbed methane. It would do two things: First, it would direct the Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS to identify the obstacles to greater use of produced water and the how those obstacles could be reduced or eliminated without adversely affecting water quality or the environment. Second, it would provide for Federal help in building 3 pilot plants to demonstrate ways to treat produced water to make it suitable for irrigation or other uses, again without adversely affecting water quality or the environment. At least one of these pilot plants would be in Colorado, Utah, or Wyoming. At least one would be in New Mexico, Arizona or Nevada. And there would be at least one each in California and Texas. This is to assure that, together, the plants would demonstrate techniques applicable to a variety of geologic and other conditions. Under the bill, the federal government could pay up to half the cost of building each plant, but no more than $1 million for any one plant. No federal funds could be used for operating the plants. The bill's goal is reflected in its title--the ``More Water and More Energy Act of 2006.'' The extent of its potential benefits was shown by the testimony of Mr. David Templet at a hearing on the similar bill of mine the House considered last year. Mr. Templet testified in support of that bill on behalf of the Domestic Petroleum Council and several other groups, including the Colorado Oil & Gas Association. He noted that produced water is the most abundant byproduct associated with the production of oil and gas, with about 18 billion barrels being generated by onshore wells in 1995. And he pointed out that if only an additional 1 percent of that total could be put to beneficial use, the result would be to make over 75 billion gallons annually available for use for irrigation or other agriculture, municipal purposes, or to benefit fish and wildlife. Now, remember that in the west we usually measure water by the acre- foot--the amount that would cover an acre to the depth of one foot--and an acre-foot is about 32,8560 gallons, so an additional 75 billion gallons is more than 230,000 acre feet--more water, indeed. And at the same time making produced water available for surface uses, instead of just reinjecting it into the subsurface, can help increase the production of oil and gas. At last year's hearing, this was illustrated by the testimony of Dr. David Stewart, a registered professional engineer from Colorado. He cited the example of an oil field in California from which an estimated additional 150 million barrels of oil could be recovered if water were removed from the subsurface reservoir. And he pointed out that where oil recovery is thermally enhanced, a reduced amount of underground water means less steam--and so less cost--is needed to recover the oil. The potential for having both more water and more energy is also illustrated by the example of a project near Wellington, Colorado, that treats produced water as a new water resource. I had the opportunity to visit it just last week, and found it very interesting. An oil company is embarking on the project to increase oil production while a separate company will purchase the produced water to supplement existing supplies, eventually allowing the town of Wellington and other water users in the area to have increased water for drinking and other purposes. In view of its potential for leading to both ``more water'' and ``more energy'' I was pleased but not surprised that last year the Administration, through the Interior Department, testified that it ``agrees that the goals of the bill are commendable and the needs that could be addressed are real'' and that the roles the bill would assign to the Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS are consistent with the missions and expertise of those agencies. In view of all this, Madam Speaker, I submit that this bill--and its promise of helping provide our country with both more water and more energy--deserves the support of the House, and I urge its approval.

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

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, on Friday, March 9, while on a tour of Walter Reed Medical Center, I inadvertently missed the vote on H. Res. 229. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chairman, I sadly rise today to oppose this Important legislation. Unfortunately, in a kickback to Unions, the Majority has decided to include in this legislation provisions that will drive up the cost of state water projects and are particularly harmful to small rural communities. As a New Mexican, I know the critical role water plays in economic expansion and the daily need of our citizens. We in New Mexico struggle to find good clean water for our communities. The reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund Program is an important step to meeting the needs of my communities. Communities in my district like Columbus, New Mexico, a small community of 1700 people which has no clean running water in its community, is desperate for assistance from a program like the one we will authorize today. Sadly, the majority has decided that this poor community should have foisted upon it Federal Davis-Bacon requirements which were never intended to be applied to non-Federal funds. Instead of helping communities get clean water projects the majority has decided to inflate the cost of these projects with unnecessary provisions that will result in fewer clean water projects, fewer jobs and less clean water. I don't understand how the inclusion of these provisions that inflate costs will benefit the small rural communities who can barely afford clean water projects in the first place. Sadly, those provisions prevent me from supporting this otherwise good legislation.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chairman, today the Democratic Majority has brought to the House floor legislation chairman representing one of the greatest assaults ever on the American worker. Today the Majority in Congress will strip American workers the right to a secret ballot election when deciding whether or not to unionize. This freedom stealing legislation, complete with a misleading title, does nothing to enhance ``free choice''--rather it undermines workers' freedom of choice to vote by secret ballot. Our country is a democratic society committed to preserving and protecting the rights of American citizens to vote for those who represent them. Secret ballot elections are conducted when electing our state legislators, our congressmen, our senators and our President. Secret ballots are used by Unions to elect their own leadership and pass resolutions changing their bylaws. Yet the Democratic Majority wants to strip that right away from Americans in their own place of work. More accurately characterized as the ``Secret Ballot Elimination Act'', this legislation opens the door wide for union organizers to use intimidation, coercion and compulsory tactics on workers who hesitate to join their efforts. In fact, the Fraternal Order of Police, a union representing thousands our nation's law enforcement officers, has urged opposition to this legislation stating, ``The scheme proposed by the legislation would replace the current democratic process of secret ballots with a `card check' system that invites coercion and abuse.'' It is clear that Big Union organizers said ``Jump'' and the Democratic Majority asked ``How high?'' as they crafted this legislation that panders to their Big Union bosses by allowing them to force workers to join their unions. Today, Democrats are trying to justify their support of allowing union organizers to intimidate workers by debating the pros and cons of unionizing. Not only does this further the agenda of Big Union leaders, it avoids the true issue at hand--the basic right of American workers to vote by secret ballot when choosing whether or not to unionize. Working families in New Mexico and America deserve to decide whether or not to join a union without the threat of coercion and intimidation. The denial of secret ballots is something you only expect in nation's like North Korea, Cuba or other Dictatorships where citizens and workers don't have the right to organize at all. The Democratic Majority is once again chipping away from the freedoms of our democracy and I stand in opposition to the bill.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, today the Democratic leadership has brought to the House floor legislation that will effectively create permanent tax increases on many American taxpayers in order to create temporary tax relief for a few. Though this legislation does not mention a minimum wage increase, we all know this bill is intended to be paired with Senate legislation including a wage hike. While I am pleased that the Majority has finally listened to the Republicans and recognized the detrimental impact a minimum wage increase would have on small businesses, this legislation is nothing but an example of the Majority's plans to deceptively increase taxes on Americans. In the last Congress I voted for a balanced minimum wage bill that increased the wage rate from $5.15 to $7.25/hour over three years and included important tax and regulatory protections for small businesses and their workers, ensuring they are not over-burdened by high labor costs and can stay in business. However, I believe it is unfair to create permanent tax increases for the sake of temporary tax relief. This is a perfect example, and I predict many more are to come, of the Democrats using covert tax increase maneuvers to adhere to their misguided PAYGO rules. The Majority has forced this legislation to the House floor under the suspension of the rules, cutting off debate time and forbidding any amendments to the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I can not in good conscience support this bill because of the misleading, permanent tax increases it places on many Americans.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, this urgently needed bipartisan legislation constitutes an important step forward in our efforts to improve homeland security. H.R. 556 injects significant doses of transparency, accountability, and oversight into how our government reviews and approves U.S. investments by foreign government-owned companies. Before the proposed transfer of six major eastern shipping terminals to Dubai Ports World came to light last year, very few Americans had heard of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS. The concern that greater scrutiny was not applied to this transaction and its potential impact upon the security of our ports became a source of shock and outrage--and CFIUS became synonymous for bureaucratic failure in the face of the post 9-11 challenges America confronts. Congress began investigating the CFIUS process immediately following the resolution of this controversy. The House and Senate passed legislation last year which enhanced reporting standards while strengthening congressional oversight; yet a final conference agreement was not reached before the end of the last Congress. H.R. 556 builds upon last year's efforts, providing the comprehensive CFIUS reform that our national security requires without overburdening the flow of commerce and capital upon which our prosperity depends. I have listened to American business owners as they urged us to act for the sake of certainty and stability in international investment markets--and I am pleased that acting together as Democrats and Republicans, we are poised to pass legislation today that constitutes real progress toward addressing their concerns. We must remain vigilant in our oversight of CFIUS and other long- established bureaucratic processes that can fundamentally impact our economy and our security. We can--and we must--protect our homeland while ensuring that foreign investment remains strong and New Mexico and America continue to be the best places in the world to do business.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this stay-the-course resolution, because it is, indeed, a stay the course. It says, blithely, that we support the troops, the troops are in Iraq, they are fighting. We support the fight. We do not, on the other hand, support an escalation, which would be another course of action, nor do we present the other alternative that says bring them home. We can bring them home, increase or stay the course, and so this stay-the-course resolution is one that is very curious indeed today. The last two speakers that I have heard say that there is no good military action left. That is a credible viewpoint. It is one that is expressed, and yet I ask my friends why did you not have the courage to simply say, if there are no goodwill alternatives left for the military, then bring them home. That is fair and adequate. I have also heard that it is a misguided conflict. I have also heard that our soldiers' work is done. If their work is done, please have the courage to bring them home. I want to speak today on behalf of our soldiers, the soldiers of today. I will do it while remembering the soldiers of yesterday. Through no fault of my own, I served in the Air Force during the Vietnam conflict. I say through no fault of my own, because I was not a volunteer. I got there because I drew a very low draft number. As time has proved, it was going to be the only lottery that I am going to win, but that lottery gave me a free pilot's certificate and sent me to Vietnam to fly in 1971, 1972 and parts of 1973. I was in Vietnam during the time that Jane Fonda made her trip to the North, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I was in Vietnam during the time that there were demonstrations in the streets back home. I was there during the time that our soldiers were cursed at and spit on. Today, as I beat around the back dusty roads of New Mexico, I encounter those same soldiers that I encountered back then. For those soldiers who are my age, who are on walkers, life has been difficult. There is a common greeting for soldiers of that era. It is welcome home, brother, or welcome home, sister, because they were never thanked for their duty and they were never welcomed home with parades with yellow ribbons. We were snuck back into the country. I have brought a couple of photos to help us remember, to remember the people who were trying to get out of Saigon, not just Americans, but those people who had sided with us. They are crawling up the ladder trying to get into the helicopter. The helicopters proceeded out to carriers, then the helicopters were pushed off the side of the carriers. This is the way we left Vietnam. I bring this up because I am beginning to see the same thing today. My colleague yesterday spoke of this resolution and mentioned that the resolution was vague, where people of very different beliefs could believe that it represented them. If you support the war, you believe that it supports your position. If you are opposed, you will somehow believe that this is the one step that is going to stop us. Yet it really does nothing, the vague language, that clever language points out, this is not a time for cleverness, it is a time for decision, because I will be a constant voice for our soldiers. I read and I hear the comments today. I read when Chrissie Hynde says, ``Let's get rid of all the economic (expletive) this country represents! Bring it on. I hope the Muslims win!'' I hear from the left, William Arkin, ``Those soldiers should be grateful that the American public . . . do still offer their support to them, and their respect . . . ``So we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead.'' Our friends on the other side of the aisle, I do not discount their intent, but I know what they are trying to do. They are doing the same thing that was done in Vietnam: they are trying to feed that hungry tiger that lives on the left, that hates the American way of life, that hates the American military, that will do anything to discredit, disrespect, and discount the service of our soldiers. My friends, you will not be able to appease the left with this toothless resolution that you are presenting. You know that your own Members, some of your Members, have called for defunding; but defunding is going to allow the exit that looks like this, and it is going to allow the mass catastrophe, the mass killings that are going to occur, and that is all part of the problem. But before you allow your friends, who would never vote for me, who disrespect our soldiers so much, before you empower them and before you encourage them, I would recommend that you think carefully about just cleanly bringing our soldiers home. If you are going to do nothing in the resolution, you have an obligation to do no harm. This resolution does no harm. This resolution empowers our enemy, encourages our enemy, and encourages people who are going to disrespect our soldiers. I recommend a vote against the resolution.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, it is a very dark time for the Nation. The President is at an unpopularly low rating, unprecedented in our history. We are involved in an unpopular war. Elected officials on both sides are calling for us to get out of the war. I am not talking about this war, I am talking about the civil war, when President Lincoln had the courage and the vision to hold onto that concept that we must let liberty triumph. And because of his courage, we have a Nation that has set the course for liberty for the entire world. Exactly what are we involved in here? This is far broader than a war in Iraq. This is a war with radical Islam. It is not the first time we have engaged with radical Islam. The first time that comes to my attention was 1786. Thomas Jefferson goes to find out about the Barbary Coast. He comes back and he reads the letter about why the Barbary pirates were fighting everyone in that region. He buys his own book of the Koran to understand, but that letter that he had and brought back says that it was founded, he is talking about Islam, it was founded on the laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found. That same principle is holding today. We read it on all the Web pages of the radical Islamists. Now, we can wish that it weren't true. We can wish that the attacks on the Cole did not happen. We can wish that 9/11 did not happen. But they did. And now we are involved in a very difficult, unpopular war with the President, again, at historic low ratings. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to this dangerously misguided resolution which will only embolden our enemies and demoralize our troops. Our friends on the other side of the aisle claim to support our troops, and I do not discount that. I do not question their sincerity. I question their judgment. I will tell you that the political gymnastics that are required to come this soon after they campaigned against stay the course, to present a resolution that supports our troops who are in Iraq, and yet says that we will not change the tactic, we will not increase, if we are not going to get out, if they have turned down those resolutions which would bring us home, and if they do not want to declare to defund the war, if they do not want the surge, then we are involved in a resolution today that is nonbinding, but says stay the course. Do tell. Stay the course is what they had to campaign so hard against in the last elections. I served in Vietnam when elected officials were on the floor of this House having these same conversations, and I will tell you it is extraordinarily distressing from the point of someone serving in harm's way to have the elected officials playing games. My friends, if you don't want to support the effort in Iraq, you have the majority, call the troops home. It is within your capability. Have the courage of your convictions. Stand for what you believe. Do not put this resolution in front of us that simply encourages our enemies and distresses our troops. There are those who claim that General Abizaid has said we can't win the war. President Lincoln was faced with the same thing, generals who listened too much to the public. He had to fire General McClellan and replace him with General Grant. Many recall those words of President Lincoln saying, if you will not use the troops, sir, can I borrow them? We have replaced the general who was in charge of Iraq with a new general. I am sorry, but he is a troop. He is a commander. He is the commander, he is the supreme troop in Iraq, and he says, I could use more troops. Please, don't leave me dangling. And yet, this Congress, with this leadership, is going to say, we support the troops but we are not going to support the troops. The mental gymnastics, the political gymnastics are to appease the very shrillest of their proponents, the very shrillest of their supporters. But everyone knows they will not be content with this nonbinding resolution. Those supporters will be like the tiger at the door, eating their own if it does not escalate from here. Have the courage to bring the troops home, my friends, if you are not going to let the generals run the war. Let the military run the war. The greatest mistake we made in this House in Vietnam was trying to manage it with people who are elected rather than military leaders, and it was an abysmal failure.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. I commend the Chairman of the Science Subcommittee for bringing this legislation forward. Last year under the Republican Majority, the House passed this same legislation as part of a more comprehensive bill offered by the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. This legislation, called the ``Alternative Energy Research and Development Act,'' died in the Senate. But it's never too late to take bipartisan action on good ideas. Reducing America's dependence upon foreign oil is an economic and national security imperative. Achieving this goal requires us to exercise creativity and common sense. In particular, we must find ways to expand our use of biofuels in a safe and cost-efficient manner. H.R. 547 provides very specific mechanisms to address the challenge of integrating ethanol and biodiesel fuels into our petroleum-based transportation system. In particular, this bill directs the EPA and the NIST to mitigate the harmful effects caused by the physical and chemical incompatibility of these fuels within the current infrastructure. H.R. 547 also tackles the quality concerns associated with Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and biofuel production. As the Ranking member on the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee I remain committed to working with my colleagues across the aisle to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil. In contrast to H.R. 6, the regrettable measure the House passed a few weeks ago that increases our dependence on foreign oil, this bill constitutes a productive step forward--and I look forward to supporting other measures like it.