Mike Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I met a young lady the other day who made the determination that she could no longer afford to commute to work. The costs of her commuting outweighed any benefit from the long-term employment at that particular place. And it happens again and again. We have volunteer firefighters who can't volunteer to fight fires because they can't afford the fuels to get there. It is making a tremendous impact on our local economy. And what offer do we hear today, we are going to sell some oil so we can buy some other oil and that is really going to put us in a better place. That is an absolute shell game. In order to do this, according to the Department of Energy, if you want to buy that heavy crude, you have to go to Venezuela to get it. We send right now $150 million a day every day to Hugo Chavez, the same guy that is buying attack submarines, about nine of them according to local press reports, to interfere with United States shipping, according to his rhetoric. He buys guns for the FARC in Colombia. So you--what you are saying is that we are going to spend more money in Saudi Arabia and we are going to spend more money in Venezuela and we are going to spend more money in Russia, all of those places who do harm in one way or another to the United States of America. So your answer here isn't going to help America but maybe for a few days at the very expense of our national security. We beg you for the people who are dying at the pump right now, who are mortgaging their homes to fill up their tanks and trying to make it work, come up with a real energy policy, conservation, alternative fuels and American-made energy that lowers prices, brings jobs back, and it protects and keeps a billion dollars a day here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, this is a shell game that is dangerous and it is reckless, and I would certainly encourage this body's strong rejection of sending more money to Hugo Chavez to do more bad things to freedom, democracy and to threatening the security of the United States.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I would like some regular order, sir. What we are talking about is conserving energy to get ourselves off foreign oil that actually has an economic impact, a positive economic impact. The statistics you made up from the oil companies I have never heard them before. They are absolutely outrageous. And who cares? I am mad at them, so let's do something about it. Let's do a conservation, alternative energy and American-made oil so that we can stop punishing the very people who are struggling to make it every day. You can be disappointed and mad and kick the chair and say we hate them, and that is great. It doesn't do anything for somebody who is paying more for milk or bread or gasoline. I would request unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Again, we can be mad. We can kick. We can scuffle. The most important people in this debate aren't being heard right now. Americans back home are saying help us out. Give us an American-made energy plan. Give us conservation. Give us alternative energy. All of those things are in the bills we are willing to give you tonight. I would hope and urge, for the very pressure that is being put on those families, we would stand united, with your name on the bills, and take care of those people, because right now they are at the back end of the heel, and all they hear is their disappointment in a very, very, very inactive Congress on the issues that matter to them the most. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Well, I gave a good chunk of my time to the majority leader, and I was going to do that. I know if I run over, you will give me a little bit of that time back. I won't be long. I think we have certainly debated this. If you are mad or you are disappointed, and I am very disappointed with the remarks from the gentleman. To accuse somebody of something like that is, well, I won't even get into it and I will tell you why, because we have in the power of our hands in Congress to fix this through conservation, through alternative energy research and through an American-made energy plan.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for my friend from Maryland. I enjoy his service on the Intelligence Committee, but I think we have had this debate before. I can't tell you, you are a great guy but how wrong you are on this one. You know, you talked about Big Oil. Let's all be mad at Big Oil. I am mad at Big Oil. I have friends who run small stores who literally have had tears in their eyes because the fuel costs don't allow them to do deliveries of food, deliveries of flour for what they used to do. I know mid- and small trucking firms who have had to actually park their trucks, because anything over $4 takes away all their margin. This is hurting the poorest Americans first, the middle class second, and, beyond that, people are adapting. But the folks who have played by the rules are getting killed with these oil prices, these gasoline prices. So what you are telling me is you are mad at them. You say they are not drilling on any of the leases. Not true, they have got 4,700 onland leases. But they are telling us, this is where we know the oil is. Please let us get it. And we said, no, we are mad at you because you are making money because oil is $145 a barrel. Okay. I am mad at them too. But every day that you stay mad and you don't take action means that we send $840 million to OPEC every day. That really makes me mad. How about $191 million to Saudi Arabia? What should that be doing to you? How about $155 million to Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who we know is in collusion with the Iranians, who we know is investing in munition plants, who we know, by press reports, is buying submarines to intimidate U.S. shipping, who we know is buying munitions for the FARC in Colombia. We finally have them at rope's end, and we don't care that we are going to fund them through this sham of a government in Venezuela? Or the $52 million we sent to Russia. And by the way, they are retrofitting their nuclear missile systems that are targeted at the United States. And they couldn't do it before. Just a few years ago they couldn't afford to do it, we had to give them money to dismantle their nuclear program. And because oil is at $145 a barrel because we refuse to increase the supply in the world, they are going to go out and buy missile systems targeting us. It is crazy, it is madness, and we can do something about it. If you are mad at oil companies, increase the supply of oil and watch the prices fall. That is the best way to get them. And guess who benefits? The single mom who is right now trying to debate if she can keep that job because it is a little bit too far at $4.19 a gallon in my hometown. I have talked to those people and they are at wits' end. We have to stop this. I said, we don't care if it is Republican or Democrat. And if that has been the concern, quite obviously tonight maybe that was the big issue. We again, I will offer again, you can have every bill that we have; I will bring it over, to stop sending money to foreign oil overseas at the expense of our people at the pump. You can bring up Big Oil all night long. You can be mad at them, you can tax them, you can try to regulate them, but you and I both know that prices aren't going to go down at the pump for any of those causes. They will if we have an American-made domestic supply that actually impacts the world market and starts bringing prices down. I'm going to plead with all of you for those people who don't have a voice and they don't have fancy lobbyists and they can't afford to fly to Washington, DC because they are barely making it right now, please, let's have an American-made energy supply that keeps Americans alive, keeps them employed, has an impact on our national security, has an impact on our economic security, and the best benefit of all, it takes care of our environment in the process, because what we are proposing is conservation, alternative energy and American-made sources of energy, including oil. And there is more conservation in our bills than there is production. Who isn't for that? I haven't heard any discussion of nuclear with zero emissions. You talk about sun, solar and wind. That is great. But that, in and of itself, won't do it. Take our comprehensive bills, the all-of-the-above energy plan. Take it all. Get it done. Make a difference for the future generations of America. We will all stand up together and celebrate. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. You are very welcome, sir. To the distinguished Member, I am reclaiming my time. The only real problem with the bill last week was that there was a Republican and not a Democrat. You know what, I say okay. If that's the way this is going to be, I say okay. Ronald Reagan had a very interesting plaque on his desk, and it said, ``It's amazing what you can get done if you don't care who gets the credit.'' So I am going to offer this tonight, Mr. Distinguished Majority Leader, and then I will let you respond. We hope that because of this new spirit of great ideas, but it has to be a Democrat idea, I am for that too, because I am more concerned about $4 a gallon gasoline and people not being able to make it. So I offer this suggestion, and I will offer this deal tonight, H.R. 3089, please take it. It opens up ANWR and OCS and builds more refineries here in the United States. It's yours. We'll bring it over word for word and let you put a Democrat on it. Let's get it done. H.R. 2279, which builds new refineries on military bases. Please, take this bill, help those people who are suffering under $4 a gallon gasoline. I'll bring it over, word for word. Put your name on it. We'll get it done. H.R. 5656, which repeals the ban on coal-to-liquids as an aviation fuel. Please, for the people who are stopping to go to their children's away games because they can't afford over $4 a gallon gasoline, take this bill, please. I will bring it over, word for word, it's yours. H.R. 2208, which provides incentives for the development of coal-to- liquids, please, take the bill. Put your name on it. We'll vote for it. Put it on suspension. We're in. H.R. 2493, which eliminates expensive and wasteful boutique fuel blends, which is costing Americans real money out of their paychecks. Their food prices are going up. We have volunteer firefighters who no longer can afford to respond to fires in very remote areas of places like Michigan and Texas and, yes, even Louisiana. Please, take the bill. Put a Democrat on it. Call a sponsor, we'll give it to you word for word. H.R. 6107, it opens up the coastal plains of Alaska, which we know will directly have an impact on the cost of fuel and bring down those prices of people who can't afford over $4 gasoline today. H.R. 6108, which opens up our deep oceans as an energy resource. My legislation, H.R. 6161, which will spur the development of clean cars and invest in nuclear power. I give you the bill today, it's mine, it's yours. I'll give it to you. Take it. Put it on suspension. My complaint here is this. There has been a lot of nothing happening on it. If you are trying to tell the American people you are for lessening their burden at the pump, which is literally killing small towns all across America, then let's do something about it. If it's just the fact that Republicans are on these bills, we give you all of them, every single one of them. Let's do this together, so the people who are paying the pain at the pump get some relief. Now, this bill is pretty serious, I think, and I believe the reason we need this American-made energy plan, and that this helps us understand what the impact of those oil dollars flowing overseas every single day, and every day that we don't do something, means that we are a little bit in danger, is serious. That's why we are going to support this bill. We don't care if your name is on it. We really don't. We just want to point out we don't care if your name is on all the bills that do the right thing. Every day, think of this, every single day, we send $840 million to OPEC. We send $191 million to Saudi Arabia. This is as of April. We send $155 million to Venezuela, $52 million to Russia. Energy is a critical issue, and it's one that we should focus the intelligence community's efforts on. We shouldn't divert our intelligence resources to global climate change, as my colleagues have suggested. It doesn't have a real impact for what we know is fueling our very enemies' ability to buy missile systems, to upgrade their nuclear arsenals, to invest in their conventional forces, and people like Hugo Chavez, spending money, as has been reported in public newspapers, on submarines. We all certainly know what his intentions are with that, with American shipping so close to the coast. Focusing our intelligence resources on energy security would make clear to the American people that our priorities are focused in the right place again. The press has also reported that Hugo Chavez has supported the FARC, a terrorist organization that operates in Colombia. Wouldn't it make sense to track the rising oil prices, which results in greater income to Chavez's now nationalized oil companies, and to assess whether these funds are being used to collude with terrorist organizations? Is it merely coincidence that Chavez has reportedly traveled to Russia today to buy arms in the wake of rapidly rising oil prices? I think we all know the answer to that. It's helpful to have the intelligence resources focused on that very serious problem. We need to have a better idea of how rapidly escalating energy costs are directly or indirectly increasing funds available to terrorist organizations so that this Congress can make informed decisions about the policy going forward. If there is a direct or even an indirect correlation between rising energy prices and increased financial support to terrorist organizations, we need to know, and we need to take action. What are the security implications of Iran leveraging energy resources against the United States? Iran is the world's fourth largest producer of crude oil and as oil prices continue to rise, we must consider the potential for Iran to leverage energy resources and the potential effects of such actions. These are questions our intelligence professionals should be analyzing and answering. We have done a lot of things here. We have played a lot of games. I think there was even a bill last week they called the DRILL Act. It stuns me a little bit. There was actually no drilling in the bill. We need to have an honest discussion, not only with ourselves, but with the American people. We haven't really done that. Every day, it presents a national security issue that we spend about $1 billion a day overseas to people who want to do us harm, every single day. Every day that we don't open up our own American-made energy resources, shame on us. We are just only adding fuel to what we will have to deal with in one way or another. In addition to the economic aspects of having increased domestic energy supply here in America that frees us up, provides jobs here at home, and provides energy security and reduced prices and makes us competitive in a worldwide market when we are talking about the competitiveness of energy prices, and the manufacturing of goods here in the United States. The greatest thing of all, if you do a comprehensive package that includes conservation and alternative energy, and American-made and American-drilled oil, it means that we walk away from the ability to have to send $1 overseas. The sad part is, it's doable. It's absolutely doable. We really don't need the intelligence community to come back and tell us this. We know it, but I am strongly encouraging us to support this bill, because maybe if it's coming from the intelligence community and says, hey, folks in Congress, you have a problem, you better do something about it, I am going to be for it. I don't care if it has a Republican name on it or a Democrat name on it. As I have said before, we have got a whole list of great bills we are willing to walk over and have you sponsor as soon as we can possibly get the ink to dry. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. And I understand that. And I think the gentleman from Louisiana misstated, it is not because it is the most accurate report, it is because it is based on open-source information and something that we could use to project versus the actual intelligence estimate which is more narrow in scope and used confidential, and as you know, classified sources of information. And I ask the question because I have to be honest, I am very disappointed with my friends this evening on an issue that I think is so important. You know, there is a reason, I think, that we have a 9 percent approval, the lowest this Congress has ever registered. And it is for issues exactly like this. We stood up in good faith last week. As a matter of fact, Mr. Hoekstra introduced this very bill word for word, and then we offered it, the same bill, in a motion to recommit. And this is policy, and we won't spend much time on it, but I have to note that I just think this is an awful way to do business here, and I think the 110th Congress has really sunk to new lows. There was no reason that you couldn't have picked up the phone and talked with Mr. Hoekstra about a bill that he introduced and pioneered to deal with a most serious issue. As a matter of fact, one of the speakers today actually voted against the bill in its form, but today there is a renewed enthusiasm that we are going to pass this bill.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the renewed enthusiasm for this issue, and I can't tell you how important I think it is. Energy today is a national security issue, and it is incredibly important that we have a full understanding of what the money that we send every single day overseas is doing to our enemies, how it is fueling their ability to do things like buy weapons, improve weapon systems and do other things. I was struck by one portion of the bill and would make an inquiry to the bill's sponsor, that you made a difference between the National Intelligence Estimate and the National Intelligence Assessment. I am curious why you chose National Intelligence Assessment versus the National Intelligence Estimate on this particular issue. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana to respond.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Reclaiming my time, that's interesting.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Sure.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much for working in such a bipartisan way. I often think after some of our most spirited meetings in the Intelligence Committee, where we have passionate, civil debates, how proud, really, America would be that all of us on both sides of the aisle give all of ourselves to the right outcome on these bills. I want to thank you for allowing that debate to happen in committee. To Mr. Thompson, I have enjoyed working with you on the committee, and I think we have done some great things in a bipartisan way. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those bills that while I think both sides probably would have had a few things different, but because we committed ourselves to put the country first and bipartisanship as our final goal and what works for America, you have a package here that I think sends a great message to the most important group that this bill will impact, and that's the men and women who risk their lives every single day trying to make sure we have the best intelligence to our war fighters, to our police officers, and to keep this country safe. For all of that, to the staffs on both sides, thank you very much. I want to bring your attention to two particular issues. There are a lot of great things in here to think about. One is the FBI policy. Thank you again for working with us on what I think is a growing problem with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and this, I think, was the first signal we need to get a handle on it. The FBI implemented an ``up or out'' policy for its supervisors that was supposed to allow new people in and promote the supervisory special agents, people who had over years developed a Rolodex where they could call the local police chiefs, work with the local community, get to know and understand and gain the trust of these local communities. We have hustled them out after 5 years. They may be the best performing supervisory agents the Bureau has ever had, but when the clock runs out, you're done. In that policy, we have lost half. Almost 290 supervisory special agents have left management in the FBI, retired, stepped down, quit, whatever they have decided to do that wasn't in their interest or their family's interest, because of this policy. I can think of no policy that discriminates against half of your management that we would call successful at a time where we need experience to guide these new agents, which are about half of them, by the way, are fairly new, I think under 5 years or 7 years, something like that. We have tried to work with the Director and say this is the wrong approach, this is a punishment approach. You have great men and women committing themselves to these careers, dedicating themselves to these supervisory positions. We need to reward them, not punish them. We have tried to set up a housing policy to entice them. Three years, longer than 3 years, even after the agreement from the Director, we have been working on this to no avail. It has gone nowhere. Instead, they continue to say this is a policy that works. They are separating themselves from the field, and it's dangerous. Over the last 2 weeks I bet I have talked to a dozen agents, some in supervisory roles, others who are not, who are impacted by their supervisors either leaving or new ones being hired, 12 agents, 100 percent unanimity. This is a bad and dangerous plan for the future of the FBI.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. This is the one thing that just has me scratching my head. Every day, analysts in the IC community will hear those words, ``caliphate,'' ``jihadist,'' ``Muslim extremism,'' because those are the words of our enemy. And what we're telling this whole community, whose job it is to keep us informed and keep people who are going to do these intelligence investigations informed, is who they are, what they are, and how they use words, including coming up and briefing members of the State Department, ambassadors, and other things. So what you're saying is no more free speech; we're going to hurt somebody's feelings. We don't want to say that terrorists are using words like ``caliphate,'' they're using words like ``jihad.'' This is the craziest thing I have ever heard. It is political correctness that is dangerous. If you ask the average American, should we shut down these people's use of the words in describing it to public officials, they will scratch their head and laugh. But that's exactly what you do when you create these artificial systems of the speech police. Do you want them to walk around the halls and police those who may slip and use the word ``jihadist'' after quoting Osama bin Laden in trying to get somebody to understand the dangers that they pose to the United States of America? I would just ask my colleagues, please, use a little common sense. This surpasses any, any commonsense test you can put together when it comes to free speech, number one, and accurately communicating between the powers that be, the intelligence community and policy-makers that need to have the same language that our enemy does to understand who they are and how dangerous they are.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I think that this is an issue that we have to even pay more attention to. This is an important step to regain the confidence of the FBI and its leadership. It has to happen. Thanks for your leadership on it. Lastly, I just want to talk about the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence. I have worked with Mr. Thompson on this. We have spent a lot of time understanding this. Our concerns are real, and the intelligence community concerns are real. We created this new organization. Its job was to coordinate, not be operational. We have found that it goes well beyond mission creep, and it is in mission grasp. It is bloated, it's too big, and it became an agency not that supported the decision and calculations of the field, but became supported by the field. It's a dangerous development in intelligence. I appreciate working with you. I know we have a lot more work to do. Congratulations to all on a bill that will, I think and believe, keep America safer.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise with a little bit of apprehension today, but this is really a horrible way to do what we're trying to do today, and we've known that every year certainly since I have been a Member of Congress. I think this is my eighth time trying to fix what is really a bad system of telling doctors every year you're going to be cut unless we do something. A horrible system. I think we all agree we have to do something. But something really spectacular happened today and I don't think in a good way. For the first time since I've been in Congress, we've decided that we're going to fix it as we have every single year since I have been here except we are going to cut senior citizens off from their programs in Medicare, for the first time since I have been here, and that we're going to do that today. And I scratch my head a little bit. We have always been able to come together in a bipartisan way and say we can fix it for the doctors without taking it out of the seniors. We don't have to punish the patients to help the doctors. And I know they can get on planes and they are doing okay financially and they can fly here and lobby us and talk to us and get in our ears, and that's important. And you know what? They should. Because every single year we tell them don't invest in your company because we are not going to tell you their business, their business of providing medical services. Don't invest in that because we're not sure if we are going to cut you 10 percent or give you 2 percent. Pretty hard to make that investment decision to go to health information technology that we know will save lives or add a new staff member that they know they might be not able to pay for if we don't get our act together, which tells us why this system is so horrible. But because we failed to act, this Congress failed to act, I think the provision starts tomorrow with a 10 percent cut. We said 2 million poor seniors in this country, you're going to get a letter in the mail that says you no longer have service under Medicare Advantage. Think about the fear and the confusion. Do we have to do that? Is that the best that we can do here in this Chamber and call it a bipartisan effort? Ten million seniors depend on Medicare Advantage. They voluntarily signed up. And after this bill, 200,000 of them that live in Michigan will have fewer choices, reduced benefits, higher out-of-pocket costs. Half of the Medicare Advantage enrollees have incomes below $20,000 a year. Imagine the fear when your electric bills are going up because we haven't done anything here in this Congress, when your gasoline prices are over $4 and maybe your kids don't even come to see you anymore. But, oh, by the way, we are going to give you this letter and we are going to celebrate that in a bipartisan way we have stood up and said the heck with you, you're going to have to deal with it on your own, you 10 million seniors. Can't we do better? I think we can. So when the President vetoed this, it wasn't about mean spiritedness and taking things away and we're not going to help those seniors. It was about please renegotiate. If for the last 7 years we could come together and say we can help you doctors without punishing you senior citizen patients, why can't we do that today? It's the first time that we have had to do that since I have been in Congress. I know we can do better. And when you're done, think of this: Fully 70 percent are minorities making under $20,000 on Medicare Advantage.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I thank the chairman. Madam Speaker, 70 percent are minorities making under $20,000. They'll get that letter in the mail. I doubt that they'll be celebrating the warmth and the fuzzy feeling that we are all feeling today because 355 people tried to read a bill that we only had 24 hours to read. Please, sustain the President's veto. It doesn't mean it's over. It means we get to negotiate a bill that protect doctors, as they should, allows them to make investments in the future of health information technology and other things without facing a 20 percent cut. By the way, if we did nothing, it would be a 15 percent cut by the end of next year. Because of this bill, it's a 20 percent cut. We have to do better. I will vote to sustain. I would urge you to sustain the President's veto.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I appreciate the bipartisan spirit in which this debate is conducted and why this is just a bad idea. Many of us come to this microphone, to this well, through our conclusions from a whole variety of backgrounds and interests. I think back, not all that long ago, when I had a good friend in town, and we had a great philosophical debate about organized gambling coming to his town. And he was all for it. He had been, I think, the third generation of a great restaurant in that town. It was very well known, well known all over the State, and he said it would boost his business. Well, about 2 years after that casino landed in that town, he closed his doors. I think it was in his family for decades. It broke his heart. There was trembling in his voice when we had a conversation over the phone. Because, when organized gambling comes to your town, there are very few who will make a whole bunch, and there are a whole bunch who will lose a lot. And it is not the economic tool that people profess. Study after study after study clearly shows there is more net loss, that there is more cannibalization of small businesses around these organized gambling casinos than there is success and benefit that happens inside. Certainly, the local governments that house them love it; it means cash to them. That's great. But at what price? And we really need to stop ourselves and ask, at what price? We already have more casinos in Michigan than we have public universities. And this isn't about fairness for this tribe. This tribe has seven casinos already, $400 million in revenue. And what they are asking to do is something unprecedented. The Federal court ruled against them. The State court ruled against them. But they said let's go around all of those things, including a 2004 referendum by the State of Michigan that said enough is enough, we're going to cap it right here at what we have. They went around all of those things, and it's like putting a casino from a tribe in Washington, DC in Cleveland and saying, ``This is part of our heritage, you need to help us.'' That's not what this is. This is about organized gambling and putting it in a place where they think they can make more than the $400 million in revenue they are already making. I just plead with this House and this Congress don't set this precedent. And I don't care if they say it in the bill or not, it is a precedent. And every community in America will wake up one day and say we can do this too. We can come to Congress. We can show up and go around our States and our legislatures and our people and the courts, and we'll go to Congress too and get special treatment to have an organized gambling casino in a neighborhood near you. A lot of people speak for both sides of this issue, but very few will speak for the folks who will lose everything when these casinos come to town. I plead with this House not to do this. It's not the right thing to do. We know it's not the right thing to do. I encourage all of us to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the subsequent legislation.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I want to compliment Mr. Reyes. When this happened 124 days ago when it expired, I realized what a challenge you had. They were asking you to win the Kentucky Derby by entering a donkey in the race. And trying to get all of the folks together to get us to the place where we are today was not short feat. Mr. Hoekstra and Mr. Reyes, I want to thank you both because what this bill does today is reaffirm what we have been saying for the last several years, that the due process of the Constitution, the fourth amendment, is alive and well and protected in this bill. And any rhetoric to the contrary is simply not true. It is fear mongering. For any U.S. citizen who believes that their phones are going to be unceremoniously and injudiciously tapped or listened to is simply wrong, and this bill reaffirms the importance of that fourth amendment and due process for every American citizen every day. But it also says some very important things. We are going to protect the Good Samaritan law that we have known and developed over the last 200-plus years that if you in good faith help your neighbor or help your country, in good faith you will be protected from damages sought by anyone else. If you stand up and protect the liberties and justice of your country and the lives of your neighbors, you will be protected in this law. And finally, our foreign intelligence service allies have been nervous for 124 days, begging, pleading, cajoling, asking please, step up to the plate and reengage in one of the most important intelligence elements that we have, that the United States shares with our foreign allies to stop suicide bombers, to stop terrorist elements from developing plans and plots to kill their citizens as well as our own. This bill reaffirms all that we said last year and the year before. It reaffirms what we said in the Protect America Act in August of 2007 that it is absolutely important that we step up to the plate and listen to foreign terrorists in foreign lands plotting to kill citizens of our allies and here at home. I want to congratulate all those who came together today, and urge those with the rhetoric to please stand for your country today, stand for the soldiers in the field who deserve our protection and the protection of the intelligence services, and for every mother and every father, every child in America who looks for a better day tomorrow knowing that we once again have both our eyes and our ears on the problem with terrorism and radical jihadists.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of James Barrett, who is retiring after more than thirty years of service as the President and CEO of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, an organization which has had an influential role in many important social, economic and political issues in the state of Michigan. Jim Barrett is well known and highly regarded in Michigan where he has been a leader in advancing Michigan business in a distinguished career that spanned four decades. In addition to his work with the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Jim is also the President of Michigan Chamber Services, Inc. During his time there, Jim has worked diligently for the benefit of the Michigan business community by providing educational seminars, publications and many other services to help businesses grow and thrive. Jim also has done extensive work for Michigan's youth as President of the Michigan Chamber Foundation, which is involved in improving the level of education our children receive as well as the leadership training so important to their future. Jim's hard work and dedication was recognized many times over by his colleagues. Most notably in, 2002 he became an initial inductee into the Michigan Society of Association Executives Hall of Fame. Additionally, in 2003 the Michigan Political History Society selected Jim as the top Association Leader in Michigan over the last 50 years. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring James Barrett for being a model for all citizens, and for his dedication and commitment as a leader in his state. He is truly deserving of our respect and admiration.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for H.R. 5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008. I am not able to cast my vote today. However, as a co-sponsor of this bill if I had been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on final passage of H.R. 5749.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of 39 distinguished high school students from Michigan's Eighth District. I was proud to award the Congressional Medal of Merit to these students during a ceremony at Michigan's State Capitol on May 9, 2008. These graduating seniors were nominated by their schools for the prestigious Congressional Medal of Merit. To be nominated, each student demonstrated exemplary citizenship and academic excellence throughout their high school careers. These young men and women have demonstrated an outstanding sense of service to their peers, education and community. Honoring their achievements with the Congressional Medal of Merit is a privilege and I congratulate each of them along with their parents, family, teachers and community. Together, this group of students represents the best and brightest America has to offer: Amber Barber, Tyler Bengel, Kristin Boozer, Michael Brendel, Sarah Bush, Chris Case, Kaitlyn Charette, Christina Clarke, Bethany Davis, Nathan Feldpausch, Preston Frazier, Mariah Frey, Brittney Fuller, Kristy Gould, Effrem Grettenberger, Carolyn Hamilton, Robert Hindy, Jessica Holberg, Priya Karve, Jason Klepal, Kristin Kotarba, Audrey Kramer, Kiley Kyser, Kavina Marshall, Alexandra McGregor, Victoria Miller, Christine Norton, Guillermo Peralta, Ariana Pierce, Jacob Price, McKenzie Rowley, Thomas Sanday, Eric Stants, Marco Tori, Jacquelyn Verley, Christie Wilkins, Brennan Woell, Lo-Hua Yuan, Mitchell Zajac. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring these exceptional students. May they know that this Nation is greatly appreciative of their service and dedication, and wishes them the best in all their future endeavors.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with the House of Representatives two high priority projects included at my request in H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI-08). Bill Number: H.R. 5685. Account: Other Procurement--Navy, Line: Aviation Support Equipment-- Aviation Support Equipment Equipment--Aviation Life Support (P-1 Line 97). Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Peckham Industries. Address of Requesting Entity: 2822 N. Martin Luther King Blvd., Lansing, MI 48906. Description of Request: Provide $8,000,000 to fund procurement of approximately 8,000 sets of the Multi Climate Protection System (MCPS) for U.S. Navy Aircrews. Approximately $3.4 million will be spent on garment production, $4.2 million on materials, and $0.4 million on quality control/fielding. The total requirement for the U.S. Navy for MCPS is 25,000 systems. Between FY 2004 and FY 2007, the Navy and Congress have provided enough funding for fielding of only 25% of the required systems. In FY 2008, Congress allocated $2 million for the program. In FY 2007 the House and Senate Armed Services Committees addressed the need for MCPS in their authorization bills. The House authorization text reads, ``The committee strongly encourages the Department of the Navy to include the necessary funds for the MCPS in its future budget requests to meet MCPS requirements.'' Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI-08). Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Operations and Maintenance, (BA 01: Operating Forces). Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Peckham Industries. Address of Requesting Entity: 2822 N. Martin Luther King Blvd., Lansing, MI 48906 Description of Request: Provide $4,000,000 to fund procurement of approximately 35,000 sets of Cold Weather Layering System (CWLS) for the U.S. Marines. Approximately $2 million will be spent on garment production, $1.6 million on materials, $0.4 million on quality control/ fielding. In direct response to the U.S. Marine Corps' unique combat needs, a Polartec Power Dry Silkweight and Polartec Power Dry Grid with flame resistant properties for use in the CWLS is currently in development. Roadside bombs kill or wound more troops than any other weapon in Iraq, having killed more than 1,200 U.S. service members to date. The heat and flame produced by roadside bombs presents a significant burn threat, and the USMC has called for the use of flame resistant textiles to maintain safety in harsh combat conditions.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of Ron Mason as he retires after 29 years as a leader at Michigan State University. I want to thank Ron on behalf of those individuals who have benefited from his time, contributions, and dedication to world-class academics and athletics. Ron Mason's Michigan State career began with the 1979-80 season when he became head coach of the Spartan hockey team. He became a seven-time CCHA Coach of the Year and led the Spartans to seven regular-season league championships and 10 playoff crowns. In 2001, the conference honored Mason by renaming the CCHA playoff trophy--The Mason Cup--in recognition of his contributions to college hockey and the formation of the league as well as his success behind the bench. Considered one of the ``Founding Fathers'' of the CCHA, Ron joined Bowling Green's Jack Vivian and St. Louis University's Bill Selman in establishing a ``coaches' league'' in 1971. Among his many accomplishments included an NCAA Championship at Michigan State in 1986. His dedication to upholding the values of sportsmanship and integrity at Michigan State University, and his continued work on behalf of the university and its community, is a testament to his strength of character. On March 18, 1994, a win over Bowling Green established him as the winningest college hockey coach in history. In 2001-02, Ron's final campaign as the Spartan coach, he recorded his unprecedented 900th win as a college hockey coach with a victory over Ferris State (Oct. 20, 2001). In 2002, Ron was introduced as the 16th athletic director in Michigan State history. During his five-year tenure, State athletic squads have captured I1 conference championships (regular season and postseason combined) and one national championship. In addition, MSU has been represented at the NCAA Championships 72 times, including Final Four/Frozen Four appearances by men's basketball (2005), women's basketball (2005), field hockey (2002 and 2004) and ice hockey (2007). Ron is also active in a number of local organizations and charities. He recently completed a 4-year term on the Sparrow Hospital Foundation Board and has set up the Ron Mason Fund for Kids that supports the Pediatric Rehabilitation Department, which has raised nearly $675,000 since 1998. He also served as the honorary chairperson for the Children's Miracle Network, which has raised $19 million over the last 19 years, and has worked with the Coaches For Kids campaign, which has raised $5.3 million in the last 7 years for a pediatrics emergency room at Sparrow Hospital. In addition, he served on the committee for the broomball game for the Legal Eagles, which benefited the Boys and Girls Club of Lansing, and spent several years on the Lansing Safety Council. Ron currently is a board member for the Lansing Chamber of Commerce. For all his career accomplishments, Ron has been inducted into the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame (1994), Lake Superior Sports Hall of Fame (1996) and St. Lawrence Sports Hall of Fame (1999). In addition, the American Hockey Coaches Association honored him with the John Machines Award for his outstanding contributions to hockey in the spring of 2003, and he received the Hobey Baker Memorial Award Foundation's 2004 ``Legend of Hockey'' award in April 2004. Therefore Madam Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring Ron Mason's exceptional service to students, athletes, and Michigan State University. May he know that his nation is greatly appreciative of his dedication, and wishes him the best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of Mara Letica Saad of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, who has been honored by Crain's Detroit Business Publication as one of southeast Michigan's ``Most Influential Women'' over the past five years. Mara Letica Saad's experiences are unique, remarkable and in many ways, reflect her wonderful family's success story. Mara was born in Germany during her father, Ilija Letica's journey toward America after escaping communist rule in former Yugoslavia. Soon they reached their destination in Greenville, Michigan where Mara attended the local schools and her father began to work toward his vision for Letica Corporation, a plastic packaging company. Mara attended The University of Michigan where she earned a bachelors degree in history. She traveled west to Seattle University to study law and remained in Washington for several years working as a prosecutor and a commercial litigator. Fortunately, Mara did not stray long from Michigan. She returned to join the family business and after twenty years, Mara continues to successfully balance many roles as the corporation's executive vice president, general counsel and secretary. Along with her father and other family members, Mara has helped build Letica Corporation, now headquartered in Rochester, Michigan into a nationwide manufacturer of paper and plastic packaging with more than a dozen locations throughout the U.S. Mara Letica Saad's accomplishments are not limited to the business world. Throughout her life she has had a strong interest in her family's birthplace, Croatia, and was actively involved in Croatia's independence movement. With her father, she organized a group of attorneys in the U.S. to aid and supervise the 1990 elections in Croatia. Her efforts were recognized by President George H.W. Bush and she was nominated to be Ambassador to Croatia. An active participant in the Detroit area community, Mara serves on the board of the Motor City Lyric Opera and until recently served on the board of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. She resides in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan with her husband, Judge Henry Saad, and they have four grown children. Mara Letica Saad has excelled in her profession and her touched many in southeast Michigan and beyond. Mara Letica Saad is a loyal and loving family member with a passion for its history, culture, and human dignity. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mara Letica Saad, recipient of southeast Michigan's ``Most Influential Women.'' She truly merits our respect and admiration.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, It is my special privilege to honor the Capital Area District Library as they celebrate their 10th anniversary. I congratulate the Capital Area District Library community on behalf of all those who have benefited from their dedication and commitment to serving the members of the community. The Capital Area District Library has an impressive history of community service and involvement since being formed in 1998, through an agreement between Ingham County and the city of Lansing, MI. Sensing most of Ingham County, the Capital Area District Library operates 13 libraries and it bookmobile, which stops throughout the county. Each library location provides residents with access to all materials and services offered by Capital Area District Library. For the past 10 years. the Capital Area District Library has been able to grow and adapt to the changing needs of the community. It has shown remarkable progress in serving the citizens of Lansing and the residents of Ingham County. The Capital Area District Library is committed to the values of a democratic society. They aim to provide access to ideas and information that support continuous learning and enhance the quality of life of citizens. They reach these goals through community-based services, excellence in patron service and technology that links its libraries to the world of information. Their blend of a classic library decor, with new up-to-date technology, ensures uniqueness and utility. As part of their mission to provide assess to useful information, the Capital Area District Library offers an interactive website that is dedicated to assist the public with questions and keep them informed about their community. I am confident that the Capital Area District Library will continue to flourish and enhance the Ingham County area for years to come. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring the Capital Area District Library as they celebrate their 10th anniversary. May others know of my high regard for the tradition and strength this organization represents.