Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, we passed a resolution recognizing AmeriCorps Week. While AmeriCorps' particular design provides a tuition reward, true volunteering comes with the expectation of nothing in return. A woman from my hometown of Ocala, Florida so embodies pure selflessness that I would like to praise her today publicly. Carson Faris is a registered nurse and a certified occupational health nurse specialist with E-One. However, her caregiving nature does not end there. Nurse Faris mentors addicted women through the rocky path of recovery. Further, in addition to her own 10 pets, she shelters at-risk cats and serves on the board of directors for the Humane Society of Marion County and volunteers at the animal shelter. Also, she serves as an advisory board member for the Marion County unit of the Florida Blood Centers. Oh, and by the way, she is the treasurer of the Florida State Association of Occupational Health Nurses. Nurse Faris shines as a beacon of true volunteerism.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I come to the House floor as a result of a town meeting I had in my congressional district in which I heard from the Harvest Christian Church. It goes to the point that the United States and India, as all of us know, are the world's two largest democracies. However, although the Indian National Government guarantees religious freedom, in many of the provinces, oppression and persecution still exist. I want to bring that to my colleagues' attention this morning. Harvest Christian Church in my home district has worked closely with many church groups in India. And, as I mentioned, during my last town meeting, Pastor Crowe shared with me some of the disturbing things that are happening there. On April 1, during Palm Sunday celebrations in Jabalpur, in the middle of their worship service, about 30 people from a Hindu extremist group--whose name literally means ``religious army''--came with sticks and started beating everybody, including the evangelist and the men and women and children who were in the congregation that day. The pastor was badly beaten and suffers severe head injury. These people were admitted in the hospital where people from that group went and threatened them. They decided to leave the hospital and are currently staying at undisclosed locations. The attackers remain unpunished for these crimes. In fact, that day no one from the government condemned the attack or sympathized with the victims or the terrorized Christian community, not to speak of offering any relief to the family that were affected by this terrorist group. The police authorities, though reluctant to name the forces behind the attack, announced finally the arrest of five persons. All were from a radical Hindu background and lived in the slums the pastor used to visit regularly. Persecution such as this is not uncommon in India, and these sorts of attacks are not isolated incidents. My colleagues, in another example, a mob of around 50 Hindu extremists surrounded a house church the night of April 22 and began shouting derogatory statements at all the worshipers in the church. Terrified believers in the church shut the doors, phoned the local police and asked for help. Two policemen arrived and took two pastors to the police station. En route, a few activists began beating and insulting the pastors and four other believers who had accompanied them, as the police officers simply looked on. ``At the station, the police shouted at the pastors, and the extremists who were present made accusations that the pastors were forcibly converting people and inciting the people to stop doing Hindu rituals and to remove pictures of Hindu deities from their houses,'' George said. The tirade continued until 3 a.m., when the pastors were jailed, not being released on bail until April 25. The police inspector stated the pastors were charged with ``promoting enmity'' between different groups on grounds of religion and ``deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.'' While there is ongoing violence against Christians in India, the good news is that it is endemic and the number of incidents are not increasing. The BJP is a Hindu political party, which was in national power until 2004 when the secular constitution party then came to power. However, they still retain positions of power in some states, and it is there where the majority of attacks against Christians occur. According to the State Department International Religious Freedom Report 2006, ``The constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the government generally respects this right in practice. However, the government sometimes did not act swiftly enough to counter effectively societal attacks against religious minorities and attempts by some leaders of state and local governments to limit religious freedom. Despite government efforts to foster communal harmony, some extremists continued to view ineffective investigation and prosecution of attacks on religious minorities, particularly at the state and local level, as a signal that they could commit such violence with impunity.'' My colleagues, this is a situation that must not be tolerated. The frequency of these attacks and the lack of prosecution of extremists who perpetrate these crimes are in direct opposition to the most basic tenets of our democracy and surely the democracy in India. I urge the Indian Government to protect religious minorities and to take strong steps to enforce their constitutional laws regarding religious freedom in these oppressive provinces.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the Senate gave overwhelming unanimous consent for General Petraeus to implement his strategy in Iraq. We all agree, on both sides of the aisle, he is the best we have. In fact, he has written a manual dealing with terrorists. So why do the Democrats want to withdraw funds to support him starting the first of July? Even as we speak, the troops have to reallocate funds and prioritize their missions, because they don't have the full funding. In fact, they will run out of money shortly. So why do the Democrats not allow General Petraeus to do his job? General Petraeus intends to report back in September with a complete report on how we are doing. That is a very short amount of time, in fact, 5 months away. He deserves a chance, and he deserves full funding for this Congress through the fiscal year 2007. So I urge Congress, after the President vetoes this bill, to come back and give a clean bill so that the President can get full funding for our troops, at least through fiscal year 2007.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Let me thank, first of all, my colleagues, for bringing this resolution to the floor. I certainly appreciate the gentlelady from New York, I believe, Long Island, for her gracious comments, to know that Billy Donovan also resided in her district. I think that is something that many of us did not know. Madam Speaker, I do have a little feeling of modesty here and graciousness coming here again to the floor. It's almost like a great case of dejavu again, because it seems like only a few months ago that I came to the floor to honor the University of Florida, which I represent, for winning the national football title. Yet here I am again, feeling a great deal of humbleeness, coming to the House floor to honor the Gators men's basketball team, as pointed out, for becoming the first team since 1991-1992 to win back-to-back national titles. Of course, I am honored to represent the University of Florida, because it's in my congressional district. As we say in Gainesville, ``Go Gators.'' We do indeed hope for another championship. With their win over the Ohio State Buckeyes on April 2, as mentioned, they became only the seventh school ever to repeat championships. In addition, Florida remains the only school in NCAA history to hold both the men's basketball and football championship titles in the same year, which is an arduous feat, to say the least. This is quite an accomplishment, and one the entire university community should take a great deal of pride in, which they do. Many of the so-called experts said that the Gators would not be able to repeat as champions. However, all throughout the season, Coach Billy Donovan kept his team focused and on track and eventually proved the pundits wrong. The Gators were chasing history, so to speak, and they would not be denied. The Gators finished their season with an impressive 35-5, winning the final 10 games of the season. Furthermore, my colleagues, they have an 18-game winning streak in the post-season, including sweeps at the Southeastern Conference tournament the last 2 years and a 12-0 in the NCAA tournament. By winning the championship, Coach Donovan became the 12th coach to win multiple men's basketball championship and one of four active coaches to win multiple titles. He also became the third youngest coach to win more than one NCAA title. Now, Florida's overall athletic program has proven to be one of the best in the Nation, now having won 21 national championships in all sports combined. Ten Gator athletic teams turned in top 10 finishes in 2005-2006. Florida is one of two schools to appear in the top 10 in each of the last 23 national all-sports ranking. I appreciate your indulgence here as I brag a little bit more. Gator athletes excel in the classroom as well. UF boasts a 91 percent graduation rate among its athletes, making it only one of four programs in the national all-sports top 10 to achieve a graduation success rate above 90 percent. Furthermore, in the 2002-2003 season, UF placed a record of 193 student athletes on the SEC academic honor role, making six consecutive years UF placed 100 or more student athletes on the SEC honor role. The University of Florida is more than just athletics. It ranks fifth among Kiplinger's top 10 colleges and is among the Nation's most academically diverse public universities. It is home to 16 colleges and more than 150 research centers and institutes. And during the 2005-2006 school year, they awarded a little over $500 million in sponsored research to do such things as to find diverse research in health care, citrus production including the world's largest citrus research center. In addition, my colleagues, more than 300,000 Gator alumni are located throughout the world. Famous alumni include two current NASA astronauts, actress Faye Dunaway, and home improvement expert Bob Vila. Just a little bragging there. UF's faculty are among the best and most decorated in the world, winning awards such as the Fields medal, two Pulitzer Prizes, NASA's top award for research, and the Smithsonian Institution's Conservation award. Along with the faculty, the Gator students are among the brightest. UF admitted about 1,049 international baccalaureate students for the 2004- 2005 academic year, more than any other university in the world. So the Florida men's basketball team are excellent representatives of both the university and the great State of Florida in their focus, their persistence, and unassailable desire to succeed. I take great pride, my colleagues, in representing the University of Florida in Congress and congratulate Coach Billy Donovan and the entire university on this great accomplishment and hope for the best for next year. Go Gators.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, many in Congress and around this country insist that the President take the advice of The Iraq Study Group. Well, the President is doing just that. The report states, ``We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping missions needed.'' Well, my colleagues, that is what the President is trying to do. The cochair of the study group, James Baker, had this to say: ``Setting a deadline for withdrawal regardless of conditions in Iraq makes even less sense today because there is evidence that the temporary surge is reducing the level of violence in Baghdad.'' Rather than support a bill that leaves our troops in harm's way for a cause Democrats believe cannot be won, Democratic leaders should be willing to vote to allow time to let the surge work and not signal defeat.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Let me also congratulate the authors of the bill and the fine work that they have done. We have had a hearing in Energy and Commerce, where I serve, but I thought I would just follow up a little bit on what the gentleman from Louisiana talked about, a little bit about the preemption. Madam Speaker, I think almost everybody in this House is for genetic protection from genetic discrimination. There have been many bills over the years that Ms. Slaughter has worked on. I think she indicated she has worked on it for 12 years. I compliment her on her perseverance. Sometimes it takes that kind of conscientiousness to get anything accomplished here. The fact we are able to get this today is a success story. In fact, the President has indicated, I think nationally, that he would like to sign this bill. So it is on a fast track, and I am sure that we won't have any trouble in the suspension passing it. But one significant concern that I bring to the attention of my colleagues is a Federal preemption. I mention this as perhaps, as the Senate and the House come together, they can solve this problem. So I will continue to talk about it. According to CBO, the bill would ``preempt some State laws that establish confidentiality standards for genetic information, and would restrict how State and local governments use such information in employment practices and in the provision of health care to employees.'' This bill will create, I think, a little bit of a problem, the confusion in about the 42 States that currently have laws prohibiting discrimination based upon genetic information. For example, my home State of Florida is very strong with clear definitions. If we superimpose this bill, it would create a lot of confusion, I think, in my State of Florida. Many exemptions occur, HIV testing, drug testing, forensic analysis, routine blood tests for current health would be negated. Even more frustrating for the regulated, the operative Federal-State relationship rule is whatever part of a State law is more stringent survives. The question is, who decides when that occurs? The courts? I think that is a question the Senate should look at. There are better approaches, but partial preemption is what we see here. I think it should be changed. Maybe the answer is across-the- board preemption, and that is what I am recommending, or maybe allow States to apply for an exemption. I believe Florida and other States are substantially meeting this policy. In any event, some Federal agency should at least adjudicate so that the regulated community is not subject to uncertainty, fines, ultimately litigation. So I asked this same question when we had the markup in Energy and Commerce. So I asked during our Energy markup on March 23 about this to the staff. At that time, it was difficult to understand what their answer was. I followed up on March 27 with a letter to Chairman Dingell, signed along with a Health Subcommittee ranking member Nathan Deal. We have not at this point received a reply to this letter, and I just urge that somehow in the conference on this bill that we try to answer that question. Finally, 11 Energy and Commerce Republicans signed our views to the energy report, which, Madam Speaker, I make part of the Record, and I support the intention of this legislation. It's good. I congratulate everybody, but I would like to see a preemption and other clear issues worked out in conference. I support protection from genetic discrimination, so much so I have offered my own bills in prior Congresses. However, this bill has, some problems I would like resolved. (For the record: Many people have been remarking that we have been working for over a dozen years on legislation to safeguard individuals from discrimination against due to their genetic profile when they seek to purchase health insurance or employment. Well, I count myself among those waiting. For, in 1995, I was proud to be named the first Chair of the Congressional Task Force on Medical Records and Genetics, by then Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley. Congressman Gene Green (Committee Democrat) was my Co-chair, and together we held many meetings and hearings with witnesses from the genetics community, including insurance companies, the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, and patient advocates. Indeed, one of my proudest legislative achievements came in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). In the Commerce Committee markup of HIPAA, I was successful in adding two words to the list of protections: ``genetic information.'' It survived and is in the HIPAA law today. And, I have continued my engagement, authoring bills in the last several Congresses to prohibit genetic nondiscrimination in health insurance.) One significant concern is the lack of clarity over federal pre- emption. According to CBO, the bill would ``preempt some state laws that establish confidentiality standards for generic information, and would restrict how state and local governments use such information in employment practices and in the provision of health care to employees.'' GINA will create confusion for the 43 states that currently have laws prohibiting discrimination based on genetic information. Florida's law, for example, is very strong, with clear definitions. If we superimpose GINA it will create a lot of confusion. Many exemptions--HIV testing, drug testing, forensic analysis, routine blood tests for current health--would be negated. Even more frustrating for the regulated, the operative Federal-state relationship rule is whatever part of a state law is more stringent survives. And who will decide? The courts. There are better approaches, but partial preemption is unsatisfactory. Maybe the answer is across the board preemption. Or, maybe allow states to apply for an exemption. I believe Florida and other States are substantially meeting the policy. In any event, some Federal agency should at least adjudicate so that the regulated community is not subject to uncertainty, fines, or litigation. I asked this in the Energy and Commerce markup March 23. And, I followed up on March 27 with a letter to Chairman Dingell, signed along with Health Subcommittee Ranking Member Nathan Deal--a response to which has not arrived. Finally, eleven Energy & Commerce Republicans signed Additional Views to our Committee Report, which I resubmit for the Record. Again, I support the intention of this legislation, but would like to see pre-emption and other unclear issues worked out in conference. Gina Will Create Confusion for the 43 States That Currently Have Laws Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Genetic Information We have not done a complete survey but understand that 43 States already have programs and definitions. We would then want to ask Members if they find the programs in their state inadequate. If you were to superimpose the GINA requirements on those states it will involve a lot of confusion. Many exemptions and clear statements regarding HIV testing, drug testing, and other issues would appear to be wiped out. Even more frustrating for the regulatory community the operative Federal-state relationship rule is whatever part of a state law is more stringent survives. This means pieces of state law will apply while other pieces will be preempted. This would all have to be sorted out by the courts. We think there are better approaches. The worst approach is this partial preemption approach. For some programs there is across the board preemption. In other cases, a state is allowed to submit its program for evaluation as a whole. If such programs are adequate or substantially promoting the policy, they would stay intact. We believe our States are substantially meeting the policy and do not see the need for disruption. In any event, some Federal agency should at least sort out what law applies in advance so that the regulated community is not held hostage to more lawyers and uncertainty. Joe Barton. Nathan Deal. Michael Burgess. Steve Buyer. Barbara Cubin. Mike Rogers. John Shadegg. Cliff Stearns. Lee Terry. Heather Wilson. Tim Murphy.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is 6 years after 9/11, and reform of the intelligence community continues to be a primary concern for all of us. At the swearing-in ceremony of Director Mike McConnell, President Bush outlined three main categories for improvement: the need to strengthen individual agencies, increase information sharing action and improve the quality of intelligence produced. I wish to discuss this morning what this means. The intelligence community has established new hiring and employment reforms to strengthen the workforce. Under the direction of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), there is now a comprehensive intelligence community plan that focuses on hiring a more diverse workforce to address the critical need for variety in languages, backgrounds, and skills. He has also appointed a chief of equal employment opportunity and diversity, and has agreed to a set of wide- ranging recommendations that the diversity senior advisory panel made in their report: ``Diversity: A National Security Imperative for the Intelligence Community.'' The Director of National Intelligence is also establishing ``joint duty'' as a requirement for promotion to senior positions. This is imperative in transforming the culture to increase integration and a collaborative nature among agencies. It will also reduce ``stovepipe'' mentalities which hampered collection efforts pre-9/11. These are important reforms, Mr. Speaker, and good initiatives that have been undertaken to address the human resources challenges facing the intelligence community. I look forward to seeing the outcome of these reforms, and hope to see even more innovative programs to strengthen our human intelligence capabilities. One of the critical lapses identified after September 11, particularly by the 9/11 Commission report, was the poor information sharing among agencies and departments. Recently there have been some improvements in this area. The National CounterTerrorism Center, NCTC, recently published a report entitled ``NCTC and Information Sharing: Five Years Since 9/11, a Progress Report.'' The NCTC reports that today, following many reforms, analysts have access to dozens of networks and information systems that they were previously denied. This access is across intelligence, law enforcement, military, and homeland security communities. This enormous increase of the amount of information, while ultimately beneficial, also raised the concern of becoming overwhelmed by the flood of this new information. Therefore, the NCTC is continuously exploring new technologies to help analysts manage these volumes of terrorism-related data. The NCTC also reports that they host communitywide video teleconferences three times a day to ensure awareness of ongoing operations and emerging threats. Participants in these video teleconferences can correct misunderstandings, compare notes, and share best practice ideas to enhance the capabilities of all involved. Mr. Speaker, this is a vital component to the ability to detect and respond effectively in real time to emerging terrorism threats. They have also created an online counterterrorism library allowing nonintelligence community agencies easier access to counterterrorism information. This library today hosts over 6,000 users, 6 million documents, and has over 60 departments and agencies that contribute information to its files. Finally, the ODNI has reformed overseas collection efforts among agencies, focusing collection efforts on the stated needs and goals of the policymakers receiving the intelligence products. In a March 4 press release from the public affairs of the Office of Director of National Intelligence, ``The intelligence community has strengthened the quality of intelligence provided to policymakers through initiatives like the mission managers concept. Among the most experienced in the intelligence community, mission managers have highly developed analytical and collection management skills and they focus on the topics of highest interest to our policymakers. This strategy allows the intelligence community to identify collection gaps and address resources to cover those gaps, ensuring analysts have the required information to support policy decisionmakers.'' They have also streamlined production of National Intelligence Council (NIC) products, increasing output and minimizing delays in production time. They have included both more effective explanation behind judgments and the inclusion of alternative views of analysts, to incorporate a wide range of opinions and combat the dangers arising from ``group think.'' I look forward to monitoring the progress of these important first steps. However, it is vital that we maintain our momentum. As Director McConnell stated in his swearing-in speech, ``Taking advantage of these advances in technology, today's threats move at increasing speeds. The time needed to develop a terrorist plot, communicated around the globe, and put it into motion has been drastically reduced. The time line is no longer a calendar, it is a watch.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to mourn the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech, we are reminded once again how fragile life is. Notwithstanding this tragedy, I would like to take a short moment to acknowledge the accomplishments of the University of Florida, which I represent in Gainesville, for repeating as men's national basketball champions. This historic championship makes the Gators the first team since 1991-1992 to win back-to-back national titles and become only the seventh school ever to repeat as champions. With the Gators' 84-75 victory over the Ohio State Buckeyes, Florida remains the only school in the NCAA history to hold both the men's basketball and football championship titles in the same year. The Florida Gators are excellent representatives of both the university and the great State of Florida in their focused persistence and unassailable desire to succeed. My colleagues, I take great pride in representing the University of Florida and congratulate Coach Billy Donovan and the entire university on this great accomplishment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, last week the Energy and Commerce Committee marked up H.R. 493, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Two other committees of jurisdiction have also voted on this same bill. Many people have been remarking that we have been working for over a dozen years on this particular piece of legislation and this subject. I count myself among them because in 1995 I was proud to be named the first chair of the Congressional Task Force on Medical Records and Genetics by then-Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley. Indeed, in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) markup, I was successful in adding two words to a list of protections: ``Genetic information,'' which is in the HIPAA law today. I have continued my engagement, authoring bills in the last several Congresses to prohibit genetic nondiscrimination in health insurance. While I agree conceptually with the intent, this particular piece of legislation I have mentioned earlier, gives rise to many concerns. First, I can support legislation which would surgically target what people are fearing: They worry about being excluded or charged a higher rate from a health insurance agent or fired or not hired in the first place by an employer because of predictive, speculative genetic information that in no way exhibits in their current health status. However, with the wording ``request or require,'' which is in the bill, this bill goes beyond that to cast a shadow upon any use of genetic information by a health plan or physician. This bill should ban misuse of genetic information, but not impede the flow of information between provider, patient and plan. Let's not stifle health services, pharmacies, health records services, health counseling or health education. I think we should not fear beneficial, patient-friendly medical opportunities. We should harness those, while drawing a tighter box around the misuses that are feared. Ban misuses, not ban all uses. Secondly, I am troubled by the rather murky, broad definitions in this legislation. In particular, by the definitions of ``genetic test'' and ``genetic information.'' This legislation does not clarify that information regarding current health status is not exempted by the bill's prohibition. For example, the mere fact that someone has an O or AB blood type, also detects that person has the O or AB genotype, which under the definition of this bill is a genetic test. This bill could ensnare the most routine lab test of a health exam: A blood panel to check for heart, kidney or liver functioning. And beyond health applications, at the Health Subcommittee March 13 hearing, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, acceded as much. When Ranking Member Nathan Deal questioned him if this bill, GINA, covers certain tests, Dr. Collins answered: ``To the extent that those tests are conducted in a way that conducts genotypes, mutations, or chromosomal changes, they would qualify as a genetic test.'' These include forensic DNA identification tests, tests for organ donors to match organ tissues, paternity tests, and tests to select safer and more effective drugs based on your genetic profile. For example, if the bill means to sweep in genetic tests performed on cancer tumors, it will prevent tests such as Her 2 genetic tests given to women with breast cancer, designed to determine if their tumors are responsive to drug therapy. Such therapy is both risky and very costly for patients without such a specific gene marker. In the employment setting, this bill muddies what an employer will be able to do in a worker's compensation or occupational substance abuse situation; very important. Currently, an employer has the right, in fact, the legal responsibility, to conduct drug tests in the name of public safety for cause, and to examine medical records in a work comp case to determine the nature of an injury. If a blood test, therefore a genetic test, is included in the medical record, a hapless employer could have an unintentional disclosure on their hands. Finally, it is unclear if this legislation will preempt or create an unworkable patchwork with the nearly 40 States' genetic bans. Most have a bright line distinction between ``current health'' versus ``genetic'', and excluding paternity and forensic uses. Florida's law does. And, the author of the legislation, Representative Slaughter, did herself include current health wording in prior versions of her legislation. Genetic information is personal, powerful, permanent, and sensitive. Let us continue to work to make this bill a tool for protecting Americans against ill uses of their genetic profile, while not impeding the flow of information, routine employment activity, and the delivery of health care.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to an exceptional man who is retiring in July after 19 years of impeccable service to The George Washington University (GW). Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, 68, became the 15th president of GW on August 1, 1988. A native of Brooklyn, NY, Trachtenberg earned a bachelor of arts degree from Columbia University in 1959, the Juris Doctor from Yale University in 1962, and the master of public administration degree from Harvard University in 1966. In 1968, he was selected as a Winston Churchill Traveling Fellow for study in Oxford, England. He came to GW from the University of Hartford (CT), where he had been president for 11 years. Before assuming the presidency of Hartford, Trachtenberg served for 8 years at Boston University as vice president for academic services and academic dean of the College of Liberal Arts. Earlier, in Washington, DC, he was a special assistant for 2 years to the U.S. Education Commissioner, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. He has been an attorney with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and a legislative aide to former Indiana Congressman John Brademas. Just a few of the highlights in his career include the following: Trachtenberg was named one of the Top 100 Leaders in the American Academy in a 1978 Change magazine poll. He received a 1987 Human Relations Award from the National Conference of Christians and Jews. In 1988 the Connecticut Bar Association honored him with its Distinguished Public Service Award, and he was recognized by the Hartford NAACP for his contributions to the education of minority students. In 1992 he received The Hannah G. Solomon Award from the National Council of Jewish Women. In 1993 the Washington, DC Urban League named him ``Father of the Year.'' And in 1992 and 2007 he received the Martin Luther King, Jr. awards. President Trachtenberg has served the GW community as a drum major for change and has lead by example a commitment to public, civic and personal service. Throughout the years, he has worked tirelessly in honoring and enhancing the symbiotic relationship between the University and the District of Columbia, supporting and mentoring students, and leading and advocating for re-invention, change and civic engagement. He has worked successfully for almost two decades to propel GW further into the first ranks of world-class institutions of higher learning. I would like to boast some of the national rankings that GW has earned in recent years: Foreign Affairs magazine ranked GW's Master's in International Affairs program number 7 in the top 20, and the undergraduate program number 10 out of the top 20. For 2007, U.S. News and World Report ranks GW's Law School #19. In 2006, GW is ranked #3 in intellectual property law. Princeton Review ranks GW's Law School #10 for Best Career Prospects. U.S. News & World Report, in August 2006, ranked 42nd Undergraduate Business Program which was GW's Seventh consecutive year in the top 50. GW ranked 70th in Full-Time MBA Programs by U.S. News & World Report, in April 2006. Also U.S. News & World Report, in April 2006, ranked GW one of the Top 25 Graduate Business Specialties in International Business, and in August of that year ranked GW's undergraduate specialty program in International Business. As a result of President Trachtenberg's efforts the number of applications for undergraduate admission more than tripled (from 6,000 in 1988 to almost 20,000 in 2006) while the University's acceptance rate of these applicants was reduced by two-thirds. President Trachtenberg made financial aid for students a priority so that today the University offers nearly nine times ($113 million) as much financial aid to incoming students as was offered in 1988. It can confidently be said that the University's faculty now comprises experts on topics ranging from administrative law to zoology and contribute to scholarly journals, law reviews, and media outlets on a regular basis. The University's sponsored research enterprise has quadrupled from $33 million in expenditures in 1988 to $132 million in expenditures in 2006. Through President Trachtenberg's efforts, GW has significantly upgraded its information technology and library system which now contains more than 2,000,000 volumes and is a member of the prestigious Association of Research Libraries. Under President Trachtenberg's unprecedented leadership, the University robustly developed academic, residential, and recreational facilities on campus--including the opening of the Media and Public Affairs Building and the establishment within of the Luther W. Brady Art Gallery (2001), the Annette and Theodore Lerner Health and Wellness Center (2001), GW Hospital (2002), 1957 E Street, the new home of GW' s Elliott School of International Affairs and Geography Department (2002), and Ric and Dawn Duques Hall, the new home of GW' s Business School (2006)--in a way that served the institution's scholarly and other programmatic needs while respecting the interests of its Foggy Bottom neighbors. A few years ago, the Washington Post Magazine featured a cover story on President Trachtenberg, focusing on his expansionist visions, and skillful negotiations with the local residents. While every university President at one time or another finds him or herself embroiled in ``town versus gown'' dealings, President Trachtenberg has such a presence that he has earned himself the nickname ``Hurricane Steve''. I think that he appreciates the appellation, because it signifies that in a town with many egos and agendas, and a lot of talk not always accompanied by action, he is able to get things done. President Trachtenberg's commitment to the enhancement of academic and other space on campus supported the renovation and expansion of the Law School complex (begun in 2000 and completed in 2006), the renovation of Morton and Norma Lee Funger Hall (dedicated in February 2006), and improvements of the Cloyd Heck Marvin Center including the addition of the Marc C. Abrahms Great Hall (dedicated in December 2002) and the renovation of J Street dining facilities (opened August 2004). President Trachtenberg also spearheaded a campus beautification effort that transformed a series of city streets into a cohesive and vibrant urban campus with the addition of the Mid-Campus Quad, Kogan Plaza, pocket parks, and outdoor sculptures. President Trachtenberg presides over the District of Columbia's largest private employer. And to support all the foregoing, President Trachtenberg oversaw two decades of balanced budgets, and the increase in the University endowment from $200 million in 1988 to more than $1 billion in 2007. In 1989, President Trachtenberg created the 21st Century DC Scholars Program (now the Stephen Joel Trachtenberg Scholars), which has granted almost 100 full scholarships, representing over $13 million, to students from the DC Public Schools to attend GW. Under Trachtenberg's leadership, GW's Multicultural Student Services Center was named, and has become a strong center for cultural awareness and celebrations, student development, and diversity training. Additionally, the Office of Community Service was created in 1992 and has become a focal point for civic engagement for the Washington, DC community. His dedication to civic service is reflected throughout the University, which was named a ``college with a conscience'' in 2005 by Princeton Review, and most recently in the top 10 schools sending students to the Peace Corps. His passion and demonstrated commitment to DC--the city, the schools, the business community and its residents--are unparalleled and have been recognized on several occasions by the District of Columbia Mayor, City Council and Chamber of Commerce. President Trachtenberg has received numerous accolades from across the nation and abroad for his service, vision, intellect, wit and compassion. Thanks to President Trachtenberg, GW went from being one of the best-kept secrets in town to being one of the best-known and most admired global universities.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Democrats' so-called emergency supplemental. This cynical bill uses our troops as a political bargaining chip for additional billions in unrelated, pork barrel spending, which has nothing to do with winning the global war on terrorism. This bill has become a Christmas tree of pork. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what does $25 million for spinach growers, $74 million for peanut storage, and $50 for the Capitol Power Plant have to do with winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the list of unrelated spending goes on longer than I have time. Spinach producers and peanut farmers may very well need and deserve the money. And I am sure the Capitol Power Plant needs improvements, but why in this bill? Why is this money not being considered through regular order or subjected to normal budgetary rules, like PAYGO? And most importantly, why at the expense of our troops? This important spending bill is being used as a vehicle to micromanage the war and score political points. Our troops deserve better. We need to focus on getting the equipment to our troops on the front lines and get away from political posturing. However, this bill is not about the troops. It is about politics. It is about tying the hands of the commander-in-chief because some in this body do not agree with his policies. People on both sides of the aisle can certainly agree that mistakes have been made in Iraq and a change of strategy is long overdue. However, what should this change of strategy be? Should the U.S. immediately pull out of Iraq, leave the terrorists emboldened and potentially put more Americans at risk? Or do we need a new strategy to win the war and finish the job? While no proposal guarantees success, a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. support would guarantee failure. The stakes are too high to fail in Iraq. It remains in America's strategic interests to ensure regional stability in the Middle East and to deny terrorists a safe haven in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Furthermore, I hope that the House leadership will bring up a clean bill that focuses solely on supporting our troops and not one filled up with pork and unrelated spending.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, when I graduated from George Washington, I like to sometimes think only a few years ago, I did not realize that I would be so involved with the school later in my life. President Trachtenberg has made these efforts a joy and an honor, and we will miss his leadership. His tenure as president transformed the university, marking major advancements across the board. Since taking the helm in 1988, the academics of GW have skyrocketed. The SAT scores of incoming students rose by 200 points and a significant percentage of students are now drawn from the top 10 percent of high school classes. While enriching the academic environment at George Washington, President Trachten- berg also enhanced the financial situation. The school enjoyed a balanced budget under each year of your tenure, generating an endowment of nearly $1 billion, up almost $800 million since you started in 1988. As Steve has often noted, GW has eight schools, over 100 programs, and nearly 20,000 students. And he adds, ``GW is more than a university, it is also a community.'' Through his outstanding efforts, the university encompasses academics, research, entertainment, and an enjoyable experience for students, faculty and staff. In total, 30 years of his amazing career went into leading a major university. He deserves more time at home, applying his energy and talents to his personal life. I understand his wife Francine is retired, but still very active in promoting the community's interest, and I bet she could use his help. It has been an honor to work with President Trachtenberg on behalf of George Washington University--his tireless efforts have yielded immeasurable results--the school, Washington, D.C., our nation, and the world are better because of them.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Rules of the House, when the words of a Member is taken down and the Speaker rules that these words were incorrect and not within the decorum of the House and that these words would be stricken, is the normal procedure, notwithstanding the motion from Mr. Frank, is the normal procedure that the Member is no longer allowed to debate for the full day in the House? Is that the procedure? I want to confirm that procedure.

Mr. STEARNS. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. STEARNS. I have a follow-up question, Mr. Speaker. If that is the normal procedure, when is the last time we have allowed someone to speak on the floor after his words were taken down and stricken from the Record? Would the Parliamentarian please provide it to this Member? When was the last time we allowed someone to continue to debate on this floor after his words were stricken from the Record?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Members of the House, Senate and the media should obviously be aware that Iran, a neighbor that shares decades of vibrant history with Iraq, is heavily involved in shaping the future of Iraq through illegal activities. The president of the Strategic Policy Consulting company here in Washington, DC; Mr. Jafarrzadeh, recently stated, ``Al-Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards is stepping up terrorism and encouraging sectarian violence in Iraq.'' Now this is a man to listen to when it comes to Iran. He is the Iranian dissident who first revealed the existence of the clandestine nuclear sites in Iran in August 2002. He says that Iran's goal is to create insecurity to compel coalition forces to leave in order to establish an Islamic theocracy in Iraq. Iranian forces have been heavily involved in sending arms, ammunition, IED materials, training militia and sending its own intelligence agents into Iraq since 2003. My colleagues, it is a sad twist of irony; Al-Quds now coordinates insurgent attacks on our forces in Iraq from the national headquarters in Iran out of the old U.S. Embassy building, the same building where American diplomats were held for those horrific 444 days that began in the year 1979. One of five Iranians arrested by U.S. forces in a raid on Iran's consulate in a city in northern Iraq on January 11 was an envoy of the former Iranian President. The man, Mr. Sharoudi, is wanted in Austria on charges that he took part in the assassination of an Iranian Kurdish leader and his aids in Vienna in 1989. This historic leader of Iranian Kurds was killed in an apartment in the outskirts of Vienna when he was scheduled to meet a delegation from Iran. According to the Austrian police, the killer escaped arrest by hiding in Iran's embassy in Vienna. Austrian sources claim that the Iranian president, Ahmadinejad, was the logistics head of the commando groups responsible for the Kurdish leader's death, and Sharoudi was one of the killers. It is curious, then, that this same man was recently found operating with four other Iranians in northern Iraq. There is also an Al-Quds force in Iraq under the command of Mehdi Mohandes. According to a recent Washington Times article, it was Mohandes who was responsible for the attacks on the U.S. and the U.K. embassies in Kuwait in the eighties. Interpol placed Mohandes on a wanted list in 1984, and since then Mohandes has remained inside Iran's borders--until now. The new terror network which he commands in Iraq is curiously named Hezbollah, a deliberate linkage to Lebanon's own terror movement with which Mohandes has connections. The Iraqi network operates in Basra and Baghdad. Members are trained in military and terror tactics in Basra, and they receive armed shipments there that were smuggled across the border from Iran. To maintain this network, obviously it is expensive, has a huge cost. According to the Washington Times article again, Brigadier General Abtahi of the Iranian Revolutionary Forces in southern Iran send millions and millions of dollars from a small border town in Iran into Iraq every month. My colleagues, we have little hope of success in Iraq if we neglect to address this growing interference by Iran. In related news, the Iraqi President has changed his stance and has publically pledged to fight terror and insurgent groups within Iraq, whether they are Sunni or whether they are Shi'a, which includes the Sadr militia. In turn, this has motivated Sadr forces to end the boycott from the Iraqi government, a move towards greater participation in the political process there. My colleagues, it is a hopeful sign that perhaps with greater political participation, the popular support of the terrorists in the Shia community will decline. We must maintain this diplomatic and military pressure against these terrorist groups and on the Iraqi government to fight them. There is no hope of success in Iraq as long as Iran is allowed free reign to interfere and despoil the Iraqi government's efforts. I support the President's acknowledgement of this growing threat and urge him and my colleagues in Congress to work together to provide the material support to our service men and women on the ground they need to combat it.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on September 19, 2002, in a Wall Street Journal editorial, former CIA Director James Woolsey described the central challenge we face in the global war on terrorism as the United States' dependence on imported oil. My colleagues, this dependence is providing our enemy with so much leverage that defeating terrorism has become significantly harder. Let me quote from Mr. Woolsey: ``We are at war. We should start by asking what we can do as soon as possible to undercut our enemies' power. Other considerations should now follow, not lead. If we do not act now, we will leave major levers over our fate in the hands of regimes that have attacked us or have fallen under the sway of fanatics who spread hatred of the United States and, indeed, of freedom itself. For all of them, their power derives from their oil. It is time to break their sword.'' In order for the United States to effectively fight global terrorism and win in Iraq, we must first reduce our dangerous dependence on imported oil. Energy is the lifeblood of the United States and global economy. U.S. economic prosperity is closely tied to the availability of reliable and affordable supplies of energy. Since 1973, U.S. energy production has grown only 13 percent, while U.S. energy consumption has increased 30 percent. Even when significant increases in efficiency are taken into account, significant increases in demand are projected. According to the Energy Information Agency, the United States, by 2025, is expected to need 44 percent more petroleum, 38 percent more natural gas, 43 percent more coal and 54 percent more electricity. The Department of Energy predicts by the year 2025, U.S. oil and natural gas demand will rise by 46 percent, with energy demand increasing 1 percent for every 2 percent increase in GDP. Perhaps the most critical of all energy sources is oil. Just as President Bush said in his 2006 State of the Union speech, America is addicted to oil. A look at the numbers supports his claim. Currently, the United States imports about 60 percent of its oil. The Department of Energy projects this number will increase to 73 percent by the year 2025. Furthermore, world oil demand is expected to grow significantly over the next three decades, from 80 million barrels per day in 2003 to 98 million barrels per day in 2015 and then to 118 million barrels per day by the year 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration. This will place further strains on our quest for energy independence. To make matters worse, much of this imported oil is imported from unstable, anti-American countries, such as Venezuela, Algeria, and even Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, 26.5 percent of the United States' total supplied product comes from OPEC countries, accounting for 42 percent of the total amount imported. Thus, over a quarter of the United States oil product is controlled by an unaccountable cartel of unstable, oil-producing dictatorships. Alarmingly, according to the Heritage Foundation, three-quarters of the world's supply of oil is controlled by unstable or hostile regimes, most of which are unsympathetic to investor and property rights. Fifty- seven percent of world oil reserves are in the Middle East, 11 percent in Russia and Venezuela and 6 percent in Africa. The People's Republic of China just erected its first oil rigs in Cuba territorial waters in the Gulf of Mexico, barely 45 miles off the Florida coast of Miami. The national security implications of having such a large amount of oil controlled by OPEC are great and serious. For example, in order to force changes in U.S. policy, OPEC countries could cut production, thereby raising the price of oil. The resulting political and economic pressure could force us to alter our policies in order to better suit the needs of these OPEC nations. U.S. dependence on imported sources of oil and gas has far-reaching economic and national security ramifications. Some are willing to use oil as a tool to threaten United States national security objectives. Proclamations by al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that U.S. and western economies and their oil lifelines are legitimate targets make it clear that the oil and gas infrastructure is in peril. As James Woolsey said, we are aiding our enemies at the same time we are fighting them.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor to commend my colleagues' attention to a resolution that I recently introduced honoring the work of pregnancy resource centers. According to the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute, about half of American women will face an unplanned pregnancy, and at current rates more than one-third will have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old. Of the women who have had abortions, 90 percent indicate they would have preferred other options had they simply known about them. The tragedy and irony in many situations is that most women are flooded with a pro-abortion message, but are rarely offered any other message of choice. Rather, unknowing clients are led to believe that abortion is the only solution to their problem. Through costly advertising, young women go into abortion clinics and they are assured that help is only a few hundred dollars away. Harmful consequences of abortion are minimized or simply ignored. Alternatives, like parenting or adoption, are not encouraged; in fact, they are very rarely mentioned. Sadly, my colleagues, it is only later that they learn there are indeed alternatives. Desperately trying to spread this message to young women are the 2,500 pregnancy resource centers across the United States. Through education and support, pregnancy resource centers meet women's emotional and physical needs. They provide one-on-one counseling regarding the facts about adoption, abortion and parenting so that the client may make a wise and informed decision about her pregnancy. Centers are dedicated to helping each woman resolve her situation in a way that equips her with better life skills for her future. Practical help, like parenting classes, support groups, education and job skill classes are offered through many pregnancy resource centers as well. Maternity clothes, baby needs and even temporary housing is also offered. Some pregnancy resource centers have full medical services on their premises, and unlike abortion clinics, these centers offer support for women suffering from post-abortion syndrome. For those women who have undergone an abortion, the devastation can be real and ongoing if she does not receive help. Most centers are committed to the healing, body and soul, of women who have suffered from an abortion. They offer medical and counseling services and stand alongside these women in the healing process. Life-affirming pregnancy centers provide an example of love and compassion to women and their unborn babies. These centers have been upholding the values of all human life, born and unborn, for several decades. Women are increasingly turning to these centers for physical, psychological, emotional and of course spiritual help. They are always treated with the utmost dignity and respect and provided with accurate, up-to-date information in order to make informed decisions about their pregnancy, sexual health and relationships. Because everyone should have access to this information, all services are free of charge. I am honored to represent one such center in my hometown of Ocala, Florida. The Women's Pregnancy Center has been serving the people faithfullly in Marion County for 22 years. This center serves nearly 1,500 women a year of all ages and backgrounds. They serve these women and men faithfully and discreetly. My colleagues, in today's culture abortion is too often the first thought for women facing unplanned pregnancy, but there are alternatives, and pregnancy resource centers can provide them. These centers are not only the most strategic and effective, but often the most needed of the forces engaged in the defense of the unborn. It is fitting that we recognize these courageous and struggling agencies that seek to bring purpose to the surprises of life. Never are these needs greatest than in the smallest of family, a mother and her growing baby. I invite my colleagues to join me in providing support for the more than 2,500 crisis pregnancy centers around the United States of America. The good work of these centers merits our recognition, and their compassionate staff deserve our admiration and praise. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this resolution and demonstrate their support for pregnancy resource centers and their tens of thousands of volunteer staff who are encouraging the protection and value of all human life in America.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the recent reports of substandard conditions at the outpatient facility at Walter Reed Medical Center are deeply disturbing. The brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect our country do not deserve the shoddy conditions, nor do they deserve to be trapped in the bureaucratic morass that has engulfed Walter Reed. It is necessary to put into place a seamless program for our veterans from the time they are injured through rehabilitation and home care and work support. I urge Secretary Nicholson of Veterans Affairs to do just that. The proper treatment of our wounded members of the Armed Forces is not a partisan issue. It is a moral issue. And Congress needs to ensure that our injured brave men and women receive the best, most advanced, and most timely medical care possible. Anything less would be immoral and a dereliction of our duty.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Madam Speaker. My colleagues, here is a quote from a Newsweek article: ``There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically, and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production, with serious political implications for about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.'' My colleagues, Newsweek published this dire warning in its April 28, 1975 issue, years before global warming began getting the headlines it does today. Did Newsweek accurately forecast the coming of global warming more than 30 years ago? No. The article entitled ``The Cooling World'' warned that the Earth's climate seemed to be cooling to the point that populations around the world are in imminent danger because of the coming ice age. Newsweek was not the only publication to warn about the supposed threat of global cooling during the 1970s. In an article entitled ``Another Ice Age?'' the June 24, 1974 issue of Time reported: ``When meteorologists take an average temperature around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades.'' And Time's article did not predict a break in this decade-long cooling trend. The article continued to warn that ``telltale signs were everywhere, from the unexpected persistence and thickness of packed ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of warm-loving creatures like the armadillo from the Midwest.'' Fortune magazine also gave warning. A February 1974 article entitled ``Ominous Changes in the World's Weather'' claimed that ``there is a fair agreement among researchers that the earth is now heading very slowly into another major ice age, such as the one that brought the glaciers deep into North America before it retreated some 10,000 years ago.'' This article also pointed to the supposedly unusual weather patterns of the day as indication of much worse weather to come: ``Climatologists now blame those recurring droughts and floods on a global cooling trend. It could bring massive tragedies for mankind.'' These days, of course, we no longer hear much, if anything, about the possibility of runaway global cooling triggering another ice age. Instead, we hear a lot about the threat of catastrophic global warming. Now, what happened? Well, the temperature trend changed. After dropping for about 35 years, the temperature started to rise in the mid seventies, although the global temperature now is only slightly higher than it was in the 1940s when the cooling trend began. Over the centuries and millennia, the weather has changed, at times radically. During the 10th century, the Vikings established prosperous colonies in Greenland, having named the island for its lush pastures. By the early 15th century, however, these were wiped out by cold and hunger, and now four-fifths of Greenland lies buried under hundreds of feet of ice cap. No one blamed human activity for this climate shift or the ice age. But in the seventies, some experts argued that human impact on the environment had grown to the point where their atmospheric pollutants were contributing significantly to global cooling, just as some experts argue that CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming today. Climatologists suggested that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and the burning of fossil fuels were blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the Earth. They projected that man's potential to pollute would increase six- to eightfold over the next 50 years. And as Reid Bryson stated in Fortune in February 1974, ``It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the Earth, like a billion people starving.'' Another of the concerned scientists was Dr. Stephen Schneider, the co-author of the Science report, who in the seventies was worried about the threat of global cooling. Now at Stanford University, Dr. Schneider not only sees things differently but is considered one of the leading experts now sounding the alarm about global warming. In a recent MSNBC report, Dr. Schneider argued that today's warming trend ``has been induced by humans using the atmosphere as a free place to dump our tailpipe waste.'' However, not everyone sounded the alarm about global cooling in the seventies, just like not everyone is sounding the alarm about global warming today. Madam Speaker, the fact that so many experts were wrong about global cooling in the seventies does not necessarily mean that they are wrong about global warming today, but it does at least show that experts are sometimes incredibly, incredibly wrong.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, today we vote on a bill that quite frankly hurts American workers. The derisively named ``Employee Free Choice Act'' removes employees' choice in choosing to organize by having them reveal their vote on an authorization card, under the watching eyes of union officials; not on a secret ballot. This is wrong, not only in the workplace, but in any scenario where peer pressure can exert itself. In government elections, secret ballots are the foundation of democracy worldwide. We send election observers to developing nations to see that, among other elements, their ballots are cast in private. The Fraternal Order of Police labor union wrote to our Speaker on Tuesday against this bill, saying: ``This ill-named legislation attacks the very meaning of free choice. Without federally supervised private ballot elections, our democratic process would be extremely susceptible to corruption, and the very foundation of our Republic could be undermined. This bill would do the same thing to our Nation's workers by robbing them of their privacy, power and voice in deciding who should represent and defend their rights as employees.'' Employees who just want to go about their business and peacefully do their jobs without fear of reprisal from either their employers or union bosses deserve the same secret ballot with which all of us were elected.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. And I want to have the opportunity to speak. I have spoken earlier on this debate, but I thought I would bring some simple common sense to my colleagues that perhaps was best brought forward by David Broder in the Washington Post. Now, David Broder obviously is more sympathetic to the Democratic point of view than they are to the Republicans, but I think he makes three points which I will also echo in my conversation today. Basically, we are at the end of the debate, but we are all moving towards a decision most of us already have decided, but I have some simple common sense that I would bring to the attention of my colleagues. When General Petraeus was unanimously supported by the Senate, it was with the idea that he would bring his new thoughts, his new strategy to this plan in Iraq. So don't you think, as members of this body, we should give General Petraeus an opportunity to implement his plan and not immediately come forward with a resolution that says that it is a disapproving of the decision to deploy more troops to Iraq? When we deployed more troops for the Iraqi elections, why didn't you complain then? That happened twice before. We went up to almost 160,000. When we deployed more troops to ratify the Iraqi constitution, why didn't you complain back then? That went up to almost 160,000. So now you are coming against a simple new strategy with the best we have in America who actually has written the manual on how to do it. You are not even willing to give him a chance. No breathing space. This nonbinding resolution shows your motives, which are to eventually reduce all funding for Iraq. My third point is, you are so willing to do this, you are not even willing to look at what could happen with this new strategy. Let's say it works. Are you still going to offer these resolutions to cut off funds even though this strategy works and General Petraeus is successful? No matter what, you seem hell bent on reducing funds for Iraq. Yet we didn't hear any time before when we increased the surge for the Iraqi elections or for the ratification of the Iraqi constitution. You know, in a way, Bush went to your retreat with a willingness to listen to your ideas. He is showing bipartisanship. In fact, he has a quote here which I think illustrates what the American people are saying. ``What really matters,'' quote, ``is what happens on the ground. I can talk all day long, but what really matters to the American people is to see progress.'' So he realizes also that he must show progress. And we are asking for this new strategy to have a chance, and we owe it to them.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. What this debate is really all about is whether you wish to make a statement in support of our new strategy in Iraq or whether you oppose this new plan. By simply supporting this resolution, you are saying you want to leave Iraq as soon as possible. I am not willing to do this. I am willing to support the administration and to give our military and our troops the benefit of the doubt, and I will vote against this resolution because I want to give this new strategy a chance, a simple chance to succeed. My colleagues, let me repeat. If you vote for this resolution, then you are saying you do not wish to give the military and General Petraeus a chance to succeed. In fact, this resolution declares the new strategy in Iraq is a failure before it has even had a chance to be implemented. This is inconsistent with the unanimous vote the Senate gave to the man selected to carry out this strategy, General Petraeus. Everyone agrees he is the best man. This resolution is undercutting the general and our troops at the very time they need our support. Now, many will argue that there has been ample opportunity to succeed and that we have failed at this point. Certainly mistakes have been made and a change of strategy is long overdue. However, what should this strategy be? Should the U.S. immediately pull out of Iraq, leaving the terrorists emboldened and potentially put more Americans at risk? The advocates for this resolution have no answer. In fact, they beg the very question, What happens when we leave? What happens in Iraq if we leave precipitously? And what do we do if it turns into a Middle East conflagration? If Shiite Iran succeeds in exerting its influence through Shiite Iraq, it will threaten to spill over the sectarian violence across the Middle East and elsewhere. Now here is how the head of the Arab League views this potential conflict. This is what he said. ``If this happens we will enter hell itself.'' The supporters of the resolution keep talking about the past, but they do not talk about the future and how we are going to solve this problem without creating a more serious problem. Edmund Burke, the great conservative leader from Britain, this is how he put it: It is not a question of how we got into this situation, but how do we get out. They have no answers, and by not answering this latter question they are begging the question. Now, this is circular reasoning. It is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way. In a course of logic, this is called the core relative. So this resolution is faulty reasoning. Any professor of logic would simply recognize the false choice. We need this new strategy that General Petraeus is implementing so that we can hand over this country to the constitutionally elected government. My colleagues, this can be done and will be done soon one way or the other. Any new strategy must be accompanied by a set of strategic benchmarks designed to measure progress in Iraq and to hold the administration and the Iraqi Government accountable for their role in achieving this success. Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in the Record a list of these benchmarks that I recommend be part of this new strategy to allow our troops to come home. Why not consider a resolution that incorporates these benchmarks? But I do offer a warning to the administration. We must have benchmarks that demonstrate our progress in Iraq. I, for one, and many others, cannot support continued funding without measurable benchmarks. And we need to know if we are making progress; and if we are not, then we can employ other tactics and different measures, all of which will lead to the Iraqi Government taking on the responsibility for their own country. My colleagues, the political easy thing to do is to vote for this faulty resolution because you are not willing to give a final chance for success and you have no ideas on achieving success. The harder, political vote is ``no,'' and that is what I intend to do. If I have a few more moments, I just want to bring to my colleagues' attention a quote that has been declassified from bin Laden's deputy. And if you will bear with me and follow this quote. ``It is my humble opinion that the jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage, expel the Americans from Iraq; the second stage, establish Islamic authority, and then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate; the third stage, extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Iran; the fourth stage, it may coincide with what came before, the clash with Israel because Israel was established only to challenge a new Islamic entity.'' My colleagues, that is what is at stake. The war in Iraq is a central front in the global war on terrorism and a central battleground for Islamic militant extremists in this worldwide mission to simply destroy all Western democracy. And you don't have to take my word for it. You can see this declassified deputy to bin Laden, his opinion. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this resolution. While no proposal guarantees success, a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. support would guarantee failure. The stakes are too high to fail in Iraq. It remains in America's strategic interests to ensure regional stability in the Middle East and to deny terrorists a safe haven in Iraq. Certainly mistakes have been made and a change of strategy is long overdue. However, what should this change of strategy be? Should the U.S. immediately pull out of Iraq, leave the terrorists emboldened and potentially put more Americans at risk? Or do we need a new strategy to win the war and finish the job? I think the latter. Instead of a politically motivated resolution, my colleagues and I have developed a strategy for victory in Iraq. We need to establish measurable benchmarks for success in Iraq while expressing unwavering support for our troops. Any new strategy must be accompanied by a set of strategic benchmarks designed to measure progress in Iraq and to hold the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government accountable for their role in achieving success. Threatening to reduce the future commitment of American troops and economic aid if they are not implemented, we must enforce these benchmarks. It is important to stress that an open-ended American military commitment is both unwise and dangerous. In the business world, no successful enterprise gives enormous sums of money without accountability, and nor should we. The military benchmarks I would like to see utilized include: Measuring the level of Iraqi government cooperation with the U.S. Military; Iraqi progress in removing terrorists and others from its own security forces; Identifying the level of combat experience for all Iraqi Army battalions; and Tracking the expenditure of funds supporting Iraqi defense forces. The political benchmarks include: Advancing a strategy to promote tolerance and co-existence among Iraqis; Providing fair access to all Iraqi resources; Promoting the rule of law; Reforming the judicial system to ensure equal application of the law; and Measuring cooperation and coordination of neighboring countries in stabilizing Iraq. Why not consider a resolution that incorporates these benchmarks? This resolution sends an inappropriate message to our troops. This resolution declares the new strategy in Iraq a failure before it even has the chance to be implemented. This is inconsistent with the unanimous vote the other body gave to the man designated to carry the strategy out, General Petraeus. Congress is undercutting General Petraeus and our troops at the very time they need our support. As cochair of the Congressional Air Force Caucus, I joined in leading a delegation of members to Iraq. This trip provided valuable insight into our operations and conditions on the ground. The situation in Iraq poses multiple problems--Sunni al Qaeda terrorists, committed Baathists who are largely Sunni, Shiite militias, and Shiite interference from Iran. This is truly an unholy brew. The war in Iraq is a central front in the global war on terrorism and a central battleground for Islamist militant extremists in their worldwide mission to destroy democracy. But don't take my word for it. Take the words from a declassified letter from bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. It is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority . . . then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate . . . The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity. These Islamic extremists view victory in Iraq as paramount to their establishment of a worldwide Islamic kingdom. Here is what Osama bin Laden has to say about Iraq from a 2006 audiotape--``The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate rule. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars and a beginning to the receding of their Zionist-Crusader tide against us.'' Sectarian violence rages in Iraq, fanned by Iran and Syria, and this could well spill over throughout the region. Look at these charts. They show the sectarian divide in Iraq among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds; and the other shows the regional divide between Sunnis and Shiites. If Shiite Iran succeeds in exerting its influence through Shiite Iraq, it will threaten the spillover of sectarian violence throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. Here is how Amr Mousa, head of the Arab League, views this potential Iranian-backed Shiite conflict with the Sunni nations--``We will enter hell itself.'' The Islamist terrorist threat is real and directly connected to defeating the insurgents in Iraq. Democrat plans to abandon Iraq will not make this threat disappear. America cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by withdrawing from a direct confrontation with radical Islamist terrorists. They will continue to intensify their attacks against America, just as they did following other attacks such as in: 1979: 66 American diplomats taken hostage and held in Iran for 444 days. 1983: A truck bomb kills 241 marines at their barracks in Beirut. 1988: Pan Am 103 bombing kills 270, including 189 Americans, over Lockerbie, Scotland. 1993: Six killed in first World Trade Center bombing by militant Islamic terrorists. 1996: 19 U.S. service members are killed in Khobar Towers bombing. 1998: 225 people killed in bombings at the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. 2000: Al Qaeda's attack on the destroyer USS. Cole kills 17 American sailors. 2001: Al Qaeda hijackers fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, while passengers force a fourth to crash in Pennsylvania. Total number killed: 2,973. It is vital that we succeed in Iraq for these reasons: A stable Iraq dedicated to the rule of law will weaken extremism in the Middle East; we cannot allow terrorists to gain a safe haven in that nation; and curbing Iran's regional ambitions. But I do offer a warning. We must have benchmarks that demonstrate our progress in Iraq. I for one cannot support continued funding without measurable benchmarks and we need to know if we are making progress. If we are not, then we can take other tactics and different measures. All of which will lead to the Iraqi Government taking on the responsibility for their own country. In conclusion Mr. Speaker, one thing is for certain: The men and women fighting in Iraq must never be used as a political tool. They deserve our unmitigated support. They do not deserve political posturing. We must continue to provide the troops with the support they need to be safe and successful. I urge all my colleagues to oppose this resolution and seek a real resolution that includes military, political, and social benchmarks for success.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is with sorrow, yet fondness, that I speak on the passing of our colleague and friend, Charlie Norwood. While in Congress, his dedication to Georgians, to patient advocacy, to business ownership and property rights, and to veterans are legendary. Prior to his service in the House of Representatives, Charlie served his country as a Captain in the U.S. Army Dental Corps in Vietnam, and he contributed to his community as a dentist, business owner, and active worshipper in his Methodist Church. I first learned about Charlie in 1994 when he was running for his Georgia district. Struck by his pluckiness and quiet steadfast determination even then, I decided to campaign for him in his district- to-be, and met his wife Gloria. And when he was elected, he immediately became a player in health care legislation, not waiting for reaching the echelons of seniority to make real contributions. Through all his trials, Charlie Norwood had a sparkle, an ingenuity how to get things accomplished. His passion would at times translate into defiance at another Member. In particular, I recall such a moment at the Energy & Commerce markup on July 27, 2006 of H.R. 4157, the Better Health Information System Act of 2006, or ``Health IT'' bill. Another Member, Representative Markey, was offering some language that would have the effect of governing relations between health care providers and their patients. Well, Charlie took great exception to this, and rather angrily erupted to Representative Markey that his profession has engaged in the highest ethical standards of patient privacy since the inception of dentistry, and therefore ``I don't need you to legislate my professional ethics.'' In the past couple of years, Charlie would ride in his scooter to the Energy & Commerce Committee on which we served together, and to the Floor, for debate and hearings and votes. And notwithstanding his ailing health, I was always touched by his continued friendly, high spirits. Charlie, I am honored to have known you. Rest in peace.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, a deadly tornado inflicted enormous damage in my Congressional district. Yet even in the darkest times, the victims of the storm were enveloped in the incredible generosity of its neighbors. By Saturday, over 1,400 volunteers provided 22,000 meals and snacks and distributed 1,000 health kits. Tim Miller and his three sons helped the Suggs family gather their belongings after the storm left. Tim Miller said, ``I'm just doing what I can to help.'' Villages resident Al Seiden said, ``Despite our house being destroyed . . . if you look around, there are at least eight people, volunteers, friends and neighbors who have come in and helped us . . . The spirit of this community is unbelievable.'' Wendy Spencer, the COE of the Governor's Commission on Volunteerism adds, ``We are receiving so many offers to help, which is wonderful. Our goal is to maximize this generosity to be as effective as it can be for meeting the needs of the tornado survivors now and in the weeks and months to come.'' Congratulations to all these volunteers. Great job.