Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 1092, which will in effect defeat the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement by postponing consideration of the legislation indefinitely. It is more than ironic to me that, at a time when our economy has slowed tremendously, Democratic leaders are seeking to derail efforts to enhance our export market, which has been one area of strength in our economy. The fact is, this trade agreement will help U.S. manufacturers and high tech service providers export to Colombia, a great friend and ally, where many of our products face tariffs. If any country deserves our support for aiding efforts to build a stable economy, it is Colombia. The Government has taken great strides in preventing attacks by paramilitary groups, and if we are ever going to curtail drug production from Colombia, it will be because of a stable economy, which free trade helps create. I urge my colleagues who support economic growth, free trade and better relations with our neighbor to reject this misguided resolution and keep the Colombia free trade agreement on track.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System, NLCS, Act. This bill would codify the NLCS's management of 26 million acres of land presently under the direction of the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, affording the system the recognition, management, and unification of a national system. The lands in question have been designated National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Scenic and Historic Trails by Congress and by Presidential Proclamation. Eight years ago, the Secretary of the Interior established the NLCS to manage these areas. Congressional recognition of NLCS's management of these treasured places only seeks to codify what the BLM currently administers. H.R. 2016 does not change the BLM's multiple-use mandate. Rather, it celebrates the BLM's ability to manage its special lands for multiple uses, including conservation, for the benefit of the American people. By writing the NLCS into law, this legislation prevents any rescission that might put this new conservation system at risk. It is important that the BLM continue to manage and protect these lands and waterways enjoyed by millions of Americans each year. I am grateful for the steps the BLM has taken in protecting this system of Federal lands and urge support of final passage of H.R. 2016.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, today I missed 14 recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on recorded vote No. 164, ``yea'' on recorded vote No. 165, ``yea'' on recorded vote No. 166, ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 167, ``no'' on recorded vote No. 168, ``no'' on recorded vote No. 169, ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 170, ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 171, ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 172, ``no'' on recorded vote No. 173, ``aye'' on recorded vote No. 174, ``yea'' on recorded vote 175, ``yea'' on recorded vote No. 176, and ``yea'' on recorded vote No. 177.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1077, introduced by our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, calling on the Government of China to end its crackdown in Tibet and to enter into a substantive dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The recent violence in Tibet, which was triggered by the Buddhist monks asking for religious freedoms, should be a great concern to everyone concerned about human rights. China needs to end the violence and engage in open and honest dialogue with the Dalai Lama to achieve peace and reconciliation. China must come to realize that Tibetans deserve more autonomy and the world community will not be silent until they achieve it. As a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I am very concerned about human rights in China but in particular the political and religious freedoms of Tibetans. I urge the resolution's adoption and appreciate this resolution coming to the floor.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentlelady for taking her time to allow me and my colleagues to be able to address the chamber. Thank you very much. And I appreciate her husband's service to this country both in Congress and in the Senate. I am taking this opportunity to talk about the conflict in Iraq, the war in Iraq, and I want to do it based on my 20 visits to Iraq when I first was there in April of 2003 to the trip that just concluded last week. I want to speak very frankly about this war and our presence there and what I think we should do and why I think we should do what we need to do. September 11 clearly was a wakeup call, from hell, that forced us to address the fact that for such a long time we had a blind eye to what was happening in the Middle East and what was happening particularly as it related to the extreme Islamists who were seeking to get the world's attention by attacking our troops in Lebanon, our Marines, our Soldiers, and Air Force men and women in Saudi Arabia attacked three times, our embassy employees in two countries in Africa, the Cole where we lost 17 Navy personnel and 33 injured. I was somewhat surprised that, in spite of all this, that we would keep turning the other cheek and ignoring what was confronting us. So when September 11 happened, it was a huge wakeup call. And the issue is, did we respond in the right way? We created a Department of Homeland Security. Before September 11, when we talked about such a department, people said, ``What are we, Great Britain?'' It was difficult for Americans to conceive that we should do that. We passed the Patriot Act; and clearly we could have given it some other name, but we wanted to make sure that we had modernized our capability to infiltrate cells that needed to be infiltrated. We created a much stronger intelligence structure by establishing a Director of Intelligence that would coordinate these 16 agencies. And we also went into Afghanistan, where there was uniformed consensus that we should do it. But we also went into Iraq, and that obviously was very controversial. I remember, as I tried to debate whether we should do this, visiting with the Brits, the French, the Turks, the Israelis, and the Jordanians. They all said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But the French said, he has them, but won't use them. And we discounted the French because we knew even then, about the Oil for Food Program, that they had been pretty much bought off, and we knew that they would probably not support using the U.N. as the instrument to remove Saddam from power. So we went in. And, we made sure our troops had the one thing that we felt they needed: Protective chemical gear. We really believed that Saddam had both a nuclear program and a chemical program, and we were very adamant that we shouldn't go in before our troops had that protective chemical gear. But it became very clear early on that Saddam not only didn't have an active chemical weapons program that he could readily use, and there was no nuclear program. So, the very basis for going into Iraq proved to be false. I voted to go into Iraq based on what I believed was the right thing to do. I am struck by some Members who somehow blame their decision on someone else. I did what I thought was due diligence. I was impressed by Iraq's neighbors. I was impressed by, frankly, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and others who had reason to be skeptical but believed as well that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But what surprises me most, and I want to make this point. I remember when George Romney, the former governor of Michigan, not Massachusetts, Governor Romney from Massachusetts's dad, said: I believed we needed to go into Vietnam, but I was brainwashed by the generals. And there was instant ridicule, and he was forced to drop out of the race for President because he wasn't taking ownership for his own decision, and was blaming someone else. I blame no one for my vote. It was my vote based on my best conclusions. And I would like to think that every Member would own up to their own vote, but somehow some who voted to go into Iraq now act like they didn't, and blame others for their vote. And I think that is wrong. So the question is, we are there, and we were there under false pretenses but very much believed to be true. So what do we do now? When you go to Israel, Israel had the best intelligence in the region, and they were wrong and they empanelled a commission to try to determine how they could be wrong. They didn't blame their political leaders, they didn't say people lied. What they concluded was that, based on the knowledge that they had, it was reasonable to assume that Saddam had these weapons. That was their conclusion. It is a fact that even his own troops, his generals, in December were stunned, as we learned from the debriefing of Tariq Aziz and others of the Iraqi politicians, that Saddam told his own generals in December of 2002: We don't have a nuclear program and we don't have a viable chemical program. And they were stunned. I was so troubled by this that I went to see Hans Blix in Stockholm and I said, ``Why would Saddam want us to think he had weapons of mass destruction?'' And he said, because Saddam thought it was a deterrent to his neighbors, and that he believed there was no consequence because he thought there would be no way the United States would seek to remove him from power if the French and the Russians and the Chinese would not allow the U.N. to be involved. Well, the fact is that Saddam misread us the first time in Kuwait. Because of Vietnam, he thought we would never go in because of that experience, and we did, and he misunderstood our intentions a second time, which is an incredible lesson about making sure that our adversaries know our true intent and believe our true intent. We were wrong. But being wrong does not mean we need to get out, get out right away because of our original purpose for being there. The fact is once we disbanded the Army, the police and the border patrol, we owned Iraq; and there is no way of getting around it. There is no way to say that we can get rid of all Iraqi police, border patrol and Army, and then say, well, you know, we achieved our objective, good-bye. That would be a cruelty to the Iraqis that they don't deserve, and it would be a huge invitation to the Iranians to just walk right in. We can't allow that to happen. In my first visit to Iraq, I went just as the war was ending. I actually had to get in with the help of the State Department because the Defense Department said I couldn't go in. I remember speaking to Muhammed Abdul-Assan. He was telling me the things that we were doing that troubled him, like throwing candy on the ground. He said, Our children are not chickens; they are not animals. He talked about how our troops seemed to be offended when they extended a hand, and an Iraqi woman put her hand to her heart and would not shake the soldier's hand. She was saying, thank you for honoring me, but we don't shake hands with strangers. He basically put his hands on my shoulders and said, You don't know us, and we don't know you. He told me an incredible story. He told me a story that he had been in an Iranian prison and hadn't made the first exchange of prisoners because the Iranians had more Iraqis than the Iraqis had Iranians in their war with each other. I said to him, You have had an incredibly difficult life, and I started to go on. And he looked at me and said, No different than any other Iraqi. Well, after my first visit I couldn't get back soon enough to say we need Arabic speakers and we need to understand their culture. These are tough people. The second time I went in, I went to Basra and I went again outside the umbrella of the military and spent two nights in Basra with Save the Children. I began to hear things like why are you putting my son, my uncle, my brother, my cousin, my nephew, my husband, my father, out of work? Why can't they at least guard the hospitals? He was talking about the fact that we put a half a million men out of work, and basically said you have no future in this new government. And so I couldn't wait to get back home and say: Why are we doing this? And the poignant thing to this is the very first death in the 4th Congressional District Connecticut was Wilfredo Perez. He was guarding a hospital. Try to imagine what we did when we disbanded their Army, their police and their border patrol. We left them totally and completely defenseless. It is a country of 24-plus million people left with no security. Let's take New York State. New York State has 19 million people. It is two-thirds the size of Iraq or maybe even smaller. It has 19 million versus 24 million. Imagine New York State with no police, no police in New York City, no police in the subways, no police in Albany, Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse, no police in any of the towns in between, no security whatsoever. Oh, and by the way, to be consistent with what Saddam Hussein did, he released all his prisoners. We are going to release the prisoners from Attica and Riker's Island and make sure that they are in the community, and then say don't worry, we are going to bring 150,000 Iraqis who speak Arabic to keep the peace throughout all of New York State. Well, you don't have to be a genius to realize we had created a huge problem. We were basically saying we would provide all of the security in Iraq, but we didn't have enough men and women to do it. We didn't speak their language or know their culture. Are we surprised that militias were formed? Are we surprised that when we put half a million people out of work, that they would go to the other side? And then there is the looting. They were dumbfounded. Iraqis love their antiquities. They love their history. If you go to an Iraqi and somehow suggest it is not a real country, they will look at you and say, Let me get this straight. You did not learn in your school, about the Fertile Crescent where the two rivers met, the cradle of civilization? You never studied about us Iraqis? They are stunned that we would think them not a country, and they were particularly stunned, when the Senate voted to divide Iraq into three parts, they said aha, it just goes to show what we have been saying. You want to divide and conquer us, and then take our oil. We made huge mistakes and we didn't correct them and we didn't deal with the reality on the ground. The reality is that we needed to train more Iraqi troops than we were, and we needed to have more American troops there given we had gotten rid of a half million security forces for all of Iraq. When you go to an Iraqi and you ask, Are you a Sunni? They will say, I am a Sunni but I am married to a Shia. I will go to a Shia and say are you a Shia, to try to understand their perspective, and they will say, I am a Shia, but my tribe is Sunni. I will go to someone I suspect to be a Kurd, and ask, Are you a Kurd? They will say, Yes, I am a Kurd; but you do know Kurds are Sunnis? They are constantly lecturing me about understanding what they are and the significance of what they are. We have the fear of sectarian violence in Iraq, and it is often compared to Bosnia. In Bosnia, you had fathers who literally raped their child's best friend. So a father is raping a 14- or 12-year-old child because she happens to be Christian and he is Muslim or she is Muslim and he is a Christian. I remember going to Bosnia and seeing a house filled with garbage, garbage filled all of the way to the top. It was a message, don't come back to your home, you are not wanted. That kind of violence is not what has happened in Iraq. What has happened in Iraq is when there were Sunnis and Shias living together, they were not kicked out by their neighbors, they were kicked out by outsiders who came in and tried to have it be one ethnic group, which is very different than Bosnia. Now that is not to suggest that Sunnis and Shias will agree on everything. But again, it is not like Saudi Arabia where Sunnis there don't like Sunnis in other countries if they are not Wahhabbis. We sometimes tend to judge the Middle East, I think, on what we see in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is another issue we are going to have to have a frank conversation about. It is not Iraq. When I go to Turkey, the Turks say to me, We used to run this place for 402 years; why don't you pay attention to us? When I go to Egypt, they say, We have been a country for 4,000 years, why don't you pay attention to us? When I go to Jordan they say, We are direct descendants of Mohammed, why don't you pay attention to us? When I go to Iraq, they say, We are the cradle of civilization, why don't you pay attention to us? So we are starting to. We are starting to pay more attention to them. We are certainly paying attention to the ambassadors that come from countries near Iraq. And they say, we may not have wanted you to go in, are there, for you to leave now would be an outrage. And they are right. Now that we stirred everything up and we created significant dislocation in Iraq, we have a moral obligation to set Iraqis in a place where they can govern themselves; or failing to govern themselves, it will be their failure. But they need the security to do it. So what do I see and what have I seen over the course of 20 times in Iraq? If this is April 2003, we could have gone in an upward direction. It could have been an amazing experience. We could have kept their military. We could have listened to them. We could have had Arabic speakers. We could have found that rather than digging a deep ditch, we could have gone in the other direction. But as soon as we allowed the looting, as I made reference to earlier, they really believed that was our message to them that we had only contempt for them. That is what they believed. They thought, You could have stopped it and you didn't. The thing we cherished the most, our antiquities, you allowed those looters to just desecrate, and you were the security. We then put them out of work and left them with no security. We dug a deep hole. I began to feel, though, that we were turning the situation around when we transferred power in June of 2004. Mr. Bremer left, and Iraqis were being invited to make some major decisions. And they did something extraordinary. I was there for the first election. They put our elections to shame. What did they do? They had far more people who voted, and they were honest votes. The U.N. will tell you, these elections were very well run. I was in Arbil for the first election, and I saw men following their wives because their wives were determined to vote, dressed up with their kids in their arms or following them. I was there as an observer, and I saw them come and vote for local, regional and national elections. They came and got all three ballots and filled them out in a protected area, and then they came and put them in the ballot box. But before they could do that, they had to stick their finger in the ink jar. I watched that for awhile, and then I went and quietly asked, as an observer, Do you mind if I put my finger in that ink jar? I wanted to bond with them; and I, frankly, wanted to come home and show people that there was something pretty monumental going on in Iraq. The woman looked up at me, looked down, and then she said, No! you're not an Iraqi! Everybody looked at me. I clearly wasn't an Iraqi. I was first embarrassed, and then I thought this was amazing. I was in a Kurdish area. And she didn't say, No, you're not a Kurd. She said, You're not an Iraqi. Well, that election established a government that then created a constitution. And in October of 2005, they voted on that constitution. And more people came out to vote, including Sunnis that had not participated the first time. They had establish a constitution, and then they had an election in December of 2005. I thought in 2003 we had dug a deep hole, but now we and the Iraq's were getting back up there. Things are looking much better. And they had an election in December, and then nothing happened. January, no leader was chosen. February, no leader was chosen. March, no leader was chosen. By April they had decided on a very slim vote that Mr. Maliki would be the prime minister. (1900) And so, they had literally delayed for 4 months choosing a leader. And when you're swimming upstream and you stop swimming, you go way downstream. And they dug a deep hole again. You had the Samarra bombings; that was horrific. That was a Shi'a Mosque that was bombed and destroyed, intended to bring out the Shi'as in a total civil war with Sunnis. That almost happened, but didn't happen. When I came back to Iraq and met with Mr. Maliki after 6 weeks in office, there was a sense on my part that he wasn't going to do any heavy lifting. And so I decided, rather than come back 3 months from now as I usually did, I came back 6 weeks later. And one ambassador told me then, it was in June, he said to me, ``I fear that Prime Minister Maliki does not have the political will to do what he needs to do.'' So, I went back in August. There were 6 more weeks that had passed. Now he had been in office about 12 weeks, and I didn't see hardly any positive change. I concluded that the only thing that would get him to move was to have a timeline. And I demanded to see him. I said, I've been here more than anyone else, I want to meet with Mr. Maliki. And I said it can be a stand-up meeting, but I want to meet him. I want him to look me in the face and tell him what I believe after being in Iraq so often. So, a meeting was set up. He was meeting with others and we went to a side of the room, and I said, take a good look at me, you're not going to see me after November, and you're not going to see a majority of Republicans that had been supporting our presence in Iraq. You're going to see a change in government because you aren't doing the heavy lifting you need to. You need timelines like you had in '05, where you had one election, then the constitution, then another election, to select a government. He said, no, we moved too quickly; we can't move that quickly. I came home believing we need a timeline, and I believe that to this day. But it's a timeline that doesn't say we get out tomorrow. It's a timeline that says we leave when the Iraqis can be ready, and we can pretty much predict when that is. And we know it's going to take more Iraqis troops to do it. We know they have to be trained. With all due respect to my colleagues in the majority who sincerely believe this was a mistake and we need to get out, a timeline that gets us out sooner than we can replace their army, police and border patrol and leaves them in a place where they can protect themselves is a timeline that makes no sense. But a timeline that says we're there forever in this capacity makes no sense either. We need a logical timeline. Now, one thing I never argued for that turned out to be very important, I never argued that we needed a surge. That was the one area where I didn't feel I had the expertise. So, after that election, I went to Iraq in December of 2006, and frankly, things were worse than ever. The generals told me that they had given up on Anbar Province, the largest Sunni province. In fact, they said it's almost like a mini Afghanistan within Iraq, no one is in charge except al Qaeda. And that was a pretty disappointing bit of news to be told. When I went back in April of '07 they said we're winning Anbar Province. Now, this was after we started to begin the surge, but that hadn't really taken effect yet. They were doing something that I had argued for for a long time, and that was, we were engaging the Iraqi tribes. The Sunni Iraqi tribes had become totally fed up with al Qaeda for all the reasons that most people know. They wanted to set up the kind of shari'a government that Iraqis want no part of, and they were killing the young Sunni tribal leaders who were not cooperating. And so, the leaders came to us and said, we want to be with you. So, I went in April, and we're winning Anbar Province. I go back 2 months later and they say, we've really won Anbar Province. I go back in August, and we're starting to win other areas. We're starting to clean out other areas. And we've started to have al Qaeda be in small little enclaves. And why? Because before the surge they struck us at will. After the surge, they can't get above the water line to take a breath because our daytime troops went after them, and our nighttime troops went after them, and then our daytime troops went after them. They never have a chance to regroup. The surge has enabled us to clean out areas and bring the Iraqi police, which aren't the best of Iraq, but they are good enough to do what police do, and that is, once an area is clean, keep the peace. This past year, I've been able to go without armor into so many different marketplaces, places they would never have taken me before. And I come back and I say things are getting better, and then people say yes, but there were the rockets on the Green Zone. Well, there are going to be rockets on the Green Zone and there are going to be men and women who wear vests that basically are filled with explosives and they're going to blow themselves up. There are women who have lost their husbands who see no future. There is obviously al Qaeda, that still has some influence. There will be those kinds of attacks, but there are going to be different kinds of attacks than has existed in the past. So, I have seen the surge is working. The tribal leaders have made a huge difference. We are now going into other areas. We've cleaned up our two-thirds of Iraq. Mosul is going to be a very difficult area. It's a very mixed community of Sunnis, Shias, Turkmen, and others. The other reason why we're seeing an improvement beside the surge and support of tribal leaders is the Iraqi troops have become competent, in some cases very competent. And I'm sure there may be some who will criticize me for saying it, but I believe the Iraqis are actually beginning to like us, or at least respect us, and in some cases trust us. And why would that be? Well, they were raised for 30 years to hate Americans and love the Russians. So, in comes this government, Americans, and we attack them, and we put a lot of their loved ones out of work. And they were convinced that we would take their oil. But it's been 5 years, and they've come to realize that there is a country so good that it would spend nearly a half a trillion dollars, have more than 20,000 of its American forces wounded, some very severely, have 4,000 of its troops killed and not take a drop of its oil, not a drop of its oil. We're beginning to gain credibility that we actually meant what we said and that there is a country so good in the world that it would do that for something far more important. We want a world of peace. We want a world where people can live their lives as they want to. We want a world where commerce can flow back and forth freely. And we're willing to give a lot and spend a lot to do that. Now, I want to say something to my colleagues that may not believe we should ever have been in Iraq. I fear that there are some in this Chamber who fear that if we ultimately win in Iraq, and by winning, I mean restore a security force of Iraqis that can fend for themselves and where they can govern for themselves and where there is a significant movement towards a more democratic form of government, and a government that, unlike its neighbors, allows its women to be educated, allows its women to be part of commerce, if we do that, it justifies the war. We may say at the end, we spent a trillion dollars, we lost 4,000 to 5,000 men and women, and we have this result which is pretty spectacular, but in the end, it may not justify what we have done. But where we all should be united, it seems to me, is that we leave Iraq in a place that the void is not filled up by the Iranians. Now, we haven't taken a drop of their oil, but one thing is very clear, Iraq has a lot of oil and gas. In fact, Bunker Hunt came to my office, rolled out a map that would cover this desk, and he said, I believe Iraq has more energy than exists in Saudi Arabia. The world says it has 10 percent. He told, I believe it may have as much as 20 percent of the world's reserves. And then he showed me this map with markings throughout Iraq indicated a real potential for either gas or oil. He said, to an oil man, this is a candy store of opportunity. Well, it belongs to the Iraqis. And my hope and prayer is that they will someday be able to enjoy it and share it with the rest of the world. And the thing that's stunning is, it's not just in Sunni areas, it's not just in Shi'a areas and it's not just in Kurdish areas, it's throughout Iraq. This is a nation that doesn't believe in shari'a law. It's a nation that is very secular. It's a nation where Sunni and Shi'as have, in particular, gotten along with each other. It's a nation that has so much oil as a resource, and gas, but almost as importantly, it has so much water. When I fly over it, you see these magnificent rivers, not just the Tigris and Euphrates, but the others that join it, but all the canals and the irrigation that exists. This is a country that will be able to export and feed parts of the world. This is a country that will educate both its men and women. This is a country that has significant resources. This is a country we hope to be friends with for a long, long time. And this is a country that deserves some patience from Americans. We need to understand that they didn't have the head start we had in the United States. And even then, think about it, we knew democracy before we became these United States. We had democracy in our colonies. We had the Declaration of Independence in 1776. And it took us 13 years to have the Constitution of the United States, 13 years. And even then, as perfect as we would like to think our Constitution is, but in our Constitution as Condoleezza Rice points out, she was three-fifths a person, and a slave. So, we certainly didn't get it all right. I'll conclude by saying, we've seen the most progress on the part of the military. We've seen not the kind of progress we want to see from the politicians. But even then, we need to give them credit. They have voted out retirement for ba'athists, Saddamists. That was hugely important. While they don't have an oil law that formally distributes the oil to the different regions of Iraq, they are doing it in spite of that without the formal agreement. They have a de-Baathification law that's coming into place so that they're hiring people that, in the past were told they couldn't be part of this new Iraqi government. And they're going to have provincial elections. The significance of that is the local elections were the first of the three elections, and Sunnis didn't participate, so we have some Shiias who run Sunni areas. This means that these leaders are willing, and know that they have to give up power to the predominant group within their regime of Iraq. No one knows how history is going to judge our involvement in Iraq. But the one thing I do know is that we finally have the kind of leadership in Iraq that I've been hungry for, some real honest talk from Mr. Petraeus. He'll tell you what's going right and what's going wrong. We've had, I think, good military leaders, but I think he's learned a lot, and I think he's clearly the best. We needed to make a change with Secretary of Defense, and since then I've seen significant progress. It took Abraham Lincoln 9 generals before he got the generals that finally started to win some battles, Sherman and Grant. We're starting to see a difference in Iraq because of this leadership. We're even starting to see Mr. Maliki show some guts by confronting his own political base, Shiias, in Basra. They haven't been given the opportunity that we had of having 13 years before a true government was established under our Constitution. They've had five. We have American time. We want them to act more quickly. But, at the same time, in terms of Middle East culture, they're moving a lot faster than some people give them credit. Madam Speaker, I really appreciate your willingness to allow me this opportunity, and I want to just repeat that everyone in this chamber loves our troops. I'm addicted when I go back to Iraq, to meet with the men and women who serve, those who are content we're there, those who would go back and again and again, and some who wish they weren't there. But every one of our troops are real patriots. I can't tell you what an honor it is to interact with them. And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Frankly, I don't think there is a more important bill than this; and yet to hear some of the critics, it's like we're just paying people to be volunteers. The thing I love about Ronald Reagan was Ronald Reagan believed in the future of America, the youth of America, and that the best was yet to come. And he gave us a sense of hope, as did President Kennedy. When President Kennedy talked about the Peace Corps, I was in eighth grade. My parents bought a TV set to listen to the debate between Nixon and President Kennedy, and I was just enthralled by a President who asked me, a young person, to do something for the world, and that was to become a Peace Corps volunteer. And from that point on, that was one of my dreams. It was something I wanted to do . . . become a Peace Corps Volunteer. Guess what? Peace Corps volunteers are paid. We earn a salary and are given a stipend because we have to eat. We are given a certain sum of money at the end, not for education, but to frankly be able to come back and just buy some clothes. When you clean your underwear on rocks for 2 years, you don't want to continue to wear them when you get home. So what did President Clinton want to do? He said we have the Peace Corps for those who volunteer overseas. And we have Vista for those who want to be of service in these United States. But we can make Vista better. We're going to have expanded national service here at home, and by the way, while this was happening we in Congress were getting rid of summer jobs for kids. The President said and I want this expanded national service program to be a bipartisan proposal. I want to work with Republicans. Let's make this something all of us can get behind. I got excited with his call to us. Let's work together, and we did. Because instead of a national program where one-size-fits-all, he said it's going to be a competitive process, something Republican should like. And by the way, I'll just say parenthetically, Ms. Matsui has an amendment that I am a chief cosponsor of that says let's have more of the dollars be competed for by State and local communities. It's an amendment that should pass. So what we did is have a national program called AmeriCorps, but we had two-thirds of it going to the States. Now, the problem with that is you're going to have some bad programs that might get funded. The good thing about it is you're going to have some great programs that are going to be funded. And so former President Clinton took a risk. He said instead of having a one-size-fits-all, which would mean we'll have vanilla, and, no one can criticize it, we had some great programs and some bad programs. So the critics of AmeriCorps then took the bad programs and started to criticize as if this was all of AmeriCorps, as if this was the President's national service bill. Well, the bottom line is we have some great programs. Thank God we had these programs for people impacted by Katrina and other natural disasters. In my part of the country, we have young people who are giving to their neighbors, and if you think they're paid, they're paid a minimum wage and they have a stipend they can use towards their education. It gets them to think about their future and get an education. But we have people here who will say, well, let's give out Pell Grants, we're going to give out Pell Grants for nothing; and yet we have an opportunity to give out grants that someone actually earned. I can't speak more strongly for this legislation. I congratulate President Clinton for bringing it forward, for working with Republicans, at least those who were willing to work with him, and for having a program that has energized young people to be of service. There are six former Peace Corps volunteers in this House, three Republicans, three Democrats. If you asked any one of us what was the most significant time in our lives, it was serving in the Peace Corps. It was helping others. But we came back more enriched than probably we gave. And I'm absolutely certain of this, the folks that are doing national service, they don't get much monetarily, but they give a lot; and in return they get a lot in terms of their personal development. They grow as individuals. They have more confidence in themselves. I think they're better Americans. I hope whoever's the next President, and we have three good candidates to choose from, I have a preference obviously, but I think that they are going to inspire Americans to be of greater service, and they could use this legislation to help them. I hope we pass it, and I thank our sponsors for bringing this bill out. I particularly want to thank our colleagues from New York and from Pennsylvania for their effort here today. God bless this country and God bless this program.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Committee on Education and Labor for all of their work in bringing this bill to the floor today. National service is one of the most productive, cost efficient investments the Federal Government can make. My wife Betsi and I were Peace Corps volunteers and we call ourselves volunteers because we gave 2 years of our lives in service to others. Americorps is a similar program to Peace Corps. It takes 18, 19, 20- year-old kids and gives them an opportunity to work in a program mentored by various nonprofit organizations. The passion of participants in Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and other national service programs is undeniable. As they give back to their country they also learn something about themselves, each other, and the world around them. I am pleased H.R. 2857 expands the AmeriCorps program and increases the education award, which participants in the program receive upon completion of service. As the cost of a college education increases, students often have to choose between public service careers and other jobs to pay back student loans. I am also pleased we are making amendments in order under this rule because I believe they will strengthen this underlying reauthorization. Congresswoman Matsui and I have offered an amendment to streamline funding for State and national AmeriCorps programs, which will encourage coordination, efficiency, and high quality programs. Furthermore, this amendment will improve the collaboration between State and national entities to better serve local needs. Congressman McDermott, Congressman Farr and I have offered an amendment to establish a Congressional Commission on Civic service that will investigate ways to increase and encourage service opportunities throughout the country. The Commission will consider and promote ideas to inspire community service initiatives around the Nation. There is no substitute for the passion of our Nation's volunteers, who can be found mentoring students, building houses, assisting senior citizens or beautifying our national parks. As a co-sponsor of this legislation, I am proud to support national service initiatives and encourage my colleagues to support this important reauthorization today.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congresswoman Matsui and the Committee on Education and Labor for all of their hard work on bringing H.R. 2857 to the floor today. I would also like to thank the work and dedication of Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, Subcommittee Chairwoman Davis, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Platts. I believe national service is one of the most productive, cost effective investments our government can make. Since the inception of the Corporation for National and Community Service, of which I was a co-author, more than 1 billion service hours have been generated by Senior Corps volunteers, more than 40,000 individuals have served through AmeriCorps, and more than 1 million high school students have participated annually in service-learning initiatives. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the increasing achievement gap in education, the call to serve is louder than ever. Our amendment will revise and improve the funding formula for AmeriCorps, which engages more than 40,000 Americans in service throughout the Nation, by combining State and national competitive funding streams. National service programs throughout the country believe this change will provide a better means of allocating this funding and will bring the highest quality programs to States. The change will also enable States to compete for more funding and provide States with more choices of programs. Community service is about helping people, and it is also about gaining deeper understanding of each other and the world around us. Through service, Americans of all ages gain a sense of commitment to their communities and their country, which will prove valuable for the rest of their lives. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of this valuable program.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congressman McDermott and Congressman Farr, Congresswoman Matsui and the Committee on Education and Labor for all of their hard work on bringing this reauthorization to the floor today. This amendment establishes a Congressional Commission on Civil Service. The Commission would identify ways to expand opportunities for volunteerism and national service in America. It would also recommend ways Federal and local governments can improve awareness and access to national service opportunities, encourage increased volunteerism and better train future public service leaders. I believe national service is one of the most productive, cost- effective investments our Government can make. I am pleased this amendment addresses the need for a public service academy, a federally-funded 4-year institution dedicated to training the future leaders of our country's public service sector. In the next 10 years, 90 percent of our nation's Federal executives will be over the age of 50 and nearing retirement. We need to ensure that this workforce is replaced with well-trained, invigorated graduates. Investing in service opportunities provides enormous returns to communities. There is no substitute for the passion of our Nation's volunteers, who can be found mentoring students, building houses, assisting senior citizens or beautifying our national parks. Community service is about helping people, and it is also about gaining deeper understanding of each other and the world around us. Through service, Americans of all ages gain a sense of commitment to their communities and their country which will prove valuable for the rest of their lives. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of this valuable program.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 951, sponsored by Congressmen Garrett and Engel, condemning the rocket attacks on innocent Israelis in Sderot and Ashkelon. Israel is our greatest ally and our best friend. Our nations share a strong commitment to freedom and democracy. We have worked together in confronting the serious and very real threat posed by Islamist terrorists. The tensions and violence between Israelis and Palestinians have gone on far too long. Hamas, a violent terrorist organization, has squandered every opportunity to demonstrate it can coexist peacefully with Israel by promoting suicide bombings on innocent civilians and by firing thousands of rockets into neighboring Israeli cities. The terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens are no different than the cowardly attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Clearly, Israel has the right and the obligation to defend its citizens and status as a nation. Unless Hamas recognizes the State of Israel, ceases incitement, and permanently disarms and dismantles its terrorist infrastructure, the United States cannot work with this terrorist government, nor can Israel. Israel has the right to exist free from terror. Its people, who can never and will never forget Hitler's Germany, have every right to expect the world will uniformly condemn Hamas. I urge the resolution's adoption and thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for bringing this to the floor.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. It is reported 50 million adults, 25 percent of the U.S. adult population, suffer from mental disorders or substance abuse disorders; yet, despite the prevalence of mental illness, there continues to be widespread misinformation and ignorance surrounding the condition. We need to work to destigmatize this illness and ensure those who need treatment have access to care. At the same time, we need to increase biomedical research into the causes of, and treatments for, mental illness. It is estimated 98 percent of private health insurance plans discriminate against patients seeking treatment for mental illness by requiring higher copayments, allowing fewer doctor visits or days in the hospital, or requiring larger deductibles than imposed on other medical illnesses. The National Institutes of Mental Health estimates the annual health care costs of untreated mental illness is $70 billion, and data has shown that instituting equal coverage for treatment of mental illness will result in lower overall health care costs. By requiring insurers who cover mental illnesses to do so at parity with physical illnesses, we will knock down a tremendous barrier to getting the assistance these individuals require. While I support the underlying bill, I believe we should temporarily hold off for now increasing the Medicaid drug rebate provisions intended to raise revenue to pay for this legislation. Because the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are in the process of developing new regulations based on the Deficit Reduction Act, it's entirely possible Medicaid rebates will be increased administratively. Since this provision was not in the Senate bill, I'm hopeful we will be able to enact mental health parity legislation without this provision. With this one reservation, I'm particularly pleased to support this legislation, urge its adoption, and congratulate Congressmen Ramstad and Kennedy for all their efforts to help the mentally ill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very important legislation.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act, which extends Federal tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies that have expired, or will expire, at the end of 2008. I strongly support promoting increased use of renewable energy and developing renewable energy technologies. Currently, renewable energy sources account for only two percent of our Nation's electricity supply. We need to increase the supply of clean, renewable energy, but we also need to be more energy efficient and slow the growth of demand. H.R. 5351 would extend tax incentives for wind, geothermal and biomass energy through 2012, and extend the tax incentives for solar electric systems through 2016. The bill also extends credits for consumer purchases of energy efficient products through 2014, and creates a credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles for 2008. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) helps the United States create thousands of megawatts of new, clean, renewable electricity, and has been a major driver of wind and solar power development. To fund these tax credits, this bill will repeal some of the tax breaks we give to the oil companies. I have long advocated repealing some of the tax breaks we give oil companies as ``incentives,'' and voted that way, because our current marketplace provides adequate incentive for oil and gas exploration. We will never resolve our energy needs because we are not conserving energy . . . we are wasting it. We just continue to consume more and waste more, consume more and waste more, and act like it doesn't matter. H.R. 5351 moves us closer to energy-diverse fuel and independence by incentivizing the industries and technologies that will take us there, and I urge its support.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, as a new Member of Congress, Tom Lantos took me under his wings. He was my chairman of the Labor and Health Subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee, and I was one of its most active members. I got to know this man up close, and I know no one like him. Tom Lantos adored his wife, Annette, his two magnificent daughters, Annette and Katrina, and all of his glorious grandchildren and now great-grandchildren. He simply adored them all. A Holocaust survivor, Tom Lantos could not be intimidated by anyone. He was brilliant, passionate, courageous, tough almost to the point, let's face it, of being brutal, but he was also kind, gentle, loving, and lots of fun. He had a great sense of humor. Tom was the most eloquent person I have ever known. It was hard sometimes not to feel inadequate in his presence, but the fact is, he would never have wanted you to feel that way. He would always make me feel like the best was always ahead of me and that I should think big thoughts. He was a natural teacher. He taught by example and by the questions he asked, and he expected you to grow and to be a better person. That was your duty. And your duty, also, was to be of service to others. It is no secret that Tom and Annette were both, are both, very strong-willed people. I marvel at how they were able to be such a powerful team and raise such a truly unbelievable, fantastic, magnificent family. They were, and are, an awesome couple. Tom Lantos loved America. And yes Tom Lantos adored his wife, Annette. He adored his two daughters, Annette and Katrina, adored his grandchildren, adored his great-grandchildren. And you could be his friend if you were willing to listen to him talk about all of his loved ones. But woe be to any man that sought to marry his daughters or his granddaughters. They were mere mortals. He expected more for his daughters and granddaughters. I would say his son-in-laws, his grandson-in-laws, are very brave souls. Can you imagine going up to Tom and saying, ``I would like to marry your daughter''? That would take true courage. Now, granddaughters-in-law were another story. They were deemed worthy. He embraced them immediately. I hope, I truly hope and pray Congress finds a way to immortalize this great man in important legislation that will forever bear his name. We have Pell grants, and Fulbright Scholars. Those are names that I have heard almost all of my life. Tom Lantos deserves to have this kind of recognition. Tom Lantos believed in smart power for this country. He advocated a strong military, wise diplomacy, and strategic use of economic power. But Tom wasn't just a great man of this Nation. He was a great man in this world. Let me say it slightly differently. He is a great man of this Nation. He is a great man of this world. His light will be forever and we cannot forget him.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, this is great fun. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 960 congratulating the New York Giants for their 17-14 victory over the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. It was a second straight Super Bowl victory for the first family of football, the Mannings. Peyton Manning led the Indianapolis Colts to the title last year, and his younger brother, Eli, threw two touchdown passes to lead the Giants to victory this year and claim the Most Valuable Player award, like his brother. Their father, Archie, of course, was a great pro quarterback himself, spending most of his career with the New Orleans Saints. John Wooden, the greater former UCLA basketball coach, said sports don't build character, they reveal it. So what does this victory say about the New York Giants? It says they are a resilient bunch, entering the playoffs as the number five seed in a six-team NFC field, then defeating a Dallas team who had beaten them twice in the regular season and a Green Bay team in arctic conditions to reach the big game. There, they stymied an offense that had scored more points, gained more yards, and won more games in a season than any team in NFL history. They did it by keeping that offense off the field. New York owned the ball for nearly 20 of the first 30 minutes. They did it with new heroes such as David Tyree, who scored the go-ahead touchdown. He had never caught a touchdown pass in the NFL before. And they did it with seasoned vets such as Michael Strahan who led a defense that held the Pats to a season low of 274 yards. So what was revealed of the character of these Giants? That they ignored the conventional wisdom which didn't give them a chance, that they found in each other the strength to do what they couldn't have done any other way, take down the ``next big thing'' in the biggest game of the year. Thanks, Giants, for showing us what is possible when we don't take ``no'' for an answer. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any speakers at this time, except I would have liked to have asked unanimous consent that former Congressman Roger Wicker, who was a House Member who was sitting here, could speak; but given now he's a Senator, I don't think you would have found that in order. But what he said to me was how proud he is that Archie Manning, who was his classmate at Ole Miss, had these two remarkable sons in Eli and Peyton, and he thinks it reflects well, I think, on Ole Miss, and certainly on his dad. But I'd also like to express something else. For those of us who are not the sports fans that others may be, it was a tremendously proud moment for us to see the New York Giants put their best team forward in the last game of the season against the New England Patriots when the outcome of the game didn't matter to New York, but it mattered to people like me and others who feel that the obligation of pro sports is to always play their best and always put their best team forward. And I think that remarkable game which they almost won led ultimately to the remarkable games that followed and to their ultimate victory. This is a kick. This was a game that I'll remember the rest of my life because it had so much to do about character. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the passing of this bill designating the post office in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as the Dr. Clifford Bell Jones, Sr. Post Office. Dr. Jones led an honorable life serving his country, profession, and community with dignity for well over half a century. A veteran of World War I, Dr. Jones returned home to earn his bachelor of science from Shaw University and ultimately his doctorate of dental surgery from Meharry Medical College Dental School in 1927. He began his professional career in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, and found himself at home. He practiced general dentistry there for 66 years. Outside of the office, he remained extremely active in his community. With the encouragement of other council members, including the father of Mr. Butterfield, Dr. Jones ran for city council in 1957. He was defeated by just 28 votes. Though he did not win the seat, he was one of the first African Americans to run for city council. In the 1960s, Dr. Jones served on the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County School Board and as deacon at his church. Throughout his life, Dr. Jones' contributions were recognized by those whom he touched. Among his many honors he received the Meharry Medical College President's Award for Service to Mankind and a special recognition award for loyalty and service to the dental profession from the Old North State Dental Society. Though not a native, Elizabeth City lost one of their own when Dr. Jones passed away in 1995 at the age of 99. I'm happy to rise today in support of this legislation honoring a dedicated professional, a wonderful human being, and a symbol of this community. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, a mere 20 years old, Private First Class Johnathon Millican of Trafford, Alabama, displayed wisdom beyond his years when he once said, ``You don't have to love the war, but you have to love the warrior.'' It is an honor for me to speak today about Private Millican, a true American hero who epitomizes bravery and loyalty to his country and fellow comrades. Soon after graduating high school in 2005, Johnathon Millican enlisted into the Army and was assigned to the 377th Parachute Field Artillery Regiment from Fort Richardson, Alaska. In Karbala, Iraq, on January 20, 2007, Private Millican was off duty in a communications room talking with his wife, Shannon, when an attack started. The attackers fired several rounds and a grenade into the room, and tragically, he and four fellow officers lost their lives. Private Millican had been in Iraq for just 3 months. Family and friends will forever remember Johnathon Millican's dedication to the cause of freedom and his commitment to bringing that cherished freedom to the people around the world where he served. It is with gratitude for his bravery and sacrifice and for the sacrifice of those who loved him that I ask all Members to join me in naming the Lula, Georgia, postal facility located on McLeod Street in his honor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to recognize the very distinguished Member from Georgia (Mr. Deal) for as much time as he would consume.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill designating the United States postal facility located at 3035 Stone Mountain Street in Lithonia, Georgia as the ``Jamaal RaShard Addison Post Office Building.'' A native of Georgia, Army Specialist Jamaal Addison was a ``quiet, yet driven young man with a very gentle spirit.'' An honor roll student and member of the Junior ROTC, Jamaal graduated from Lakeside High School in Tucker, Georgia, in 1998. His love of video games fostered a passion for computers. Driven by his desire to start his own computer business, Jamaal saw the military as an opportunity to develop his expertise as a computer technician. Enrolling in the Army in 2000, Specialist Addison spent a year in Korea before he was sent to the Middle East as part of the 507th Maintenance Company in the first days of the Iraqi War. On March 23, 2003, the 507th convoy was ambushed and, tragically, Jamaal Addison lost his life. A dedicated husband, father, brother, and son, Specialist Addison was the first Georgian to pay the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. His determination and caring spirit lives on through the Jamaal Addison Motivational Foundation, an organization founded by his mother, Patricia Roberts, to provide young members of the community with the opportunity to experience ``wide options available to them to lead successful lives'' and to ``strive to achieve his or her highest potential.'' I urge the passage of this bill in honor of an ambitious, caring, and dedicated American who sacrificed his life while serving his country, a true American patriot. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, in deference to the gentleman who introduced this bill, Todd Tiahrt, who is a member of the Appropriations Committee and is also on its Defense subcommittee and also a member of the Intelligence Committee, I'm going to insert my statement into the Record and then yield him as much time as he might consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 201 West Germany Street in Derby, Kansas, as the ``Sergeant Jamie O. Maugans Post Office Building.'' A native of Derby, SGT Jamie Maugans was the first casualty of the global war on terror from the 4th Congressional District in Kansas. A graduate of Derby High School, Sergeant Maugans attended the University of Kansas and Cowley Community College before joining the Army. Stationed in San Diego serving as an ordnance disposal specialist, he deployed to Afghanistan shortly after the attacks of 9/ 11 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. On April 15, 2002, while disposing of ordnance near Kandahar, Afghanistan, Sergeant Maugans, along with three others, lost his life in an accidental ordnance explosion. Described by his friends as one of the ``kindest, most gentle-hearted people on the planet,'' Jamie Maugans died preserving the lives of his fellow soldiers and the freedom of this Nation. I urge that we accept this bill to honor that spirit of sacrifice embodied by Sergeant Maugans.

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