John Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to state for the record that I missed rollcall vote 542 to H.R. 2764 taken on June 21, 2007. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted ``nay.'' As an ardent supporter of the rights of the unborn, I am strongly opposed to this legislation, which weakens existing Federal policies and laws on abortion.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to state for the record that I missed rollcall vote No. 534 to H.R. 2764 taken on June 21, 2007. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted ``aye.'' I am opposed to overturning the longstanding Mexico City policy which prohibits funding for foreign non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortions as a method of family planning. I stand in strong support of H. Amdt. 368, which would remove the language overturning the Mexico City policy.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. Any thoughtful legislation must ensure four things: That the lights stay on, that driving a car stays affordable, energy prices stay competitive, and that we protect people's jobs. If we think that we can achieve these goals without a continuing role for domestic fossil fuels, we're kidding ourselves. We are addressing global warming, but we are not doing it in a vacuum. We are also charged with making sure that people in America have energy that power our jobs, and through them, our people's opportunity to succeed. If we do our jobs, people will keep their jobs. I accept that the science on this matter is uneven, uncertain and evolving. That certainty hasn't changed, but now we seem to be pressuring ourselves, or someone is pressuring us, to legislate first and get the facts later. I hope we don't do that. I want to make sure that we get the best information available so we have a full and accurate definition of the problem before we start making decisions. We have to be clear about the issues before us. Discussion of mandatory steps to cap CO2 often misses the essential fact. Carbon dioxide, unlike carbon monoxide, and other compounds ending in ``oxide'' is not toxic. It is not a pollutant. Not only is it natural, it is indispensable for life on this planet. What we need to understand is how does CO2 fit into the atmospheric mix? I am told all CO2 is only 0.038 percent of the atmospheric gases. How does the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion fit into the total annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere? I am told it is only 0.4 percent of this amount. How does U.S. fossil fuel consumption fit into mankind's overall share of fossil fuel energy use? I am told it is 22 percent and shrinking. That means if we shut down 100 percent of all fossil fuels in the United States, we would only reduce CO2 growth in the atmosphere by 0.088 percent. That is 0.0003 percent of atmospheric gases, and China will be filling in the gap and then some. How much will any legislation we consider actually change the total U.S. emissions and, in turn, change total human emissions and, in turn, affect global greenhouse gas concentrations? What will it cost? The people who will pay for our policy decisions are taxpayers and consumers and workers. What amount is the right amount to take from them and their families for our policies? And we need to understand whether well-meaning steps to cap CO2 here and now will simply drive industry offshore where control of actual pollution such SOX, NOX, mercury and particulate is far more lax. Whether we like it or not, CO2 correlates to national economic activity. That means jobs and the ability of working families to thrive is defined by jobs. Despite impressive gains in energy intensity over the past few years, a basic reality is that with the technology mix deployed today, to cap CO2 emissions constraints economic output, jeopardizes economic growth, and eliminates people's jobs. It is imperative that we reach rational conclusions, based on real evidence, about the reliability of our knowledge that CO2 has the sort of impact on planetary temperature as people say. At an Energy and Commerce hearing earlier this year, we learned that a cap-and-trade program added 40 percent to the wholesale cost of electricity in Germany. A cap-and-trade program could lead to real rate shock for electric consumers. High electricity costs will only drive manufacturers overseas, and American jobs will go along with them. This cap-and-trade approach has been proven unworkable in countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol, and it would be unworkable in the United States. Few participants in the protocol are on track to achieve the international targets for carbon emissions reduction. An increasing number of the countries are unwilling to strangle economic growth through stricter carbon caps in the future. Another fundamental flaw with the Kyoto agreement is the exclusion of India and China from its reach, particularly when China is soon to claim the distinction of being the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world. The United States cap-and-trade program would fall the same failed trajectory as Kyoto. Its artificially high energy costs would cripple the United States manufacturing base and suppress job creation for working American families. And that's not all. Two of our greatest economic competitors in the world market, India and China, won't have to cap emissions and pay a premium for energy. Those two countries will laugh all of the way to the bank, and the joke will be on us. They will use it as an economic weapon. What is very important when we look at this very important matter, we need to take our time, we need to gather the facts, and we need to educate other Members. The decisions we make will impact Americans for a long time in the future. Point of Order

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, H.R. 366, which will designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Ernest Childers VA Outpatient Clinic to honor one of our Nation's finest military heroes. Ernest Childers holds the distinction of being the first Native American to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroic action in 1943 at the battle of Oliveto, Italy, where he charged the German machine gun nest against machine gun fire. Although suffering a broken foot in the assault, Childers ordered covering fire and advanced up the hill, single-handedly killing two snipers, silencing two machine gun nests, and capturing an enemy mortar observer. His courageous action helped American troops win the battle and saved the lives of American soldiers. Childers was also awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star for his actions. Born in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, Childers enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard in 1937 to earn extra money while attending the Chilocco Indian School in north central Oklahoma. While stationed at Fort Sill in Oklahoma, he was deployed to Africa to fight in World War II. Childers retired from the Army in 1965 as a Lieutenant Colonel, but remained very active in the Tulsa community, serving Indian youth which led to the naming of the middle school in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma in his honor. As a proud Creek Indian, in 1966, Childers was honored by the Tulsa Chapter of the Council of American Indians as ``Oklahoma's Most Outstanding Indian.'' Of his military service in World War II, Childers once said, ``This American Indian has only one country to defend, and when you're picked on, the American Indian never turns his back.'' A fitting quote from a man who exemplified courage under fire and dedication to defending our Nation. Until his death on March 17, 2005, Childers was one of Oklahoma's last Congressional Medal of Honor recipients still living in the State. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to honor his life and legacy. We were honored to have him grace us with his model character, defend us with his bravery, and leave us all a life well lived.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 1684. This bill in its current form would eliminate the critical Federal 287(g) program, which serves as a force multiplier for immigration enforcement across our Nation. The 287(g) program is a highly effective, voluntary partnership that provides the legal authority and training for States and local enforcement to investigate, detain and arrest illegal aliens on civil and criminal charges and grounds in the course of their regular duties. Unfortunately, an amendment offered in the Rules Committee to reauthorize this important program was not made in order, jeopardizing the future of this popular program with local and State law enforcement agencies across our Nation and in my district. Illegal immigration is a serious problem in eastern Oklahoma, and securing a 287(g) designation is a top priority of mine. I am working diligently to see that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officials and the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office partner in this program; 287(g) would provide them with the resources they need to deal with the ever-growing criminal alien population in Tulsa. I am pleased with the progress we have made and recently learned from ICE officials that we are in the final stages of making 287(g) a reality in northeastern Oklahoma. The 287(g) program is working to stop the catch-and-release practice that allows dangerous criminal illegal aliens to remain free in communities across our Nation. It would be foolish for the House not to reauthorize this critical program. I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-considered rule.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 1684. This bill, in its current form would prohibit state and local governments from receiving reimbursement for training expenses associated with participating in the 287(g) program. 287(g) serves as a force multiplier for immigration enforcement across our Nation. The 287(g) program is a highly effective, voluntary partnership that provides the legal authority and training for state and local law enforcement officers to investigate, detain, and arrest illegal aliens on civil and criminal grounds in the course of their regular duties. Unfortunately, an amendment offered in the Rules Committee to enhance this important program was not made in order, jeopardizing the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to join the program. Illegal immigration is a serious problem in Eastern Oklahoma and securing a 287(g) designation is a top priority of mine. I am working diligently to see ICE officials and the Tulsa County Sherriff's office partnered in this program. 287(g) would provide them with the resources they need to deal with the ever growing criminal alien population in Tulsa. I am pleased with the progress we have made, and recently learned from ICE officials that we are in the final stages of making 287(g) a reality for Eastern Oklahoma. The 287(g) program is working to stop the catch and release practice that allows dangerous criminal illegal aliens to remain free in communities across our Nation. It would be foolish for the House not to allow for reimbursement of 287(g) training related expenses. I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-considered rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in order as though printed as the last amendment in the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Hayes of North Carolina or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as follows: Strike section 407 and insert the following:

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam Speaker, I missed rollcall votes 273, 274 and 275 taken on May 2, 2007. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted ``nay'' on these measures.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam Speaker, yesterday I introduced H. Res. 351, which offers a straightforward, common sense approach toward deterring illegal immigration, opposing the flawed policy of amnesty, and restoring the rule of law in our country by calling on Federal authorities to strengthen and vigorously enforce all existing immigration laws. The simple truth is that until we enforce the Federal immigration laws already on the books, it is irresponsible for Congress to consider any legislation that would grant amnesty to the estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. The policy of granting amnesty is a proven failure in our country. The Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986, which granted amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, did nothing to stem the tide of illegal aliens crossing our borders, but rather contributed to the explosion of illegal immigration our nation faces today. Additionally, granting amnesty to those who have illegally crossed our borders is fiscally irresponsible and would place heavy financial burdens on American taxpayers and Federal social programs alike. According to the Heritage Foundation, current amnesty proposals being debated in Congress would result in the largest expansion of the welfare state in over 35 years and could eventually cost American taxpayers an additional $30 billion per year. The failure of the Federal government to enforce existing immigration laws has put the integrity of our immigration system and the sovereignty of our great nation at risk. Years of lax enforcement has led to a massive influx of aliens illegally crossing our borders without proper identification, thus creating a strain on the economy, law enforcement at all levels, and public safety in communities across the country. Many cities across the country are actually encouraging illegal immigration by providing sanctuary to those who have broken United States law by illegally crossing our borders. Police departments in these sanctuary cities are actually forbidden from reporting immigration violations to Federal authorities, creating grave national security loopholes. I introduced H. Res. 351 because I believe that the enforcement and strengthening of existing immigration laws, the elimination of sanctuary policies and increased cooperation between Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials are all necessary steps in reestablishing the rule of law in our country, and providing a significant deterrent to illegal immigration. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution which is in both the economic and national security interests of the United States.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Honda is right on track with this amendment. However, I believe my amendment will strengthen his amendment. Simply, my amendment ensures that children are educated on all aspects of global climate change, from global warming, climate science, and greenhouse gas reduction, to human activities on climate change, and the impact of greenhouse gas reduction strategies on developing nations, U.S. energy security, U.S. energy costs, and the global and U.S. economies. The decisions we make today in this Congress will not only affect our children but will affect many generations to come. As the father of four children, I feel it is imperative that they know all the viewpoints on an issue so that they can make an educated decision. It is important that they obtain knowledge through schools and their parents to make informed decisions, especially when those decisions will affect the environment and the economy. Our children are our country's future. What a bright future they have ahead of them. Every time I look at my four children, I think of the tough choices they will have to make on the road ahead, and hope that my wife and I have taught them to make the best decisions possible. I know that, between the education they receive at home and the education they receive at school, they will be well equipped to face the important choices later on in life. It is important to me that the science education they receive in school reflect the diversity of scientific viewpoints on this very important issue. This is something my friends on the other side of the aisle have long advocated for and something my amendment achieves. With 36.4 million elementary school-aged children and 16.8 million high school-aged children in our country, it is obvious that the science education they get today will dramatically affect their future tomorrow. Thanks to advanced technologies, today's science classes are much more advanced than the ones I took when I was in school. Yet there are so many viewpoints out there on scientific subjects, especially climate change, it is sometimes difficult to present all views fairly to them. However, I feel that this is important, especially on an issue as sensitive and politically charged as global climate change. Our children are our future, and we owe it to them to provide them with the best most balanced education possible. My amendment will help achieve that by presenting all viewpoints to students in kindergarten through 12th grade. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have long called for all scientific positions to be heard, and my amendment achieves this. I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment and ensure that all students receive fair and balanced scientific education.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. SULLIVAN. In its current form.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, today I stand before Congress to offer this motion to recommit because we must encourage new innovations in domestic energy supply. This motion to recommit gives priority to grants to expand domestic energy production through the use of coal-to- liquids technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing. H.R. 363 already emphasizes the need for increased science and engineer research grants, especially with regard to our Nation's young people. What it does not emphasize is the need for further diversification of our energy sources that will help achieve American energy independence and energy security. World energy demand is expected to increase by over 50 percent by the year 2030, a startling statistic, for sure. In America alone, energy demand is expected to increase by one-third. There is no one simple solution to arrive at energy independence and energy security. There are, in fact, several pieces to the energy puzzle. It is vital that we wean America off unstable foreign sources of energy. Congress must urge researchers to invest time and money into the rich technology of coal-to-liquid and nuclear reprocessing. We must commit to support coal-to-liquid technologies for the total life cycle, from coal extraction, through benefaction, processing, refining, packaging, distribution and end product consumption. It has been said that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. If we can economically produce liquid transportation fuel from coal, we could displace barrels of unstable foreign oil with barrels of domestically produced fuel. As America's most abundant domestic energy source, coal is an obvious choice to diversify our transportation fuels mix and to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. If we invest in coal-to-liquid fuels technology in the early stages, we can take one more step towards energy independence. Several countries, including France and Japan, are already reprocessing their spent nuclear fuel. It is important for our young scientists and engineers to learn how to develop this progression of reprocessing nuclear fuel. In 20 years, the number of university nuclear engineering programs has declined from 65 to 29. These young engineers should be encouraged to reuse nuclear fuel in an efficient and cost-effective way. This motion to recommit will promote our colleges to train our future scientists and engineers. In an aging nuclear workforce it is important that these young people are properly trained. It is time to encourage American energy supply through the development of coal-to-liquid and advanced nuclear technologies. With these technologies we can achieve this energy independence we so desperately need. This motion to recommit will allow us to meet this energy demand on our own terms by giving priority to grants to expand domestic energy production through the use of coal-to-liquids technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield some time to the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Shimkus.

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 52, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of American Heart Month. I commend Ms. Millender-McDonald for her efforts in bringing this resolution to the floor. Beginning in 1964, the President has issued a proclamation every year designating the month of February as American Heart Month. It is important to recognize the need for greater heart health. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in America. This year alone, over 1.2 million Americans are expected to experience a heart attack. American Heart Month renews the need to recognize and respond to symptoms of heart damage. Great work is being done by the American Heart Association to reach out into communities and help provide instructional programs on heart disease. It is important to have policies in place that ensure access to screening, referral, and counseling services for stroke and heart disease risk factors. I believe Congress should continue to support the goals of American Heart Month. This resolution is important in that it continues to encourage Americans to take a healthy approach to living and protecting their hearts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I stand here today in support of this resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 74, addressing the need for additional research into the chronic neurological condition hydrocephalus. This disease, for which there is no cure, affects an estimated 1 million Americans. Often the symptoms of hydrocephalus are confused with those of dementia, Alzheimer's disease or Parkinson's disease. When the disease is properly identified, people with hydrocephalus are able to live full and productive lives. The National Institutes of Health has responded to the needs of the hydrocephalus community by working with scientists and researchers to organize a conference in September of 2005 called ``Hydrocephalus: Myths, New Facts, Clear Directions.'' Demonstrating the need for collaborative research at the National Institutes of Health, seven institutes were able to work together and initiate new research and treatment efforts for hydrocephalus. I thank Representative Mike Thompson for his work in bringing awareness to this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this pretend, fake, disingenuous, cruel-to-the-troops resolution. It is impossible, despite what the Democrats have claimed, to both support the troops and not support the increase in troops necessary to win the war. With this nonbinding, fake, pretend resolution, Democrats maintain they support the troops but at the same time disapprove of their mission. This confusing message simply lends encouragement to the Iraqi insurgents and terrorists to believe that every roadside bomb brings them closer to their goal of a terrorist state in the heart of the Mideast. The simple fact is the deployment of troops to secure Baghdad has already begun. In fact, soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division, who were deployed after President Bush's call for a temporary increase in troops, are already in Iraq doing critical work with the Iraqi Security Forces. The passage of this misguided, pretend resolution does nothing except demoralize these brave men and women in uniform and invigorate those who wish America great harm. The consequences of failure in Iraq could not be greater. The outcome in Iraq will directly affect America's efforts in the global war on terrorism for many generations. A victory for the Islamic militants, such as the al Qaeda members who are embedded in the Anbar Province in Iraq and the Iranians in Iraq who are provoking sectarian violence, would embolden the enemy to expand the reach of their efforts. Retreat would result in instability in the region, encourage radical Islamic terrorists and rogue regimes to expand into the region, and give terrorists a sanctuary from which to launch attacks against the U.S. and the West. The bipartisan Iraqi Study Group, a bipartisan group, recognized the need of a troop surge to secure Iraq. To this end, I submit page 27 through 29 and page 73 of the Iraqi Study Group report for the Record on this issue to highlight the grave humanitarian consequences of a withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Iraq. I am tired of hearing Democrats constantly criticize our plans for Iraq, yet they do not have a plan of their own. It is a shame that they have chosen to play politics with the men and women in uniform in Iraq. Democrats now have the responsibility to govern, but they lack both a plan for success in Iraq and the political will to advance a bill that cuts off funds for our troops. They say that the problems in Iraq can only be solved by a political solution. While this is true to some extent, you cannot solve the problems in Iraq diplomatically and politically without first providing security to the Iraqi people. Security must go hand in hand with the political solution. Democrats need to understand that their political choices and rhetoric hurt our troops and morale and give comfort, great comfort, to our enemy. We also agree that this is a time for Iraqis to step forward and end sectarian violence and build a responsible government. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has promised the American people that in this new campaign Iraqi troops will be the ones knocking down doors, arresting insurgents and patrolling streets, with U.S. troops in a supporting role. We cannot give up at a critical point in Iraq's fledgling democracy. Failure in Iraq is not an option. If we do not win in Iraq, we leave it up to our future generations to tackle the problems of Islamic terrorism in an unstable region. There is no short-term solution in Iraq because there is not a short-term problem. Today, our brave men and women in Iraq are rising to the challenge to secure Baghdad. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill- timed resolution. Page 27 The United Kingdom has dedicated an extraordinary amount of resources to Iraq and has made great sacrifices. In addition to 7,200 troops, the United Kingdom has a substantial diplomatic presence, particularly in Basra and the Iraqi southeast. The United Kingdom has been an active and key player at every stage of Iraq's political development. U.K. officials told us that they remain committed to working for stability in Iraq, and will reduce their commitment of troops and resources in response to the situation on the ground. 5. Conclusions The United States has made a massive commitment to the future of Iraq in both blood and treasure. As of December 2006, nearly 2,900 Americans have lost their lives serving in Iraq. Another 21,000 Americans have been wounded, many severely. To date, the United States has spent roughly $400 billion on the Iraq War, and costs are running about $8 billion per month. In addition, the United States must expect significant ``tail costs'' to come. Caring for veterans and replacing lost equipment will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Estimates run as high as $2 trillion for the final cost of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Despite a massive effort, stability in Iraq remains elusive and the situation is deteriorating. The Iraqi government cannot now govern, sustain, and defend itself without the support of the United States. Iraqis have not been convinced that they must take responsibility for their own future. Iraq's neighbors and much of the international community have not been persuaded to play an active and constructive role in supporting Iraq. The ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out. B. Consequences of Continued Decline in Iraq If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe for Iraq, the United States, the region, and the world. Page 28 Continuing violence could lead toward greater chaos, and inflict greater suffering upon the Iraqi people. A collapse of Iraq's government and economy would further cripple a country already unable to meet its people's needs. Iraq's security forces could split along sectarian lines. A humanitarian catastrophe could follow as more refugees are forced to relocate across the country and the region. Ethnic cleansing could escalate. The Iraqi people could be subjected to another strongman who flexes the political and military muscle required to impose order amid anarchy. Freedoms could be lost. Other countries in the region fear significant violence crossing their borders. Chaos in Iraq could lead those countries to intervene to protect their own interests, thereby perhaps sparking a broader regional war. Turkey could send troops into northern Iraq to prevent Kurdistan from declaring independence. Iran could send in troops to restore stability in southern Iraq and perhaps gain control of oil fields. The regional influence of Iran could rise at a time when that country is on a path to producing nuclear weapons. Ambassadors from neighboring countries told us that they fear the distinct possibility of Sunni-Shia clashes across the Islamic world. Many expressed a fear of Shia insurrections--perhaps fomented by Iran--in Sunni-ruled states. Such a broader sectarian conflict could open a Pandora's box of problems--including the radicalization of populations, mass movements of populations, and regime changes--that might take decades to play out. If the instability in Iraq spreads to the other Gulf States, a drop in oil production and exports could lead to a sharp increase in the price of oil and thus could harm the global economy. Terrorism could grow. As one Iraqi official told us, ``Al Qaeda is now a franchise in Iraq, like McDonald's.'' Left unchecked, al Qaeda in Iraq could continue to incite violence between Sunnis and Shia. A chaotic Iraq could provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally. Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world. Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden, has declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda: they will seek to expel the Americans and then spread ``the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.'' A senior European official told us that failure in Iraq could incite terrorist attacks within his country. The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends further into chaos. Iraq is a major test of, and strain on, U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial capacities. Perceived failure there could diminish America's credibility and influence in a region that is the center of the Islamic world and vital to the world's energy supply. This loss would reduce America's global influence at a time when pressing issues in North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere demand our full attention and strong U.S. leadership of international alliances. And the longer that U.S. political and military resources are tied down in Iraq, the more the chances for American failure in Afghanistan increase. Continued problems in Iraq could lead to greater polarization within the United States. Sixty-six percent of Americans disapprove of the government's handling of the war, and more than 60 percent feel that there is no clear plan for moving forward. The November elections were largely viewed as a referendum on the progress in Iraq. Arguments about continuing to provide security and assistance to Iraq will fall on deaf ears if Americans become disillusioned with the government that the United States invested so much to create. U.S. foreign policy cannot be successfully sustained without the broad support of the American people. Page 29 Continued problems in Iraq could also lead to greater Iraqi opposition to the United States. Recent polling indicates that only 36 percent of Iraqis feel their country is heading in the right direction, and 79 percent of Iraqis have a ``mostly negative'' view of the influence that the United States has in their country. Sixty-one percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces. If Iraqis continue to perceive Americans as representing an occupying force, the United States could become its own worst enemy in a land it liberated from tyranny. These and other predictions of dire consequences in Iraq and the region are by no means a certainty. Iraq has taken several positive steps since Saddam Hussein was overthrown: Iraqis restored full sovereignty, conducted open national elections, drafted a permanent constitution, ratified that constitution, and elected a new government pursuant to that constitution. Iraqis may become so sobered by the prospect of an unfolding civil war and intervention by their regional neighbors that they take the steps necessary to avert catastrophe. But at the moment, such a scenario seems implausible because the Iraqi people and their leaders have been slow to demonstrate the capacity or will to act. C. Some Alternative Courses in Iraq Because of the gravity of the situation in Iraq and of its consequences for Iraq, the United States, the region, and the world, the Iraq Study Group has carefully considered the full range of alternative approaches for moving forward. We recognize that there is no perfect solution and that all that have been suggested have flaws. The following are some of the more notable possibilities that we have considered. Page 73 The Way Forward--A New Approach Deter even more destructive interference in Iraq by Syria and Iran. Because of the importance of Iraq to our regional security goals and to our ongoing fight against al Qaeda, we considered proposals to make a substantial increase (100,000 to 200,000) in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We rejected this course because we do not believe that the needed levels are available for a sustained deployment. Further, adding more American troops could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term ``occupation.'' 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 mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective. We also rejected the immediate withdrawal of our troops, because we believe that so much is at stake. We believe that our recommended actions will give the Iraqi Army the support it needs to have a reasonable chance to take responsibility for Iraq's security. Given the ongoing deterioration in the security situation, it is urgent to move as quickly as possible to have that security role taken over by Iraqi security forces. The United States should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq for three compelling reasons. First, and most importantly, the United States faces other security dangers in the world, and a continuing Iraqi commitment of American ground forces at present levels will leave no reserve available to meet other contingencies. On September . . .

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Congressman Davis. And I want to thank you for doing this tonight. I also want to thank Congressman Bill Shuster from Pennsylvania for the Countdown Crew. Tax relief is very important to the American people, the American families, American business. And we are about ready to embark on the largest tax increase in the history of this country, and it is going to be very detrimental to our economy. And I can remember when I got to Congress just a short time ago, almost 5 years ago. Congressman Shuster came in a little bit before me. And since that time, with some of the tax relief measures that have been put in place, we have seen just 167,000 jobs were created in December alone. Payroll, nonfarm payroll employment increased. Since August 2003, more than 7.2 million jobs have been created. Workers are finding jobs faster. I remember when I came to Congress back in 2002, one of the votes that I had to make, along with others, was to extend unemployment benefits. And we don't have to do that now, in large part, because of the tax relief measures that have been put in place. A lot of people think that we need to keep taxing and taxing and taxing our way to prosperity. And that is wrong. And my friends on the left, the liberals on the left, think that this money belongs to them, it belongs here in Washington with the politicians. And that is not where it belongs. It belongs to the people who earn the money in the first place, working families, small business people. And how does that apply to somebody, let us say, that lives in Oklahoma, a small businessman or woman? Well, I will tell you how it applies to them. When I go around my district, one of the biggest things I hear about are complaints from small- to medium-sized business people, and small- to medium-sized business people employ 85 percent of the people in our economy. They either work for, own, or operate small- to medium-sized businesses. And if we allow a small business to keep more of their money, what are they going to do with it? Well, they are going to hire more people to work. It is going to create jobs, which it has done. They are going to buy equipment to expand their business, and that money is going to bounce around the economy, that dynamic economic effect of that money bouncing around the economy, and it is going to find its way back to Washington anyway, but we get to do things with it before it does. One of the things too, Congressman Davis, that I hear about a lot is small business people are really complaining right now about providing health insurance for their employees. Either they have to go to their employees and say, hey, I can't cover you anymore or they have to lessen the benefit to the employee or they have to make the employee pay more of their health care cost. Now, if we provide tax relief to them, they are able to use that money to provide health insurance for their employees. The Democrats, if they allow this tax increase to take place, we are going to have more uninsured people in this country. Tax relief has been used many, many times. I remember last week or the week before that, Congressman Shuster talked about how tax relief was used when John F. Kennedy was President, a member of the other side of the aisle. And it works. He used tax relief, reducing all marginal rates. Also Ronald Reagan proposed tax relief, and it was wildly successful. We had a roaring economy. Tax relief is used by other countries in economic slow times to get out of that. It is one of the economic tools that are used. We have to realize too that Washington is getting too big. Government is too big. It is unaccountable. There is runaway spending here in Washington. There is no accountability, no light of day on the budgetary process. People talk about the budget like it is a complicated thing here in Washington. Well, heck, a chimpanzee could do the budget here in Washington. You get what you spent last year; you try to get more money. You want $10 million, you ask for $1 billion and you get $10 million more, and you spend that and that goes to your baseline for the next year. Instead of throwing money at all these supposed problems around here, we need to find the problems first and scrutinize the spending here in Washington, D.C. And we certainly don't need to free up more money for the politicians in Washington, D.C. to spend by allowing massive tax increases to occur. So I really commend you for doing this countdown, the Countdown Crew. I want to commend Congressman Shuster for all he has done, Congressman Davis, Jack Kingston from Georgia. This is very important. And when I go around my district, even in Oklahoma, we are hearing a lot of things about what you guys are doing on this Countdown Crew. People do not want to see these tax increases occur. I talked to someone the other day that said, I am afraid that our child tax credit will go away, from $1,000 to $600. That will be critical. I have four kids. It is going to affect me. It is going to affect a lot of people. And that is what we are dealing with, people. And we want them to keep the money that they worked so hard to earn in their pockets, not here in Washington. And, again, I want to thank you for having me here.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Texas for doing this tonight, and also my friend, Congressman Shuster from Pennsylvania. This is a very important topic, talking about tax relief for America's working families, for America's small business people. You know, we have seen a great economy recently. It is roaring along. Unemployment benefits are at an all-time low. You know, gross domestic product is up. We are seeing record numbers in our economy right now. That is due in small part, or in large part, because of the tax relief measures instituted by President Bush. I do not think, you know, tax relief is the only answer to a robust economy like we have right now, but it is certainly a piece of that puzzle. You know, other countries have used tax relief as an economic tool to get out of economic slow times. And America has done the same. It has been very important that we have done it. You mentioned too, Congressman Conaway, about the oil and gas tax. You know, oil and gas keeps this economy going. People do not realize, especially people from producing States how vital that is to our economy. There are so many byproducts from oil and gas. Taxing them is ridiculous. We need to spur domestic production here in the United States and become less reliant on foreign oil, not more reliant upon foreign oil. Taxing the people that produce that, which is really not only the large oil, Big Oil like the Democrats like to say, but small producers out there, independent producers, small mom and pop independent producers that produce 90 percent of the domestic oil and gas in this country. It is absolutely wrong. You know, people pay a lot in taxes. We pay too much in taxes. You know, government needs taxes for vital government services like the war, vital infrastructure needs. It is very have important that we have taxes for that. But I think that government has gotten too big, and we have taxed too much. If you think about it, if you look at your Federal tax, State tax, city tax, Congressman, we are taxed a lot. You get up in the morning, you take a shower, the alarm clock wakes you up, if it is an electric alarm clock, you pay taxes on electricity to get you up. If you take a shower, you pay taxes on the water, soap and shampoo. If you eat breakfast, you pay tax on the cereal you eat. You go to work, if you drive there, you pay the motor fuel tax, tire disposal fee, tag tax. You go to work, you have income tax or self-employment tax. You go home have dinner, taxed on that. And we are talking, Congressman Conaway, you can go home, kiss your wife, you are taxed on that too, that is not free either, you have got a marriage penalty tax too. So we pay a lot in taxes in this country. And, you know, the people that are counting on these things, if we allow the Democrats to raise taxes like they want to do, and in essence that is what they are doing if they do not continue these vital tax decreases, is they are hurting the American people, they are hurting small business. Now, 85 percent of the people that work in this economy right now are employed or work or own a small to medium-sized business. And those people, one of the things they talk about is providing health insurance to their employees, and they have been able to do it because of the tax relief, the money that they have saved because of that. And if their taxes go up, they are not only going to have to probably lay some people off, but they are not going to be able to provide the kind of health insurance that they want to provide for their employees. They have to make tough decisions right now, and it is wrong. I remember Congressman Shuster and I, we were in the back of the Chamber when we were first elected, and the Democrats were talking about tax cuts. And they said, Bill and I heard them say that some of them were in a group and they said, if we allow people to keep that money, they might not spend it the right way. Who are they to say that? It is their money. I mean, it is your money; it is not their money. The money that we take from, that we confiscate from taxpayers is not the politicians' money, it is not the Washington, DC people's money. It is the people's money, and they know best what to do with their own money. And what they are going to do, if you allow a family to keep more of what they earn, they are not going to go bury it in the yard; they can if they want. But they are probably going to go out and buy other things that are taxed. It is going to stimulate the economy. That is what taxes really do. There is a dynamic economic effect of tax relief. If you allow that money to bounce around the economy several times, it is going to find its way back to Washington anyway. But several people get to touch that dollar before it gets here. It spins around the economy. There is a dynamic economic effect to that. When you take money out of Washington, DC, it helps people, it helps the economy, it bounces around. It is going to find its way back anyway. And tax relief does work.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6, legislation that puts America's independent energy producers at risk and increases America's dependence on foreign oil. This bill unfairly punishes offshore oil and natural gas companies who signed leases with the Federal Government in 1998 and 1999. These leases, due to a mistake by the Clinton administration, did not set price thresholds for royalty incentives. The bill requires all companies to renegotiate these leases, even though they were fairly signed in the first place. The companies who entered into these agreements cannot be blamed for the Federal Government's mistakes. The contracts signed by the Federal Government and energy producers are legal and binding, regardless of the mistakes of the Federal Government in drafting them. In addition, a fair version of this provision was included in the Republican Outer Continental Shelf drilling bill that was adopted last year. We talk about this and I think this is a national security issue. Right now we should be encouraging domestic production here in the United States of America, and we are not. We get 60 percent of our oil from foreign sources, and a lot of that oil that we are getting is from areas that we are at conflict with or we have carpet bombed recently. I think it is asinine we are not doing all we can to spur domestic production here in the United States and not penalizing companies for doing such. It is absolutely ridiculous. Not only are gas prices low right now, in Tulsa where I am from it is below $2 a gallon when I left this past week, but also crude oil prices are as low as they were in 2005. They are going down. All this legislation will do is increase gasoline prices at the pump to upwards of $5 a barrel. What we need to be working on is a comprehensive energy policy in this country that will actually get prices down by not only spurring domestic production but also working on getting more refining capacity in this country. We are operating at 100 percent capacity right now. We need to be expanding, building five or so additional refineries in this country. And we can do it in an environmentally sound way.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4, legislation that effectively places the Federal Government in charge of the prescription drug program seniors participate in and jeopardizes seniors' ability to choose the Medicare plan that best fits their needs. The Medicare Modernization Act wisely provides Medicare prescription drug plans with powerful free market tools that drive deep discounts in prescription drug plans. Seniors deserve low drug prices, and that is what they are getting with Medicare part D. American taxpayers are also benefiting under Medicare part D. In fact, since 2003, taxpayers have saved $96 billion through competition among health plans. We are already seeing competition drive down prices and provide lower costs to Medicare beneficiaries. Competition is the reason why. Premiums have dropped from $37 to $22 per month, and the average monthly bill seniors spend on prescription drugs has fallen 54 percent, saving seniors an average of $1,200 a year. Ninety percent of all Medicare beneficiaries and more than 90 percent of seniors in Oklahoma are seeing real discounts on their prescription drugs. If the government is allowed to set costs and control prices with Medicare part D, it will limit access to drugs, and seniors may lose the right to choose plans. This problem already exists in the Veterans Administration. A quarter of our Nation's veterans who receive VA health care benefits are also enrolled in Medicare part D. This bill shows a clear difference between Democrats and Republicans. We want free market choice for our seniors instead of one-size-fits-all bureaucratic programs that will deny seniors the opportunity to choose drug plans that serve them best. Let's not jeopardize a good benefit that 80 percent of our seniors are satisfied with and is providing real savings to taxpayers and seniors alike. I urge a ``no'' vote on this measure.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam Speaker, this evening, I introduced H.R. 366, legislation to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma as the Ernest Childers VA Outpatient Clinic to honor one of our Nation's finest military heroes. Ernest Childers holds the distinction of being the first Native American to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroic action in 1943 at the battle of Oliveto, Italy, when he charged German machine gun nests against machine gun fire. Although suffering a broken foot in the assault, Childers ordered covering fire and advanced up a hill, single-handedly killing two snipers, silencing two machine gun nests and capturing an enemy mortar observer. His courageous action helped American troops win the battle and save the lives of American soldiers. Childers was also awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for his actions. Born in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, Childers enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard in 1937 to earn extra money while attending the Chilocco Indian School in north-central Oklahoma. While stationed at Fort Sill in Oklahoma, he was deployed to Africa to fight in World War II. Childers retired from the Army in 1965 as a lieutenant colonel but remained very active in the Tulsa community serving Indian youth, which led to the naming of a middle school in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, in his honor in 1985. As a proud Creek Indian, in 1966, Childers was honored by the Tulsa Chapter of the Council of American Indians as ``Oklahoma's most outstanding Indian.'' Of his military service in World War II, Childers once said, ``The American Indian has only one country to defend, and when you're picked on, the American Indian never turns his back.'' A fitting quote from a man who exemplified courage under fire and dedication to defending our Nation. Until his death on March 17, 2005, Childers was Oklahoma's last Congressional Medal of Honor recipient still living in the State. I am proud to introduce this legislation to honor his life and legacy. We were honored to have him grace us with his model character, defend us with his bravery, and leave us all with a life well-lived.