Floor Statements

I was proud to lead a bipartisan effort with Congressman Markey to advocate for long-term investment in NIH research. I am proud to stand here today in support of the Barton amendment. I hope the other 184 Members who joined us in advocating for these funds increase earlier this year will join us today in supporting this amendment. NIH funding is absolutely necessary, and I commend Mr. Barton for bringing this amendment forward.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, as the former sheriff of King County in Seattle, Washington, and the cochairman of the Congressional Children's Health Care Caucus, I am proud to offer this amendment supporting emergency medical services for children.

I am pleased to be joined in offering this amendment by Congressman Matheson, and to have the support of Congressman King from New York, both of whom have been outstanding leaders on this issue.

Our amendment will provide $2.5 million in additional resources for emergency medical services for children's programs offset from the Department of Labor's General Administrative Account. This vital program provides grants to States and medical institutions, to expand and improve emergency care for children who need treatment for life- threatening illnesses or injuries.

This modest funding increase will help a program that has been nearly level funded for the past 6 years. It will better serve those who provide emergency care for our children.

Children, as everyone knows, are not small adults. The illnesses and injuries that bring them into emergency rooms vary significantly, and they often need equipment that is smaller than what is used for adults, and medication in much more carefully calculated doses.

Although children account for 30 million annual visits to the emergency rooms, many hospitals and emergency management agencies are not well equipped to handle these patients. According to the Centers for Disease Control, only 6 percent of the United States emergency departments have all the supplies they need to handle pediatric emergencies.

Emergency Medical Services grants have been awarded to all 50 States, the District of Columbia and five territories. They have been used to train first responders to buy pediatric equipment for hospitals and to establish and improve standards for emergency care for children. Other grants have been used to create pediatric treatment guides for school nurses to test best practices and to incorporate pediatric care into State disaster plans.

Madam Chairman, this is a simple amendment with a significant impact on emergency care for our children. I urge all my colleagues to join in supporting this important measure.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as the former Sheriff of King Country, Washington, to pay tribute to one of my King County Sheriff's Office Deputies, Richard Herzog, who was senselessly killed in the line of duty five years ago this month in the City of Newcastle.

As a Sheriff's Deputy, Rich had an unwavering dedication to the community he served. He made the ultimate sacrifice on June 22, 2002, when his firearm was taken from him. He was shot while protecting the citizens around him. America lost a true hero that day and it is an honor to recognize him here today.

Until a few years ago, I was one of the 870,000 sworn law enforcement officers in this country. I am familiar with the struggles that law enforcement officers face each day--even after facing the most threatening circumstances and risking their lives, officers return to duty at the beginning of their next shift

to protect the citizens of their city, county, state and this country.

Deputy Herzog was kind and caring. He served his country not only as a law enforcement officer, but he was also a twenty-year veteran of the United States Army Special Forces.

Deputy Herzog was recently honored by the City of Newcastle at a dedication ceremony unveiling a new memorial in his honor.

The incredible loss of Rich to his wife, SunCha, and daughters, Sonja and Erika--their sacrifice--their husband and father--is still experienced every day and for the rest of their lives.

Madam Speaker, may we never forget the sacrifice the service of Deputy Rich Herzog and all of our fallen officers.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend, colleague, and mentor, Norm Maleng, who passed away on Thursday, May 24, at the age of 68.

I stand here today in part because of Norm's influence, mentorship, and encouragement in both my run for King County Sheriff and the United States Congress.

As the King County Prosecutor and one of the longest-serving elected officials in State history, Norm served the county, State, and our Nation with integrity and justice. In the public eye, he will be remembered for his prosecutions of high-profile crimes and his contributions to much of the major crime legislation passed during the 1980s.

One of the largest law offices in the state of Washington, the King County Prosecutor's Office staff totals over 500 employees. Norm always wanted the best for each individual who worked with him and for him.

As I've reflected on the many memories that I shared with him, one particular moment stuck out to me that I'll always remember. One day I said, ``Boy, I really have a challenge today, Norm,'' to which he responded ``There are no challenges, Dave, only opportunities.''

His philosophy was to approach each day with optimism and a smile.

Through the impact he made upon the King County community, the families who found justice through his dedication, and the lives that he touched--his legacy will live on.

In his honor, I ask that the following article be submitted into the Congressional Record:

[From the Seattle Times, June 14, 2007]

Maleng and UW: A Special Bond

(By Roland Hjorth)

Norm Maleng graduated from the University of Washington Law

School in 1966. He was one of my first students and I felt a

special bond because we both grew up on farms in rural

communities. I think his commitment to public service grew

directly out of his small-town roots.

The law school is proud of its graduates who have led lives

of public service. They have included two of our nation's

most powerful senators, a speaker of the House of

Representatives and members of the judiciary who have risen

to national prominence.

Norm Maleng was prominent in that company of leaders. He

was a man of ambition and a man of values. But when he had to

make hard decisions, values always trumped ambition. He was a

deeply religious man whose religion was crucial in shaping

his life, but he was too respectful of the views of others to

be evangelical about it.

Norm had the gift of being grateful for the things that

molded his character, enhanced his skills and helped him to

enter the legal profession. He was always grateful for the

early life that his parents gave him. He was also grateful

for his education at the UW Law School, once telling me that

the law school was where he got his ``union card'' and he

would never forget it; and, he never did.

When I first became dean of the law school, I asked Norm to

serve on our advisory board on strategic planning. He

promptly became one of its most active and effective members.

During our deliberations, he once said that almost all

students enter law school wanting to do good and too often

graduate wanting only to do well. He admonished us that this

should never happen at the UW Law School.

Norm's influence has had an impact on our requirement that

every student must fulfill a public-service obligation before

graduating. He was happy to know that the most thriving group

in the law school is the Public Interest Law Association,

which raises surprising amounts of money every year to

support summer public-service law internships for law

students. Norm was thrilled when the Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation endowed one of the nation's most significant

public-service scholarship programs at the UW School of Law.

From his early leadership on the law school advisory board,

he went on to serve as a trustee of the Washington Law School

Foundation for well over a decade. Norm became president of

the foundation and had completed his term of office shortly

before his death. During that term, he led an effort to

solicit contributions to the law school from law firms in

this city and especially from members of those firms who are

graduates of the UW Law School. I like to think he reminded

many that this was where they got their union card.

The Washington Law School Foundation has established a Norm

Maleng Fund. I share the foundation's earnest hope that

sufficient funds will be raised to establish a fitting

memorial for one whose life has inspired so many of our

students and so many lawyers in our community.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to fully fund ICE's request of $26.4 million for its 287(g) program. Let's just get down to sort of the cop's nitty gritty here.

Just 2\1/2\ years ago, I left the King County Sheriff's Office as the sheriff in Seattle, Washington, an 1,100-employee organization with a $110 million budget. I started in 1972 as a 21-year-old police officer in a patrol car for about 5 years. I worked in the jail, and I worked as a property crimes detective, and for the most part of my career, I was a homicide investigator. I worked with all kinds of communities.

All the different diverse communities that we serve across this Nation exist in King County, Seattle, Washington. I understand the theory of the Community Oriented Policing program. We implemented that program in the King County Sheriff's Office. It is one of those programs that really comes natural to a police officer working on the streets in their patrol car. They want to connect with their community. They want to be friends with their community, as mentioned earlier by my colleague across the aisle.

Part of the Community Oriented Policing program is to make friends and engage in conversation and build relationships, but it is also our job as law enforcement officers, local law enforcement officers across this Nation, to enforce the law. Sometimes we make friends doing that. We save lives doing that. But sometimes we make enemies.

In the process of making friends and making enemies and protecting our neighborhoods, we also build partnerships with those communities, but we also build partnerships beyond that. We build partnerships with the Federal Government. We build partnerships with the FBI, with the U.S. Attorney's Office, with DEA, with ICE, with Border Patrol. I could go on and on and on with the Federal agencies that join in concert, in partnership, with local law enforcement every day.

In Federal task force organizations, like the Joint Analytical Centers, the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, the HIDTA, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, the Violent Offenders Task Force, the VICAP Program, and I could go on and on and on with Federal agencies and Federal programs and Federal task forces that come together; it is about partnerships between local law enforcement and Federal law enforcement. And it is about training, joint training, with each of these agencies so that we can get our job done, that we can protect this country.

I understand that. I worked as a partner with the Federal agencies when I wore a police uniform on the street. I worked with as a partner with Federal agencies as I wore my suit and tie and my uniform as the sheriff for 8 years in King County. These partnerships are essential. They create a seamless web, a seamless web of sharing information across all spectrums of the Federal, local, State law enforcement.

There is no undermining of the local police department when partnerships are created with the Federal Government. It is an uplifting and exciting experience to work with all of these agencies and train together to finally learn what each one of us does and what we can bring to the table as a team as we protect our country.

So Homeland Security now, as a fairly new agency with 22 departments, is another one of those agencies that we have to work with, and ICE is one of those.

This training program creates an understanding. It helps police officers understand and respect civil liberties. It helps police officers understand and respect civil rights. It helps police officers at the local level in training with the Federal Government understand and respect the diverse communities that we serve. Why would we not want to have our local police officers participate in training that helps give us a broader understanding of the diverse community we serve?

It makes no sense to me to be against increasing this budget to what ICE has asked for. It makes no sense at all. If we are truly interested in civil liberty, civil rights and respecting each other's diversity, we would want this training.

Let's make a point clear: This is voluntary. This isn't mandated by the government. Every police department and Sheriff's office across the country can volunteer for this program.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is a great program. I commend the gentlewoman from Virginia for bringing this forward. I fully support this amendment, and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, I rise today to offer an amendment that would restore a cut to the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence function.

This bill cuts the analysis and security's intelligence functions. This bill cuts $8 million from that account from last year, and this bill cuts the analysis and operations account by $8 million from last year, and is $23 million below the administration's request.

I simply do not understand why we would be cutting the intelligence funding. Let's be clear about this. Intelligence is what we use to prevent terrorist attacks. Good intelligence helped prevent the recent plots against Fort Dix and against John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. The Department of Homeland Security intelligence had a role in both of these cases, and, in fact, in the JFK plot the Department of Homeland Security was sharing classified intelligence with the private sector for more than a year before the threat was made public.

My amendment attempts to strike an appropriate balance between response, recovery and prevention. This legislation, in its current form, includes cuts to intelligence and yet significantly increases response and recovery programs.

While all are important to homeland security, I think we can all agree that it is better to prevent a terrorist attack than be forced to respond to one. According to the Department of Homeland Security, this bill would reduce the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence support for border security, terrorist travel, and human smuggling. It would severely impact the Department's ability to assess these threats, and would harm their efforts to focus on homegrown terrorism and violent extremism within the United States.

My amendment simply adds $10 million for analysis operations to that account to help restore the Department's intelligence functions. This would eliminate the cut and provide a modest $2 million increase from last year.

The terrorists only have to be right once, but to defend ourselves, we have to be right every time. Intelligence is the most sound investment we can make as a Nation to prevent terrorism.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.

I want to just respond to a couple of points that were made. Part of this budget is classified, and we can say one thing, though, in open session, and that is that the Department of Homeland Security disagrees with your assessment. For instance, your report states that the Office of Operations and Coordination has significant unobligated balances. According to the Department of Homeland Security, as of June 7 of this year, OPS has obligated 63 percent of fiscal year 2007's funding and 99.9 percent of fiscal year 2006 carry-over funding.

So let's just be real about this bill. If you are serious about intelligence, why are we cutting it by $8 million over last year's budget, $23 million over the suggested administration's budget?

This is what it does: It will reduce our ability to deploy personnel to the southwest and northern borders to support border enforcement efforts. It will reduce our ability to identify and assess threats to the security of the Nation's land, air, and sea borders. It will reduce our ability to analyze the threat of homegrown terrorism and domestic terrorism. It will reduce our ability to provide an alternative perspective to terrorist threats. It will reduce our ability to collect intelligence and support those intelligence owners and operators of the Nation's critical infrastructure. And it will reduce our ability to analyze terrorist travel trends and methods.

I have 33 years of law enforcement experience in the Seattle area, was the sheriff of Seattle before I came here, now serving in my second term in Congress. I understand the balance between response and prevention. I understand the balance of civil liberties and protection of the public against criminal activity. I understand the balance there. This bill puts this balance way out of whack.

One million dollars taken from management in the Secretary's office, $11 million taken from the Under Secretary's office. They still receive a $79 million increase. The committee's recommendation in this report remains intact; therefore, civil liberty funding and privacy, counternarcotics funding levels remain intact. They are not part of our offsets. Also not a part of our offset is CBC.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Reichert

Amendment No. 101: Page 2 line 9, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

Page 2 line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced

by $3,000,000)''.

Page 4 line 24, after the dollar amount insert ``(increased

by $10,000,000)''.

Page 6 line 5, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by

$6,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Air Force Reserve, I am pleased to rise in support of this important veterans outreach measure. We must continue to ensure that all of our veterans are aware of and receive the benefits that they have earned and deserve. These grants will help our states connect veterans with the many benefits for which they are eligible but may be unaware are available to them.

But it is not just our states' responsibility to conduct this outreach, and I encourage all of my colleagues in the House to use the privilege of our offices to help veterans obtain needed benefits and services. In March, I held a Veterans' Resource Fair in my district. I brought 45 service providers together under one roof to help more than 350 veterans register for benefits, find jobs, and resolve pressing case work issues. I will hold another in just a few months time. My office stands ready to assist any one of you in conducting a similar event for the veterans in your district.

We must work to support the men and women who made individual sacrifices to preserve our freedom not just on Memorial Day, but on all days. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill, and I hope that we will continue to join together to promote and protect meaningful benefits for our veterans. I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule and the manager's amendment that was made in order under this rule. This manager's amendment will significantly weaken legislation that gained bipartisan support in Committee on Homeland Security and passed 26-0.

As the chairman of the Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee last Congress, we were able to pass into law comprehensive interoperability legislation. This legislation, titled the 21st Century Communications Act, created the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications and elevated the importance of emergency communications within the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, this legislation accelerated the development of national standards for emergency communication equipment.

Unfortunately, the Rules Committee has approved an amendment that would remove many key provisions and severely weaken this legislation. This amendment removes language that allows interoperability funds to be used by State and local agencies to develop standard operating procedures, training, and exercises.

It is important for our first responders to have this equipment, but it is also equally important that they have the training to know how to use the equipment. Allowing this amendment on the floor that removes this provision will reduce the first responders' effectiveness due to a lack of training and planning.

We saw what happened during Hurricane Katrina when there was a lack of training, a lack of planning and a lack of communication. It was disastrous. It cost lives.

Next week is National Police Week. At a time when we are supposed to be honoring and supporting our first responders, and especially our law enforcement officers, across this Nation, we are limiting their abilities to protect themselves and to protect this Nation. I know this from firsthand experience. This is a problem that has been in existence for over 35 years, the lack of first responders to communicate. I responded to a call in 1974, not able to get on my radio, having to run across a yard and tackle a kid that had a rifle aimed at three other police officers, because I couldn't get through and talk to the communications center.

Today, eliminating this provision will create that same situation across this Nation. It's unthinkable. It's unconscionable. It should not be happening. This should be a bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I thank the gentlelady for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today as a cosponsor of this resolution to honor our law enforcement officers across this Nation. I was one of the 870,000 sworn law enforcement officers that are on the job today just a couple of years ago, until I came to this House. I have to be honest and confess that my heart still lies with my fellow officers and deputies in the King County Sheriff's Office in Seattle, Washington.

I was one of those officers who have been spit on, kicked, called every name that you can think of and maybe some that you can't think of, stabbed, shot at, threatened. All of those things happened in my 33-year career.

But I am here today alive and well to talk about those officers that sacrificed their lives. Some of those were my good friends. Two were my partners. One was an academy mate. One was my best friend. Murdered. Shot and killed.

Now, just last year the King County Sheriff's Office lost another dedicated law enforcement officer by the name of Steve Cox. Imagine you are Deputy Steve Cox and you are responding to a call on an early Saturday morning back in December. You really don't know what kind of a call you are going to. But then you hear that shots have been fired. Part of your job is to interview every person at the scene, so you start to interview these people. All of a sudden, in the middle of the interview, somebody pulls a gun, and before Deputy Cox could react, he was shot in the head and killed. He left behind a wife and a 1-year-old son.

These are things that happen every day on the streets of our great Nation. We owe such a debt of gratitude to the men and women who wear the badge, whether they wear a blue uniform or green, gray or whatever color it might be, who are there to protect us from those people on our streets who choose not to obey the laws of the land.

There are four people from the State of Washington who will be added to the memorial this year: Joselito Barber from the Seattle Police Department; Edwanton Thomas from the Brier Police Department; Dick Rhodes from the Kittitas County Sheriff's Office; and Deputy Steve Cox from the King County Sheriff's Office.

Mr. Speaker, as you can tell, this is very close to my heart. It should be close to each and every one of us. Every time we see one of the Capitol Hill police officers or the Washington, D.C. police when we are back here, please stop and say thank you for a job well done in putting their lives and their family's lives on the line for us every day.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for allowing me time to speak this afternoon. I also want to take a moment to congratulate Chairman Thompson on bringing this legislation forward.

And I do rise, Mr. Chairman, in support of H.R. 1401. A number of the speakers already have touched upon how the world has changed since September 11, but sometimes we say those words and, really, the heart and the meat of those words don't really touch our hearts. And if I could just take a moment to share a story with you.

As I was traveling through my district a few months ago along the freeways just south of the city of Seattle, I looked up at one of the traffic advisory boards. Usually what you see on those advisory boards are traffic alerts: take a different route; traffic accident ahead; severe hazard is ahead; exit freeway; blocked freeway ahead. Those are the things that we are used to seeing on our traffic advisory boards in the Seattle area.

But on this day, as I looked up at the traffic advisory board, what it said was, SEA-TAC Airport security alert. No gels, no liquids allowed on planes in carry-on luggage.

That, to me, just struck for a moment at, really, the true change that has happened since September 11. Freedom has been impacted by the attack on the United States of America. And as we look at protecting our homeland, it is so important for our protection to be coordinated by law enforcement, by local law enforcement, for grant money to be directed toward local law enforcement and partnering with the Federal system, partnering with the Department of Transportation, partnering with the airport and the rail and security people who protect our railways, highways and airports. All of those have to be brought together and in conjunction with the private sector. That is the duty of local law enforcement to bring people together, to make our neighborhoods and communities safe.

But, as I support H.R. 1401, as reported unanimously by the Committee on Homeland Security, I am in strong opposition to the manager's amendment that is up for consideration today.

Under the version of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, approved by the Committee on Homeland Security, the Department of Homeland Security would be responsible for distributing rail and public transportation security grants. Unfortunately, good policy has given way to politics. And in the manager's amendment, we see the responsibility for administering these grants has shifted from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Transportation.

In a statement by the National Sheriffs' Association on this legislation, the association writes: ``Specifically, the National Sheriffs' Association, sheriffs and law enforcement officials have a vested interest in protecting national and homeland security and, in order to do so, it is paramount that an obvious and central entity exist to which sheriffs can turn to for support and assistance. Thus, the National Sheriffs' Association believes that allowing the Department of Homeland Security to maintain the primary role in the assessment and the distribution of grant monies concerning rail security will help maintain such a necessary and efficient Homeland Security infrastructure.''

Let me repeat that last part, please: ``Allowing the Department of Homeland Security to maintain the primary role in the assessment and distribution of grant monies concerning security will help maintain such a necessary and efficient Homeland Security infrastructure.''

In addition to this ill-conceived move, the manager's amendment makes another critical error in determining who is eligible for the $2.4 billion of funds for rail security. Again, the version of this legislation reported out of the Committee on Homeland Security allowed State, local and tribal government entities, as well as railroad carriers, to apply for these grants. Risk-based, threat-based. The manager's amendment allows eligible railroad carriers only to apply for these grants.

Mr. Chairman, as a former sheriff of a major metropolitan area, I understand local law enforcement plays an important role in protecting our Nation's transit and rail systems. A cynical person might say that the manager's amendment serves as nothing more than a $2.4 billion earmark for Amtrak, though I am sure that that is not the overt intent of its author.

While the manager's amendment has made some improvements to this legislation, specifically, the whistleblower provisions, I remain in strong opposition to the dangerous changes the amendment makes to the grant portion of this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to, and I am honored to be here to support H.R. 1284, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2007. It sounds awful cold and mechanical when you rattle it off in that way, but it means a lot to the people who serve this country.

I was, as my good friend Mr. Miller said, I was in the Air Force. I served 33 years in the King County Sheriff's Office in Seattle, Washington, and I had friends who were wounded in the line of duty, partners who were wounded, partners who were killed and sacrificed

their lives to protect their communities. I, myself, was nearly mortally wounded in serving our community as a sheriff's deputy.

I know what it means to have a community come behind you. I know what it means to have a family stand with you. I know what it means to have your friends, your relatives, and your local government to be there with you.

Our veterans deserve to know what that feeling is. They need to know the United States Government and Members of Congress are standing with them. We are soldiers here fighting with them, providing them with the benefits they need, the tools they need, the things they need to do their job, the things they need to do to protect their families, the things they need to have to provide for their families.

Two weeks ago I stopped and visited a marine in a Seattle VA hospital. This marine was wounded in the neck with a .22 caliber bullet. I stood in awe at his courage as he lay paralyzed from the waist down, and I asked him what his plans were for the future, and that I was honored to meet him, and sorry that he was wounded in battle.

He looked at me and smiled and said, Why feel sorry for me? Don't. I volunteered for this work. I want to protect America. You know what he said his plans for the future was? To go back to Iraq. He said, I will walk again and fight next to my brothers and sisters on the front lines.

I met another soldier at Madigan Hospital, the Army hospital in Tacoma, Washington, a soldier who was standing near someone who blew themselves up, a suicide bomber. He is now suffering from a blood viral infection. He has been treated for over a year at Madigan Hospital. I said the same thing to him. I am honored to meet you. What are your plans for the future?

He said, I will heal. Don't feel sorry for me. I am going back to fight with my fellow soldiers.

This cost-of-living increase seems mechanical to us as we sit here in this House floor. It means a lot to the soldiers that are fighting and dying for this freedom of our citizens, of all of us here today.

I am so proud to be here to stand before you and support this legislation.

One of the other things that we must do, not only pass legislation that helps them provide for their families and for themselves and their future, you must reach out and make sure that those veterans who are out in our community, 624,000 veterans in the State of Washington, know what benefits are available to them.

On March 31, we would hold a veterans fair just across the water from Seattle, Washington, and invite every veteran in the State to be there so they can learn how we can help them and we can honor them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as a member of the U.S. Air Force Reserves a number of years ago, in support of our troops. It is unconscionable for the soldiers who defend our freedom to receive anything less than the finest medical care.

I visited the veterans hospital in Seattle again recently and talked at length to one soldier about the quality of care he has received. I was relieved to hear that from the time he was wounded in Iraq to his treatment at Bethesda and his time at Seattle's VA Hospital, the care that he received was excellent. Unfortunately, this is not the case in every hospital for every soldier.

I will soon be visiting Walter Reed to speak with soldiers there and make sure they are receiving the excellent care that they deserve. I am encouraged by the efforts to hold accountable those responsible for the appalling conditions at Walter Reed.

This issue transcends party lines and requires an immediate response by all parties. This is about young men and women who have sacrificed much for our country and for our freedom. We owe it to them to correct this injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I support the troops wholeheartedly and without reservation, but I cannot support a resolution that simply opposes a new strategy without offering an alternative plan to win. There is too much at stake.

Many of you know that I was a cop in the Seattle area for 33 years. I was the sheriff for 8 years. And as the sheriff I had an opportunity to attend a remarkable ceremony. Every year a group of naturalized American citizens gathered to remember the circumstances of their arrival in the United States.

The group is comprised of police officers from Vietnam, men that fought side by the side with our American soldiers. These Vietnamese officers assumed the greatest risks, risking their lives and endangering their families, to join the United States in their fight for freedom.

When the United States pulled out of Vietnam, there were dire consequences for these brave men who risked everything to fight for the United States. The officers were rounded up. Some were imprisoned for 15 years or more and some were executed.

Those who managed to flee and escape death made their way to the United States. They left everything in Vietnam, and made new lives in the United States. And they were able to enjoy the freedoms that they had fought for, but not in the country that they had hoped for.

Let me just take a moment to set the stage for this ceremony. As the sheriff, I sat down at a round table with many of these Vietnamese soldiers and police officers. They came in their uniforms that they brought along with them, those that were able to escape, those that spent 15 to 17 years in a prison camp where they were beaten, where they were tortured, where they lost their freedom. They lost their dignity, but they never gave up hope.

When they came here to the United States of America and they come together on this evening to celebrate their freedom, and the American flag is brought into that room, those men stand at attention and they salute. But you know what else they do? They cry. When the American flag is brought in, they cry because they lost their freedom. But now they know what it is like to have it back. It is a dramatic scene.

If we leave too soon in Iraq, what happened to these Vietnamese officers could certainly happen to those Iraqi soldiers who bravely fought side by side with our troops today. I don't use this example as a way of comparing this conflict with Vietnam, as some have done. I believe that the two wars are very different. I use it because it could happen again.

I never want to attend an event where former Iraqi soldiers are attending a similar ceremony. The fact is that we are engaged in a global war with people intent on killing us, killing Americans. And regardless of how we got into Iraq, Iraq is now the central front of this war.

I understand that there are many who think we should not have entered Iraq. We now know there was faulty intelligence that led us into Iraq and to make that decision. But the war is upon us nonetheless. I am elected to deal with what is happening now.

The consequences of declaring an end to the war in Iraq without victory would be felt for decades. Our enemies around the world would be emboldened. Iran and al Qaeda would declare victory. Our allies in Iraq would certainly face bloodshed and our allies around the world would question our resolve to help protect them.

Our troops are clear about their dedication to their mission; they want to succeed. American soldiers dutifully responded when we asked them to go to Iraq and oust a dictator, establish an infrastructure, and train the Iraqis so that they are able to protect themselves.

Now we must do what the troops have asked of us. They have given us their service, and in too many cases they have given us their lives. We must give them the opportunity for victory.

Our current strategy in Iraq is failing. And yet failure is not an option, not only for the United States' security, but also for the security of the Iraqi soldiers and police officers that still fight today, side by side with our troops.

In November the American people told us that they wanted a new strategy, not because they wanted to lose, but because they want to win. And now we have a new strategy before us. Is this new plan going to work? I don't know. No one in this body that will vote on this resolution, this nonbinding resolution, knows whether or not this plan will work.

But what I do know is that we first must find a way to achieve victory. And simply saying ``no'' to a plan without offering an alternative won't work, and it sends a terrible message to our enemies and to our soldiers. This is an historic war. America is engaged in a war for our freedom on a scale that we have never experienced before.

I understand the dissension, the questions, and the uncertainty. I understand the cost is high and the way is unclear. As a cop, I have lost partners, I have lost friends in the line of duty. I know the pain that causes. I understand the loss. It is sad. It is tragic, and you never forget. But we must remain focused, ladies and gentlemen. Please don't let those sacrifices be in vain.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution and let us send a message to our enemies and our troops alike, we will always support our young men and women who put their lives on the line for freedom and

that we will give them what it takes to succeed in the missions that we have given them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I support our troops wholeheartedly and without reservation, but I cannot support a resolution that simply opposes a new strategy without offering any alternative plan to win. There is too much at stake.

Let us just think about where we are today as a country, about the global war we are in with people with intent to kill Americans and how that affects our strategy in Iraq. When considering this, we must consider our Nation's history and other difficult times of war.

There have been many bleak moments in America's history, battles we have been engaged in where American victory was far from certain.

In 1942, hell bent on dominating the world with his ideology, Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich systematically marched through Europe, taking the most basic freedoms from the Jewish people and killing millions. The United States entered World War II reluctantly and we were not ready for the hurdles we faced.

Don't forget, there were times when victory was far from certain. The outlook was grim. Many Americans and Europeans alive today can remember how bleak those times were as the war drug on and on and on. But we didn't give up. We persevered, because we knew there was too much at stake.

Eighty years before World War II, in 1862, President Lincoln faced a war that most believed could not be won. He faced vocal and unrelenting criticism for his resolve to win the Civil War. When the war began, Lincoln called for 74,000 troops for 90 days; 74,000 troops for 90 days. And history has showed us that Lincoln greatly underestimated the resources needed, because, as we know, over 620,000 soldiers were killed during that war.

At a time in our history when it might have been politically expedient to win the Civil War without first achieving victory, President Lincoln pressed on, constantly seeking a new strategy, until he found one that worked because so much was at stake.

Perhaps some of the resolve Lincoln displayed came from lessons he learned 15 years earlier when he entered a smaller battle. In 1848, Abraham Lincoln was an often criticized young

freshman Member of this body, the House of Representatives, and was facing a difficult point in his career. Lincoln criticized the reasons President Polk gave for getting us into the Mexican-American War, a war that began before Lincoln came to office, a position that I can identify with today as I stand here.

Then-Congressman Lincoln voted for a resolution that stated the Mexican-American War was ``unnecessarily and unconstitutionally'' initiated by President Polk. Lincoln thought the war was nothing more than a political move to grab land from the Mexican people.

My friends, it is legitimate and in fact our duty to question the reasons why our country goes to war, and Abraham Lincoln showed us that. However, he also showed us something else. Abraham Lincoln made an incredibly important distinction that we can learn from today.

A Lincoln biographer, Doris Kearns Goodwin, writes that after being criticized for that vote ``Lincoln sought to clarify his position, arguing that although he had challenged the instigation of the war he had never voted against supplies for the soldiers.''

This is an important point to make again. Lincoln sought to clarify his position, arguing that although he had challenged the instigation of the war he had never voted against supplies for the soldiers. Lincoln knew the damage of condemning a war while claiming to support the troops. Yet that is what this resolution before us does today.

During the American Revolution, the men and women who had become this country's first citizens were declared by the King of England to be in rebellion. The King sent soldiers across the Atlantic to quell the uprising.

In every war, it is the average citizen who stands up and fights for his neighbor's freedom. It is the same today. In response to the King of England's attack, again it was the average citizen who raised his hand, volunteered, stood up and fought for our freedom. A bookstore owner, the manager of an iron foundry and a land surveyor all stood and fought for our freedom. Those men were Henry Knox, Nathaniel Green and George Washington.

During America's War for Independence, it was not clear if we would prevail then. We lost battle after battle. Troops deserted the battlefields. General Washington and his deputies persevered, continuing to engage the enemy until the tide turned, because so much was at stake.

We are the United States of America today and we are free because General Washington refused to quit. We are the United States of America today and we are free because Abraham Lincoln refused to quit. And we are the United States of America today and we are free because Roosevelt and Truman refused to quit. And we are the United States of America today and we are free because of the sacrifice of the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line in Iraq, Afghanistan and all around the world, preserving our freedom.

Today, the United States is engaged in another war, and just as before we face an enemy that wants to destroy our way of life. Just as before we face an enemy that thinks it is winning. Just as before our country is divided. Just as before we are making mistakes. Just as before we face a moment of truth about what to do next. And just as before the consequences of losing are devastating.

The enemy is clear about what their intentions are by what they say and what they do. Al Qaeda and the global movement that it has spawned have made it clear they want nuclear and biological weapons. It is clear they want to kill us, Americans. Osama bin Laden has called acquiring nuclear weapons a ``religious duty.'' The fact is we are engaged in a global war with people intent on killing Americans, and regardless of how we got into Iraq, Iraq is now the central front of that war.

And yet while we debate this nonbinding resolution, what is really at stake is winning or losing. Like Lincoln, I was not in this office as the war began. I understand the arguments. I understand the questions. I have been asking questions, too, as an elected official in this body for the past 2 years, as a concerned citizen, and before that, as a veteran. I understand that there are many who think we should never have entered Iraq. We now know there was faulty intelligence that led to that decision.

But the war is upon us nonetheless. I am elected to deal with what is happening now. Will we succeed? Will we win? Just as at other moments in our history, those questions stand unanswered. The consequences of declaring an end to the war in Iraq without victory would be felt for decades. Our enemies around the world would be emboldened. Iran and al Qaeda would declare victory. Our allies in Iraq would certainly face bloodshed, and our allies around the world would question our resolve to help protect them.

Sergeant Eddie Jeffers is a U.S. Army infantryman serving in Ramadi, Iraq. Sergeant Jeffers has a firsthand appreciation for what is at stake in Iraq and our presence there and what it means to the Iraqi people.

He writes, ``We are the hope of the Iraqi people. They want what everyone else wants in life: Safety, security, somewhere to call home. They want a country that is safe to raise their children in. They want to live on, rebuild and prosper. And America has given them that opportunity, but only if we stay true to the cause and see it to its end. But the country must unite in this endeavor. We cannot place the burden on our military alone. We must all stand and fight, whether in uniform or not. Right now the burden is all on the American soldier. Right now hope rides alone. But it can change. It must change, because there is only failure and darkness ahead for us as a country, as a people, if it doesn't.''

Sergeant Jeffers' words hit at the heart of our present challenge in Iraq. Our current strategy in Iraq is failing, and yet failure is not an option. In November, the American people told us they wanted a new strategy, not because they wanted to lose, but because they wanted to win. Now we have a new strategy before us.

Is this new plan going to work? I don't know. No one in this body who is voting on this resolution knows.

What I do know is that we must find a way to achieve victory, and simply saying ``no'' to a new plan without offering up an alternative will not work and sends a terrible message to our enemies and our soldiers.

This is an historic war. America is engaged in a war for our freedoms on a scale that we have never experienced before. I understand the dissension, the questions and the uncertainty.

I understand the cost is high and the way is often unclear. I have served in law enforcement for 33 years. I understand the loss. I have lost partners and friends in the line of duty. I understand the cost of freedom and the sacrifices that must be made. The sacrifices are hard, they are tragic and they are never forgotten, but we must remain focused and not let those sacrifices be in vain.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution. Lincoln warned us against tying a criticism of the war to support for our troops. Let us send a message to our enemies and our troops alike that we will always support our young men and women who put their lives on the line for our freedom.