Floor Statements

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I want to join with her and all of our colleagues who knew Lionel Van Deerlin. You know, Van's trademark was his intellect and his wit. In fact, in our first debate in 1980, I noticed, I looked over and I saw my dad roaring with laughter at every one of Van's one-liners. And I had to ask him after the debate was over whose side he was on.

Some good things do come out of political contests, and one thing that came out of ours was a 28-year friendship.

A lot of people here, in fact, I just talked to John Conyers here who remembered Van, and a lot of us remember his political skills. He will be known in this city for political skills.

But for those who really knew him in San Diego and around this country, they'll remember him as just a wonderful, wonderful human being.

I thank my friend for yielding. And the gentleman from Iowa is indeed an expert on renewable energy, and I've spent a lot of time in his wonderful State examining that program, which is very robust right now.

I thought the gentleman might be interested, because this is a subject that's near and dear to your heart, in the recent progress on the border fence and the recent actions that have been undertaken by the administration.

The gentleman from Iowa and I have linked arms on a number of occasions to do several things: one, pass the border fence legislation that mandates the construction of a double fence across the southern border for about 854 miles. And as we know, that legislation was watered down some in December by the Senate, but it remains a mandate to do at least 700 miles of fence. And the administration just undertook the waiver of environmental regulations that would keep the fence from being built for many years.

In fact, I remember that when we tried to fence Smugglers Gulch, where a great deal of cocaine came into the United States between San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico, we were delayed for 12 years by a series of lawsuits and regulations being invoked. I think the last regulatory delay revolved around whether or not a gnatcatcher would fly over a 12-foot-high fence, and after a year I think the experts concluded that indeed that gnatcatcher could clear the fence; so we could build it.

So the administration has invoked this waiver, and I want to commend Secretary Chertoff for undertaking that waiver because it's absolutely necessary if we're going to get the fence built. Otherwise, we will never get it built. And today the southwest border, and particularly Texas along with Arizona, are absolutely on fire with the smuggling of drugs and illegal aliens. And last year they moved about 22 metric tons of cocaine across the border, across the southwest border, and about 368 tons of marijuana. So it's still a trafficking corridor or a series of corridors which are flowing relatively unimpeded by this relatively small force of Border Patrolmen and Customs and DEA agents who attend the border. But getting that double-border fence up, and in some cases it's a single fence--I would like to see a double fence all the way across--but getting that fence up is going to have a great, very salutary effect on law enforcement in the United States.

And I'm reminded that when we built the double fence in San Diego, the crime rate by FBI statistics in the county of San Diego dropped by 56.3 percent. And I think if we indeed get the series of fences up across the southwest border, you're going to see fewer criminal aliens being incarcerated at the Federal, State, and local level. And right now there are 250,000 of them in incarceration.

So since the gentleman has been my partner in these endeavors, I knew he would want to hear the report.

A hearing was chaired by the Committee on Resources and two subcommittees in Brownsville, Texas, and I think we aired the issues very fully. And if you listened to all the testimony, a couple of things were clear: One, we need the fence because no one has an alternative; and, number two, if we don't get the waivers, we will never get the fence built.

So I thought the gentleman would be interested in that progress, and I just wanted to report that to him.

And I thank you for yielding.

Of marijuana.

If the gentleman will yield.

What that really amounts to is that this industry of moving this poison across the international border to the United States is cocaine that poisons our young people. That is such a massive industry now on the southern border of the U.S. that the drug gangs are fighting each other for control of this lucrative industry. That is what it represents. That is another reason why we need to build that border fence.

Incidentally, we had 202,000 arrests in the area where the fence has now been constructed between San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico. After we constructed it, we went down to 9,000 arrests. That is a reduction of more than 90 percent. And in the Yuma sector, where we have also now constructed double fencing, we went from 138,000 arrests to a little under 4,000. That is more than a 95 percent reduction.

So of all the things that we have tried with respect to controlling the border, we have discovered that one thing does work and that is a border fence. The President and Mr. Chertoff should be commended for invoking this waiver that we gave them so we can move ahead on this very, very important part of the people's business, and that is keeping their kids safe.

The last statistic that I would give the gentleman that I brought up in Brownsville was this. Last year, we intercepted 58,000 people coming across the border from Mexico who were not citizens of Mexico. They came from virtually every country in the world. More than 800 of them came from Communist China, 14 came from Iran, and 3 of them came from North Korea. That means that anybody in the world with a television set can understand very quickly that the way to get into the United States illegally is no longer through the airports, because they have been effectively blocked. It's to get to Mexico and cross the land border between Mexico and the U.S. Another reason to build the border fence.

No. As long as you have a modicum of manning, that is if you leave a fence totally alone, obviously a person can come in, sit down for hours with welding gear and cut through anything, or bring in heavy construction equipment and cut through anything. As long as you have a modicum of manning. That is why you have the Border Patrol road in between the fences, so the smuggler has to come across the first fence, cross a high speed Border Patrol road, sit down with his welding gear and work on the second fence, or carry that 22-foot ladder. Then the question comes back to the person who makes that statement-- incidentally, that statement was made by Governor Napolitano, who is the Governor of Arizona.

Now, let me see. She said, You show me a 20-foot fence, I'll show you a 21-foot ladder. She derided the fence. And in her district where we built the double fence at Yuma, we have brought down the arrest rate from 138,000 to 4,000. So apparently the smugglers haven't read her statement that they should have no problem with this fence.

But it does work and, incidentally, the other thing it does is it leverages the Border Patrol. Because we were able to pull Border Patrolmen off our fenced area and move them to other places on the southern border. You don't need as many Border Patrolmen when you have an impediment, that is when you have the fence in place.

So for those who say the question is, How many Border Patrol can we get? You free up a lot of Border Patrolmen by having the fence. Incidentally, you need to have that double fence because you trap the smugglers in between the two fences.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his great work on this important issue. We will continue to work together.

I thank the gentleman.

I thank my friend for yielding. He truly is the resident expert on ethanol production and it has been very interesting to listen to him.

Another aspect of providing enough energy, of course, and becoming energy independent, which really is a national security issue at this point, is that we have to use all of our sources. And it is important for this body and for the other body, for the U.S. Senate, to pass finally permission for us to drill in Alaska.

Right now we have got an abolition on drilling, a lot of impediments to moving forward and increasing the amount of petroleum product that is available to the American people. If we drill in Alaska, and, incidentally, the Alaskan pipeline has not hurt any wildlife species. You can see caribou rubbing their summer coats on the Alaskan pipeline. They are that worried about it.

If we drill in Alaska, we are going to find new oil. We will also be able to utilize the production that is available there. And every drop of oil that we produce in this continent is oil that we don't have to worry about coming through the Straits of Hormuz. That is that narrow channel of water where the Iranian gunboats came out and harassed an American naval ship here a couple of months ago, where we are constantly watching a short-fused situation with very unstable countries, monitoring that particular dangerous part of the world.

Having energy independence for this country is a very, very important part of national security, and we should open up Alaska so we can utilize in a very responsible way the petroleum resources that lie under that great State.

I thank the gentleman.

Well, I would say to my friend, I think he has made an excellent point. The way you bring down the price on any commodity is to increase the supply. And we have got a number of leaders in this House who have undertaken, if you look at their legislative record, undertaken a major campaign to stop the supply, to strangle the supply, to diminish the supply of petroleum production. And every time we take wells out of production or we don't produce, where we know we have known reserves, then we are handing part of our future to people in another part of the world who don't have America's best interests at heart.

I appreciate the gentleman letting me participate in this discussion. I appreciate his expertise. I know we will work together to be sure we increase the supply of energy and fuel. I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to the life and memory of former Petty Officer Second Class Michael Anthony Monsoor, who has been awarded this Nation's highest military honor, the Medal of Honor. A California native, Michael courageously gave his life in the service of his country, upholding and reflecting the highest traditions of the United States Navy.

Born April 5, 1981, in Long Beach California, Michael attended Garden Grove High School where he played football. He enlisted in the U.S. Navy on March 21, 2001 and attended Basic Training at Recruit Training

Command, Great Lakes, Illinois. After graduation, he attended Quartermaster School and then transferred to the Naval Air Station, Sigonella, Italy, for a brief period.

From this assignment, Michael entered Basic Underwater Demolition/ SEAL (BUD/S) training in Coronado, California, where he graduated as one of the top performers in his class. After BUD/S training, he completed advanced SEAL training, including parachute training, at Basic Airborne School, Fort Benning. Georgia, and cold weather training in Kodiak, Alaska.

Following his rating as Master-at-Arms, he was assigned to SEAL Team THREE Delta Platoon and deployed with his platoon to Iraq in April 2006 in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, and was subsequently assigned to Task Unit Bravo in Ar Ramadi. From then until September 2006, Michael served as a heavy weapons machine gunner and, during combat patrols, he walked behind the platoon point man with his Mk 48 machine gun as protection against a frontal assault. On 15 such missions Michael served tirelessly with his platoon in one of the most hazardous areas in Iraq and, under the rendering of summer heat, he bore the extra burden of heavy communication gear and a full ammunition load.

Michael and his platoon operated in a highly contested part of Ramadi city called the Ma'laab district. During their deployment he and his fellow SEALs came under enemy attack on 75 percent of their missions. On May 9, 2006 Michael rescued a SEAL who was shot in the leg. He ran out in the street with another SEAL, shot cover fire and dragged his comrade to safety under intense enemy fire earning a Silver Star for gallantry.

But Michael's bravery did not end with this brave act. His Medal of Honor Citation reflects that on September 29, 2006, ``as a member of a combined SEAL and Iraq Army sniper overwatch element, tasked with providing early warning and stand-off protection from a rooftop in an insurgent held sector of Ramadi, Iraq, Petty Officer Monsoor distinguished himself by his exceptional bravery in the face of grave danger. In the early morning, insurgents prepared to execute a coordinated attack by reconnoitering the area around the element's position. Element snipers thwarted the enemy's initial attempt by eliminating two insurgents.''

``The enemy continued the assault engaging the element, engaging them with a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire. As enemy activity increased, Petty Officer Monsoor took position with his machine gun between two teammates on an outcropping of the roof. While the SEALs vigilantly watched for enemy activity, an insurgent threw a hand grenade from an unseen location, which bounced off Petty Officer Monsoor's chest landing in front of him. Although he could have escaped the blast, Petty Officer Monsoor chose instead to protect his teammates. Instantly and without regard for his own safety, he threw himself onto the grenade to absorb the force of the explosion with his body, saving the lives of his two teammates.''

``By his undaunted courage, fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty in the face of certain death, Petty Officer Monsoor gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.'' For this the most extreme sacrifice, Petty Officer Michael Anthony Monsoor was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor by the President of the United States on April 8, 2008.

An ancient historian once wrote, ``The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet not withstanding, go out to meet it.'' Madam Speaker, these words could speak no better for the personal commitment of warriors like Petty Officer Monsoor whose service and sacrifice in the face of evil cannot be forgotten.

Michael is survived by his mother Sally, his father George, his sister Sara and his two brothers James and Joseph who will always cherish the memories of his loving and caring devotion to all that touched his life. A loyal friend and an exceptional SEAL, he is sorely missed by his brave brothers in Task Unit Bravo. I extend my prayers and deepest condolences to his loving family and friends and ask that my colleagues join me today in paying tribute to the life and memory of this true American hero.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to rise and talk a little bit about a great former member who just passed away, Bill Dickinson of Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, when I came in in 1981 and campaigned with Ronald Reagan in that great year in which we brought back a policy of peace through strength to the United States Government with respect to foreign policy, I was lucky enough to be placed on the Armed Services Committee and Bill Dickinson was the new ranking Republican member.

In those days, we had 1,000 petty officers a month leaving the U.S. Navy because they couldn't afford to take care of their families on the pay they were making; we had 50 percent of our aircraft or more which were not combat mission capable; we had what was called a hollow Army, that is, an Army within which skilled people were leaving at an enormous rate. And, under Ronald Reagan's leadership and Bill Dickinson's hard work as the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, along with lots of right-thinking Republicans and Democrats, we reversed that trend. We rebuilt national security.

I will always remember Bill working the budgets that Ronald Reagan brought in his early years, that 12.6 percent pay raise that we brought in early to start moving military families up to scale, the new equipment budgets that we brought in. The decision that we were going to stand up to the Soviet Union, and those decisions that the President made like the one that he made to move ground launch cruise missiles and Pershing 2s into Europe as the Russians were then ringing our allies with SS-20 missiles, and the fact that that helped to bring them to the table, helped to bring them to the point where they picked up the phone and said, ``We want to talk.''

I can remember Bill Dickinson standing tall and supporting the President very strongly when, in Central America, we saw the FMLN in El Salvador, the Communist group that was taking arms and materiel from the Soviet Union and trying to establish a Communist beachhead in El Salvador.

I remember the United States moving in to provide a shield around that fragile new government that was standing up, a democratically elected government. I remember Bill Dickinson, as a ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, spearheading support in Congress for that very important initiative.

Time after time, Bill Dickinson moved to the fore to make sure that we rebuilt America's forces, that we operated under a policy of peace through strength. And he was, indeed, Ronald Reagan's strongest ally with respect to national security in the House of Representatives.

Bill was a wonderful guy, a great guy with a sense of humor, a guy who was elected in a district in Alabama that until 1964 had not been Republican for 100 years. But he kept that district with a good sense of humor, a good sense of touch with the people, being approachable, and having a very strong, conservative peace-through-strength philosophy that resonated not only with his constituents but with the American people.

To Barbara and the children, we express our greatest condolences. We have lost a great former representative, and I have lost a great friend.

Madam Speaker, I can't match the eloquent statements about Tom that have been made by my colleagues; but I thought I might share just a few thoughts that came to my mind, not only today, but every day that I saw Tom Lantos.

First, he was a guy of extreme competence. And if you wanted to get to the heart of a matter quickly, and you wanted to probe a situation in foreign affairs quickly, or a matter of national policy, and you had a national leader, international leader in front of you, and Tom Lantos was asking questions, he did a great cross-examination. And he brought the facts out very quickly. But, you know, lots of people can do that.

There were some special qualities that Tom Lantos had that reflected and illuminated his life and always impressed me every time I saw him. One was his great dignity. He walked in dignity. And it wasn't a pride; it wasn't an egotistical thing. It was a respect for his fellow man that emanated from him and seemed to illuminate the room when he walked in, and when he took his place, and when he asked questions, and when he worked on these important issues of the day.

He was a man of great principle. And, Madam Speaker, I think that it must surprise many folks who watch this, watch the leadership in this Nation, and look at this Capitol, look at this body, in this city, where so much talent is focused on powerful national interests, that we have leaders like Tom Lantos, perhaps the finest leaders, the ones with the greatest talents, who focus those talents not on powerful interests or the protection of those interests, but, in fact, on the interests of those who have no station, who have no money, and in many cases have no hope.

And I think that's a great trademark of this Nation and certain special leaders, like Tom Lantos, that gives us, gives this country respect from those around the world, not just people who live in places of power or who occupy places of power in foreign governments, but all those around the world who look at this American forum here, this forum of leadership and governance in Washington, DC, and who saw people like Tom Lantos, perhaps tough to figure out in many ways, but when it got right down to it, they understood that in this country, the dignity, the value of human beings is still very central to this wonderful country that we call America.

So it's with a lot of sadness that I see Tom Lantos, a guy who came in the same year I came in, in 1980, along with Mr. Dreier, leave us. And I just hope that we all look at that model now and again when we have tough and difficult times, because the last great quality that Tom Lantos had was conciliation. And you could have fierce fights on issues, and yet he had that wonderful quality of being able to reconcile with his adversaries and find common ground in the next great issue that was before you.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Henry O'Leary, a true American hero who dedicated his life to serving this country. As a member of the U.S. Navy for 21 years, Henry saw combat in both World War II and Korea, and later supported the American mission in Vietnam. When he retired from the Navy in 1963, Henry began his new life in San Diego, California, where he dedicated himself to serving the local community.

Henry was born on April 17, 1925, in Worcester, Massachusetts, and enlisted in the Navy in 1942. Ten years later, Henry was recommended by his command for the Silver Star with Valor for single-handedly saving his burning ship while under intense enemy fire and, along with it, the lives of his shipmates. For his courage and selflessness, he was awarded the Bronze Star.

After serving in the Navy, Henry worked at San Diego State University for 23 years until his retirement. While many often see retirement as an opportunity to travel and experience new things for themselves, Henry saw retirement as an opportunity to serve others in the community, including our veterans. He was a regular volunteer at both San Diego's VA hospital and Kaiser Permanente, where his humor is said to have brought smiles to many faces. Additionally, throughout his life, he volunteered for church ministries, community programs, political campaigns, and was involved in the activities of his children.

Most notably, Henry never turned his back on anyone in need. Whether it was dangerously exposing himself to enemy fire to save the lives of his shipmates or volunteering countless hours at the VA hospital, Henry always put others before himself. He was a practitioner of good citizenship and remains a shining example of the courage and selflessness that continue to carry our Nation forward.

President Ronald Reagan once said, ``Good citizenship is vitally important if democracy is to survive and flourish. It means keeping abreast of the important issues of the day and knowing the stakes involved in the great conflicts of our time. It means bearing arms when necessary to fight for your country, for right, and for freedom. Good citizenship and defending democracy means living up to the ideals and values that make this country great. Today the world looks to America for leadership. They look to what they call our miracle economy for an answer to how they may give their people a better life. And they look to our courage and might to protect them from the forces of tyranny, brutality and injustice.'' Madam Speaker, when President Reagan spoke these words, he was referring directly to Americans like Henry, who were willing to sacrifice their lives for this country and commit themselves to benefiting the lives of others.

I extend my prayers and deepest condolences to Henry's loving wife of more than 50 years, Miriam, and his children Jeff, Colleen, Patti and Shawn, and ask that my colleagues join me today in paying tribute to the life and memory of this American hero.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in great reluctance to support final passage of the FY2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act. I am voting in favor of this legislation because it rightfully supplies our men and women on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq with the resources they need to continue their mission, while also supporting the Global War on Terror. These brave men and women deserve our support and I will never waiver from this responsibility.

However, despite my vote in favor of this legislation, I remain adamantly opposed to the underlying Omnibus legislation that effectively guts the Secure Fence Act passed during the 109th Congress. Securing the border of the United States is one of the most important responsibilities of the federal government. The Republican-led Congress last year did the right thing by passing the Secure Fence Act that mandated the construction of 854-mile double layered border fence along our Southwest border. Unfortunately, one of the few acts actually accomplished by this first session of the 110th Congress will be to remove that mandate and ensure that our southern border remains one of our weakest links in the effort to secure our homeland. Frankly, this is unacceptable.

I will be working with my colleagues during the second session of this Congress to address this travesty, however, I will not hold back the needed resources from our brave men and women in uniform because of this irresponsible move by this Congress. Therefore, I reluctantly support this Omnibus package.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I yield myself such time as I might consume.

My colleagues, the Republican motion to instruct outlines the consequences of a failed state in Iraq and supports a clean war funding bill without a date certain to withdraw American troops from Iraq. And I would remind my colleagues that the motion to instruct goes to the Senate provision which passed by a nearly unanimous vote of 94-3.

Let me explain what it does. The Republican motion to instruct puts the House of Representatives on record acknowledging the consequences of a vote for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and not fully funding our troops and their missions. It instructs House conferees to accept Senate provision 1536 which states that it is the sense of Congress that a failed state in Iraq would become a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and its allies.

The provision also notes that a failed state in Iraq could lead to a broader regional conflict involving Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Turkey, and would lead to massive humanitarian suffering, including widespread ethnic cleansing and countless refugees and internally displaced persons, many of whom will be tortured and killed for having assisted coalition forces.

Senate provision 1536 concludes by stating that the Congress should commit itself to a strategy that will not leave a failed state in Iraq and should not pass legislation that will undermine our military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq.

Now, going to the aspect of the authorization of additional appropriations for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, my colleagues, these are the funds that are essential in this ongoing war in two theaters, to keep the funds going, to keep the money going to operate our military forces so that we don't end up having to reach into the cash register and pull money out for ammunition, pull money out for training exercise, pull money out for important ongoing operations and activities here that are in fact assisting the war- fighting effort.

One example of those, of course, is the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, JIEDDO, which has a complicated name but very simply means developing capabilities against roadside bombs. That's a command that we set up to defeat IEDs in Iraq, and we are told now that it will run out of money within the next hundred days and may not have enough money to fund all urgent initiatives from Iraq and Afghanistan during that time.

I would remind my colleagues that the roadside bombs are being seen on a more widespread basis in Afghanistan now. There has been an understanding by the insurgents, by the Taliban, by al Qaeda in Afghanistan that those, in fact, are a deadly and effective system. And it makes no sense whatsoever for us to shortchange the accounts that are going toward the defeat of roadside bombs.

Another point that I would make is that we have been notified that the Pentagon will soon be required to lay off 100,000 civilian workers. Many of those workers are working on important projects that go to the heart of our ability to win in the war-fighting theaters. So this is a major, major mistake for this Congress, in the middle of an operation in two war-fighting theaters, to shortchange these accounts which will result in the military having to reach in the cash register, take money out of other accounts in the hope that at some point in the future next year we are going to be able to make up that money. So whatever your position on our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether you think we should be there or not be there, every Member of this body says time and again, ``We support the troops.''

Madam Speaker, stripping this funding off, which is what we will do if we don't pass this motion to instruct, is very clearly a disservice to these 157,000 plus troops in Iraq and the 22,000 plus American troops fighting in Afghanistan right now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) who is the ranking member on the Terrorism Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the last speaker for his statement and for his wonderful contribution on the Armed Services Committee in terms of working the jammer issues, and lots of other Members who have worked these important force protection issues. I think that we have proven on the committee that the wisdom of the committee and lots of Members who have gotten personally involved in this force protection issue have matched and at some times exceeded the Pentagon's own projections and projects.

I am reminded also that we manufactured and fielded 10,000 portable jammers, so that troops who are on foot could also have jammers, which had not been planned by the Pentagon. So I think he makes a good point. Of course, having these funds that are available in these supplementals that we can direct to force protection is a key aspect of our responsibility.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to respond to my good colleague from California.

First, I would say to my colleague, we are winning in Iraq. We are winning. We are going to leave Iraq in victory.

Maybe my friend heard a different briefing than the one that I heard when General Petraeus came back and laid out the most recent figures with respect to attacks, but that very dangerous part of Anbar province that we have both visited has seen a drop in attacks of 80 percent. In fact, we have seen a drop in attacks and a drop in American casualties and civilian casualties across Iraq. And we have also seen new capabilities in the 131 Iraqi battalions that we have built from scratch.

I would just say to my friend, I have seen all the old smooth-path books and reports and recommendations that said somehow there was a smooth path to victory in Iraq, and I have always said there is no smooth path.

To those who say we should have kept Saddam Hussein's army in place, I am reminded that Saddam Hussein's army had 11,000 Sunni generals, which would have been exactly the wrong formula for a military which is supposed to take on a role of stabilization and honest brokerage in Iraq.

The reports that we are now seeing from the battlefield are that the Iraqi forces, while some of them have had limited battlefield experience, some have had extensive battlefield experience, that military is maturing; that the military that broke and ran in the first battle of Fallujah, the Iraqi military, now stands and fights; that in fact that government is moving forward, and although it is moving forward in a stumbling, bumbling, sometimes inept fashion, that is the nature of new governments. That is also the nature of governments that solve their problems with ballots and not bullets, because it is not always easy to get the other guy to agree with you on a particular function.

With respect to oil distribution, there is an ad hoc oil distribution that is taking place right now, or de facto oil distribution. It is not a function of legislation. Right now the Kurds get, for example, 18 percent of the oil revenues. So there is an oil distribution. And I think if there wasn't an oil distribution, you would have more conflict. Instead of seeing a waning conflict between the various sectors in Iraq, you would see an increasing conflict.

So I would just say to my friends and to the gentlewoman and to everyone who cares about an American victory in Iraq, we will have victory in Iraq if we maintain our strength. And maintaining our strength includes continuing to fund this operation.

It is our committee, the Armed Services Committee, that came up initially with the so-called bridge fund appropriation, because we said it is only proper that the Armed Services Committee authorizes an appropriation that will go through the winter months of the year so that the services do not have to reach into the cash register and take money out of valuable training exercises, take money out of our military equipment accounts and take money out of our ammunition accounts.

So I think we have exactly what we need in this motion to recommit. It is a motion that says it is the commitment of the United States Congress that we don't have a failed state in Iraq, and it also emphasizes again that we have to have these supplemental funds to ensure that the war fighters in both of these theaters, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, are able to move forward.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to a gentleman, in fact, the next two gentlemen have sons who have served in the Iraqi theater. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) has a son who is a Blackhawk helicopter pilot who has served, I believe, in both theaters and has quite a bit of experience in some very difficult operations. The gentleman always has an excellent insight on this important operation. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), I would like to give him 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes now to another gentleman whose son has served in the Iraq theater, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from California for her comments, and also the distinguished chairman, who is a great friend and a wonderful patriot and has done a great job of steering our committee through the authorization process.

Let me tell you why I think it is important to pass this motion to instruct. We built the bridge fund. The Armed Services Committee realized we have the winter months when you need funding for the troops before you get to the spring supplemental. So we came up initially several years ago with the idea of a $50 billion bridge fund to make sure that those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines had what they needed in the war-fighting theater to be successful.

It is true we have this in our bill this time because we are the major architects of the bridge fund. We are the people who came up with it the first time, and the appropriators followed us. But this time they did not follow us. This time they conditioned the bridge fund with get-out-of-Iraq language, and that was a disservice to everyone who wears the uniform in the theater and to the mission. So it is important for the Members of this body to cast their votes in favor of that bridge fund, and perhaps that will show the right direction to the Appropriations Committee and to the Members of Congress who vote on the full appropriations, because we need to have that bridge fund not only authorized but appropriated.

Finally, we do need to have that very strong language committing ourselves to avoid a failed state in Iraq. And we are winning.

Now let me go back to my good colleague Mr. Skelton, who said we all support the troops and we have manifested that support in pay raises. And we have. We have manifested it in good medical care and a new Wounded Warrior bill to assist those in Walter Reed and Bethesda and in our medical facilities around the world. We have done that. And we have manifested that in getting them the right equipment to carry out their mission.

But there is something else we owe the troops. We owe them the right to have victory, and they are achieving victory. And we owe them the right to have a successful mission, because nothing will be more fulfilling to them than to be victorious. And that means we need to continue to move the resources into Iraq and Afghanistan so they can continue to be victorious, so that the 80 percent drop-off in the violence rate in Anbar province will continue, and so that the Iraqi Army will continue to stand up to the point where it can displace America's heavy combat forces, Marines and Army, and our guys can come home or go to other places in CENTCOM.

Madam Speaker, this is a very important motion to instruct because it gives a very clear message to those 157,000-plus troops in Iraq and those 22,000-plus troops in Afghanistan. It says the American Congress, we stand behind our troops and we stand behind their mission.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and encourage Americans to come together this holiday season and protect the greatest economy the world has ever seen. The American economic experiment that started back in the early 20th Century has proved that freedom, innovation and individual drive have the ability to create a prosperous economy. Our economy has enabled us to build a democracy that so many nations seek to emulate. Yet I am sad to report that many families, particularly in the mid-west, which is the back-bone of America, are losing manufacturing jobs to countries with less stringent regulatory systems and cheaper labor.

Madam Speaker, the holidays are upon us and I am troubled by the difficulty to buy American-made goods in my holiday shopping quest. Americans should be able to purchase products that are made by Americans. For many years, I have had concerns over the decrease in American manufacturing jobs and the increase in our trade with China, who sends us unsatisfactory goods that are harmful to our families and children.

Today, I am introducing an important resolution that fulfills what I believe to be one of our most important obligations as patriotic Americans: encouraging Americans to purchase American-made products this holiday season.

China is the second largest supplier of consumer products and an increasingly dependent supplier of agricultural products to the United States. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) stated that to date, in 2007, over 80 percent of CPSC recall notices have involved Chinese-made products.

Specifically, over the past year, pet food laced with chemicals found in fertilizer caused the sickness and death of several dozen pets in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration released warnings on toothpaste products from China that contained poisonous chemicals, as well as farm-raised fish products that contained uncertified antimicrobial agents. Furthermore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a recall of nearly 450,000 tires suspected to have major safety defects. Since March 2007, nearly 20 million Chinese made toys have been recalled by U.S. companies due to suspected lead contamination.

It is clear that China's irresponsible regulatory system is not sufficient to keep the citizens of their trading partners safe. In fact they are not able to provide safe products for their own people. In June 2004, the Chinese People's Daily reported that fake baby formula had killed 50 to 60 infants in China. Fish farmers in China reportedly feed various drugs to the fish to help keep them alive in polluted Chinese waters, and in July 2007, the Xinhua News Agency reported that a government survey of 7,200 different products from nearly 6,500 enterprises found that 19.1 percent of products made in China for domestic consumption in the first half of 2007 were substandard.

I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the U.S. economy and, in turn, our Armed Forces, by purchasing American products. One of the best things we can do for our returning soldiers is to make sure they have good jobs when they return. Buying American-made products will keep good manufacturing jobs available for our soldiers when they return home. I understand how difficult it will be to purchase all American food and gifts during the holiday season. However, for the 1.8 million American jobs that have been shipped overseas, for the future jobs that are in jeopardy of being lost to cheaper labor and, of course, for the troops serving our country overseas, I ask you to buy for America this holiday season.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to the life and memory of former Navy Captain Cole Black of Escondido, California. As a career Naval Officer, Cole's contributions to this country are impossible to quantify and the seven years he spent in captivity during the Vietnam War are an enduring testament to his character and service to America.

Last Friday, Cole was returning to Southern California after speaking to students in Oregon about his experiences as a P.O.W. when mechanical difficulties caused his plane to crash. This tragic and unexpected event came only weeks before his 75th birthday, which Cole would have celebrated on the 28th of November.

In June 1966, when he was only one week away from returning home to his family, Cole's F-8 Crusader was shot down over the skies of North Vietnam. He was captured almost instantly after ejecting from his aircraft and then forced to spend the next seven years of his life between four prison camps, including the infamous Hanoi Hilton.

Conditions in these prisons were intolerable, and the American service personnel who were held in these camps were treated inhumanely and without respect for the rules of war. Like so many others held in captivity by the North Vietnamese, Cole was confined to a 7 by 9 foot cage and fed meals of little to no sustenance--such as boiled greens and rice--only twice a day. He was also part of the Hanoi March, where prisoners were forced to march the streets of Hanoi as part of the Vietnamese propaganda effort, only to be met by people throwing rocks and other objects.

More impressive than Cole's endurance and willingness to survive his captivity was his unique perspective on the seven years he spent as a P.O.W. After his release in 1973, Cole later said that this time ``changed his life for the better'' and that he arrived home with a ``real zest for life.'' Upon retiring from active military service in 1986, he attended National University and earned a master's in business and a real estate broker's license.

It was not until 1994 that Cole returned to Vietnam for a vacation with his wife Karen. While there, he visited the location of the Hanoi Hilton just as workers were tearing it down and he took the opportunity to pocket a piece of brick from the walls that once kept him confined for so many years.

Madam Speaker, President Reagan once said, ``Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than a generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again.''

When President Reagan spoke these words, he was referring directly to Americans like Cole, who were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for America. Not only did Cole fight to protect freedom as part of the American mission in Vietnam, but he fought tirelessly for his own freedom everyday he was in captivity. His strength and perseverance guaranteed his survival and, although he briefly lost his freedom, he was able to endure his captivity and return to a life far removed from cruelty and oppression.

Madam Speaker, my thoughts and prayers are with Cole's wife Karen and his children, two of which are currently serving in our nation's Armed Forces. His contributions and service to America will forever be remembered and I ask that my colleagues join me today in paying tribute to this great American hero.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I want to also thank everyone who works on this committee and has spent so much time over the years working to prepare our military forces to be able to handle contingencies and wars around the world. We appreciate that, and you have lots of great experience.

But let me tell you, this provision in this particular bill is terrible for the warfighters. Let me talk about a small piece of it.

You have what I call a 15-day wait, notify and hold provision. That means before any unit can go into Iraq, a 15-day period, waiting period, has to expire after you have notified the Armed Services Committees and the Defense appropriations committee that unit is ``ready for battle'' and meets a mission-capability standard.

Now, the problem with that is we have a war against terror in which teams, whether they are special operations teams, medivac teams, EOD teams, special fire support teams like C-130, A-6 gun ships are constantly moving across the boundaries between Iraq and the rest of the world. Some of our assets come off of carriers. Some of them come out of Incirlik, Turkey. Some from Kuwait and some of them come from other places.

This idea that before a special forces team can move across a line you must have a 15-day notify and wait period is totally unworkable.

I want to give to you what Admiral Fallon, head of the Central Command, said when we asked him what he thought about the notify and hold provision. He said, ``I would ask for consideration that we not limit the flexibility of our commanders in allowing them to use forces that might be necessary to meet a situation or a mission which they might be asked to undertake. And so I would opt to allow our commanders to have the flexibility of making that decision rather than have some dictated requirement in advance.''

I would say to my good friend, Mr. Murtha, who has several times stated that the administration should listen to its generals: Every team that goes into that warfighting theater goes in because one of the battlefield commanders has requested their presence.

I can remember talking to my son when he was in the battle of Fallujah as an artillery officer and he was inside the city as a forward observer. And I asked him what the most important platforms we had out there were. He said the A6 C-130 gunship. I said, Where are they? He said, They come and they go.

Ladies and gentleman, we move firefighting teams, all types of special operations crews and teams, EOD teams, A6 C-130 gunships across those borders constantly, and to have a requirement where you are going to have to give a 15-day notification and wait before you can move that unit in is devastating to our warfighting capability.

I would ask for a ``no'' on this measure.

I want to thank my great colleague for yielding to me. And let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I am unalterably against this deal because I think it doesn't fix the basic defect that we have seen in every trade deal that we have made in recent years. That defect is, as most of my colleagues know and understand, that the competitors to American businesses get their value-added taxes rebated to them by their home governments and they in turn charge us what effectively is a tariff in the same amount as that value-added tax when our products go to their country, and we didn't change this in this Peru Free Trade Agreement. It's not really free trade, it's only free coming in one direction, and that's our direction.

Let me explain that very simply. If this podium costs $100 and it is made in Peru and it is going to be shipped to the United States, their value-added tax is 19 percent. That means that as they build this podium in Peru, as they add wood and metal and labor, they pay their government 19 percent value-added tax. That is how they pay their tax burden. We have a direct tax burden known as an income tax and a corporate tax.

When they take this particular podium down to the docks to be shipped to the United States, the Government of Peru will give them their money back. They will rebate their taxes to them. Effectively that company will be working tax-free.

Now, if you made the other podium in the United States and we shipped it to them under this deal, when that podium gets to Peru to be sold on their showroom floors, the American manufacturer will face a 19 percent fee or tariff. So the Government of Peru under this deal will be allowed to subsidize their guys to the tune of 19 percent and penalize our guys to the tune of 19 percent.

Let me just say this is an unfair deal. This is the reason why America has massive trade deficits even to countries that have higher labor rates than the United States. Until we fix that basic defect, all these trade deals are bad deals and they accrue to the detriment of the American worker and the American businessman.

Vote ``no'' on this. And I regret I will not be here tomorrow. I have to be away from the floor. I wish the vote could have been held tonight. This is a bad deal.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will significantly enhance the ability of the American people to protect their homes and property from dangerous wildfires. This crucial legislation will augment our fire emergency preparedness by eliminating burdensome government rules and regulations rather than creating new ones. More and bigger government is not the solution to the challenges we face and my legislation gives the American people the opportunity to take the initiative in protecting themselves and their property.

We have all witnessed the destruction and devastation wrought by the recent fires in southern California. According to the latest reports, 518,021 acres have burned and over 3,500 structures have been damaged or destroyed. Thousands of families are now left homeless and hundreds of thousands more were forced to evacuate their homes as the fires threatened. While our brave first responders performed as outstandingly in this crisis as we have come to expect, these events have made it increasingly clear that our government has not been providing citizens with the tools necessary to protect themselves and has relied excessively on a large and unresponsive bureaucracy.

I am sad to report that current laws and regulations make it difficult, if not altogether impossible, for private property owners to clear brush and create fire breaks that might save their homes in the event of a wildfire. Intrusive federal regulations, such as the Endangered Species Act, discourage, and in some cases prohibit, property owners from modifying their property to better prepare for wildfires. Our misguided policies have placed special interests above the all- important right and obligation of homeowners and property owners to prepare themselves for natural disasters. We know intrusive and bloated government is always a problem, but in a fire emergency, it can be deadly and destructive.

My legislation, the Wildfire Prevention Act, works by empowering citizens rather than bureaucrats. The Wildfire Prevention Act makes it clear that no Federal law will prevent private property owners, or local communities that manage public land, from clearing brush or making other modifications to their property for the purpose of creating fire breaks in order to protect their lives and their property.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is a step in the right direction in providing property owners with the resources they need to protect themselves. I am proud to introduce the Wildfire Prevention Act and request my colleagues give this important legislation their utmost consideration.

Mr. Speaker, today it became apparent that the employees of the State Department of the United States, or at least a large number of them, are resisting being assigned to Baghdad. They say it's too dangerous, and they have asked for a town hall meeting to explain their recalcitrance.

You know, when we go to Walter Reed and we go to Bethesda Hospital and we meet with our wounded warriors, our marines, our Army personnel, our naval personnel, our Air Force personnel, most of them say this to us: They say that they would like to return to fight side by side with their buddies, with their companions, in those warfighting theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan. They want to serve this Nation.

So I have recommended to the President today that we do this: That we fire those recalcitrant State Department personnel who say it's too dangerous for them to go back to Baghdad; they want another assignment. Let's let them leave the service, and let's go down to Walter Reed and Bethesda Hospital and let's recruit that wonderful team of American warriors who have been wounded in the service of their country and who have patriotism and devotion to duty and have a high enthusiasm for public service, and let's hire them into a bright new career in a new State Department.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I think this is a sad day for our country, because we put into place several years ago what we called a bridge fund. I call it the ammo, the armor, the equipment fund. That was a fund that we added to the Defense bill to carry our troops over during the winter months before that spring supplemental, before that extra funding came about in the springtime of the next year.

That is important for them, and that gave them a certain confidence level that they were going to be funded without having to take money out of the cash register for the next year, have to delay training exercises, have to delay the equipping of forces back here in the United States.

And you know something? We had a bill that was ready to go here. The Defense appropriations bill is something that clearly would sail through, the President would sign it, and there was no risk in this bill that would fund our operations and our warfighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Democrat leadership now has injected risk, because you have hooked it up with a bill that the President said he is going to veto. That injects risk into this very, very difficult operation.

So what do we have with our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines in Afghanistan and Iraq? We have got the uncertainties of war, the dangers of war. We have got the uncertainties that attend their families back here in the United States. And now the Democrat leadership has injected another uncertainty, an uncertainty that they will be funded fully in these difficult months.

So you took away this bridge fund, what I call the ammo, the armor, the equipment fund, and the answer you have given us is, well, if the President caves, then the troops will get the money. Holding our troops, our forces, hostage during a time of war is something that this body has never done.

I would hope that the Democrat leadership would make an about-face on this. I would hope you would adopt the great position of Democrat Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson, who said, ``In time of war, the best politics is no politics.''