Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my great colleague for yielding me some time and just follow my colleagues to again commend all of those who helped to take on this incredible challenge and to defeat this fire. Even though it destroyed lots of sagebrush land and lots of back country and homes and buildings and took some lives, we had a well-coordinated effort.

Let me just point out also that I know Mr. Issa talked about the United States Marines and the United States Navy especially in the San Diego region working hand in hand with State and local firefighting officials and volunteers and the crews and especially in the area of the air war against the fire undertaking this challenge and doing very, very well.

At the other level, at the level of bringing in assets from out of the State, I think we should also commend General Steven Blum, who is head of the National Guard for this country. And even before he received the request from the State of California, even though the request had been initiated by Governor Schwarzenegger, it goes through a number of bureaus and agencies before it actually gets to the unit that is going to send the particular firefighting aircraft to the location where it is going to engage the fire.

Before he received the request from the State of California, General Steven Blum deployed aircraft and put out the deployment order for aircraft from Colorado, Wyoming and North Carolina. These are the so- called MAFFS units, C-130 units that have the ability to put down about 3,000 gallons of fire retardant per aircraft. They can pave an area a quarter of a mile wide. They do an extremely effective job of fighting fires.

General Blum ordered those aircraft deployed to California before he had the order to deploy them. Before he had the request, he said, I am going to send them out as a training mission, and by the time they get there, the paperwork will catch up with them.

So I think we all owe him a debt, and all those wonderful crews that came in from Wyoming, North Carolina and Colorado, as well as all the other crews in various other dimensions of the firefighting who arrived from out of State.

So, Mr. Speaker, this was a wonderful team effort, I think perhaps a model for the country. We have a few rough edges to work on for the next one, a few reforms to make, and we are going to do that. But we had a wonderful, wonderful taking up of this enormous challenge. Our challenge now is to rebuild; and, similarly, we will all work together as a team to do that. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing a bill that is of extreme importance to our nation's parents and the future protection of their children: the Parents' Empowerment Act. As we all know, millions of children access the Internet and other interactive entertainment products each and every day. As this number increases, more and more of our nation's children are unexpectedly and tragically exposed to pornography and other indecent material. According to a study by Grunwald and Associates, 25 percent of American children have had at least one unwanted experience with on-line pornography. The Department of Justice, until the past few years, has not been prosecuting obscenity and child pornography cases.

The Parents' Empowerment Act is very simple. It allows the parent or legal guardian of a minor to sue, in a district court, any person who knowingly sells or distributes a product that contains material that is harmful to minors that:

I . A reasonable person would expect a substantial number of minors be exposed to the material and;

2. As a result of exposure to such material, the minor in question suffers personal injury, or injury to their mental or moral welfare.

If the minor is the prevailing party, they will be awarded a minimum of $10,000 for each instance of damaging material. In addition, the court can order the minor's attorney fees to be covered and punitive damages to be awarded.

This bill establishes a new and appropriate test for what is obscene for a minor. Currently, the United States Supreme Court utilizes the ``Miller Test'' to determine if material can be labeled obscene and not protected by the First Amendment. The Parents' Empowerment Act builds upon the same test, but, in the case of minors, modifies the ``third prong'' of the test by requiring any material to ``lack serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value for minors sufficient to overcome the pernicious effect of that material.'' In other words, what is obscene for an adult is entirely different than what should be considered obscene for a minor and, as a result, should be treated as such.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is a step in the right direction in providing parents with the resources they need for what is their number one priority, protecting their kids. I am proud to once again introduce the Parents' Empowerment Act and request my colleagues give this important legislation their utmost consideration.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution. Let me just speak to the point that is made by the resolution that talks about the need to disclose in open session facts which would deal with corruption, and I am quoting, ``including allegations that investigations were thwarted, stifled for political reasons, and that that classification should be rescinded.''

I have looked at Mr. Butler's testimony to the committee. I have read it. I have got it in front of me. He talks a great deal, acknowledging that there is corruption in the Iraqi Government, as there is in practically every government in the Middle East, to some degree. He talks about that.

Mr. Speaker, he also said that he would be happy to talk about details concerning any political moves to avert investigations into corruption. He would be happy to talk about those details in a classified session. So he gave that opportunity, as I understand it, to the committee, and the committee didn't take him up on it.

I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that sources and methods are important. If there was a secret conversation that went on in the Iraqi Government and that secret conversation was listened to by somebody who then relayed that to the U.S. Government, or U.S. officials, laying that out for the public without going into classified session would not be good for American intelligence operations. This committee could have gone into classified session and had all the details that they needed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this particular resolution.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, what I have in front of me is the actual testimony of Mr. Butler, who says this: ``The Department of State has devoted considerable effort and resources helping courageous Iraqis establish mechanisms and procedures to investigate and prosecute corruption.'' He says, ``It's fair to say we probably do not have a program in the ministerial capacity development area that does not seek to build an environment in which corruption is less prevalent.'' He goes on to talk about what has been done. So he does engage you on this issue of corruption.

I think you could have gone to a classified session, as was invited by Mr. Butler, you could have gone to a classified session, he invited you to do that, and he would give you the details on that particular conversation. Incidentally, the particular conversation that you're talking about is the one that is manifested in your resolution. It's not this statement that you have just given me. It's the one that is in your resolution. You could have had him do that in private.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me just say that I have examined and analyzed a number of battlefield situations and that this bill does not take care of a problem that we have with respect to accessing communications in time to take action in a meaningful way. Whether the insurgents are making a strike, moving people, moving equipment, moving hostages, those first few hours are what you might analogize as the golden hours, the time when you can make a difference. And right now we have a substantial delay on the battlefield that could have been fixed with this bill. It is not fixed with this bill, and I am deeply disappointed because of that. And I hope, my colleagues, that we can fix this in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a well-motivated bill. I want to commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for all the great work that they do, Democrat and Republican. Most of the time we're on common ground. In this case, I think that this bill does not accrue to the benefit of the troops. I think it hurts the troops.

I think that is a question every Member of the House has to ask themselves: Is this going to be good for the troops, or is it going to be bad for the troops?

I think it will be bad for the troops, for this reason: We are fighting a war in Iraq which requires innovation, flexibility and experience. This bill, which will put a straitjacket on our ability to deploy troops on the basis that their clock has not yet expired back in the United States before they go over, is going to have an incredibly detrimental affect on our ability to project a well-rounded, effective fighting team in the warfighting theater in Iraq.

Let me talk about that a little bit, Mr. Speaker.

You are going to have units which desperately require specialties. Some of the specialties, I would remind my friend, are IEDs, the ability to operate jammers, the ability perhaps to decontaminate if you come into contact with some of the chemical weapons stockpiles that were left by the old regime. Military effectiveness is built on dozens and dozens of specialities, all of which support the other.

The idea that you can't put this team together, that the Marines or the Army can't put their warfighting team together because they looked at the list of people who are most able to fill those roles, most able to move in and stand next to their fellow Marine, their fellow soldier, their fellow airman, the guy that is doing the mechanic work on that important helicopter that is going to be the transportation vehicle, the guy that is doing the repair work on that particular weapons system, those people are not going to be able to flow over into the theater because their clock hasn't moved appropriately on the one-to- one ratio.

Now, we consulted the U.S. Marines on this provision. We didn't consult political people in the White House. We didn't consult people who had an opinion on whether or not we should be in Iraq. We consulted the people who have the job of putting together these packages of personnel which are required in the warfighting theater and transporting them to the theater.

Of course, the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Plans and Operations is Lieutenant General Richard Natonski. Here is his statement he gave to the committee. He said, ``In order to support OIF requirements during Fiscal Year 2008 and comply with the minimum period between deployments proposed by provisions like H.R. 3159, a one-to-one ratio, the Marine Corps would have to adjust force generation plans. These plan adjustments would include extending unit deployments.''

Somebody has to stay on the battlefield. The battlefield is not going to be empty. So if you are not going to allow new Marines to come in, the Marines that are there right now are going to have to stay there.

It is the same with the Army. These plan adjustments could include extending unit deployments, creating provisional units. That means you are going to have to put new units together because the old unit hasn't had its meter expire yet. And forcing units to execute missions as in- lieu-of forces, meaning that units that don't have that specialty are going to have to become units that have that specialty. That means ``quickie'' training and moving people immediately into the battlefield to fill a role that otherwise could be filled by people who have a deep specialty in that capability.

Mr. Speaker, he finishes with this statement that every Member of Congress should listen to very carefully. He said, each of these adjustments that will be required by Mrs. Tauscher's bill, among others, incurs higher risk than that associated with deploying the unit at a deployment-to-dwell time of seven to six.

I want to remind my colleagues, higher risk means higher risk of casualties. That is what happens when the guy that is supporting you on the battlefield doesn't have as much experience as you would like him to have, doesn't have that specialty, hasn't been there before, doesn't have that insight that is going to keep you alive.

Mr. Speaker, this is a well-meaning bill. But if you ask this question, does it help the troops or hurt the troops, this bill hurts the troops.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), who is a former chairman of the Terrorism Subcommittee and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. Speaker, I want to address my remarks to the gentleman, for a second, to the gentleman who just spoke.

My son is a marine who is doing his third tour. He is calm. He is determined. He loves his country, just like all of his fellow marines. The constant illustrating or projecting of our Armed Forces as somehow victims is something that finds absolutely no truth when you go out among our uniformed personnel.

The Marine Corps has never been more effective. They have never had higher morale. They have excellent reenlistment rates. Interestingly, there are high reenlistment rates among the

people that are in combat. They are not deployed to the point where they are depleted, and they are not desperate and their families are not desperate.

With those happy words, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am just constrained again, and I yield myself 30 seconds.

The military is not broken. The Army is not broken. The Marine Corps is not broken. This continued depiction of our military people as victims who are totally desperate, as the last Member of Congress who spoke on the other side depicted them, that they are somehow desperate, their families are desperate, they are ineffective, they are broken, is totally in error.

We have never had better morale. We have never been more effective. The interesting thing is the people who are reenlisting are reenlisting from the combat units. That means that they think that their mission has value, and that means that they have high morale.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) whose son has served as a marine in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Shimkus, the gentleman from Illinois, 3 minutes.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia, 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time we have left.

Mr. Speaker, let me make this point: we are in two warfighting theaters right now, Afghanistan and Iraq. We have troops deployed.

We are, by all accounts at this point, doing well in those warfighting theaters. Somebody stays in battle space. For the gentlelady who asked me, who do you stand with, the planner in the Pentagon, or the troops in the field, I would answer very firmly, I stand for the troops in the field. I stand for that marine corporal who needs to have that gunnery sergeant, who's been there before, who understands how you avoid that roadside bomb, who understands how you approach that village, who understands how you work that cannon, who understands how you interrogate people without risking your own troops.

That comes from experience, and the idea that we are going to deny these experienced, noncommissioned officers, these old hands whose experience can make the difference between life and death because their meter didn't expire when they were back home, and they only got 6 months' worth of dwell time in country, rather than 7, is the wrong reason to vote for this bill.

Please oppose this bill, readiness mandates, with a ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their decorum during this debate and for their true interest and their motivation in support of our troops.

We all want to conclude this war. We all want to do everything that we can for military families. We simply have a difference of opinion as to whether or not mandating certain rest periods before a soldier or a marine can go back to battle is in the interest of the war fighting troops.

My answer is, it's not in the interest. It will not raise their morale. What it will do is it will deprive our war fighting troops. It will deprive that corporal, it will deprive that squad in Fallujah or Baghdad or up in Mosul. That experienced old hand, that NCO, who is in the military for a career, and who knows that particular area, and he knows how to avoid roadside bombs, and he knows how to interrogate insurgents, and he knows how to approach a certain canyon so that you don't expose yourself to fire. He won't be there if the gentlelady's motion passes, because he will only have spent 6 months instead of 7 months back at Camp Pendleton, and he won't be available to move to the field of battle.

Now, you know, this is a war of specialties, and I notice that one thing that the majority did, which I think was a good move, was that they excluded the special operations forces from this particular law. The reason they excluded them is because they are special operations forces who have to move back and forth in the theater and have to move out of the theater on a regular basis, sometimes going back and forth between Afghanistan and Iraq, because they have specialties which mean life or death to our war fighters in both of those theaters, and they can't be held back, chained back by this law.

I have got news for my colleagues. There are a lot of people in the regular forces whose presence also means life or death to the combatants in those forces. You have to have experience.

Even the line units are full of specialties. If you have a person who is an expert in roadside bombs, and he comes back after a 7-month tour, if he is a marine, or after a 1-year tour, if he is an Army soldier, he comes back and he gets the latest schooling on a jamming device that will keep that 152 round from blowing up, that roadside bomb, and destroying a Humvee and destroying American soldiers.

He has that capability. But he now cannot go back into theater because the Tauscher amendment has passed, and he can't be deployed. So he stays here with that particular insight, that particular capability, and probably the Marines or the Army will rush a team in. They will try to give them a fast learning period and rush them in, to be a poor substitute for this guy who really has the expertise of telling our people how to jam those signals that detonate those deadly roadside bombs.

Now, what if we need decontamination, we have got a decontamination team in the regular military. They can't go over unless they get a waiver from the President.

Well, it was argued that these waivers will be easy to get. But you know the Marines have told us that they can't plan for a waiver, because they can only follow along. The law will say you can't go.

I have got a picture that I have kept in the Armed Services Committee for a

long time, as the former chairman of the committee, and now ranking member, serving alongside my great friend, Mr. Skelton.

It is a picture of a 5-ton truck that was struck by a Humvee with a particular armor equipment and an armor package that this committee sent those soldiers. And there is a letter attached to it and it is a letter of thanks that says, ``Thanks to you on the Armed Services Committee for making sure that we got this armor.'' And this was after this 5-ton truck has been blown up. And it said, ``We owe our lives, the fact that all eight of us were able to escape, to you on the Armed Services Committee,'' but it also says, ``to our gunnery sergeant.'' That gunnery sergeant that had the capability, that had that certain expertise of being able to do what it took to make sure that all eight of his people survived.

Mrs. Tauscher has said, who do you stand with, the big Pentagon planners or the troops?

The worst thing you can do, Mrs. Tauscher, for my son who is on his third deployment, or anybody else's son, is to take away that gunnery sergeant or that senior NCO or that expert who can stand by their side and help them to survive in this very dangerous warfighting theater.

Please vote for this motion to recommit. This motion to recommit says that you cannot make this law certain unless you----

I would ask the gentlelady for 30 additional seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, in 1909, when President Theodore Roosevelt signed the last piece of legislation successfully creating over 42 million acres of national forest, the American outdoorsman came into his own. Our great ``outdoor President,'' with a stroke of his pen, dedicated more land to American citizens for hunting and fishing than all the royal estates of Europe combined.

From the Adirondacks and the Blue Ridge of the East to the Sierra Nevada of California, every outdoorsman could now be the master of enormous sporting opportunities. The only price was a stretch of the legs and an investment of time and a modicum of woodsmanship.

Because of Teddy Roosevelt's leadership and efforts, the public land of the Federal

Government became truly the ``estate'' of the average American.

A carpenter in Indiana or Iowa could saddle up the old Chevy pick-up and take his sons elk or deer hunting on a long weekend in Colorado. A steel worker in Pennsylvania could drive ``straight through'' with his pals to that certain Aspen grove in western Wyoming where big bucks always abounded on opening morning. Thus, until a few years ago, the outdoor legacy of Teddy Roosevelt and the birthright of outdoor Americans were secure.

Not any more.

Today, bureaucracies in State governments are closing down the outdoor opportunities for average Americans. They are slamming the door on outdoor families the old-fashioned way: with outrageous fees for non-resident hunters, even when the hunting is done exclusively on Federal land.

For example, the out-of-State license fee in Wyoming is $281 for deer, $481 for elk; in Colorado it is $301 for deer, $501 for elk; in Montana, it is $643 for both. In New Mexico, if two sons decide to take their dad on a weekend getaway, they each face fees of $355 for deer and $ 766 for elk.

What makes these high prices so unfair is that they are applied to out-of-State American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on Federal property. The 190 million acres of national forest and 258 million acres of BLM are the birthright of all Americans. The notion that they are viewed as the domain of State legislatures runs against the principle of public usage of Federal property.

Certainly, individual States have the right to regulate the private land and state-owned property within their boundaries. No one quarrels with that. But placing prohibitive fees on hunting that is conducted on Federal public lands quickly becomes a method of exclusion.

What happens, for example, if New Mexico should raise its out-of- State fees to $2,000 for bull elk? This increase would have the same effect as a locked gate for thousands of average Americans who want to hunt elk on any of the six national forests in New Mexico, over 11 million acres of federally owned land.

The bill I am introducing today will restore acres for all American hunters to Theodore Roosevelt's ``Great Estate'' of national forests and other public land. I acknowledge that some small amount of States' wildlife resources are expended on federally owned and managed lands. Therefore, it is only right that out-of-State hunters share in this minimal expense.

My bill, therefore, says this: No State may charge more than $200 for a big game license, specifically, elk, deer, antelope or bear, for hunting that is carried out exclusively on national forest or BLM Federal land.

The $200 fee strikes a balance between two interests. The first interest is the State's legitimate need to recoup the few dollars that it expends in the management of Federal land. The second, and most important, is the interest of helping that father with two teenagers who does not have the $2,300 the State of New Mexico will charge this year for a family of three to hunt on national forest for bull elk.

In most cases, even a $200 fee will be a windfall for States, far out-pacing any help they give the Federal Government for wildlife management in national forests. Any American, from any State, should be allowed to earn a fall morning hunting elk in the Rockies with a healthy hike and a good shooting eye, regardless if he has a large bank account. My bill restores that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady for her leadership and also thank the author of this measure and simply point out that we have already passed this measure, and we did pass it on our defense bill last year.

Very simply, no American troops are permanently stationed in countries around the world by virtue of the fact that we station them with the permission of the host country. The idea that we are going to insist or enforce, or unilaterally lodge American troops in Iraq is not something that is contemplated by anybody.

I just say to the gentlelady that we may have a time in the future, and we have dozens and dozens of countries around the world which on a regular basis give us permission to move our troops across their land area. We may have a time in the future, for example, 5 or 10 years from now, when we have to have an early warning for a missile strike from Iran to Israel.

I know that the gentlelady wouldn't object to American forces going in and establishing an early warning station so that we can save the lives of people living in Tel Aviv from a strike similar to the Scud strike that Saddam Hussein launched in the early 1990s at Israel.

We may have a time when we have to project American forces for a contingency around the world, and when you do that, regardless of what country you are talking about of the dozens of countries that host us on a regular basis, you go through a protocol. You contact the country. You receive their official permission going through their government, and that describes the parameters of the American presence that will be there, how long it will be there, what the usage will be, whether it is an airfield or a radar station.

But there could be a time, should Iran develop weapons of mass destruction or continue on this path to develop weapons of mass destruction and at some point attack a neighbor or prepare to attack a neighbor, and it could well be in the interest of the United States, for example, to have early warning capability should Iran want to make a strike on a country like Israel when that request will be made. And hopefully it would be responded to affirmatively by the free nation of Iraq.

I support this legislation, and I will vote for it again, as I voted for it six times. But I would hope that Members would understand and realize that we use dozens and dozens of assets around the world which are all done permissively by the host nations.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me explain why this case is different from all the rest. This is an extraordinary case. It's a case which, even if you accept the drug dealer's word and all of his testimony as fact, finds results in not only the Members who have sponsored this amendment, Mr. Poe, Mr. Tancredo, myself, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Culberson and many others, that list should be extended to about 1 million ordinary Americans who now know the basic facts of this case, having been laid out in hearings in the other body and soon to be laid out in hearings here, because these gentlemen have been given murder verdicts. They have been given time in excess of the average convicted murderer in the United States.

That's what makes this case so extraordinary, along with the facts that attend the way evidence was kept from the jury.

Let me just explain this extraordinary case, this case in which the so-called victim was moving close to $1 million of drugs across the border, was shot, was wounded, was brought back into the United States, given immunity to testify against these two Border Patrol agents.

Yet after he had been given immunity, and presumably had told the U.S. attorney that in exchange for that immunity he would not continue to move narcotics, he was connected with another massive case of moving almost another $1 million of drugs across the border. That information was never communicated to the court, even though the testimony of that drug dealer is the testimony that sent both these agents to the penitentiary for, essentially, murder sentences; that is, 11 and 12 years respectively.

Certainly the U.S. Government at that point had an obligation to go to the court and tell the court that, indeed, the credibility of their key witness had been doubly compromised by this second movement of narcotics.

Lastly, let me just say this: Pardons are given, commutations are given. This is, I think you could look at this as maybe another species of commutation. That is, if the Congress speaks loud and clear, and the President signs this bill, then that will be a commutation of the sentence of Agents Compean and Ramos.

In light of the commutations that have been given recently by the executive branch, I think we need to remember that people that live in small houses sometimes have a right to commutations of sentences, just like people who live in big houses.

In this case, these two Border Patrol men are now in isolation, having spent a long time in jail, Mr. Ramos having been beaten up. Their families, most of us have met their families. This is a matter of little children wanting to see their daddies come home who, in my estimation, have not broken any law anywhere as significant as that which would justify these massive sentences that they have been given, this 11 and 12 years in Federal penitentiary, respectively.

Let me add my voice to support of this amendment, which I, along with a number of other colleagues have cosponsored with our great friend from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Poe the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to join the gentleman in this amendment to strike the funds for this project on the basis that this poses a security risk for our country.

We have absolutely no view of the background of the hundreds and thousands of truckers who will be coming in behind the wheels of these vehicles now with no offload requirement. In the areas of narcotics transportation and potentially terrorist transportation, this is an exposure for the United States.

I support the gentleman strongly.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself and the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

And Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which goes directly to the security of this country, the homeland security of this country, and particularly the border security and the sovereignty of the Nation.

We have right now in Texas a project that is underway, a massive project to build a 12-lane highway heading north, presumably funded largely by private funds, which will head north toward Oklahoma. And the understanding that I have, looking at the statements which have been made by the Security and Prosperity Partnership, is that this is part of an overall plan to develop a corridor between Mexico and Canada transiting the United States.

Mr. Chairman, the reason for this amendment, which strikes the funds for the administration to spend money with discussion teams and working groups on this particular project, is because this is a project which cries out for congressional oversight, of which right now there is none. Now, as a representative of a border State, and having represented all the California-Mexican border at one time, my questions would be: What security matters are being discussed right now with these thousands of new trucks which will be transiting this 12-lane highway? What percent of the trucks will be checked? What transparency will be involved with respect to the driving records, and more importantly, the criminal records of the people behind the wheels of these trucks? What are the plans in place to put together a security apparatus to ensure that we have more than 1 percent or 2 percent of this vehicular trade checked?

Now, this is a working group which is proceeding, which claims that it has no plans to participate in what they call this private program to deliver this 12-lane highway straight across the middle of the United States connecting Mexico and Canada. Yet, in their own description of what they do, they claim that they undertake these working groups to facilitate multimodal corridors and alleviate bottlenecks at the border.

Alleviating bottlenecks at the border, Mr. Chairman, when you only are checking 1 to 2 percent of the cargo containers coming in right now, is a code word for less security, these so-called ``fast passes,'' these passes in which you go through the security apparatus in a matter of seconds rather than in a matter of hours.

So I think that it's time, before they facilitate this multimodal operation, for the administration to consult Congress. It's time for our oversight.

At this point, I would like to yield to the cosponsor of this amendment, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest sense of pride that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Marine Corps Corporal Paul Brodner, Jr. and Sergeant Andrew Lowe. Corporal Brodner and Sergeant Lowe, both constituents of mine from El Cajon, California, recently returned from a seven month deployment to Haditha, Iraq, with Company E of the Second Battalion, Third Marine Regiment.

Immediately upon arrival in Haditha, which had a reputation as one of the most dangerous locations within Al Anbar Province and all of Iraq, Corporal Brodner and Sergeant Lowe's patrol were targeted and attacked by Sunni insurgents. For Marines in Iraq, especially those serving in Al Anbar, small arms and sniper fire, grenades and improvised explosive devices are a daily threat that challenge mission objectives and personal safety.

The Sunni insurgency in Haditha, at its strength, initiated a campaign of murder and intimidation. Despite being a hotbed of such activity, Marine units in Haditha launched a successful counterinsurgency operation that ultimately restored control of the city's infrastructure and resources to local officials and workers, and suppressed the sense of fear that was preventing Iraqis from joining police and security forces.

By the end of Corporal Brodner and Sergeant Lowe's deployment, Haditha's police force exceeded 200 volunteers and began conducting security operations independently of the Marines--who also began receiving regular intelligence reports on insurgent activity from city residents. Progress in Haditha became measurable, especially as attacks against Iraqi and coalition forces decreased from an average of ten per day to only a handful each month. Today, Marines and Iraqi soldiers are serving side-by-side and, most importantly, our Marines continue to provide Iraq's security forces with the training and techniques they will need to protect their government and its people.

It is without question that the service men and women who have served in Iraq have demonstrated absolute selflessness and courage. In fact, I am reminded of a recent conversation I had with a Marine leader regarding our efforts in Iraq, particularly the progress of our Marines in Al Anbar Province. The message relayed to me was, ``We are crushing the enemy in Al Anbar.''

Madam Speaker, this continued success in Al Anbar would not be possible without the dedication and commitment of Americans like Corporal Brodner and Sergeant Lowe. Their

service and contributions deserve to be recognized and commended, and I hope my colleagues will join me today in honoring these two American heroes.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor Liam Swan, a constituent of mine who is currently a student at Oliver Pierce Middle School in Ramona, CA. One of our local hometown papers in San Diego County, the Ramona Home Journal, recently printed a poem written by Liam that memorializes and pays tribute to the servicemen and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice fighting to preserve freedom in Iraq. His poem, titled ``Ode to the Fallen Soldiers of Iraq,'' follows:

To all you brave soldiers who have fallen in Iraq,

Who left the comforting embrace of

Family, friends, and home

To fight and protect the freedom of others

In a faraway dry, dusty and desolate land,

We Americans honor and salute you.

Like dry leaves we must crumble and toss

Our differences aside.

Where you are

Hawk or Dove,

Democrat or Republican,

Liberal or Conservative,

We must first be Americans

Who honor the fallen heroes that fought for us.

For you bravely laid down your lives,

Spilling your blood and dreams

In a foreign land,

For a foreign people

For an American Cause,

Know that you will be greatly missed,

Know that you will always be remembered

For your sacrifice,

For your courage and convictions.

Your bright and promising light

Extinguished too soon,

We celebrate and honor your memory

You fallen soldiers of Iraq.

As ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, I share Liam's strong support, appreciation and respect for our servicemen and women. I am particularly pleased each time I learn about Americans, like Liam, who are willing to use their creative talents to ensure the memory of those who have voluntarily left the comfort of their homes to defend and protect the interests of the American people, are never forgotten.

Madam Speaker, Liam's words reflect our Nation's overwhelming gratitude to the millions of uniformed military men and women that have answered the call to duty with unquestioned courage and commitment. I wish Liam continued success in his academic efforts and it is with absolute pride that I rise today to share his inspiring and patriotic tribute with my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, following my remarks and Mr. Skelton's remarks, I understand we are going to yield to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I would yield an additional 15 minutes of my time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and also I would yield 30 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and that he may be allowed to yield time in turn.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I want to express my great respect for my colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a partner on many, many legislative endeavors and a gentleman who really has the welfare of the troops of the United States in his heart when he speaks and when he legislates.

But, Mr. Speaker, let me say this about this piece of legislation which has been brought by the Democrat leadership before this House. This is an attempt once again to stampede a retreat from Iraq, and it is a gratuitous attempt to do this. There is no reason, only 3\1/2\ weeks after the surge of troops has been put in place, to now race for the borders, to demand that the President start to wind up this operation and start to leave, especially when General Petraeus will be making recommendations to us on September 15. There is no reason to do this. And I am reminded of when the surge was first announced and I was on the floor in a discussion with a good colleague from the Democrat side, the day after the surge had been announced when only a few people were even in country from this increase in forces, and she said, There has been a car bombing and that proves the surge doesn't work. And she was ready to immediately start a retreat from the country, and I take it a number of folks on that side of the aisle were willing to do that.

There is no reason to do this. We have an interim report which has just come out. The interim report says that in the 18 areas of interest in which progress has to be registered, there has been progress on eight of them, there has been unsatisfactory progress on eight of them, and on two of them it is too early to really make an evaluation. Well, that is the interim report. And on September 15 we will get a further report.

And as I look at the important things, the things that to me are important in this report, one thing that is very important is the fact that when we needed to get the three additional brigades and that additional troop strength into Baghdad from the Iraqi Army, we got them there. Even though they didn't show up early on 1\1/2\ years ago, this time they showed up. Mr. Maliki was good on his commitment. They got there. So things that were important to me with respect to this report are being accomplished.

But the facts are we are only 27 days into this surge. And the Democrat resolution really spells out no plan whatsoever. It asks the President to come up with yet another plan, which is highly interesting since he has a plan and since General Petraeus has stated that he will recommend adjustments on September 15. So if there are adjustments to make to the plan, they should come after General Petraeus appears before us and gives us his recommended adjustments.

So what are we doing here? Well, what we are really doing is counting votes. This is basically an attempt by the Democrat leadership to get a hard vote count, see if any more people have slipped, if there are any more votes on their side of the aisle so that they will be able to tee this thing up and have another vote, hopefully, from their perspective, to forward their goal, which is to start a retreat from Iraq as soon as possible.

There is not a single recommendation in the resolution that is offered by my good friend. There is no recommendation for a new strategy. There is simply a series of questions asked of the administration, and those questions can all best be answered when General Petraeus comes before us.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are two messages that I see coming from Iraq; and we all see in this very complex, very difficult mission lots of messages. A message I saw the other day came from a senior Marine leader. Do you know what it said? It said, ``We are crushing the enemy in Anbar.'' And then a few minutes later, I saw a message from the Democrat leadership that said, ``We have to get out now.'' I have seen the Democrat leadership many times say, We are going to end this war. Mr. Speaker, they don't have the ability to end this war. No American has the ability to end this war. What they do have if they gain enough power is only the ability to leave this battlefield.

Let's not stampede for the border, Mr. Speaker. This is not a time to make a precipitous decision to start ordering the President on a policy that is going to be reported on on September 15. Let's keep our stability. Let's make sure that we don't pass this gratuitous piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, which really is nothing more than a vote count for the Democrat leadership.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield at this time 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton). The distinguished gentleman has been the chairman in the past of the Terrorism Subcommittee and is an expert on special operations.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who started the Iraq Study Group, the gentleman from Virginia, the very distinguished Mr. Wolf.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Pearce, the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia, 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield to Mr. McKeon, the gentleman from California, for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), whose son has served a tour of duty in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. Speaker, it's been asked that we consider this debate in such a way that our sons and daughters are involved, and that's why the gentleman who just spoke, Mr. Wilson's son has done a tour in Iraq. The gentleman I am going to announce now, Mr. Kline, has a son who has done a tour as a helicopter pilot in Iraq.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow our other two speakers who have sons who have served in Iraq with another gentleman, Mr. Akin, the gentleman from Missouri, whose son Perry has served a tour in Iraq in the United States Marine Corps.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman.

How much time do we have left, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill. I have great respect for my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We work on many bills together, many pieces of legislation, and 99 percent of the time we find common cause in supporting the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States.

This bill is not one of them. I think that this bill, Mr. Speaker, is a call to retreat by the Democratic leadership of the House, which can only hurt this country.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been here before. I have listened to my colleagues on the Democrat side declare that the operation that we were undertaking in El Salvador to provide a little shield around that fragile government back in the 1980s was going to be ``America's next Vietnam.'' Yet we persevered. We kept that shield in place. We stood up a democratic government. Today, the free government of El Salvador supplies troops who stand side by side with Americans in Iraq.

I was here when Ronald Reagan stood up against the Soviet Union when they were putting SS-20 missiles around our allies, Germany and France, in Europe. Many people on the other side of the aisle said he was going in the wrong direction. He was going to start World War III. We were going to have a nuclear war because of the fact that the President was standing up to the Soviet Union. Yes, he did that, moving Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles to offset the Soviet missiles. At one point, they picked up the telephone and said, Can we talk? Ultimately we brought down the Berlin Wall. We freed, with American perseverance, hundreds of millions of people.

Now, we all agree that if Iraq works, it is to the benefit of the United States. When I say that ``if Iraq works,'' I mean if we have a nation which has a modicum of freedom for its people, a nation which will not be a state sponsor of terrorism, a nation which will be a friend to the United States, then we win. That is in our interest. That is what we are trying to build in Iraq.

We all agree that it is rough and tough and difficult. Mr. Speaker, it is dangerous. We all know that. That is why I had the last three speakers being fathers of Americans who have served in Iraq in the Marine Corps and in the United States Army. So we know it is difficult.

But, you know, every time I hear good news coming out, every time I hear that, I saw the message from one of our senior Marine commanders who said, We are crushing al Qaeda in Anbar province, then I pick up a statement by one of the Democrat leaders saying, We have lost. We have lost the war. I put this piece of legislation in that same category.

Twenty-seven days, less than 4 weeks after we put the surge in full force, we are already being called to leave. Now, we were just criticized, the President was criticized, for saying, This is the starting line. Well, I think we should criticize the Democrats for saying, This is the finish line. I have heard so many Democrat leaders say, We are going to stop the war. That has been said over and over.

Mr. Speaker, there is no Democrat leader here or anywhere who can stop the war. The only thing we can do is leave this battlefield. We can't stop this war any more than the people of Great Britain stopped the war when they just had this incident last week in Scotland. We can't stop this war any more than the victims in the Kobar Towers stopped the war. We can't stop this war any more than the marines in

the Beirut barrack had the power to stop the war. We can't stop this war any more than the sailors of the USS Cole had any ability to stop the war. This war has been forced on us. The only way we should end it, the only way we can end it, is to win.

Now we have the surge going on. It has been going on for 27 days. The leader in whom we all vest great confidence, General Petraeus, is to speak to us about the policies, about the tactics, about the strategies, and he will suggest adjustments on September 15. The idea that only 4 weeks after we have fully funded and we have fully deployed this surge we are somehow going to sound the retreat is a real disservice to this mission.

Mr. Speaker, what I would ask of all of our Members, Democrat and Republican, is vote against this call to retreat. If we stop fighting the terrorists, we will start losing this war against the terrorists.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our final speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Republican leader.

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

I want to thank my colleague for yielding me some time and for the good work that she has done on this bill, as well as my good friend from New York.

Unfortunately, I oppose this bill for this reason: We passed out what I think was a pretty good bill out of the House. That bill had in it several critical national security elements. One of those elements was that any member of this committee, of the CFIUS committee, including, for example, the Secretary of Defense, or a leader in another agency, could, by a single vote, trigger an investigation if they thought there was a national security problem.

Remember, this bill grew out of the Dubai Ports problem. When we were faced with this takeover of our port operations in a number of key ports by a foreign-owned company, we realized that that company could access information about vulnerable aspects of those particular ports that could, at some point, be utilized in a terrorist activity.

So we understood, and that was a good illustration of how critical this CFIUS process is, especially with this array of foreign investments taking place in this country. So we understood that we needed to reform CFIUS. In those days, during the Dubai Ports problem, before that, you had an arrangement that was largely put together by Presidential directive, and the President, by his directive, gave any member of the CFIUS committee, including SecDef, the ability to raise their hand and basically say, I want an investigation.

Now, we ensured that, as we put this thing together in statute, that we maintained that right. I am turning to the House-passed provision that we passed, that I supported. It talked about an investigation being triggered by a roll call vote, and I am quoting, a roll call vote pursuant to paragraph 3(a) in connection with a review under paragraph 1 of any covered transaction results in at least one vote by a committee member against approving the transaction, meaning that the Secretary of Defense could get up and say, I think there is a problem here, and he could trigger that transaction.

Unfortunately, the product that came back from the Senate didn't have that provision. It had this provision; it said that an investigation would be triggered if ``the lead agency recommends and the committee concurs that an investigation be undertaken.'' They have clearly watered down the ability of one person, for example, the Secretary of Defense, to say, to trigger an investigation upon his demand.

I think that's a fatal flaw, because that takes us back to a weaker position than what we have had under the current practice, which involves an investigation being undertaken if a single member of the committee objects under the present Presidential directive. We are actually going back to a lower standard for triggering an investigation than we had before the Dubai ports problem.

So I think, unfortunately, we have taken a product from the Senate which is fatally flawed in that respect. I would strongly support this provision coming back, this exact same law, coming back with that fix. But I don't know any way we can fix it, or even with a colloquy or in any other way, assign a new congressional intent that will clearly reflect that the words that have been changed aren't, in fact, controlling at this point, but that there is a congressional intent that controls.

Unfortunately, I have to object to the passage of this bill, and I will not support the passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and memory of Mr. Wayne Stevens, a proud member of the San Diego community and a fellow paratrooper who recently passed away at the age 64 from the effects of cancer.

Wayne's distinguished record of military service to this Nation is one of the finest examples of selflessness and courage. He served in Vietnam with Charlie Company, 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade, and was among the first soldiers to arrive in country from Okinawa in 1964. For his heroism in Vietnam, Wayne was awarded two Bronze Stars, a Purple Heart and the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry.

Madam Speaker, Ronald Reagan once said, ``the willingness of our citizens to give freely and unselfishly of themselves, even their lives, in defense of our democratic principles, gives this great nation continued strength and vitality. From Valley Forge to Vietnam, through war and peace, valiant Americans have answered the call to duty with honor and dignity.'' In making these remarks, President Reagan was speaking directly to Americans like Wayne, who have so bravely and selflessly put their country before themselves and were always willing to make the ultimate sacrifice when they were needed most.

My prayers are with Wayne's devoted wife of 42 years, Donna, his daughter Jessica and two grandchildren, Sophia and Adolph, and I ask that my colleagues join me today in paying tribute to the life and memory of this true American hero.