Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the media just reported the sad news that we have just reached a sad milestone: 2,500 Americans have lost their lives in the Iraq war. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask at the outset of this very important debate that the House observe a moment of silence for all those who have given the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue today, this important issue for so many Americans across the country, from my home State of Missouri. So many families such as mine have young people in uniform. But this resolution before us today is not what we requested, nor is it what we were told we would have before us to debate. We expected a resolution confined to the country of Iraq and the conflict there. That is not what the resolution is. This resolution covers the Middle East waterfront, trying to blend together the Iraqi war and the war against terrorism, which has its genesis in Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, these are two separate and distinct wars. We did the right thing by going into Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban, which supported and protected the al Qaeda terrorists. And then came along the discussion, the international discussion about Iraq and Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction.

We made the decision, as a country, to go into Iraq. At that time, Mr. Speaker, knowing the history and the culture of the Middle East, I sent two letters to the President of the United States, one on September 4, 2002, and one on March 18, 2003, before we went into Iraq. My letters warned against the aftermath.

They sent an Assistant Secretary of State and an Assistant Secretary of Defense over to see me and said, ``Ike, it will be all right.''

We know what happened in the aftermath insurgency because we allowed the looting, we sent the Iraqi Army home, rather than give them a paycheck and a shovel, and didn't have enough troops to quell any insurgency. And it arose. And here we are, some 3 years later.

Despite the fact that this resolution is a broad one, let's talk about Iraq, which should be the complete subject of the resolution before us.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation is at a strategic crossroads. We are spending $8 billion a month, over $300 billion on this war. And more strikingly, we are losing, Mr. Speaker, a battalion's worth of casualties killed or injured between Iraq and Afghanistan. By far, most of them are, sadly, in Iraq. And there are increasing insurgent inspired attacks.

Now, what makes this resolution so interesting is the fact that it flies in the face of the law that we passed here in the Congress of the United States and the President signed. The bill, the defense bill of 2005 said this: ``Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq.'' That is the law of our land. That is what the defense bill said last year. ``Thereby creating conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq.''

What does this mean to us in the long run? Well, farmers in Missouri know that the quality of the corn that they plant will bring about the quality of the corn that grows. And we find ourselves militarily eating our seed corn in the country of Iraq. Sadly, a few moments ago we had a moment of silence for the 2,500th American that sacrificed a life in that sad country. But it means eating up the equipment, and we are using equipment right and left and it is going to take 3 years to refurbish the United States Army if the war would stop today equipment- wise. There are challenges in recruiting and retention. But I have to tell you how proud I am of those young people in uniform today. But if we do not take serious thought about the phraseology that is in the law creating the condition for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, I think that we may be eating our military seed corn. And what does this mean? It means that the United States of America will be less prepared to either deter or defend an attack that might come at some future date.

This is serious business. We need to remain strong militarily. That is the way you deter problems. Should North Korea, somewhere in Asia, somewhere in Latin America, somewhere in Africa that would cause us to be involved, the question is, Mr. Speaker, would we be prepared militarily to meet that challenge?

That is why it is very important that we do our very best to take seriously the law regarding transition this year, the significant transition.

And what will it take? It will take the Iraqi government to stand up on its own, and it is on its way there, to transfer the security problem and situation to their police force and to their military, and we have some 250,000 Iraqi military either fully trained or nearly fully trained. We have to hand the baton over to them. We as a country, whether militarily or not, cannot determine the fate of Iraq. The Iraqis have to do it themselves, their own government, their own military, and their own police force. We can be of help. We have been of help. We have been there some 3 years. I think it is time for us to seriously look at where we are, where we are going, and do our very best to keep ourselves militarily strong for those days that are bound to happen.

And, Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Members I have been in Congress 29 plus years thanks to those wonderful folks in Missouri. During that time, we have had 10 military confrontations with other countries. History being what it is reflects that, and the future may hold something similar. We hope not. But the question is will we be militarily prepared when the time comes?

The Iraq adventure needs to be looked at in light of the law that we passed last year. The calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. That is the law. That is what the Congress passed. That is what the President signed. And that is where we are.

Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record at this point my letters in full to the President, dated September 4, 2002, and March 18, 2003.

Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, September 4, 2002.

The President,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: Thank you for inviting me to the

briefing this morning. I share your concern about the

continuing threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his efforts to

produce weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I would like to

offer my assistance as the administration considers how to

deal with this threat.

Before Congress can authorize any military action that

might be part of the administration's plan, we must have

answers to more questions than were able to be raised. at

today's meeting. Our constitutional duty requires us to

ensure that all implications of such action are considered in

advance. The case has not yet been fully made as to what the

threat is, why military force is an appropriate way of

addressing the threat, and why action must occur now. In

short, Congress and the American people must be clear on your

strategic vision before we can authorize a specific course of

action. I believe, like Clausewitz, that in strategy there is

an ``imperative . . . not to take the first step without

considering the last.''

Your strategy for dealing with Iraq must address the

fundamental questions of the threat, the method of acting,

and the timing. Furthermore, any strategy to eliminate Iraqi

WMD must also address several component issues, each of which

raises critical questions.

1. How to manage Iraq's transition to a stable post-Saddam

regime:

As I mentioned to you this morning, this is a crucial

question for administration strategy to answer in advance of

any military action. I have no doubt that our military would

decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like

the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must

consider what we would do after we caught it.

As Sun-Tzu said in the classic strategic treatise, The Art

of War, ``To win victory is easy; to preserve its fruits,

difficult.'' Military planners and political leaders alike

knew this in World War II. Planning for the occupation of

Germany and Japan--two economically viable, technologically

sophisticated nations--took place well in advance of the

end of the war. The extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq

with its history of autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic

tensions, and its isolated economic system argues both for

careful consideration of the benefits and risks of

undertaking military action and for detailed advanced

occupation planning if such military action is approved.

Specifically, your strategy must consider the form of a

replacement regime and take seriously the possibility that

this regime might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to

civil unrest and even anarchy. The effort must be to craft a

stable regime that will be geopolitically preferable to

Saddam and will incorporate the disparate interests of all

groups within Iraq--Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd. We must also plan

now for what to do with members of the Baath party that

continue to support Saddam and with the scientists and

engineers who have expertise born of the Iraqi WMD program.

All these efforts require careful planning and long-term

commitment of manpower and resources. The American people

must be clear about the amount of money and the number of

soldiers that will have to be devoted to this effort for many

years to come.

2. How to ensure the action in Iraq does not undermine

international support for the broader war on terrorism:

In planning for military operations in Iraq, we cannot

ignore the lack of international support to date. Pre-emptive

action against Iraq is currently vocally opposed by many of

our allies and friends throughout the world and particularly

in the Middle East.

When we are seen as acting against the concerns of large

numbers of our friends, it calls into question the ``humble''

approach to international relations you espoused during the

presidential campaign. More than that, it has several

potentially damaging long-term consequences. First, it risks

losing the large number of partners needed to prosecute the

global war on terrorism. To ferret terrorist groups out of

their many hiding places, we must have broad allied support.

Second, it risks seriously damaging U.S. moral legitimacy,

potentially providing states like India and Pakistan with a

preemptive option that could drive long-standing conflicts

beyond containable bounds.

Finally and perhaps most dangerously, actions without broad

Arab support may inflame the sources of terrorism, causing

unrest and anger throughout the Muslim world. This dynamic

will be worse if Iraq attacks Israel--perhaps with weapons of

mass destruction--and draws them into the conflict. Iran,

which has the potential to seize a reformist path, may well

move away from the United States in the face of attacks that

could next be taken against them. Together, these dynamics

will make achieving peace in the Middle East more difficult

and may well provide the rationale for more terrorist attacks

against Americans.

These concerns do not make military action in Iraq

untenable. They do, however, highlight the depth and

importance of the issues to be addressed before we strike. We

need to ensure that in taking out Saddam, we don't win the

battle and lose the war.

3. How to ensure that the United States can execute this

operation successfully as well as its other military

missions:

As you are well aware, Mr. President, the consideration of

military action against Iraq comes at a time when U.S. forces

are actively engaged throughout the world in a range of

missions. Given the operational pressures these forces

currently face, we must ask what the risks and trade-offs

will be of defeating Iraq, particularly if Iraqi forces mass

in Baghdad for urban operations. How many casualties must the

American people be prepared to take in a worst-case scenario?

What will the impact of sustained operations be on so-called

high-demand, low-density assets? What military operations

might we have to forego because of continued demands in Iraq?

Will we still be prepared for the range of other threats that

might emerge throughout the world? With little allied support

and contributions, will we still be able to maintain military

spending on transformational technologies and on sound

quality of life for our forces if we are bearing a huge

wartime cost alone? What will be the impact on the domestic

economy of these resources drains and of the long-term costs

of reconstructing Iraq? These questions must be answered

before any military action commences so that the American

people understand the risks and the sacrifices involved.

I ask these questions only to highlight the complexity of

the undertaking and the need for Congress, the American

people, and our friends around the world to understand

exactly what is at stake and why we must act now. Only such a

comprehensive strategic approach will ensure that we commit

U.S. troops consciously and with full knowledge of the range

of challenges we face--both in the initial campaign and in

the long aftermath to follow. Even a strategy that has

military action as its centerpiece will require great

diplomatic efforts to ensure its success. I look forward to

hearing the administration's answers and to working with you

to find the best course of action.

Sincerely,

Ike Skelton,

Ranking Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity, in light of the gentleman from Arkansas' comments, Dr. Snyder, to remind the body, Mr. Speaker, that it was the Investigation Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee that produced the all important legislation we now call Goldwater-Nickels, which brought about jointness within the armed services.

And I also might mention that all 29 Democrats sent a letter to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, from which we have not received an answer, recommending and asking that the Investigations Or Oversight Subcommittee be reestablished.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the comments made by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), I reflect on an article from The Washington Post. And it is sad and disturbing that on the very day that we announced and learned that 2,500 American troops have been killed in Iraq, that the prime minister, Maliki, proposes a limited amnesty, a plan likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops. That is very disturbing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman who has been to Iraq some nine times, former Army Ranger, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes at this time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

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

Can the Chair advise the time I have left, please.

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying how proud I am of those young men and women in uniform. I know every Member in this body joins me in saying how pleased and proud we are of them.

A sad moment earlier today was when it was announced that 2,500 had given their lives in Iraq. But what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, more than anything is the request that we made for discussion on Iraq and this resolution that before us today was the result. Trying to blend and fudge together the war in Iraq, which is separate and distinct from the war on terrorism, is disingenuous.

Mr. Schiff, the gentleman from California, a moment ago, referred to an amendment by Senator Warner, Armed Services chairman in the Senate. That amendment stayed in the law last year. This is what we should be discussing today about Iraq, as we were told we would.

Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq. That is where we should be today.

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

Mr. Speaker, tonight I wish to speak about Iraq, a separate and distinct war from the war on terrorism. Those who are terrorists with their genesis in Afghanistan have a goal of creating a fundamentalist Muslim caliphate all across the Middle East. The insurgents are Baathists and Sunnis in Iraq who have as their goal a separate and distinct one of toppling the government that is there and creating their own.

My friends on the other side of the aisle wish to confuse the battle against terrorists and the battle against insurgents in the country of Iraq. Tonight I wish to speak about Iraq because we are at a strategic crossroads as a Nation regarding that war.

I wish to speak about the health of our military that is being drained by the war in Iraq. As a matter of fact, we are sustaining a battalion's worth of casualties every month wounded and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of attacks on the American and allied forces is at the highest level since the insurgency began despite the increase of America combat operations and the introduction of some 40 new Iraq security forces and battalions.

An ABC poll shows that 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the situation in Iraq. What is responsible for us arriving at this point? I have to say a lot of good words about our military, the finest we have ever had, they are doing a superb job. I am proud of them, and every American should be. But there have been operational strategic mistakes sadly made by the administration that has brought us to this point at a crossroads in Iraq.

First, allowing the looting; second, not having a plan for the aftermath, although duly warned; by dismissing the Iraqi Army rather than giving them a paycheck and a shovel; failure to plan and have American civilian professionals from the State Department, Transportation Department, Agriculture Department, and Judiciary with the right skills to advise the Iraqis when they took over their governmental ministries; the failure to react to the wartime collapse of the Iraqi military and security police forces; and the decision to disband the Army, as I mentioned; failure to have a

sufficient number of American troops at the beginning and later as General Eric Shinseki warned.

This is a year of transition in Iraq. The bill that we passed last year, the defense bill, stated that calendar year 2006 should be a period of time of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq.

If we are not able to redeploy our forces from Iraq, the health of our military will be seriously endangered. We are wearing the troops out. Not just the troops, but the equipment. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, 13,849 members of the selected reserves have had three deployments, and 10,408 have been deployed more than three times. Well, where do we go from here?

We have to do our best to train those Iraqis, let them and their government know that the ball is in their court. We have to make sure they are properly equipped, and I might also say that the equipment of the Army and Marines Corps ground equipment is wearing out. Some of it is wearing out from two to nine times the peacetime rate.

We have global interests, potential threats from elsewhere, North Korea, Iran, Taiwan Straits and the like. We must be prepared for any future threat. That is why it is important that this be a transition year, 2006.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

I thank the gentlewoman from California. This is the year of transition. It is up to the Iraqi people. It is up to the Iraqi Government. It is up to the Iraqi forces. They are going to have to take it upon themselves with the assistance of the wonderful Americans that are there to make this transition work.

I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Victory in Iraq is of primary importance. But it is really up to the Iraqi Government, the Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqi people. We are and we have been doing and, of course, we will continue to be of great assistance. The primary importance is that the Iraqis assume more and more of their own security and of their own destiny.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for allowing us to speak tonight. This is a very, very important debate.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at midnight), the House adjourned until today, Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 10 a.m.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that I take a back seat to no one regarding fighting the scourge of illegal drugs. And being a former prosecuting attorney, I know full well the scourge of that problem.

However, Mr. Chairman, the American taxpayers have spent over $4.7 billion on the Andean Counterdrug Initiative since the year 2000. Despite that commitment, the production in that country is higher now than ever. We need to ensure we are spending money wisely. We must ensure we are addressing the root causes of the drug problem in Colombia.

Let me point out that the committee provides $545 million for this program and we are diverting, by way of this amendment, a very good amendment, only $30 million, which, by the way, if you subtract carefully, still leaves more than the President recommended for this program.

I am glad that we have been able to support President Uribe and the Colombian military against guerrilla groups, but I still question the stability of our military efforts in that country. And I think we are also working our special operation forces very, very hard during this time of war elsewhere.

It has been a long time since the House Armed Services Committee has seriously focused any attention on the security changes in Latin America. We ought to take our congressional oversight role seriously. We should hold hearings, give full consideration to American policy in this critical part of the world. If we are not careful, the gathering storm in Latin America could come back to bite us in years to come.

This amendment, which I support, sends a clear message to Colombian and other Andean countries that while the American people will support their governments to a point, the financial assistance is not unlimited and should not go unchecked. Colombia must decrease coca production and better account for human rights concerns.

This amendment transfers $30 million out of the Andean Counterdrug Initiative account to humanitarian assistance in the Sudan and in Darfur, which is highly needed and necessary, in my opinion, and it still leaves more money than what the President recommended for this antidrug program in the Andean area.

Mr. Speaker, show-me State motorists, like all consumers, closely follow gasoline prices, and with good reason. They have experienced dramatic increases and wide fluctuations in gas prices over the past several years, spending millions of dollars more on gasoline than they had anticipated.

Rural Americans, who rely heavily on transportation in going about their daily lives, are being hit particularly hard by the high cost of gasoline. This is especially true for farmers, many of whom are already operating at a loss this year.

It is imperative that Congress work to address our nation's energy needs through a comprehensive and proactive strategy that makes it easier to promote alternative energy sources, to stop price gouging, to increase production by expanding refining capacity, and to rollback billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies that are making record profits.

The refinery permitting bill before the House today contains scant assistance for the rural Missourians I am privileged to represent. It would not lower their energy costs nor assure our nation's energy security. Rather, it would change the permitting process for refineries and would require the President to designate closed military bases for consideration as locations for new refineries.

Designating closed military bases for refineries seems to make little if any sense at all. I can't believe that we have used up all the possible locations available for placing refineries and must now resort to giving federal land grants to the oil companies to encourage them to build new capacity. Closed bases are not abandoned land. In nearly every case, the communities that surround these former installations have reuse plans for these bases to benefit the local community. If they want to place a refinery on a closed base, let them make that determination.

Unfortunately, changing permitting rules and offering federal land to oil companies will not entice them to build new oil refineries. While more refineries would certainly help produce more gasoline, oil companies have had the opportunity and financial capability for years to increase their refining capacity. Permitting rules are not stopping them, nor is there a lack of available locations for new refineries. Rather, the inability to build profitable refineries has led oil company executives away from constructing or resurrecting them.

The energy problems we are facing today must be addressed with meaningful, comprehensive legislation. House Democrats have been active in this regard, pressing for increases in the use of alternative fuel produced from the corn and soybeans grown in Missouri's fields.

Democrats have also been pushing for passage of anti-price gouging legislation since the energy markets were impacted by Hurricane Katrina.

I have supported alternate legislation that would strengthen the hands of the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, targeting price gouging across the energy spectrum. It would also help Americans who are struggling to deal with high gas prices and bracing for record home heating and air conditioning bills, while creating a Strategic Refinery Reserve to provide additional gas supplies during energy spikes like the one we are currently facing. Unfortunately, this more wisely drafted alternative has not even been allowed as an amendment to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and gentlewoman from New York and friend and gentleman from Iowa for their support on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, several years ago, I hosted a small breakfast for the well-known historian Stephen Ambrose, and I asked him what it was that made America so great. Now, I fully expected him to mention the westward movement of American pioneer families in the 1800s.

Instead, Mr. Ambrose replied, ``Look at Russia. They have abundant natural resources and a hearty workforce. But they never had a George Washington, a John Adams and a Thomas Jefferson. It was Thomas Jefferson who had the wisdom and the foresight to appoint Merriweather Lewis and William Clark to explore the Louisiana Territory.''

I am pleased that we are considering this legislation that will continue to honor the historic achievements of Lewis and Clark, and I want to thank my good friend, Jo Ann Emerson, for introducing the bill; and I appreciate the support of Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley and Ranking Member Barney Frank.

This bill will designate the National Council of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial and the Missouri Historical Society as beneficiaries of proceeds from the sale of the Lewis and Clark commemorative coin. These nonprofit organizations have raised nearly $5 million to conduct Lewis and Clark Bicentennial promotional activities. They will use funds from the sale of the coin to further historic investments in the Lewis and Clark Heritage Trail and to promote additional Lewis and Clark bicentennial celebrations.

This legislation has been endorsed by the National Council of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial and the Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation, which includes representation from all the States along the Missouri River basin.

It is with a note of interest, Mr. Speaker, that the Missouri River flows right by my hometown of Lexington, Missouri, and as Lewis and Clark went up that river in that historic year 1804, they went by the bluffs which now contain my hometown of Lexington, Missouri. So it is special to those of us that do live along the river that we continue to honor the work, the courage of Lewis and Clark on their very, very courageous journey.

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

Let us assume there is an infantry company first sergeant sitting here in our midst today and our friends on the other side would be trying to explain to him about the particulars of emergency spending, of points of order and parliamentary procedure. But the infantry company first sergeant would say, but what about my being able to train the troops better? What about being able to train them in emergency urban warfare, or in sharpshooting better or having better barracks conditions so that they will stay in the Army and not consider getting out? How would one explain to that infantry company first sergeant the complexities of what we are facing on this floor and the needs of those wonderful soldiers?

Mr. Chairman, I speak for those soldiers. We need them. We need them to be highly trained, well taken care of, and to try to explain things away on points of order and whether something fits within the ``emergency spending'' category would be foreign to him because all he knows, he wants to train his troops so they can fight in Afghanistan, Iraq and the war against terror.

That is what is important to this country. That is what is important to the soldiers. I am proud of them. I would like to say all of us in this room speak for them, but unfortunately, we are faced with a parliamentary situation that I could not explain to that first sergeant.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, my friend.

Mr. Chairman, for several years now, the budgets brought before this Congress have not adequately represented the interests of the American people. Rather than approach budgeting in a bipartisan fashion, Republicans have consistently chosen to

gild the lily, electing to enact large tax cuts while simultaneously failing to reign in government spending. These actions by today's leaders have passed a tremendous financial burden on to future generations of Americans.

The Republicans' Fiscal Year 2007 budget is no better. It makes the deficit worse, offers no plan to bring the budget back to balance, and adds to the growing weight of the national debt. The budget also makes harmful cuts to critical services for working families--including education, veterans' services, and health care.

In contrast, the Democratic budget plan proposed by Mr. Spratt of South Carolina would reach balance in 2012, has smaller deficits, accumulates less debt, and repeals the House rule providing for automatic debt ceiling increases. It also would reject the Republican budget's cuts to domestic priorities and reinstate pay-as-you-go rules that helped spur the budget surpluses of the 1990s.

I come from Missouri--the ``Show-Me State.'' If the leaders in Congress and at the White House want to be fiscally responsible, they ought to show Missourians and the rest of the American people they mean business by rejecting the failed budget policies of the past and by immediately convening a bipartisan budget summit. President George H.W. Bush did this during a similarly challenging time and America is better for it.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to congratulate the 4-Life Project in Lexington, Missouri. On May 12, 2006, the 4-Life Project will receive the Bishop John J. Sullivan Award by the Catholic Charities of Kansas City-St. Joseph. The award, the Catholic Charities' most distinguished honor, is given to individuals or organizations whose deeds, character, leadership, and accomplishments best exemplify the mission of the Catholic Charities.

The 4-Life Project consists of 4 programs critical to the Lafayette County area: the Margaret Gray Senior Center, the Rodgers-Lafayette Community Health Center, the Lexington School District Preschool, and Vocational Childcare Training Program. The Senior Center opened on February 15, 2006. It provides a wide array of home and community based services for persons 60 and over, including on-site and home delivered meals, computer classes, and a new program called ProjectEnhance, which assists seniors with ongoing health and wellness issues. The Rodgers- Lafayette Community Health Center opened on January 15, 2006, and provides comprehensive medical care, including dental and mental health care. The Lexington School District Preschool and the Vocational Childcare Training Program provides the area with a much needed total early childhood center.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating the staff of the 4-Life Project for their accomplishments and in thanking them for their contributions to the community.

Mr. Speaker, my fellow Missourian, Mark Twain, once said, ``The more you explain it to me, the more I don't understand it.'' And that is where we are on this rule; in particular not allowing some amendments, including my amendment which would be very helpful to the families of those in uniform, to be in order. Thus, I rise in strong opposition to the rule.

Let me speak about my amendment first. It reduces the copay of the servicemembers and their families for prescription drugs. Currently, there is a $3 copay charge for generic drugs and a $9 copay for name- brand drugs. Under the bill, it zeros out mail-order orders, which is fine in some cases, but increases the generic drugs to $6, and increases name brand to $16.

You have to say that is not a lot, but if you are a corporal with three children that get sick and you have to multiply the $16 times one or two or three times when you have serious illness in your family, it is going to cost an awful lot more. That is why it is important that we do our very best to take care of the troops.

This is not brain surgery. This is helping the troops in some small, positive, decent way.

And, you know, this amendment was not made in order.

I have to compliment the bipartisanship of the base bill. I am proud of it. Chairman Hunter did a good job in working on that, and we worked our will on some of the amendments, including the one I offered.

It only lost by two votes, 28 for it and 30 against it. What is wrong with taking that measure up on the floor of the House of Representatives and letting us work our will for the troops, for the young people, particularly for that private first class, that sergeant, that corporal that might have a family that needs help?

You say, well, they can do it by mail order.

If your child is really sick or has the flu or it is over a long weekend, you are not going to get anything by mail order. You are going to go down to the drugstore and you are going to pay through the nose, just as this bill is requiring.

All we want to do is help the young folks; this is a way we can do it. And if the amendment is voted down, the will of the House has worked its way. I would do my best to convince every Member of this body to vote for it.

So I think what we need to do is to go back to the Rules Committee and ask them to allow the Skelton amendment to be made in order.

There are other amendments that should have been looked at. Mr. Israel has one that deals with chaplains that is very, very evenhanded. Mr. Hoyer has one, as well as Mr. Udall and Mr. McGovern and some other Members, regarding energy, that should be looked at.

But I speak mainly in favor of my proposal. Rather than charging additional money to these young troops should they have a sick child or a sick spouse, let us reduce it back to where it was. That is not difficult. In the process say, hey, thank you for the job you are doing rather than let us stick you for a few more dollars to pay to the drug companies. That is not right.

That is not right. That is not the way we want to treat these young folks. Let us do all we can to help them. And this is one way. Let us at least vote on it. I will speak in favor of it. I would hope that many people on the other side of the aisle would not only speak for it, but would vote for it. It is a good amendment. I dare you to put it on the calendar for us to vote. That is what we need to do so we can say fully and fairly to the young folks, we have done our best for you.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I commend the gentleman for his effort. I can think of no faith that would disagree with the wording that you have proposed. I think it is just too bad that it was not allowed to be put in order, because I think it would have received more than a substantial vote in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me say I support this second en bloc series of amendments on behalf of my colleagues, in particular Mr. Ryan and Ms. Slaughter, who have amendments within this en bloc package.

Mr. Ryan's amendment in this adds money for High Altitude Airship, and it moves it to the Air Force.

Ms. Slaughter's amendment includes the number of disciplinary actions as part of the annual report on sexual assaults within the military.

Those as well as the others, Mr. Chabot's and Mr. Davis' amendments, do meet with our support and approval and I intend to support them, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time on this and I would add that I support it. I compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I certainly think it is an excellent amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I certainly applaud your addition to your amendment. Sonny Montgomery was such a good friend when I first came to the House of Representatives. He, of course, was a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, gave guidance and advice; and I had the opportunity to be on the Personnel Subcommittee when his bill, later known as the Sonny Montgomery GI bill, came through, and I had the opportunity to work on an amendment at the subcommittee level, as a matter of fact.

He was a true gentleman's gentleman, a real inspiration to those of us that worked with him, a credit to the House, a credit to the military, a credit to the National Guard, most of all a credit to our Nation. So it is certainly fitting and proper that you should name this measure after G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

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

Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by complimenting the chairman, Duncan Hunter, as well as the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members. This is an excellent bill. I hope it will pass in due course by the substantial vote by this body. It authorizes $462.9 billion for defense programs.

It also authorizes a supplemental authorization for $50 billion that I believe we should go beyond budgeting for foreseeable war costs in a supplemental fund. We should do it the proper way because we know at least within the realm of possibility what they are, and we would authorize those programs and activities. However, it is being done this way, and we will make the most of it, and we are at least following what is correct by authorizing that $50 billion.

This also increases the end strength of the Army, Marines, protective vests, armored Humvees and additional equipment for the National Guard. Though it is still going to be short-changed, we are making substantial steps in equipping the National Guard. I think that a supplemental does not go far enough in that regard.

The bill also reserves the administration's plan or reverts to the administration's plan with regard to the Army National Guard and it fully funds the end strength at the authorized level. The administration recommended authorizing the full amount of troops for the Army National Guard that are there now, but paying for that number only rather than for the full amount that it should. We changed that in this bill.

We also take a look at the area regarding the Persian Gulf, and it is so very, very important that we take a look at that area. The bill addresses important quality-of-life issues that are at the top of the agenda for members and their families, a 2.7 percent pay raise.

It also does what we should have done some time ago, preserves the retiree benefits by keeping health care premiums under TRICARE at their current levels.

With this bill we take steps to ensure that our troops have the best possible equipment. We take a step toward doing better in the Navy by fully funding the ship steaming days and adding an additional $400 million for advanced procurement for the Virginia class submarine; $300 million more for the National Guard equipment, including the prepositioned stocks.

The bill also includes important bipartisan initiatives to address the future challenges. It directs the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress with a report on the Department's 10-year strategy for addressing threats posed by Iran to our country and to international security. This is terribly important because Iran is on the horizon, and hopefully we can take a good look at this and see what the report from the Department of Defense will say, which specifically addresses Iran's nuclear activities and the destabilizing influence that country has on the entire Middle East. Given the great challenges posed by Iran, that is a very important provision.

The bill also takes the first step at enhancing interagency coordination so that the United States truly is able to engage in a full range of national powers and pursue our national interest.

A number of years ago we passed what is known as the Goldwater- Nichols bill, which created a jointness among the various services. We need one hundred-fold of the coordination between the agencies of our government so we can pursue the national interest far better than we are today. The left hand often does not know what the right hand is doing.

But even with all these positive steps, this bill would be improved by a number of amendments that I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, the Rules Committee will make in order: My amendment to lower the increased retail pharmacy copay fees for military families; the amendments offered by Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Udall and Mr. Gordon on energy security; the amendment offered by Mr. Andrews and other colleagues to increase funding for nonproliferation programs. We are simply not doing enough to deal with the weapons of mass destruction threat. The amendment by Mr. Israel to require that chaplains demonstrate sensitivity, respect and tolerance towards service members of all faiths, that is terribly important.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that these amendments at the next go- round of the rules decisions will be made in order to make this bill all the better.

Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to say a special thanks to Joel Hefley and to Lane Evans. Joel Hefley, a subcommittee chairman for many years, Lane Evans, ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, will be leaving us. This will be their last bill. We are so grateful for their tireless service through the years. We wish them all the best in the days ahead. We owe a special thanks to Joel Hefley and Lane Evans.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

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

I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Personnel Subcommittee, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, may I ask, does the gentleman from California have additional speakers?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to add one more word about this bill. It is an excellent bill, reflects the best of bipartisanship. I thank the chairman, Duncan Hunter, all of the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members for the very, very hard work that they did. I certainly hope that we are able to return tomorrow with some amendments that need to be debated

and discussed, including the prescription drug amendment that I have offered.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, let me compliment the gentlewoman on this amendment. It eminently makes sense. It adds the words that the frequency of assignments during service career as one of the several factors that the Secretary of Defense should consider in calling Selected Reservists to active duty.

I think it is well done. As you know, a good number of them have been asked on a frequent basis to serve, when in truth and fact, if they look at the records closely, they might not very well have called those particular people. It just requires them to consider and take a good look at it. I compliment the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to congratulate 15- year-old Rebekah Nastav of Amoret, Missouri. Miss Nastav's design for a new stamp won the Federal Junior Duck Stamp Design Contest on April 20, 2006.

Miss Nastav's acrylic painting of a redhead duck, entitled ``Morning Swim,'' will be featured on the 2006-2007 Junior Duck Stamp. More than 34,000 Junior Duck Stamp designs were submitted from all 50 states. Miss Nastav's stamp will be made available by the Fish and Wildlife Service for $5.00 to the general public on June 1, 2006. Proceeds from the Junior Duck Stamp sales will be used to support environmental education efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating Miss Rebekah Nastav and in wishing her luck in all her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to recognize the long and distinguished career of Colonel Sharon S. DeRuvo, who is retiring after serving our Nation's military with distinction for over 20 years.

Colonel Sharon S. DeRuvo was commissioned through the Walter Reed Army Medical Center Institute of Nursing in 1989. She graduated from the University of Maryland with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Nursing and received a Master of Science Degree from the University of Arizona in 1992. She also earned a Master of Strategic Studies Degree in 2003 from the Army War College.

Colonel DeRuvo has held a variety of positions culminating in her current assignment as Commander, General Leonard Wood Army Community Hospital, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Past assignments include staff nurse positions at Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Denver, Colorado and Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas. She also held positions as Head Nurse, Hematology-Oncology, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Director, Quality Assurance, Brooke Army Medical Center, Texas; Assistant Chief, Department of Clinical Investigation, Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii; Chief, Medical Nursing Section and Chief Clinical Nursing at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany; and Deputy Commander for Health Services, Fort Carson, Colorado.

Colonel DeRuvo has earned numerous decorations and badges for her outstanding service in the military. Her awards include the Meritorious Service Medal with Four Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Army Achievement Medal with Four Oak Leaf Clusters. She has received several Tri-Service Nursing Research Grants, and was awarded the Orthopedic Surgeons and Nurses National Research Award. She is a member of the Order of Military Medical Merit and the Sigma Theta Tau Nursing Honor Society.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to Colonel Sharon S. DeRuvo for her exceptional service to the United States and will wish her and her family all the best in the days ahead.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to congratulate second grade teacher Teresa Shockley, who received the Missouri State Teacher's Association (MSTA) Southwest Region Elementary Educator of the Year award.

On April 10, 2006, Mrs. Shockley received the award for the southwest region of Missouri for her innovation in the classroom. Mrs. Shockley teaches using hands-on lessons three to five times a week. Currently, her students are growing tadpoles and plants and preparing for a musical. She also has the children in her class create mini-economies, in which the students set up counties, cities, and city councils.

Mrs. Shockley has been teaching for twelve years, the last three of which she has taught second grade at Conway, Missouri's Ezard Elementary School. After she graduated from Conway High School in 1989, she attended Southwest Missouri State University. Mrs. Shockley earned her Master's degree from Southwest Baptist University while teaching fifth grade at Joel E. Barber School near Lebanon, Missouri. She has written various grants including, ``Time Travel Through Literature,'' and ``Consumers in Training.'' She also stays active in the community through her involvement in the Community Teacher's Association and the Professional Development Committee at Ezard Elementary School.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating Mrs. Teresa Shockley and in thanking her for her commitment to education.