Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our debate on the emergency supplemental with a discussion of a separate measure that includes billions of dollars of spending completely unrelated to the global war on terror or legitimate emergencies in the gulf coast region.

This is an extraordinary amount of unauthorized spending, spending that is not offset in any way, contained under the emergency designation. As the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, and the committee's former chairman, I believe the House must firmly hold the line and reject this unnecessary spending.

Members on both sides of the aisle can, and will, argue that some of this spending is justified. Members can correctly point out the need for additional funds to address wildfire suppression or agricultural assistance in various regions of the United States. However, I would urge that many of the needs addressed in this bill could, and they should, be addressed in regular order through the fiscal year 2008 funding bills.

Sadly, many items are being designated as emergencies for no other reason than to make more room for additional spending under the fiscal year 2008 caps, which, incidentally, we still do not have.

When the new majority assumed power earlier this year, it committed to restoring pay-as-you-go, the practice of offsetting spending increases with spending decreases. As I mentioned earlier, none of the proposed spending included in this package has been offset in any way.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues should be aware that the President has indicated that he will veto this legislation due to the excessive nonemergency spending it contains. I urge our colleagues to show spending restraint by opposing this package.

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

Mr. Speaker, because he is constantly talking to me about the challenges of rural schools, it is my pleasure to recognize Greg Walden of Oregon for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from the committee, Mike Simpson.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple motion to recommit that sends the bill back to committee and instructs the committee to find offsets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, as we approach the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, I am pleased today to stand in recognition of the 75th anniversary of the Lincoln Memorial Shrine located in Redlands, California. While leading a divided nation, President Lincoln remained committed to the principles of liberty, integrity, and personal responsibility. It is these ideals that represent the core of what Robert and Alma Watchorn envisioned when they created the Lincoln Shrine in 1932.

It is a great honor that the Watchorns chose to dedicate and present the Shrine to Redlands, my hometown and a prominent city in my district. Through the contributions of my constituents, the Shrine has become a nationally-known education center for our 16th and perhaps greatest president. As the only Lincoln-dedicated museum and library west of Springfield, Illinois, the Shrine attracts thousands of professional and amateur historians with a wide variety of exhibits, events, and projects featuring Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War period.

The Watchorns would be pleased to know that the prominence of the shrine has not detracted from the educational opportunities provided to visitors. As a primary resource for educators in the area, the museum's collection of more than 4,000 manuscripts and 300 original newspapers is offered free of charge and serves as a valuable resource for those seeking a direct glimpse of Lincoln's time. Students are encouraged to attend docent-led school tours and can easily access a wealth of information to use for school projects or personal enjoyment.

Highlighting our community's pride in hosting this important site, a fundraising drive in the 1990s resulted in donations of more than $1 million, which helped provide a 2,000-foot expansion of the Shrine. Two new wings were carefully designed to complement the original octagon shape, paving the way for further Lincoln artifacts. This expansion could not have occurred without the dedication of those residing in my district.

A moving tribute to the Shrine's 75th anniversary is planned for November of 2007, when the Lincoln Shrine releases a book describing and detailing the various artifacts in their collection. An extensive set of photos and letters will be included in the book, with explanatory comments to guide the reader. This book will serve to foster interest in those who have not yet visited the Shrine, and will further elaborate upon the knowledge of individuals already familiar with the Lincoln Shrine's all-embracing collection.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to represent a community of citizens dedicated to progressing the growth of a research center and museum such as the Shrine. I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing the immense value of the Lincoln Memorial Shrine and in wishing them many more years of success.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady who spoke just before me, our respected Speaker, is a person I have worked with for most of my life in public affairs. Our Speaker suggested that the President was wrong, and, Mr. Speaker, I humbly suggest that in this instance, our esteemed Speaker is wrong.

Madam Speaker, it was no secret that this conference report was going to be vetoed. Early on, the President made very clear his intention to veto this legislation because of the Iraq withdrawal language and the many unrelated and costly spending items that have absolutely nothing to do with the global war on terror and recovery efforts on the gulf coast.

It is no secret that many Members of the House and Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, had strong reservations about the manner in which this legislation undermined the authority of the President, our Commander in Chief.

From the beginning of this process, Members have expressed their concern about how this legislation placed military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than military commanders in the field. The last thing our country or our troops need is to have 535 Members and Senators micromanaging the war in Iraq. That simply is not our job, Madam Speaker.

Recent history reminds us that the enemy we face in Iraq, Afghanistan and in other countries that harbor terrorists will stop at nothing to attack the United States and our allies.

My colleagues, now is not the time for the United States to back down from its commitment to the war on terror. Now is not the time for America to signal retreat and surrender. Indeed, now is not the time for the House of Representatives to throw in the towel, wave the white flag or signal retreat and surrender in Iraq.

How could this Congress walk away from our men and women in uniform? How could we walk away from them now? We must not let that happen. We must support our troops. Our failure to learn the lessons of history, our failure to lead, will result in devastating consequences, including an even greater loss of life and even more resources needed to fight tomorrow.

It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on Earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon of freedom in our shrinking world. Walking away would further signal to Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and others that the United States is no longer committed to a successful outcome in Iraq.

Before closing my remarks, I want to express my disappointment and dismay at yesterday's political and theatrical display by Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid.

The delivery of this conference report to the White House was intentionally delayed so the President's veto would coincide with the fourth anniversary of the President declaring ``Mission Accomplished.'' This display in sending the supplemental to the President was a deliberate and shameful attempt at scoring political points solely at the expense of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, this veto has been anticipated for some time. The majority party has had ample time to plan and prepare for the next step. Passing a clean supplemental free of arbitrary deadlines and excessive spending is obviously the path we should be following.

There is $20 billion, $20 billion, in this package unrelated to the war effort and the gulf coast recovery. That money is designated as emergency spending. Every nickel of this unrelated spending should be removed from the emergency supplemental. All this spending should be debated in regular order through the fiscal year 2008 appropriations process.

In closing, I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: You've made your point. You've had your dog-and-pony show. You have posed for political holy pictures on TV. Now what is your plan to support the troops?

It is time to put the posturing and political stunts aside and do what is in the best interest of our troops. It is time to do the right thing and pass a clean emergency supplemental free of arbitrary deadlines and arbitrary spending. It is time to support our Commander in Chief and sustain the President's veto. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, only because we are rambling on time, could I have a check of time, please.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Republican whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter of California, now the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire about the amount of time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I believe that both of us are coming very close to the end of our time.

As we do that, why don't we just join together, as we approach our closing speaker, and express our appreciation, is that all right with you, to the staff of both sides?

A fabulous job has been done on this. I am very proud of the people over here. I know you feel the same, and presuming that you would like to have me yield, I would be happy to.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader of the House, John Boehner of Ohio.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Republican leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we know that this conference report before us will be vetoed by the President because of the Iraqi withdrawal language and the many unrelated and costly spending items that have absolutely nothing to do with the global war on terror or recovery efforts in the gulf coast.

It is no secret that many Members of the House and Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, have strong reservations about the manner in which this legislation undermines the authority of the President, our Commander in Chief. Members are also rightly concerned about how this legislation places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field.

As I have said many times before, this legislation ought to focus on our troops. It ought to focus on providing those in harm's way with the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. It ought to respect, not micromanage, our combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate responsibility for prosecuting military actions.

My colleagues know that I have great respect for my friend, Mr. Murtha, but I strongly disagree with his assertion that we ought to have 535 Members and Senators micromanaging the war in Iraq. With all due respect, that is not our job.

Let me again remind my colleagues, we are not generals, we are not the Secretary of State, and we most certainly are not the Commander in Chief. It is tragically ironic that the House is considering this conference report the same day that General David Petraeus met with Members in closed session on the current situation in Iraq.

It was on January 26 of this year, just 3 months ago, that the Senate voted 81-0 to confirm General Petraeus to be the top military commander in Iraq. One would have thought that Members and Senators would trust his judgment following such an extraordinary vote of confidence over 3 months ago. Senator Reid, who supported the General's confirmation, now says, and I quote, ``I don't believe him.''

Recent history reminds us that the enemy we face in Iraq, in Afghanistan and other countries that harbor terrorists will stop at nothing to seek opportunities to attack the United States and our allies. Have we not learned anything from the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attack on USS Cole or 9/11 itself?

Al Qaeda will view this legislation as the first sign of the United States backing down from its commitment to the war on terror. It will view the withdrawal provisions contained in this conference report as America signaling retreat and surrender. Indeed, al Qaeda will view this as a day that the House of Representatives threw in the towel, waved the white flag and signaled retreat and surrender in Iraq.

Our failure to learn the lessons of history, our failure to lead today, will result in devastating consequences, including an even greater loss of lives, and even more resources needed to fight tomorrow. Just as we have only one top General in Iraq, one Secretary of State and one Commander in Chief, we only have one Speaker of the House at a time.

Speaker Pelosi and I have been friends and have served as colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for many years. The Speaker played an important role in supporting the development of unmanned aerial vehicles, a critical and successful military capability that is a key element to the war on terror. She and I worked on that in the Intelligence Committee together years ago. It is puzzling to me that the Speaker would not only openly question the judgment of General Petraeus, Secretary Rice, and our Commander in Chief, but that she would also willingly work to undermine their efforts to secure a successful outcome in Iraq.

My colleagues, it is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on Earth, continue to be the voice for peace and freedom in our shrinking world. Our success is critical. Walking away will further signal to Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and others that the United States is no longer committed to a successful outcome in Iraq.

In closing, I ask Speaker Pelosi and my friends in the majority to weigh the implications of supporting this conference report. Even as I hold hope that the Speaker might have a road-to-Damascus conversion, I ask her to weigh the enormous consequences of putting our troops in peril. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this emergency supplemental.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on Military Construction of Appropriations, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the former chairman of the Defense Subcommittee and former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kingston of Georgia, a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to our Republican whip, Mr. Blunt.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

In doing so, I rise to offer a very simple, straightforward motion to instruct conferees on the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

The motion to instruct simply insists that House conferees support the previously adopted House position with regard to a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This motion, which I will oppose, puts Members on record as either fully supporting our troops or agreeing to a surrender date in Iraq. It is that simple.

It is no secret that many Members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats, have strong reservations about the manner in which this legislation undermines the authority of the President, our commander in chief. Members are also rightly concerned about how this legislation places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field.

This legislation ought to focus on our troops. It ought to focus on providing those in harm's way with the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. It ought to respect, not micromanage, our combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate responsibility for prosecuting military actions.

Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress are many things. We are elected to represent the interests of our constituents from our congressional districts. However, as presently written, this legislation makes the dangerous assumption that Congress also has an on-the-ground role in prosecuting the war in Iraq.

In closing, let me remind my colleagues of this: We are not generals. We are not the Secretary of State. And we are most certainly not the commander in chief.

The vote on this motion to instruct will signal whether Members of the

House are willing to provide our men and women in uniform with our unqualified support or whether Members will fully embrace a timetable for withdrawal and surrender.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for 3 minutes the gentleman from California, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter.

Mr. Speaker, as I go about recognizing another of my colleagues, let me just take a moment to say that if indeed we had had a traditional open rule on this process, we would not have had the problem that the gentleman has just alluded to. An up-or- down vote on whether we withdraw our troops or not would have been available. We would have satisfied many of the questions.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the

gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), a distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut, Chris Shays.

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take much time at this moment, but the gentleman who just spoke is my long- term colleague on the Committee on Appropriations. We have worked together for years. He knows full well how strongly I feel about having primary consideration of almost nonpartisanship in defense matters.

At the same time, some time ago, I discussed with the gentleman the importance of our working together in the tradition of the committee. One of the traditions is that our committee does not operate under closed rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, could you give me an idea of what amount of time is left on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Wisconsin has no additional speakers, I am ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of my colleague dealing with this time and circumstance. I do not intend to take a lot of time.

But it is important for all those listening, and who were concerned about this issue, to know that we take this matter very, very seriously, and our motion is a serious one. It is my view that a ``yes'' vote for this bill is a bill that will undermine the potential effectiveness of our troops for the remainder of the time that they remain in Iraq, and that a ``no'' vote is the only way, the only way to express support for our troops' efforts and guarantee, in many ways, the opportunity for success. This legislation ought to focus on those troops.

As I said earlier, it ought to focus on providing those in harm's way with the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. Further, it ought to respect, not micromanage, our combatant commanders who have the responsibility for carrying forward this war successfully.

It's no secret that many Members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats, have strong reservations about the manner in which this legislation undermines the authority of the President and the Commander in Chief. It is not acceptable that we find ourselves suddenly presuming that we can afford to have 435 Commanders in Chief by way of this House.

It breaks, in my judgment, some of the fundamental traditions of the Appropriations Committee, which calls for an open process whereby we can deal with each other in as close as a nonpartisan way as possible. Indeed, a ``no'' vote on this legislation expresses strongly our concern for allowing our troops to do their work, to do it effectively, and to get home as soon as possible as we continue to be the voice, the significant voice for freedom remaining in this world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in recognition of the Mountain Fifes and Drums, a volunteer music program located in Lake Arrowhead, California, that specializes in providing unique instruction, history, and leadership skills to 60 young people.

I am delighted to report that on May 12, members of the Mountain Fifes and Drums will be leading the processional march at the America's 400th anniversary celebration in Jamestown, Virginia. This celebration will be chaired by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, and is expected to feature guest appearances by Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh. Is it an honor to be recognized at a historical event of such a high caliber, and I congratulate the Mountain Fifes and Drums for representing California at this national celebration.

Founded in 2001 by Lake Arrowhead residents Cindy Olson and Kevin Garland, the Mountain Fifes and Drums has become one of

the premiere living history music groups in my district. The repertoire focuses on 18th and 19th century martial music, and the corps has excelled at presenting their music as accurately and authentically as possible. The group also provides character-building lessons in responsibility and discipline. There is no fee for the program and no prior musical knowledge is required, which encourages students of all levels to join.

Like many privately organized musical groups in my district, the Mountain Fifes and Drums offers instruction in music technique, theory, and history. But the group also fosters character development of each member of the corps. By providing incentives for achieving higher ranks in music, and offering a point system for disciplined behavior, members are encouraged to engage in healthy competition and to consistently perfect their music techniques.

Students are taught lessons in self-sufficiency, by engaging in fundraising activities in order to pay for trips around the United States. These fundraising projects help the performers hone their skills and teach invaluable lessons about hard work and responsibility. At the same time, they create ties to many community groups that encourage youth to stay active in local organizations.

Most of the members of the Mountain Fifes and Drums are home schooled, and their participation provides friendships that extend beyond the rehearsal hall. Group members come from a number of mountain communities, including Lake Arrowhead, Crestline, Running Springs, and Twin Peaks. I am pleased to see that residents in each of these areas have provided generous contributions to the Mountain Fifes and Drums.

Madam Speaker, I look forward with pride to watching these talented and dedicated young people take part in our national Jamestown celebration. I ask my colleagues to join with me in wishing them success and thanking Cindy Olson and Kevin Garland for creating and fostering such a unique group.

Mr. Speaker, I would not want the gentleman from Wisconsin to think, since I don't have an opening statement, that I don't feel as passionately about this issue as he does. We just happen to disagree about how we support the troops, whether we make an effort to support them by providing adequate and flexible funding for the commanders, or have a mandatory withdrawal

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) a member of the committee, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield time to my Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois, Dennis Hastert, 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I can count on one hand the number of times I voted with this gentleman. He is on the other side of the aisle, but he couldn't get any time on that side. So I am pleased to recognize that all of us have the right to speak regardless of whether we agree with one or not.

I recognize Mr. Kucinich of Ohio for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, could I request the amount of time on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for 1 minute.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. Speaker, may we hear what the time left is on both sides, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), a member of the Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the chief deputy whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, you all know that I have worked over the years very, very

closely with Mr. Murtha and our chairman Mr. Obey. I think most would agree that some of us make a significant effort to reach out on both sides of the aisle to solve problems where that is possible.

In this case, we have a major, major disagreement. I do not presume others to be insincere in their disagreement, but I feel very strongly that we must make absolutely certain that we do nothing to undermine the mission of our troops by way of this debate.

There is absolutely no doubt that the message that we will be sending as this bill passes today, in part, will say to the terrorists of the world, including Iraq, that America is not willing to stay and complete the mission.

I rarely refer to newspaper items in addressing the House, but I cannot help but note that the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Atlanta Journal, et cetera, those newspapers all have expressed grave concerns about combining this supplemental funding for a war with huge amounts of pork.

As a result of that, I am going to use an item several times mentioned today as a part of my own close. The item is entitled: ``Retreat and Butter. Are Democrats in the House Voting for Farm Subsidies or Withdrawal from Iraq?''

``Today, the House of Representatives is due to vote on a bill that would grant $25 million to spinach farmers in California. The legislation would also appropriate $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater. More substantially, there is $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $250 million for milk subsidies, $500 million for wildfire suppression and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.

``Altogether the House Democratic leadership has come up with more than $20 billion in new spending, much of it wasteful subsidies to agriculture or pork barrel projects aimed at individual Members of Congress. At the tail of all this log rolling,'' and by the way I would not use this next phrase so that Mr. Obey knows that, ``log rolling and political bribery lies this stinger: Representatives who support the bill, for whatever reason, will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008, regardless of what happens during the next 17 months or whether U.S. commanders believe a pullout at that moment protects or endangers U.S. national security, not to mention the thousands of American trainers and Special Forces troops who would remain behind.

``The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Yet the leadership is ready to piece together the votes necessary to force a fateful turn in the war by using tactics usually dedicated to highway bills or the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who are living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.

``Congress can and should play a major role in determining how and when the war ends. Political benchmarks for the Iraqi Government are important, provided they are not unrealistic or inflexible. Even dates for troop withdrawals might be helpful, if they are cast as goals rather than requirements, and if the timing derives from the needs of Iraq, not the U.S. election cycle. The Senate's version of the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan contains nonbinding benchmarks and a withdrawal date that is a goal; that approach is more likely to win broad support and avoid a White House veto.

``As it is, House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates. It would heap money on unneedy dairy farmers while provoking a constitutional fight with the White House that could block the funding to equip troops in the field. Democrats who want to force a withdrawal should vote against war appropriations. They should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.''

At this point, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy.

Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 1591--U.S. Troop Readiness,

Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act

(Sponsor: Obey (D), Wisconsin)

The Administration strongly opposes the ``U.S. Troop

Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.''

The Administration seeks prompt enactment of the President's

request to support our armed forces and diplomatic corps as

they implement the new strategy to achieve America's

strategic objective of a democratic Iraq that can govern,

defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war on

terror.

This legislation would substitute the mandates of Congress

for the considered judgment of our military commanders. This

bill assumes and forces the failure of the new strategy even

before American commanders in the field are able to fully

implement their plans. Regardless of the success our troops

are achieving in the field, this bill would require their

withdrawal. In addition, the bill could withhold resources

needed to enable Iraqi Security Forces to take over missions

currently conducted by American troops. Many policy makers

agree that the Iraqi Security Forces must assume

responsibility in defending Iraqi democracy, and it is

unconscionable that funds for the Iraqi Security Forces be

subject to conditions that may threaten our full support.

These Congressional mandates would place freedom and

democracy in Iraq at grave risk, embolden our enemies, and

undercut the Administration's plan to develop the Iraqi

Security Forces and the Iraqi economy. This bill would impose

inappropriate, operationally unsound, and arbitrary

constraints on how the Department of Defense should prepare

units to deploy. Prohibiting the deployment of units to

combat unless a Chief of Service certifies the units as fully

mission-capable 15 days prior to deployment is unnecessary,

since the Department of Defense will not send into battle

troops that are not fully capable of performing their

assigned missions. It is unwise to codify in law specific

deployment and dwell times, since this would artificially

limit the flexibility of our commanders to conduct operations

in the field and infringe on the President's constitutional

authority as Commander in Chief to manage the readiness and

availability of the Armed Forces. If this legislation were

presented to the President, he would veto the bill.

The war supplemental should remain focused on the needs of

the troops and should not be used as a vehicle for added non-

emergency spending and policy proposals, especially domestic

proposals, that should be fully vetted and considered on

their own merits, such as minimum wage, various tax

proposals, and changes in contracting policy. This bill adds

billions in unrequested spending that is largely unjustified

and non-emergency. Because of the excessive and extraneous

non-emergency spending it contains, if this legislation were

presented to the President, he would veto the bill.

Congress should reject this legislation, and promptly send

the President a responsible bill that provides the funding

and flexibility our troops need, without holding funding for

the troops hostage to unrelated spending.

The Administration would like to take this opportunity to

share additional views regarding the Committee's version of

the bill.

Title I--Global war on terror

Base Realignment and Closure. The Administration submitted

a budget amendment on March 9, 2007, that would fully offset

the $3.1 billion shortfall needed to implement the

recommendations of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure

Commission. Including this funding as an emergency request

without offsets is inappropriate and unnecessary. The

Administration urges passage of its request instead.

Additionally, the Administration opposes any amendment to

the bill that would alter the approved recommendations of the

2005 BRAC Commission. The BRAC process, as authorized by

Congress, requires that both the President and Congress

approve or disapprove the Commission's recommendations in

their entirety to allow the process to remain apolitical.

Legislating a specific change to a BRAC Commission

recommendation would adversely affect the integrity of the

BRAC 2005 process.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M). The Administration objects

to cuts of almost $1.9 billion for priority O&M activities

while increasing areas less critical to the war effort. Such

reductions (including reductions for contracting) could

damage the military's ability to execute wartime operations

and the readiness of U.S. forces as they prepare to deploy to

Afghanistan and Iraq. The Administration urges Congress to

support the President's amended request.

In addition, the bill does not fund the President's $350

million request for training, equipping, transporting, and

sustaining our partners in the Global War on Terror. Our

allies are critical to our success in combating extremists

across the globe and providing this support reduces the

burden on U.S. forces. We strongly urge the House to restore

these funds.

General Transfer Authority (GTA). The Administration

appreciates the Committee's approval of the requested $3.5

billion in GTA for this bill, but urges that GTA for the FY

2007 DOD Appropriations Act be increased from $4.5 billion to

$8.0 billion, as included in the March 9 revised request.

This increase is essential for the Department of Defense to

reallocate funds to sustain critical operations and to

address the needs of our field commanders.

International Affairs Programs. The Administration commends

the Committee for providing the President's request for

important international affairs funding for avian influenza,

assistance to Afghanistan and Lebanon, peacekeeping in

Somalia, Chad, and East Timor, and unanticipated needs to

help relieve human suffering, including in Sudan and other

parts of Africa.

While the Administration appreciates the House's support of

the request for Iraq-related funding, it objects to the

reductions to Iraq assistance programs and Provincial

Reconstruction Team (PRT) expansion. The bill reduces funding

for democracy programs, building national capacity,

strengthening local governing capacity and delivery of

essential services, creating jobs to help stabilize the

country, and supporting Iraqi rule of law programs--the

very things that must be done for Iraq to become self-

reliant and assume responsibilities from the United

States. The reduction in funding for PRT expansion will

also impede our ability to get civilians into PRTs to

support Iraqis at the local level. The Administration also

opposes the reductions to the request for Kosovo which

could inhibit our effort to support economic growth,

security, and political stability during and after the

resolution of its status. Given the reductions to Iraq and

Kosovo, the Administration is especially concerned that

the House bill provides over $600 million in unrequested

international programs. The House is urged to redirect

funds from unrequested programs to fully fund the Iraq and

Kosovo requests.

The Administration also does not support section 1905 of

the bill, which establishes a Presidentially appointed,

Senate-confirmed position to oversee Iraq assistance

programs. This position is not necessary since the Secretary

of State has already appointed a coordinator for

reconstruction.

The Administration also opposes the $2.5 billion in

unrequested emergency funding provided to the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS). This funding does not meet the

standard for emergency funding and should be considered

within the regular annual appropriations process.

Title II--Hurricane recovery

Department of Homeland Security. The bill provides the

States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas with a

100-percent Federal match for FEMA public and individual

assistance related to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and

Dennis and would eliminate the prohibition on forgiving

Community Disaster Loans. The bill also extends utility

assistance for an additional 12 months. The Administration

opposes a waiver of the State match requirement. The

Administration also notes that the Administration is funding,

at the President's direction, 90 percent of Gulf Coast

rebuilding costs for public infrastructure and that the

Federal Government has provided--following negotiations with

the State governments of Louisiana and Mississippi--

sufficient Community Development Block Grant funding to meet

the Federal match requirements for Louisiana and Mississippi,

in essence federally funding 100 percent of such costs.

Corps of Engineers. The Administration opposes the $1.3

billion in unrequested funding the bill provides to address

increased costs for certain ongoing levee restoration

projects that were provided supplemental funding in P.L. 109-

234. These funds are unnecessary because the Administration

proposed FY 2007 supplemental language to allow the Corps to

reallocate $1.3 billion of previously appropriated emergency

funding to address these needs. The Administration plans to

consider the need for additional funding once the Corps

completes its revised cost estimates for all planned work

this summer.

Constitutional concerns

The Administration urges the House of Representatives to

strike provisions of the bill that infringe upon the

President's constitutional authorities, interfere with the

President's ability to conduct diplomatic, military, and

intelligence activities or supervise the unitary executive

branch effectively, or violate the constitutional principle

of separation of powers, such as sections 1311, 1314(c)(1),

1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 4403(c), and 5004(b) and language in

title I relating to committee approval under the headings in

chapter 7 for ``Military Construction, Army'' and ``Military

Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'' and in chapter 8 under

the heading ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs.'' The

Administration notes that, while the legislation includes

authority to waive restrictions relating to readiness and

deployment periods (sections 1901, 1902, and 1903), it does

not include authority to waive the all-or-nothing

restrictions relating to benchmarks for performance of the

Iraqi government. Moreover, several provisions of the bill

purport to require approval of the Committees prior to the

obligation of funds. These provisions should be changed to

require only notification of Congress, since any other

interpretation would contradict the Supreme Court's ruling in

INS v. Chadha.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield the balance of my time to my hero of the United States Congress, Sam Johnson of Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I rise today to express my opposition to this emergency supplemental. My colleagues know that I have the highest level of respect for my chairman, Mr. Obey. Together we worked as partners in the 109th Congress, passing appropriations bills through the committee and through the House. Indeed, the Appropriations Committee is at its best when each of us works together across party lines and rises above purely partisan politics.

During the last Congress I was privileged to serve as chairman of this great committee, and Mr. Obey was our distinguished ranking member. Today, our roles are reversed, and Mr. Obey is now our chairman.

There is no question that if my friend from Wisconsin were permitted to write this bill on his own, this would be a much better product. Instead, the House is being asked to consider a spending bill that reflects the priorities of Speaker Pelosi and a deeply divided Democratic Caucus. It attempts to bridge these widening divisions over the war in Iraq by delivering billions of dollars in unrelated and unauthorized spending under an emergency designation.

This legislation ought to focus on our troops. It ought to focus on providing those in harm's way with the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. It ought to respect, not micromanage, our combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate responsibility of prosecuting military actions.

Instead, this legislation ties the hands of our Commander in Chief during a time of war, places military decisions in the hands of politicians, and attempts to buy votes for its passage on the left and on the right by literally promising something to everyone.

If the majority's goal is to end the war or withdraw our troops, then that should be addressed in a separate piece of legislation. The majority cannot have it both ways, pretending, on the one hand, to support our troops, while on the other undercutting their ability to prosecute their mission.

Men and women of good conscience can disagree about the war in Iraq. But on one thing we must all agree, our men and women in uniform must continue to receive our unqualified support and the resources they need to complete their mission successfully.

My colleagues, consider carefully the consequences of our actions here today. Passage of this measure in its present form will signal to insurgents and terrorists that the United States doesn't have the political will to continue supporting this fledgling Iraqi democracy.

Al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will simply lay in wait until our troops are withdrawn. And with the collapse of this fragile democracy, our efforts, and the sacrifices of our troops, will have been for nothing.

The fight in Iraq is also critical to the future of Israel. A failure in Iraq will further destabilize the region, posing a direct threat to Israel. We must not let that occur to our friend and ally.

There should be no carrot big enough to force Members into choosing between their principled support for our troops in the field and funding for the many unrelated and parochial items sprinkled throughout this bill.

Republican Members in the House are simply not going to abandon our principles, and troops in the field, for the promise of pork back in our districts. To their credit, many Democrats also continue to express grave reservations about this approach and about this legislation.

Last year Congress sent the President a clean supplemental bill for our troops. This Congress, and our country, would be better served by producing a clean bill free of extraneous spending and unrelated legislative provisions.

There is no question that the President will veto this bill. In the meantime our troops will face the uncertainty resulting from the majority's mixed signals and lack of a clear commitment.

I am also deeply concerned that the Democrat leadership has brought this emergency supplemental to the House floor under a closed rule without opportunity for Members on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments.

During my tenure as chairman, the House considered six emergency supplemental appropriations bills. Of these six bills, the two largest bills, H.R. 1268, was $81.2 billion; the other was a $91.8 billion supplemental. Those two bills primarily focused on the global war on terror. In both instances I worked closely with my leadership and the Rules Committee in seeking rules that permitted open debate, including amendments, on the House floor. And in both instances, these supplemental bills were considered under an open rule. The remaining four bills were noncontroversial and bipartisan in nature and were considered by unanimous consent on the Suspension Calendar.

I assumed that Chairman Obey would continue in the longstanding tradition and practice of the committee to advocate open rules on all appropriations bills. Members on both sides of the aisle benefit by a process that supports a fair, honest, open, and transparent debate on the House floor. I was disappointed that Mr. Obey's first bill as chairman, the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution, was considered under a closed rule, with only 1 hour of debate and no opportunity for amendments.

Consideration of this supplemental under a closed rule is unprecedented and leaves the minority little choice but to walk away from the tradition of comity that has marked our longstanding work on this committee.

By denying Members, both Democrats and Republicans, their right to offer amendments to this legislation, I can assure you that all bets are off on getting our committee work done this year. It simply will not happen. There will be no unanimous consent agreements on the fiscal year 2008 bills. I spoke personally with Mr. Obey about this and asked him to carry that message directly to the Speaker.

This legislation is simply too important to have it rushed through the House with no debate and no opportunity for the body to consider amendments. Consideration of this legislation under a closed rule signals to the House, and to the public, that the Speaker has imposed martial law on the people's House.

Lastly, I would be remiss not to highlight my reservations about the budgetary aspects of this bill that proposes more than $22 billion in emergency spending items that are completely unrelated to the global war on terror or legitimate emergencies in the Gulf Coast region.

I ask my colleagues what does a $25 million bailout for spinach producers, $60 million for the salmon fishing industry, or $5 million for fish breeding have to do with the global war on terror?

This legislation also includes authorization language to increase the minimum wage. Again, I ask my friends why can't the committees of jurisdiction in the House and the Senate meet in open conference to resolve the differences between these bills? What place has this provision in a wartime supplemental?

In short, much of what is included in this bill is completely unrelated to the global war on terror and has no place in the bill. Sadly, many items are being designated as emergencies for no other reason than to make more room for additional spending on the part of the Democrats under the fiscal 2008 caps.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider thoughtfully the precedent set by this legislation. Weigh in your conscience the effects of undermining the authority of the President, and future Presidents, and putting at further risk our men and women in uniform.

Our Congress, and our country, would be better served by sending the President a clean supplemental free of extraneous spending and unrelated legislative provisions.

While I respect Chairman Obey, I cannot support this legislation as it is presently written. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), our leader on the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time we have on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Illinois, the ranking member of the subcommittee of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Ray LaHood.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for 2\1/2\ minutes the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter of California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Hoekstra, the ranking member of the Intel Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for 2\1/4\ minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes to the marine from the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Kline of Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to call upon the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time we have remaining on both sides.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield my colleague, Bob Inglis from South Carolina, 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

(Mr. BRADY of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), a member of our committee and the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I have a time check.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to one of the finest members of our Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

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

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

That is agreeable to us.

Mr. Speaker, first I appreciate your recognizing me.

Mr. Speaker, the process we have just gone through where we had a vote whereby a significant majority voted to overrule the ruling of the Chair would suggest to me it is very important at the highest level our leadership come together from both sides of the aisle and discuss how this kind of thing can happen in the House. It is not good for the body. It does not allow us to go forward with our work effectively.

I thank the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my colleague for yielding me this time.

I am very, very appreciative of this resolution being on the floor today. A phrase oft used in the West would suggest that you should ``bring us men to match our mountains.'' And in California such men have made truly a magnificent difference in the way the far West was developed. Leo McCarthy certainly was at the top rank of those leaders.

I first met Leo McCarthy when he and I were elected to the State legislature together. We were classmates and colleagues and friends. A supervisor and assemblyman, became Speaker of the House, Lieutenant Governor of our State, a magnificent leader who absolutely wallowed in the business of public policy. He cared about making a difference on a number of issues across the spectrum of those issues that impact people's lives. He was a guy who was devoted to his family, as has been suggested, but also devoted to public service.

As we pay tribute to Leo McCarthy today, let us seek other men and women who would so serve, for, indeed, he is an example of the very best among us and reflects the best of our public affairs.

Let me say that probably most important to me over the years was the fact that Leo, while he played a very significant partisan role, absolutely knew in his soul that real solutions did not come by way of partisan confrontation. A magnificent leader who I am proud to say was my very good friend.

Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to recognize the 35th anniversary of Crafton Hills College, a true leader among community colleges and an exemplary model of dedication to student achievement.

Since opening its doors to students in 1972, Crafton Hills College has expanded the education and increased the job skills of over 100,000 people from all backgrounds and ages. Beginning as an idea in the minds of two Los Angeles philanthropists, the development of a community college on 500 acres of land soon became a reality. A special election in 1967 secured funding for construction of the campus, and the first classes were taught only 5 years later. The accessibility of the education and top-notch professional programs attracted students from all areas of southern California. In only 35 years Crafton Hills College experienced unprecedented growth, from an original population of 881 students and 21 full-time faculty members in 1972, to the current number of students totaling over 5,200 with 80 full-time teachers and administrators.

Crafton Hills College serves as a model for other schools in handling expansion of a student population while remaining constant in the quality of their programs. Crafton Hills has continued to maintain a low cost of tuition and offer superior classroom instructors, while concurrently forming their programs into some of the most reliable in the California college system. Because they have access to a variety of occupational and degree programs, students are able to become adequately prepared for employment in the workforce, or transfer to a 4-year university in any of 36 different majors.

The Fire Science Program and the Emergency Medical Services-Paramedic Program are recognized as two of the most outstanding college emergency services programs in the state, and Crafton Hills is the primary location for paramedic training in the San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The programs are supported by the involvement of local hospitals, fire departments, and emergency facilities, and this inclusion of community agencies has encouraged students to engage in hands-on learning while allowing them the rare opportunity to network with potential employers. By funneling their newly gained skills into health care professions, firefighting, and paramedic services in the southern California area, students demonstrate a dedication to enhancing public health and safety for those around them, and in many cases, forego the risk to their own lives.

Crafton Hills College has been a key element in the success of the San Bernardino Regional Emergency Training Center. The center trains fire fighting personnel in proper tactics for fighting aircraft fires and adequate rescue techniques, and Crafton Hills College implements and oversees the center's educational component. The enthusiasm and teaching ability of the administrators and teachers will undoubtedly continue to attract firefighters throughout the Nation eager to receive top-notch instruction and training.

The 35th anniversary of such a well-regarded college is certainly a cause for recognition. It is with great privilege that I represent such a respected academic institution, and I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing thirty-five years of achievements at Crafton Hills College.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for those very, very poignant remarks laying the foundation for all of us to understand just how serious this challenge is that we are about.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the resolution before us and urge those who are voting for it, or considering it, to carefully reconsider their decision.

Section 1 simply expresses all of our support for our troops who are fighting for our freedom and freedom in the world in Iraq.

All of us agree with that piece of the statement, and each of us has expressed our support and encouragement to our troops in our own way and our own time.

The second section challenges the President's, actually the Commander in Chief's, request for a surge in Iraq.

Much has been said about our going to Iraq because of the prospect of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the madman Saddam Hussein. We presumed their presence, as most of the leaders of the world and most of the intelligence communities of the world so presumed. Not finding weapons of mass destruction does not set aside the importance of eliminating the force of Saddam Hussein from the face of the Earth.

It was my honor to lead one of the early trips to Iraq following the fall of Saddam. We were about to consider an $87 billion supplemental to help finance our presence in Iraq. I wanted to take a team of Members who would reflect much of the Congress, so that trip included conservatives and moderates and liberals. It also included within us Members who had voted to support going to war and those who had voted against it.

We visited most of Iraq, Mosul, Tikrit. We spent time in Baghdad. We visited the killing fields where over 500,000 bodies of Iraqis lie, Iraqis who were murdered by Saddam Hussein. We saw the golden palaces and visited the industrial sites suffering under Saddam Hussein's neglect. We saw the economic conditions, the handbasket conditions left by Saddam Hussein.

We stopped out of country on our way home to consider the fact that there was this supplemental appropriations before us when we returned, some $87 billion, discussing what we had experienced. And the experience had a tremendous effect upon all of our colleagues. It is properly summarized by the statement of one of our Members who said: ``You all know where I have been coming from. I voted against the war. But after we have seen what we have seen over this long stay in Iraq, I am afraid what I am about to do is going to be very, very unpopular at home but I don't know how we can do anything else. Sometimes,'' he said, ``you have to be ahead of your people; sometimes we are elected actually to lead.''

That was almost 4 years ago. And fast forward to today. Saddam Hussein is gone, he is dead, and he is buried. But the extremists jihadi Islamic terrorists remain and continue to impact the entire Middle East. That is why we must succeed in Iraq. That is why we cannot afford to withdraw troops now.

Watching our floor debate last night, my wife turned to me and said, ``They want us to redeploy or withdraw. They want us to retreat.'' She said, ``George Washington did not retreat when our country was in danger.'' She questioned why we find ourselves in this kind of circumstance today.

I was reminiscent of that early time in our history when our Nation was threatened. The French came to our rescue, our assistance, and indeed played a major role in our future Commander in Chief himself being successful.

Americans should never forget that. The Statue of Liberty stands on Ellis Island as a reminder of the French view of that young America, its potential, a land of hope where freedom could reign and opportunity indeed might abound. For that and many other reasons we love France, and the French people are our friends.

But France is not entirely the same country at this point in its history. She no longer provides such a leading light for the world. No longer is it presumed that the French language should be the language of the international world. Today, about 10 percent of the French population is Muslim. Much of that population is middle class and something less than a middle-class opportunity.

Within that group, there abounds the voice of Islamic extreme. There are those who advocate jihad and who would wipe France as we know it off the face of the Earth.

We should not consider withdrawing now, because a stable Iraq is vital to our national interests and is an important part of our ability to promote peace and economic opportunity in the entire world. It is a critical battleground in our war against terrorism.

If we succeed in Iraq, we will have taken a gigantic step towards stamping out the source of terrorism that exists in that part of the world. If we are not successful in Iraq, we will meet extremist Islamic activism elsewhere. 9/11 was only a part of a beginning. If we do not stop extreme Islamic jihadists in the Middle East, we will see it again, and most likely we will see it again here at home.

Review with me for a moment where we have been in Afghanistan and Iraq and where it may take us. Al Qaeda was nurtured and gained strength in Afghanistan. America had played a key role in forcing the former Soviet Union to cease its incursion in Afghanistan. The Islamic extremists who surround the likes of Osama bin Laden took advantage of the vacuum of Afghanistan, and used it as a training ground that would provide the terrorists an opportunity to spread their jihad around the world and spread terrorism with it.

America cannot allow the likes of Osama bin Laden to have places like

Afghanistan to serve as training grounds. It is in our vital interests to see that Iraq, for example, does not serve as a recruitment and training ground for the forces who oppose freedom and oppose our very way of life.

Make no mistake about it, there are forces in the Islamic world who do not believe we should exist. They may be relatively new or small in number, but there are those of Islamic jihadist extreme who are committed to the death of the nonbelievers. There are those on the extreme Imam fringe who teach hatred for the infidels in mosques all around the world.

We do not want to believe in such extremism as a country or a people, but the true believers want all of us to be dead, all Englishmen, all Germans, all French people, all Americans who are not committed to their belief. The heathens should be dead. How else would one be able to convince men, women, and children to strap themselves with bombs and kill the innocents by the thousands? If not death to all infidels, how else would a mother praise Allah as her young child explodes as a bomb in a crowded train station?

The war on terror goes well beyond Iraq. But make no mistake, that war will not be won by walking away from Iraq.

The President has called for a surge of just over 20,000 troops. That request does not flow from a naive presumption that maybe, just maybe the battle for Baghdad can be won by a few brave men.

The call for these troops is a change in strategy, a strategy that suggests that, with the leadership of such brave men committed to taking the Iraqis out front, can lead the way to a successful change in Baghdad, indeed, a change throughout Iraq; a strategy that the President would suggest involves clearing areas of Baghdad, clearing other areas throughout Iraq, stabilizing them, and then providing the real opportunity for democratic growth and change in Iraq.

A successful stabilization of Baghdad indeed is only the beginning point in Iraq. To me, this kind of change is the real hope for the people, not just of Iraq, but of the entire region. To me, that is the definition of success in Iraq.

If we are successful, we will have changed the face of the Middle East. A successful Iraq will send a great message to the likes of Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Indonesia.

The chance for a long-term peace and the chance for stability in the entire Middle East is the great strategic interest of the United States saving tens of thousands of lives are worth a great commitment by the world's only remaining superpower. The economic values that are to be gained from stabilizing the region are impossible to estimate, but they can be measured in multiple trillions of dollars.

But what happens if we walk away now? Also difficult to estimate, but here are but a few of the possibilities. And listen to the possibilities:

First, instability is replaced by a new kind of centralized authoritarian control potentially, perhaps an arbitrary government with Saddam-like controls. Shia would very likely be in charge, and force would be exercised in the name of stability.

Beyond that, Kurdistan in the offing; an insecure Kurdish population to the north would do all it could to provide for its own protection. The prospects of independent Kurdish region or state would create major tension between Turkey and Baghdad and that new region in northern Iraq. Beyond that, Sunni Iran would look upon the new direction of Iraq with great concern because of sectarian differences.

Fourth, the jihadist extremists of Islam would have increased sway in the entire region. The threat of terrorism all over the world would be a reality to those who would but look. Indeed, the prospects, to say the least, should be frightening to anybody who will but look.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, all of our country, please realize that this is not the time to walk away. This is the time for the only remaining superpower in the world, America, to lead on behalf of freedom, to lead on behalf of people who are looking for opportunity and change for the entire world.

Mr. Buyer, I very much appreciate your extending me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the Mojave Water Agency formed in 1960 and based in Apple Valley, CA, serves the High Desert Region of San Bernardino County.

One of the agency's directors, my very good friend, Beverly Lowry, who joins us here today, represents Division 6. Bev has lived in Barstow for more than 30 years and has dedicated herself to public service.

She served on the agency's board of directors from 1973 to 1977 and again from 1989 to the present. Mrs. Lowry is a commissioner of the Mojave River Basin Area Watermaster. She has been on the board of the Barstow Heights Community Service District for 20 years, including 10 years as president. She has also served for 11 years on the Flood Control Advisory Committee for Zone 4 and has also been the Chair of the Veterans Home Support Foundation.

The legislation I introduce today will authorize the Mojave Water Agency's thoughtful Water Regional Management Plan. Bev Lowry and other directors, with the help of their dedicated staff, have worked since 2001 to formulate a Regional Water Management Plan that will provide water to this desert region for years to come. This is a great bill, and I am proud to introduce it today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to do something that I have never done before, and that is to oppose House passage of an appropriations bill.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, and I use the term ``friends'' sincerely, have produced an 8-month omnibus spending bill that appropriates $463.5 billion. It is legislation that few have seen, which cannot be amended in any way, and that will pass this House after only 1 hour of debate. It is the first omnibus spending bill that I have seen during my time in Congress written and considered without the input of the chairman or ranking members of any appropriations subcommittee, without the input of any Republican or Democratic subcommittee members, without the benefit of a full Appropriations Committee markup, without the standard three days for circulating the bill to committee members before markup, without the standard 3 days for circulating the bill to all House Members after full committee consideration, without any prior debate whatsoever, and without the opportunity to offer even one amendment on the House floor.

I do not fault my friend, Mr. Obey, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for he is doing what he is asked to be done by his leadership. He is in the position today because of the former Senate majority leader's complete failure to schedule and pass the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee did their work last year, and Mr. Obey and I worked very closely in attempting to see it was fully completed. The Senate leadership did not.

As the former chairman of the committee, I know that Mr. Obey feels strongly about maintaining regular order and passing other appropriations bills. I can vividly recall a conversation Mr. Obey had with me shortly after I became chairman when he suggested that perhaps I would be the last chairman of the Appropriations Committee because of the breakdown of regular order.

I looked to his comments and have taken them to heart because I committed to him and to our Members that we would pass our spending bills in regular order, and the 2 years I served as chairman we did.

Today, my fear is that Mr. Obey may be the last chairman of the Appropriations Committee because of the very concern he expressed to me, the breakdown of that regular order. Shutting both Republicans and Democrats out of the legislative process is a highly, highly unusual circumstance, but that is exactly what has occurred.

Both Republicans and Democrats are being denied a full and open debate on this legislation that will spend, as I suggested earlier, $463.5 billion, roughly one-half of the annual Federal budget.

Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer, both former members of the Appropriations Committee, know that our process is very open and a collaborative one. Historically, appropriations bills are brought to the floor under an open rule to encourage debate and create better legislation. Our spending bills reflect not just the will of the Appropriations Committee but, indeed, the will of the entire bipartisan House. It is not uncommon to have hours and hours of debate and more than 100 Democrat or Republican amendments offered on a single spending bill. That is, until today.

The House will debate this legislation today for 1 hour. Not one amendment has been made in order. The Senate, that is, the other body, on the other hand, will have the opportunity to debate the legislation for up to 15 days and with the potential for an unlimited number of amendments.

Let me repeat, it is important that the Members hear that. One hour of debate in the House with no amendments, 15 days of debate in the Senate with potentially unlimited amendments.

Speaker Pelosi has vowed to run the House in a more open, democratic and inclusive way. A spirit of bipartisanship, she said, would prevail in the people's House. That pledge was put on the shelf so the new majority could complete their first 100 hours agenda.

The new majority then promised that business would soon return to regular order with plenty of opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to participate in the democratic process. Members of the House, Democrats and Republicans, are still waiting for the Speaker to keep her word.

In closing, I would suggest that our country would be better served by extending for a full year the clean continuing resolution the House and Senate passed in December. That legislation, a mere 19 pages long, contained no gimmicks, no policy changes, and did not reward or punish agencies indiscriminately, as is done in this 137-page package.

This omnibus spending bill before us today totally disregards the once proud tradition of regular order within the House Appropriations Committee and violates the longstanding bipartisan customs of the people's House. I urge that my colleagues join me in a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of Appropriations (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of our Transportation Subcommittee of Appropriations (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

(Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Wamp, the Appropriations Committee ranking member of the legislative branch.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, somewhat responding to the majority leader's comment, I can't help but be moved to say that he suggested directly that Mr. Obey had spent a good deal of time with the gentleman from the Senate, Mr. Byrd, the two Members involved in this bill, and beyond that, a good deal of contact with our staff. Beyond those two Members, let me say that this has been a very fine product. It is a staff, nonelected staffperson's piece of work that involves $463.5 billion of appropriations.

I must say that it is important for me that the body know that I am committed to reducing the rate of growth of spending. $463.5 billion is a pretty significant rate of growth.

But in the meantime, as we go about reducing spending growth, I will also work in a bipartisan spirit to move our bill through the committee and on time and under budget.

I will not, however, respond to either intimidation or any threats relative to the way we are handling the appropriations process. The Appropriations Committee will not become a small colony in the empire of this new leadership.

We renew our commitment to bills produced by regular order that will serve as a credit to our committee, to the national interest, as well as to the people from our districts we pretend to serve.

With that, the leader and I will work further together on this matter, but I am very concerned about the volume of staff direction here where in the final analysis the people know that they are not elected representatives of the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit with instructions at the desk.

Yes, I am opposed to the bill in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is intended to eliminate earmarks to fund a variety of important Federal programs. In spite of those best intentions, however, a close reading of the bill revealed that earmarks were, in fact, left in.

Additionally, a number of critical programs affecting new law enforcement, military construction and military families have been shortchanged. In an effort to live up to the spirit of what this bill intended, my motion to recommit would eliminate nearly $600 million in earmarks, other unnecessary spending, and also use those funds to fully fund the Drug Enforcement Administration's effort to combat methamphetamines and other illicit drugs, restore critically needed funds to military construction and military family housing accounts, and reduce the Federal deficit.

Specifically, this motion would accomplish the following:

First, rescind the remaining $44.6 million from the Senate's rain forest in Iowa earmark, eliminate $94 million unnecessary and unrequested funding for the Denali Commission, funding that is nothing more than a thinly-disguised Senate earmark for Alaska. Eliminate $400 million of ongoing earmarks from the NNSA weapons activity accounts. Eliminate $49.7 million of spending in DOE's fossil energy account, spending that duplicates mandatory funding by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

My motion would distribute these savings in the following manner:

First, $50 million for the DEA's efforts to combat meth and other illicit drugs; $275 million for basic allowance for housing; $86 million for critically needed military construction and family housing; $178 million for deficit reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to live up to the spirit of this legislation by voting to eliminate earmarks and put those funds to better use by combating meth, supporting our military families and reducing the deficit.

I urge a strong bipartisan vote on this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time may remain to Mr. Pearce of New Mexico.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in order to recognize Dr. Margaret

Ann Harrison Hill, an esteemed educator and public servant who is retiring after 40 years of top level service. I am honored to pay tribute to this outstanding community leader, and hope that my colleagues will join me in recognizing her achievements.

As many of my colleagues know, resources are essential tools for properly educating students. Dr. Hill understands this necessity, and throughout her career has served to increase the amount of materials available to teachers nationwide. As project director of the SCORE online program, Dr. Hill has overseen the creation of a database of educational resources that serves a wide range of teachers across the country. For 5 years Dr. Hill codirected Footsteps to Freedom, a project which aids educators in developing materials that inculcate study of the Underground Railroad into classroom curriculum. She has served as the curriculum coordinator for the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools, developing and implementing training programs that expand the leadership and instruction capacity of San Bernardino educators.

The ``We the People Program'' has been a tremendous success in my district under the leadership of Dr. Hill. Under the program, Dr. Hill has coordinated civic education training programs, and has expanded student knowledge of the political process by facilitating mock congressional hearings on constitutional issues. Dr. Hill has contributed her writing to several prominent publications, and has developed and written grant proposals that have helped to secure funding for important educational programs. She has served on countless educational advisory and planning boards and has remained a sought- after presenter at educational conferences in California and throughout the Nation.

Dr. Hill's commitment to social studies education has not gone unnoticed. Throughout her years in teaching, she has been the recipient of several awards. In 2001, Dr. Hill was chosen to receive the Hilda Taba Award for Outstanding History-Social Science Leadership in California, the highest honor presented by the California Council for the Social Studies. Dr. Hill has also been presented with awards from her own community, being named Outstanding Educator in Social Studies by the Inland Empire Council, and receiving the Service Award from the Inland Empire Consortium for International Studies.

Madam Speaker, Dr. Hill's retirement will undoubtedly leave San Bernardino County with a difficult void to fill. Her exemplary commitment to her students and peers is seldom seen, and I take great pleasure in knowing that many of the children residing in my district have been fortunate enough to learn from Dr. Hill. It is with honor that I congratulate Dr. Hill on her achievements, and wish her well in her future endeavors.