Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Skelton for yielding me this time.

They buried Andre Craig, 24 years old, last week. He died in the service of his country. His family held a press conference prior to that and said, he was exhausted.

Mr. Skelton has put forward a piece of legislation, not a resolution, a bill that address the men and women in the armed services, that addresses the problems that they face on a daily basis in Iraq.

There is a difficult choice today to be made. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are honorable people. They understand as well exactly what it is

like to go to a funeral service, to look into the eyes of these families, many who have been deployed three and four times, who are stretched to the maximum. You know what they are experiencing. It is hard to reconcile, because we know you are honorable people, the indifference that seems to lie in the choice between the blind loyalty to the worst foreign policy endeavor in the history of the country and the men and women who are there paying for it every single day. You are right, emotions run deep.

How many more of these services will it take for us to face the truth and the facts? People have come to this floor and said, well, you know that the President is going to veto this. One thing we know for sure is where the President stands and what he has said he will do and how this will be passed on to another administration. But the thing here is what we will do, what you will do.

Find your voice. Speak on behalf of the troops. Follow Ike Skelton.

Well, let me first and foremost congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), and Mr. Ryan and Mrs. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Murphy for continuing to come to the floor, the 30-somethings, and talk about issues that are so important to this country. There is no more important issue before this Congress or this country, than the war in Iraq.

There is no more important issue to the American public. But it is clear, and I think General Odom stated it

best, because as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) pointed out, this Congress, with its small Democratic majorities, has done what it can to end the war in Iraq and put a bill on the President's desk. The President opted to veto that bill. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle opted to stay the course with the President of the United States.

As General Odom says, and I quote, ``The end game will start when a senior senator from the President's party, or a senior Member from the House of Representatives, much as William Fulbright did to LBJ during Vietnam, stands up and says no, stands up and says let's end the war.''

Let's create the kind of strategic withdrawal that we need in order to preserve our troops, in order to maintain our military's readiness, in order to bring sanity back into the lives, especially the reservists and the National Guard who have put out so much for us. We are going to go home at the end of this week and celebrate the Fourth of July while our troops are slugging it out there, while this administration goes through some endgame strategy where they sound like the Bobbsey twins getting together and say, ``Well, now, all of a sudden, September 15 is only a snapshot of perhaps what will happen.'' A snapshot.

To the men and women who are putting their lives on the line every single day, it's time to end the war. That will only happen in this House of Representatives and in the United States Senate, as was pointed out by General Odom, when Members on the other side of the aisle recognize that they have to stand up and say ``no'' to the President. They hint about it. They talk about it.

Meanwhile, while they dither, we lost more than 23 soldiers this past weekend. How much longer can the insanity continue here without a strategy that provides us with the strategic withdrawal to an over-the- horizon force as has been advocated on this floor by colleagues on both sides of the aisle? Why is it that Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who has the nerve on the Republican side to talk about it without fear of being called unpatriotic or in fact booed in an audience?

This Chamber should be a chamber where we have the opportunity to speak truth to power. Thank God for people like Wayne Gilchrest. Thank God for people like Walter Jones. But Members on the other side of the aisle need to join with this majority so that we can create an override if the President remains obstinate, along with the Vice President, in this myopic pursuit of victory. Victory. No definition of what ``victory'' is, other than ``staying there for as long as it takes.'' We see that the Iraqi government is not living up to its proposals, that the surge is an entire failure. Yet, people come to the floor and people present in the newspapers arguments that somehow the surge might work, what it just needs is a little more time, or perhaps what it needs is even more troops.

It is time to end this war. It is time to make sure that we have people on the other side of the aisle that are willing to speak truth to power and face up to the fact that it is in the best interest of our country, that it is the very American thing to do, to stand up for our troops, to provide for our families that are here at home worried sick about the prospect of sending their loved ones into this insurgent civil war nightmare we have come to call Iraq.

The American public is way ahead of this Chamber, way ahead of the Senate. We plead with our colleagues, especially as we go forward to this July 4 weekend, to find the courage of our forebears and to stand up, since we are the body that decides on war. You have Senator Warner saying that he ought to reconsider the authorization of this war, to do what they did in Vietnam, to recognize that the Congress, during that era, stood up and deauthorized the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that put an end to an unjust war.

We know now, of course, that we found no weapons of mass destruction. We know now that we had no exit strategy. We know now that this administration's closest adviser that they took into their bosom was Ahmed Chalabi, who ultimately ends up saying, ``So what? I lied to you. So what? I lied to you. You got what you wanted. You had a civil war in your country. The Iraqis are going to have to have a civil war in their country.''

Americans soldiers, men and women who have served this country with honor, go over there to fulfill their duty to their country. We have a duty and a responsibility here to make sure that we are doing everything within our power to make sure that they are safe and secure. Instead, we have stuck them in the middle of a civil war. The military objectives of this war have long since been accomplished. It is time to bring the troops home.

I commend Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan for having come to this floor day in and day out and discussed this thing. But we have to turn it up. Especially for those of you in our viewing audience, continue to turn it up at home. Turn up the conversation and the dialogue that so many have taken to the streets, to protest, to talk about moving other Members of this great body to come and arrive at the same conclusion that most Americans have. It is time for the safe, secure and strategic withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

Mr. Meek, I thank you for the opportunity to come down here and address, along with you, Members of the 30-something Group, who have continued to speak truth to power here. I especially want to commend Mr. Ryan from Ohio for his efforts, as well.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for a moment, I thank you again, because I do want to say that Frank Rich wrote an important column in The New York Times yesterday, and it is one that I will submit for the record. I think it also lays it out pretty clearly.

I would like to quote here. First he is quoting retired General William Odom. ``For the Bush White House, the real definition of victory has become `anything they can get away with without taking blame for defeat,' said the retired Army General William Odom, a national security official in the Reagan and Carter administrations,'' when Frank Rich spoke to him most recently. ``The plan is to run out the Washington clock between now and January 20, 2009, no matter the cost.''

``A precipitous withdrawal is also a chimera, since American manpower, material and bases, not to mention our new Vatican-sized embassy, can't be drawn down overnight.''

And here is the important thing that I think Mr. Rich says. ``The only real choice, everyone knows, is an orderly plan for withdrawal that will best serve American interests. The real debate must be over what that plan is. That debate can't happen as long as the White House gets away with falsifying reality, sliming its opponents and sowing hyped fears of Armageddon. The threat that terrorists in a civil war- torn Iraq will follow us home if we leave is as bogus as Saddam's mushroom clouds. The al Qaeda that actually attacked us on 9/11 still remains under the tacit protection of our ally, Pakistan.

``As General Odom says, `the endgame will start when a senior senator from the President's party says no,' much like William Fulbright did. That's why in Washington this fall,'' he goes on to say, ``eyes will turn once again to John Warner, the senior Republican with the clout to give political cover to other members of his party who want to leave Iraq before they are forced to evacuate Congress. In September, it will nearly be a year since Mr. Warner said that Iraq was `drifting sideways' and that action would have to be taken if this level of violence is not under control and this government is able to function.

``Mr. Warner has also signaled his regret that he was not more outspoken during Vietnam. `We kept surging in those years,' he told The Washington Post in January, as the Iraq surge began. `It didn't work.' Surely,'' Rich goes on to say, ``he must recognize that his moment for speaking out about this war is overdue. Without him, the Democrats don't have the votes,'' and I repeat, without Republicans, ``the Democrats don't have the votes to force the President's hand. With him, it's a slam-dunk. The best way to honor the sixth anniversary of 9/ 11,'' as we take up this week the 9/11 Commission response, ``is to at last disarm a President who continues to squander countless lives in the names of those voiceless American dead.''

Mr. Speaker, I include the entire Frank Rich article for the Record.

[From the New York Times, June 24, 2007]

They'll Break the Bad News on 9/11

(By Frank Rich)

By this late date we should know the fix is in when the

White House's top factotums fan out on the Sunday morning

talk shows singing the same lyrics, often verbatim, from the

same hymnal of spin. The pattern was set way back on Sept. 8,

2002, when in simultaneous appearances three cabinet members

and the vice president warned darkly of Saddam's aluminum

tubes. ``We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom

cloud,'' said Condi Rice, in a scripted line. The hard sell

of the war in Iraq--the hyping of a (fictional) nuclear

threat to America--had officially begun.

America wasn't paying close enough attention then. We can't

afford to repeat that blunder now. Last weekend the latest

custodians of the fiasco, our new commander in Iraq, Gen.

David Petraeus, and our new ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan

Crocker, took to the Sunday shows with two messages we'd be

wise to heed.

The first was a confirmation of recent White House hints

that the long-promised September pivot point for judging the

success of the ``surge'' was inoperative. That deadline had

been asserted as recently as April 24 by President Bush, who

told Charlie Rose that September was when we'd have ``a

pretty good feel'' whether his policy ``made sense.'' On

Sunday General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker each downgraded

September to merely a ``snapshot'' of progress in Iraq.

``Snapshot,'' of course, means ``Never mind!''

The second message was more encoded and more ominous. Again

using similar language, the two men said that in September

they would explain what Mr. Crocker called ``the

consequences'' and General Petraeus ``the implications'' of

any alternative ``courses of action'' to their own course in

Iraq. What this means in English is that when the September

``snapshot'' of the surge shows little change in the overall

picture, the White House will say that ``the consequences''

of winding down the war would be even more disastrous:

surrender, defeat, apocalypse now. So we must stay the surge.

Like the war's rollout in 2002, the new propaganda offensive

to extend and escalate the war will be exquisitely timed to

both the anniversary of 9/11 and a highstakes Congressional

vote (the Pentagon appropriations bill).

General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker wouldn't be sounding like

the Bobbsey Twins and laying out this coordinated rhetorical

groundwork were they not already anticipating the surge's

failure. Both spoke on Sunday of how (in General Petraeus's

variation on the theme) they had to ``show that the Baghdad

clock can indeed move a bit faster, so that you can put a bit

of time back on the Washington clock.'' The very premise is

nonsense. Yes, there is a Washington clock, tied to

Republicans' desire to avoid another Democratic surge on

Election Day 2008. But there is no Baghdad clock. It was

blown up long ago and is being no more successfully

reconstructed than anything else in Iraq.

When Mr. Bush announced his ``new way forward'' in January,

he offered a bouquet of promises, all unfulfilled today.

``Let the Iraqis lead'' was the policy's first bullet point,

but in the initial assault on insurgents now playing out so

lethally in Diyala Province, Iraqi forces were kept out of

the fighting altogether. They were added on Thursday: 500

Iraqis, following 2,500 Americans. The notion that these

Shiite troops might ``hold'' this Sunni area once the

Americans leave is an opium dream. We're already back

fighting in Maysan, a province whose security was

officially turned over to Iraqi authorities in April.

In his January prime-time speech announcing the surge, Mr.

Bush also said that ``America will hold the Iraqi government

to the benchmarks it has announced.'' More fiction. Prime

Minister Nuri al-Maliki's own political adviser, Sadiq al-

Rikabi, says it would take ``a miracle'' to pass the

legislation America wants. Asked on Monday whether the Iraqi

Parliament would stay in Baghdad this summer rather than

hightail it to vacation, Tony Snow was stumped.

Like Mr. Crocker and General Petraeus, Mr. Snow is on

script for trivializing September as judgment day for the

surge, saying that by then we'll only ``have a little bit of

metric'' to measure success. This administration has a

peculiar metric system. On Thursday, Peter Pace, the

departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the

spike in American troop deaths last week the ``wrong metric''

for assessing the surge's progress. No doubt other metrics in

official reports this month are worthless too, as far as the

non-reality-based White House is concerned. The civilian

casualty rate is at an all-time high; the April-May American

death toll is a new two-month record; overall violence in

Iraq is up; only 146 out of 457 Baghdad neighborhoods are

secure; the number of internally displaced Iraqis has

quadrupled since January.

Last week Iraq rose to No. 2 in Foreign Policy magazine's

Failed State Index, barely nosing out Sudan. It might have

made No. 1 if the Iraqi health ministry had not stopped

providing a count of civilian casualties. Or if the Pentagon

were not withholding statistics on the increase of attacks on

the Green Zone. Apparently the White House is working

overtime to ensure that the September ``snapshot'' of Iraq

will be an underexposed blur. David Carr of The Times

discovered that the severe Pentagon blackout on images of

casualties now extends to memorials for the fallen in Iraq,

even when a unit invites press coverage.

Americans and Iraqis know the truth anyway. The question

now is: What will be the new new way forward? For the

administration, the way forward will include, as always,

attacks on its critics' patriotism. We got a particularly

absurd taste of that this month when Harry Reid was slammed

for calling General Pace incompetent and accusing General

Petraeus of exaggerating progress on the ground.

General Pace's record speaks for itself; the administration

declined to go to the mat in the Senate for his

reappointment. As for General Petraeus, who recently spoke of

``astonishing signs of normalcy'' in Baghdad, he is nothing

if not consistent. He first hyped ``optimism'' and

``momentum'' in Iraq in an op-ed article in September 2004.

Come September 2007, Mr. Bush will offer his usual false

choices. We must either stay his disastrous course in eternal

pursuit of ``victory'' or retreat to the apocalypse of

``precipitous withdrawal.'' But by the latest of the

president's ever-shifting definitions of victory, we've

already lost. ``Victory will come,'' he says, when Iraq ``is

stable enough to be able to be an ally in the war on terror

and to govern itself and defend itself.'' The surge, which he

advertised as providing ``breathing space'' for the Iraqi

``unity'' government to get its act together, is tipping that

government into collapse. As Vali Nasr, author of ``The Shia

Revival,'' has said, the new American strategy of arming

Sunni tribes is tantamount to saying the Iraqi government is

irrelevant.

For the Bush White House, the real definition of victory

has become ``anything they can get away with without taking

blame for defeat,'' said the retired Army Gen. William Odom,

a national security official in the Reagan and Carter

administrations, when I spoke with him recently. The plan is

to run out the Washington clock between now and Jan. 20,

2009, no matter the cost.

Precipitous withdrawal is also a chimera, since American

manpower, materiel and bases, not to mention our new Vatican

City-sized embassy, can't be drawn down overnight. The only

real choice, as everyone knows, is an orderly plan for

withdrawal that will best serve American interests. The

real debate must be over what that plan is. That debate

can't happen as long as the White House gets away with

falsifying reality, sliming its opponents and sowing hyped

fears of Armageddon. The threat that terrorists in civil-

war-torn Iraq will follow us home if we leave is as bogus

as Saddam's mushroom clouds. The Qaeda that actually

attacked us on 9/11 still remains under the tacit

protection of our ally, Pakistan.

As General Odom says, the endgame will start ``when a

senior senator from the president's party says no,'' much as

William Fulbright did to L.B.J. during Vietnam. That's why in

Washington this fall, eyes will turn once again to John

Warner, the senior Republican with the clout to give

political cover to other members of his party who want to

leave Iraq before they're forced to evacuate Congress. In

September, it will be nearly a year since Mr. Warner said

that Iraq was ``drifting sideways'' and that action would

have to be taken ``if this level of violence is not under

control and this government able to function.''

Mr. Warner has also signaled his regret that he was not

more outspoken during Vietnam. ``We kept surging in those

years,'' he told The Washington Post in January, as the Iraq

surge began. ``It didn't work.'' Surely he must recognize

that his moment for speaking out about this war is overdue.

Without him, the Democrats don't have the votes to force the

president's hand. With him, it's a slam dunk. The best way to

honor the sixth anniversary of 9/11 will be to at last disarm

a president who continues to squander countless lives in the

names of those voiceless American dead.

As you have said on more than one occasion on the floor, Mr. Ryan, what we have needed all along here is a diplomatic surge, not a military surge. It is such a shame that we have abandoned so much of American foreign policy. In fact, more than 50 years of American foreign policy that were centered around deterrence, diplomacy and containment. Instead, we went into the wrong-headed policies of preemption and unilateralism, which have brought us to the quagmire that we are in today.

It breaks my heart to travel with Jack Murtha to Bethesda and see the young men and women who are there, who have become the heroes, of course, in our country, but victims of a myopic, failed strategy with no exit in sight.

How much longer can the American public, or for that matter, this body, put up with the slogans that ``we will stand down as the Iraqis stand up,'' when more of our troops are needed and less Iraqis continue to join us; when they decide that they are going to take the next couple of months off while we slog it out in a civil war?

Our soldiers don't know in many respects who the enemy is over there, because oftentimes they are getting played, one religious sect against another, settling ages of old scores rather than accomplishing any kind of goal of establishing a democracy or establishing a government or people that are going to stand up so that we can stand down.

You have been resilient in making this point, but I want to amplify a point you made, if I might. Again, I think Frank Rich says it fairly well. I think he puts a great deal of responsibility on Senator Warner.

The article in the New York Times written by Frank Rich.

I think Mr. Warner has been on record publicly for having stated what he has. You mentioned the fact that this House has accomplished a tremendous amount, including, and I know you are going to reiterate it with your charts, including a number of agenda items that were accomplished in the first 100 legislative hours.

But over in the Senate, and most of the general public isn't aware of this, they have a cloture rule. Cloture in the Senate means it takes 60 votes in order to pass something, which is why Mr. Rich in his article prevails upon Mr. Warner, a senior Republican, to rein in Mr. McConnell. Now Mitch McConnell in the Senate has indicated that they continue to be obstructionists. Almost every single vote that has taken place over in the Senate, every single issue becomes a cloture vote which means that there are 60 votes needed in order to pass. Of course with only 50 Democrats in the United States Senate, that becomes impossible. So they become the obstructionist not only in the effort to strategically withdraw our troops and support the military and to revert back to a policy that makes sense, but also on every other issue that Democrats have been able to bring before and pass in this House of Representatives.

So, Mr. Meek, I am pleased to join with you this evening and thank you for coming to the floor with this.

Mr. Meek, I think you have made your point extraordinarily well. I especially want to commend, especially for the viewers and listeners who regularly tune in when the 30-Something Group comes to the floor, first and foremost, call up and thank courageous people like Walter Jones, Republican from North Carolina; Wayne Gilchrest, Republican from Maryland; Ron Paul, Republican from Texas, who more often than not sit almost isolated, almost ostracized on the other side of the aisle. And it is not that they don't have the respect of their colleagues, because I believe sincerely they do. What they should know is that they have the respect of America because they are willing to stand up and speak truth to power.

There are many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who would stand with them. Loyalty is important in any process, and certainly one can respect loyalty. Loyalty and fidelity are important concepts and in fact can be virtues. But when there is blind allegiance, and especially when men and women's lives are at stake, where is your voice? Will you stand together to have this institution, the United States Congress, stand up together, collectively, put an end to the war, find a process by which we together can end the war and provide, as you point out, as the most recent veterans' bill that we passed does, the greatest increase in 77 years for veterans, so that we provide the assistance to these brave men and women who have given their all. And also to provide the compassion and the caring for their family members who wait at home wondering what kind of policy is going to unfold here for them to see Congress bogged down the way it is in the obstinacy of an administration that says it is just going to run out the clock on its policy is wrong.

As Mr. Rich points out, if not Mr. Warner, then who? And certainly we have heard the Walter Joneses and the Wayne Gilchrests and the Ron Pauls in the House, but we need other brave Members who have found their voice who are able when they go back home to listen to their fellow citizens and then come to this floor and join with those men of character and stand up for what they know is right.

We know that Mr. Warner is thinking about it. We know he is talking about September. Twenty-three soldiers lost their lives this weekend. For people who are serving, tomorrow is today. The urgency is now. Find your voice prior to this July 4, strike a tone of independence from the administration that has got us here.

Historically this happened to a Democratic President during Vietnam. It is not about Democrats or Republicans. It is about America, and it is about standing up for our troops in the field. It is about standing up for fellow Americans. It is about Americans finding their voice. Our citizens have found theirs. We need the Members of Congress here to join together, both House and Senate, to end this insanity and come together on behalf of the American public, and especially the brave men and women who serve our country so valiantly who we owe such a debt of gratitude to, and ought to show it through the courage of our policy convictions here on the floor, and then in the funding that we provide them to make sure that they have the kind of life that they richly deserve when they come home, and that we honor the memory of their sacred sacrifice that so many have made on behalf of this Nation.

I thank the gentleman again from the 30-Somethings for having continued to bring this debate to the American public.

Congressman Ron Paul, Congressman Neil Abercrombie, Congressman Nancy Boyda.

Ellen Tauscher has done a terrific job.

If the gentleman would yield just for a moment, when you're reading through these things, I can't help but think of the time, and I know that you hadn't arrived here on September 11. I served with your mom. I can remember a time when this entire Congress stood together on the steps of the Capitol after September 11 and spontaneously broke into God Bless America. It's a time that will be forever seared in my memory.

I remember a time in our caucus just this past year when the Speaker, the gentleman from New York, stood up, at a time when we knew that we only had and could only muster Democratic votes, stood up and gave a speech that I will always remember, that drew our caucus together and allowed us to go forward and place a bill on the President's desk. It was something that everyone said couldn't be done, the politics were too raw, people were too far apart, we couldn't possibly come together. But when people rise and find their voice as the Speaker from New York did, then great things can happen. A Nation can move. People find their voice because within their heart resides the great spirit of this country as you pointed out. Within every piece of legislation that you're chronicling here is a deep-seated belief on the part of its sponsors that this is the right thing to do. There are many on that side of the aisle who will disagree. I respect people's positions regardless of how they come to them. But I know the great reservoir that exists on that side of the aisle that understands what's going on, that events are unfolding daily around us and the need for us to act is now. That tomorrow has become today, that the urgency can't wait for September 15 for yet another report. The time is to act.

I plead for our colleagues on that side of the aisle, because, as Mr. Rich points out, it cannot happen without this Congress coming together. And so either we will stand together as a United States Congress and send a message and help this President find a way forward by demonstrating as a Congress did during Vietnam, no matter who the President is, that the right thing to do here is to bring our troops home safe, secure and strategically in a manner that will allow us to regroup and refocus and go after the enemy in Afghanistan where they continue to fester and grow and regroup, the people who actually knocked down the towers, the people who struck the Pentagon and but for those brave souls on Flight 93 would have surely hit this Capitol or the White House. It's time for us to come together in that spirit.

Mr. Meek, if it weren't for you and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Chris Murphy and Tim Ryan coming here and repeatedly talking about it, if you're at home, you're thinking, has Congress forgot about this urgency. Do they not pick up the papers every day as we do? When I go home, and you said it, people talk about Iraq, they talk about Iraq, and then they talk about Iraq. The facts are that without Republican support, we cannot override a veto. The facts are that without a Republican Senate that will stop the cloture rule and Mr. Warner, or following the paths of a great American in Chuck Hagel, comes forward and speaks truth to power. There are people on both sides of the aisle that are great visionary Americans. We just need to come together at this time and find our voice in the same manner that Americans have already found theirs.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I could not vote on rollcall vote No. 502 through roll call vote No. 511, on June 19, 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted:

``Nay'' on rollcall No. 502 on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 2641, to reduce funding for the Army Corps of Engineers investigations by $30 million.

``Nay'' on rollcall No. 503 on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 2641, to reduce funding for the Army Corps of Engineers construction by $481 million.

``Nay'' on rollcall No. 504 on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 2641, to reduce funding for the Army Corps of Engineers Mississippi River and tributaries project by $18 million.

``Nay'' on rollcall No. 505 on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 2641, to reduce funding for the Army Corps of Engineers operation and maintenance by $184 million.

``Nay'' on rollcall No. 506 on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 2641, to Strike section 105 in the bill.

``Nay'' on rollcall No. 507 on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 2641, to reduce funding for the Bureau of Reclamation's water projects account by $55 million.

``Nay'' on rollcall No. 508 on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 2641, to reduce funding for Bureau of Reclamation's policy and administration account by $1.2 million.

``Nay'' on rollcall No. 509 on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 2641, to reduce funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs (Weatherization Assistance) by $102 million.

``Nay'' on rollcall No. 510 on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 2641, to redirect $20 million in funding within the Nuclear Energy account to support the Nuclear Power 2010 program from Gen IV reactor program.

``Nay'' on rollcall No. 511 on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 2641, to reduce funding for fossil fuels research and development by $142 million.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I did not vote on rollcall vote No. 475, on June 15, 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``no'' on rollcall No. 475 on the amendment to H.R. 2638, to cut $125 million from TSA's explosive detection account; and increase the Customs and Border Protection Salaries and Expenses account by $125 million.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)

Announcement Regarding First Vote in a Series in the House

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008, the annual spending bill for military construction and veterans' programs.

Today, the House is considering a bill that would appropriate $109.2 billion, with $64.7 billion in discretionary spending for military construction and veterans' programs, which is $4 billion more than the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request. The bill would provide $43.2 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which is $6.7 billion above 2007 and $3.8 billion over the President's request for veterans' medical care, claims processing personnel, and facility improvements. This includes $28.9 billion in funding to improve access to medical services for all veterans, which is $1.7 billion above the President's request. This legislation also defeats the President's ill- advised proposals to nearly double co-pays for prescription drugs for veterans and to increase TRICARE premiums by over $1,000 a year for military retirees.

The military health care system is understaffed and drowning in a backlog of cases and unable to provide our veterans with the benefits and resources they sacrificed a great deal to earn. In an effort to reduce the 400,000 claim backlog, the bill also includes $1.6 billion in funding to enable the VA to hire over 1100 more claims processors. This legislation is the largest single increase in the 77-year history of the VA and for the first time in 21 years that the House has exceeded the request of the veterans' Independent Budget.

There are over 251,000 veterans living in Connecticut and I am pleased the 110th Congress has made funding our Nation's military health care system a top priority. Since the previous Congress adjourned without passing a budget, the new Congress passed a Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 110-5) that provided $3.4 billion over the fiscal year 2006 funding level to fund the VA in fiscal year 2007. In addition, the Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-28) added $1.8 billion directly targeted at the needs of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the cost of war is to care for our servicemen and women when they return home and Congress has an obligation to ensure they receive appropriate care.

I applaud the leadership of Mr. Edwards, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Mr. Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and the members of the committee for their efforts and continued commitment to our Nation's veterans. Today's legislation takes us one step further in providing our veterans with the best health care and resources our country can provide and I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for it and the President in signing it into law.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I did not votes on rollcall votes 448, 449, and 450 on June 11, 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted:

``Aye'' on rollcall No. 448 on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2356 that would amend title 4, United States Code, to encourage the display of the flag of the United States on Father's Day;

``Aye'' on rollcall No. 449 on motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 676, which would provide that the Executive Director of the Inter- American Development Bank or the Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank may serve on the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation;

``Aye'' on rollcall No. 450 on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 418, recognizing and welcoming the delegation of Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Foreign Ministers from the Caribbean to Washington, DC, and commending the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) for holding the Conference on the Caribbean.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to address this distinguished House and yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has done a terrific job tonight in hoping to bring comity and understanding to this great, august body.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the H-Prize Act of 2007, H.R. 632, an important step forward in making America more competitive and energy independent. As a founding member of the House Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucus and a cosponsor of this bill, I believe we must move forward in fostering innovation and competition in hydrogen technology, in order to end our addiction to oil.

According to the Department of Energy, major advances must be made in hydrogen production, distribution, and storage before it can be widely used as a fuel source. The H-Prize Act would excite and attract innovators throughout the country to take up this important task. Specifically, the bill would authorize $50 million from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2017 to be awarded in cash prizes to non- federal entities in three categories--technologies created to assist in the distribution or production of hydrogen; development of hydrogen powered vehicles; and ``transformational technology'' related to production, storage, distribution, or use of hydrogen fuel. And importantly, the cash prizes would only go to individuals who produce breakthrough results in these categories, spurring competition and innovation into much needed technology.

Solution to our energy crisis can be found in our backyard. Hydrogen can be produced here on American soil. Companies such as UTC Power and Fuel Cell Energy in my district in Connecticut produce hydrogen fuel cells which are a clean, reliable form of energy. Technology such as this can relieve us from our dependence on foreign nations for our energy and create a much healthier alternative for our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me today in advancing science and supporting H.R. 632. It's time for us to take leadership and commit to the safety and health of our nation by inspiring our nation's brightest to make hydrogen technology a reality.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my sadness over the untimely passing of Yolanda Denise King, eldest daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Coretta Scott King. Yolanda King, despite losing her father at the age of 12, strived to carry on her father's legacy of equality and justice for all. Despite her family name, Yolanda King used her own talents to affect social and personal change through her lectures and the arts.

Yolanda King was born on November 17, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, where her father was then preaching. She was born just 2 weeks before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus there, leading to the Montgomery bus boycott spearheaded by her father. She was just 10 weeks old when the King family home was bombed on January 30, 1956, as her father attended a boycott rally, but she was unharmed by the explosion. She was 7 when her father mentioned her and her siblings in his 1963 speech at the March on Washington and she was 12 when her father was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1968.

After receiving a B.A. degree with honors in Theatre and African- American Studies from Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts, Ms. King moved to New York to earn her masters degree in theatre at New York University. She honed her teaching skills while working with young people at the King Center for Non-Violent Social Change in Atlanta, Georgia. Many of Ms. King's stage, television and film credits reflect her commitment to social change and include portrayals of Rosa Parks in the NBC-TV movie ``King'' (1978), Dr. Betty Shabazz in the film ``Death of a Prophet'' (1981), and Medgar Ever's daughter, Reena, in ``Ghosts of Mississippi'' (1996). Her most recent theatrical production was ``Achieving the Dream'' in which she portrayed several characters in the movement for civil and human rights, and was featured during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta.

In addition to her rich acting career, Yolanda King also carried on her parents' legacy through her commitment to raise awareness and enhance understanding about the importance of diversity. Ms. King addressed Fortune 500 companies and the United Nations as well as religious, civic and educational groups in the United States, Europe, and Africa. She was founder and CEO of Higher Ground Productions, a California-based organization dedicated to social change and world peace by advocating diversity and unity. She also promoted awareness through her writing. She was the co-author of the book, Open My Eyes, Open My Soul, as well as Embracing Your Power in 30 Days, a step by step, daily tool for personal growth based on her very personal experiences.

Yolanda King was honored with numerous presentations, awards and citations by organizations around the country and was named one of the Outstanding Young Women of America. She was a member of the Board of Directors of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc. (the official national memorial to Dr. King) and was founding Director of the King Center's Cultural Affairs Program. She served on the Partnership Council of Habitat for Humanity, was a member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was a sponsor of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and held a lifetime membership in the NAACP. She was the recipient of two honorary doctorial degrees.

And so today I urge my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Yolanda King's outstanding career and life achievements. Yolanda King dedicated her life to promote unity and nonviolence across the country and the world. She was left a strong and important legacy set by Dr. Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King, but ultimately utilized her own abilities and talent to inspire people from all walks of life to reach higher ground, to motivate people to move forward, and to empower people to make a difference.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I did not vote on rollcall vote No. 400, on May 22, 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 400 on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2399, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to combat the crime of alien smuggling and related activities and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding but also for her continued outstanding service in the United States Congress and bringing the knowledge of her profession and her expertise to this body on a regular basis and especially the compassion that's needed for so many of those who suffer from eosinophilic disorder, more than 50,000 in this Nation.

I want to applaud my colleague from North Carolina, also, Representative Myrick, for her cosponsoring this legislation and understanding as well the importance that this has for so many families who oftentimes are the ones who suffer along with the patient because of lack of diagnosis, and then also because of the way Representative Capps has described the nature of this disease, what it does to the patient that it attacks when the white blood cells in your own system begin to attack itself and creates the disorders that it does, often resulting in people having to be fed by tubes. You can imagine the tremendous stress that this causes on the parts of parents and of course family members.

This bill comes before us not because of me, but because of a courageous woman like Lois Capps and like Sue Myrick who understand what families go through when they face issues like this.

I was fortunate to have Dr. Wendy Book from my district in Connecticut, who resides in Gastonbury, a doctor herself, as well as her husband, come before me to talk about this disorder because of their desire to make sure that the Nation be made aware of what so many children are suffering from.

She was joined by Beth Mays, who together are the co-founders of the American Partnership for Eosinophilic Disorders. When Dr. Book's son Ryan was sick before his first birthday, doctors sent him home with a feeding tube and no explanation for his mysterious illness. This illness went undiagnosed for 2 more years. Now, this Ryan, his parents are doctors. They are in the field, and so for doctors to be as confounded by a lack of understanding or a diagnosis, imagine the consternation that they feel, and then exemplify that by how other parents must feel who do not come from similar professions.

And so they felt in founding this organization, this partnership, that what was needed across the country was awareness and understanding. Quite frankly, what's also needed is funding, but it has to start in a place of education, awareness and understanding, and as most pieces of critical legislation do, it comes not from a Member of Congress, but it comes from a constituent, a citizen, who has the temerity to stand up and speak out for suffering that a neighbor or one of their own children is going through.

As Mrs. Capps pointed out, sometimes there is no cure or the diagnosis eludes all the best efforts of professions, but it is getting better, and with awareness, they know they can deal with this going forward.

Hospitals in Cincinnati, and most notably, the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, where I visited personally, are working hard at identifying this disorder and helping parents and working with them. I want to commend the work of Dr. Chris Lancouris and Dr. Jonathan Spergel and especially Michelle Shuker who spent so much time dealing with the parents and helping them through this process.

As someone who has a son who has an illness that has gone undiagnosed, I empathize deeply with parents who go through this experience and understand deeply the need for education, the need for better understanding, and the responsibility that we share as Members of Congress to do our part, to first educate the public with respect to this disorder, but then secondly and more hopefully, to make sure that we follow through by funding and assisting.

But what you have to step back and admire, however, is the courage of these parents who, without their love and devotion and care for their children, without their consistent nurturing and support, you wonder what would happen to these children. But because of their courage and because of their ability to come forth and speak out about this, hopefully through resolutions like this and greater understanding we will be able to assist them and help them and assist families, and their not-for-profit organization will get the support that it needs, will create the understanding that it needs and provide the much needed relief for the children who are afflicted and the families that deal with this problem.

So I thank Representative Capps and I thank Representative Myrick and a number of cosponsors on this legislation for having come forward and assisted in bringing this to the forefront.

There will be members from this association on the Hill tomorrow going to various House Members and to their offices and talking with them and their staff about this disorder. Please listen to them. Take them into your heart. It is an important issue and vital not only for their children, their families, but I dare say for all of us in the country. It speaks volumes to the better angels that we have here in the United States Congress and our willingness to reach out and assist the constituents we are sworn to serve.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I could not be present today, Thursday, May 10, 2007 to vote on rollcall vote nos. 319, 320, 321, 322 and 323 due to a family medical situation.

Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 319 on the amendment to H.R. 1873, that would require greater economic analyses by agencies on contracting actions that displace small businesses, and close current loopholes that have allowed agencies to avoid performing analyses on new work and construction; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 320 on the amendment to H.R. 1873 that would extend small business contracting goals to overseas contracts; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 321 on the amendment to H.R. 1873 that would raise the government-wide small business procurement goal from 25 percent to 30 percent; ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 322 on the motion to recommit H.R. 1873 with instructions; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 323 on final passage of H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act.

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, May 9, 2007, I was not present to vote due to a family medical situation. I submitted for the record my votes had I been present. The Record incorrectly listed an ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 315 on the amendment to H.R. 1684 that would remove section 407 of the bill, which requires that identification cards, uniforms, protective gear and badges of Homeland Security personnel be manufactured in the United States. I would like the record to reflect that I submitted a ``nay'' vote for rollcall No. 315.

Mr. Speaker, last week President Bush marked the fourth anniversary his proclaimed ``Mission Accomplished'' in Iraq with a veto. He refused to heed the will of the American people and disregarded the work of this Congress by vetoing the Iraq Accountability Act that called for a new direction in Iraq.

Earlier tonight, I supported a bill offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern that would have provided for the redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq. I have believed for some time now that we must begin the safe and strategic withdrawal of our troops. While this measure was defeated, I remain resolved we must change the current course in Iraq.

Before the House is a revised Iraq Accountability bill. This bill continues to keep our commitment to our servicemen and women and to the American people. It fully funds our troops, improves military readiness and holds the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government accountable. The bill would provide $95.5 billion to the Department of Defense, but would fence off $52.8 billion, more than half of the funds. This funding would be held by Congress until the Bush Administration accounts for progress on the ground. President Bush would have to report to Congress the progress of the Iraqi Government in meeting key security benchmarks by July 13, 2007. Only with this accountability and another vote by Congress would the remaining funds be appropriated.

The era of ``stay the course'' and blank checks without accountability is over. I call upon my colleagues and the President to search their conscience and join me in supporting the underlying bill-- a balanced and reasonable approach to Iraq.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Hoekstra that would strike language requesting an assessment of the national security challenges posed by global warming. As a member of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and an original cosponsor to H.R. 1961, the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act, I support the inclusion of this language in the Intelligence Authorization bill.

There are serious political, social, economic and national security risks associated with climate change. It is only appropriate that our nation have a National Intelligence Estimate assessing its global warming threat. The National Intelligence Council is already a producing a community assessment on this issue, this provision would simply require that assessment be elevated to a formal National Intelligence Estimate.

This type of review is supported by a group of 11 retired three-star and four-star generals and admirals, who on April 16, 2007, issued a report entitled, ``National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.'' This report concludes that global warming presents significant national security challenges the United States. The effects of climate change are projected to have grave consequences for some of the poorest areas of the world--already volatile areas, the instability of these regions would be multiplied. Projected climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states. As retired U.S. General Gordon R. Sullivan described before the Select Global Warming Committee, the potential national security threat of global warming in certain regions of the world could potentially be a Petri dish for terror.

Climate change is yet another front in the war on terror and now is the time for the United States to fully understand the implications it has on our national security. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.