Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as a lifetime member of VFW Post 210 in Lakeville, Minnesota, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 663, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

The VFW traces its roots back to 1899, when veterans of the Spanish- American War and the Philippine Insurrection founded local organizations to secure rights and benefits for their service.

Before that time, many of our veterans would return home wounded or sick. There was no medical care or veterans' pension for them, and they were left to care for themselves.

The founders of the VFW sought to remedy that and provide support and encouragement to all of our veterans who had served in foreign wars. Their mission statement was straightforward, ``to honor the dead by helping the living.'' Over time their mission expanded to ``ensuring rights, remembering sacrifices, promoting patriotism, performing community services, and advocating for a strong national defense.''

They have a rich history of advocacy. The VFW has been instrumental in establishing the Veterans Administration, creating a GI bill for the 20th century, the development of the national cemetery system, and the fight to ensure combat wounded veterans from all wars receive proper compensation.

In addition, they have been a powerful force behind the creation of the Vietnam, Korean War, World War II and Women in Military Service Memorials.

Today, the organization has grown to more than 2.3 million members worldwide and continues to advocate for all of our foreign veterans.

I applaud the work of these individuals. Their continued commitment to each other and this great country of ours is truly inspirational. I am humbled by the work they have done for our veterans and I am honored to be bringing this resolution to the floor.

Today, as we stand to celebrate the establishment and achievements of an organization that was born of patriotism, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I would ask each of my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 663.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 46th anniversary of the United States Peace Corps. Saturday, September 22, marks the date on which Congress approved legislation formally authorizing the Peace Corps to promote world peace and friendship.

Since that time, more than 187,000 Peace Corps volunteers have been invited by 139 host countries to work on issues ranging from education to agricultural support and environmental preservation. Today's Peace Corps is more vital than ever, working and emerging in essential areas such as information technology and business development, and committing more than 1,000 new volunteers as part of the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief.

I am proud that Minnesota's Second District is home to Carleton and St. Olaf Colleges. Both schools, located in Northfield, Minnesota have been recognized nationally for the large number of their graduates serving in the Peace Corps. These volunteers continue to help countless individuals who want to build a better life for themselves, their children, and their communities. It is an honor to stand before you to recognize the Corps and their volunteers.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, along with my colleagues. Though the memorial stands primarily as a tribute to the 58,000 who were killed in Vietnam, the Wall, as it is more commonly known, continues to surpass its original purpose by acting as a quiet reminder of the price of our freedom and honoring the more than 153,000 men and women wounded in action. Perhaps most importantly, it serves as a source of healing for the 3 million men and women who served in the United States military during this war.

The design was inspired by a need to bring reconciliation and healing to a country that was deeply divided. Its simplicity is transcended by a powerful message of remembrance. Each name is a person with a story. These soldiers served with honor and distinction, and the memorial helps us to remember them with the highest regard.

As a Vietnam veteran myself, the memorial carries particular significance. I am reminded of the friends and comrades who gave their lives and of a far different time and place in my life.

It is with these memories in mind that I express my sadness and disappointment at the reports of the recent desecration of the Wall. The people who did this have violated a sacred trust, and I consider their actions deplorable. If there are those who applaud this behavior, I would only remind them of the hypocrisy of their beliefs. Our freedom was won by brave men and women such as those honored on this Wall, and we should hold them all reverently in our hearts, as I know that we do when we visit that very powerful memorial. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I hope these reports are not true or are exaggerated. I was appalled to hear them.

I cannot help but draw parallels between the Vietnam war and the situation in Iraq. We have men and women today who are carrying the mantle for this generation. We must be mindful to accord them the respect that they deserve and honor their service.

After 25 years, the memorial is unparalleled in terms of the sheer power of its presence. And there is irony because it was built into the ground. I remember the great debate that was taking place in this city and around the country when that memorial was put into place. There were those who thought it was a dishonor, frankly, to the men and women who served, to have this memorial be in the ground. But I know that every Vietnam veteran and their family and friends and Americans who have taken that walk down and stood at that powerful wall has reevaluated that opinion. Everyone who has been there has been moved, and for that I am very thankful.

I thank the gentleman. I have a remark I would like to make in a few minutes. I know our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee, has some comments he would like to make. But I was struck, in view of the discussion we are having right here, that today in that hearing that the gentleman was just talking about, the Joint House Armed Services Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, that General Petraeus was forced, I believe is the right word, to do something that I find absolutely extraordinary.

I have got his report right here to Congress on the situation in Iraq.

In the second paragraph, after he thanks the chairmen and ranking members, he says, ``At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or Congress.''

To think, one of the finest officers in the American Armed Forces felt it necessary to put this in the opening two sentences of his testimony, I find shocking and distressing. I am sure we will have more to say about that later.

But it is not only in response to this scurrilous ad, unforgivable ad that moveon.org has written, but, frankly, as my colleagues here know, there have been comments made by some of our colleagues directly challenging and questioning the integrity of General Petraeus. And when I saw this today, I was just appalled that we have reached that point.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pick up on some of the comments that our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi, was addressing when he was talking about some of the information in the testimony that we heard today from both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

I have the testimony from General Petraeus here in my hand. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would touch on a couple of the points that he made. He says that the progress our forces have achieved with the Iraqi counterparts has been substantial. He says, I see improvements in the security environment. The level of security incidents has decreased significantly since the start of the surge of offensive operations in mid-June. Civilian deaths have declined considerably. He says locals have increasingly supported our efforts. While he says al Qaeda certainly is not defeated, it is off balance and we are pursuing its leaders and operators aggressively.

This report is not all rosy. General Petraeus made the point several times during the over 6 hours of testimony that we had today that he doesn't want to look at this from a rosy standpoint or a pessimistic standpoint or an optimistic standpoint, but from a realistic standpoint; and I believe that this great leader, this great general, this man of great integrity and competence and capability did just that for us today.

One of the things that came up repeatedly during the hearing today was a reference to another report and another hearing that we on the Armed Services Committee heard about last week. General James Jones, a former commandant of the Marine Corps, the former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, was the head of a commission, a very distinguished commission, I might add, one of the most experienced I have ever seen, that had military officers and senior noncommissioned officers and experienced law enforcement personnel go over to Iraq with the charge to evaluate the Iraqi security forces.

Repeatedly today, and sometimes last week, we heard our colleagues saying, well, General Jones came with a very pessimistic report, and he had great concerns that things aren't going well. And one of our colleagues actually asked the question, General Petraeus, how do you square, how do you reconcile, if you will, these differences in reports.

And I remember thinking, Mr. Speaker, when I was in that Armed Services Committee hearing and listening to General Jones and his exceptionally well-qualified colleagues, that the hearing that we were experiencing was not at all like the news reports, perhaps like the ads we saw earlier today, but was not at all like the news reports we had seen before the testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And just as an example, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to quote just a few things that General Jones and some of his colleagues said during that hearing.

He said, our first conclusion is that the Iraqi security forces as a whole cannot yet defend the territorial integrity of Iraq. This is not necessarily an alarming conclusion, he said. They're able to do more in terms of combating the internal security threats to Iraq, and that's positive. He said, we've noted improvement in the internal security missions such as denying the safe haven to terrorists, and this progress is likely to continue in the months ahead. He says, the Iraqi security forces can bring greater security to the provinces in the next 12 to 18 months, assuming a continuing rate of progress. He said, the impact of the surge has had a tactical success for both Iraqi and coalition forces in the Baghdad region.

That doesn't sound like a pessimistic report or out of step with what General Petraeus said today. It's what we have known for some time, and I'm sure that my colleagues on their trips to Iraq have had the same experiences and reports that I have, and that is, that the Iraqi Army has been making steady progress but the police forces are in some disarray and need of major improvements.

In fact, General Jones and his commission recommended that the national police force, a relatively small group of 25,000, be disbanded and distributed to other forces and that the much larger Iraqi security police be strengthened. Again, not at all out of sync with what we heard today.

And in fact, because I had heard in previous trips to Iraq that the Iraqi Army was doing well and the Iraqi police was not doing well, I said to General Jones, well, this seems very consistent with the message that we have heard for some time. So I'm not surprised to hear you say that, and you probably weren't surprised to find that yourself.

And I thought this was amazing. He said, and I will check my notes here to make sure that I've got this right, he says, I was pleasantly surprised. I'd been going to Iraq off and on since 2003 in my NATO hat, and again, he was the commander of NATO, but I think I did not expect to see the will that I saw in the Iraqi Armed Forces to take the fight to the enemy. I did not expect to see the length and breadth of the institutions that are functioning that you need to support an emerging army, the training bases, the recruiting, the recruit training, NCO schools, counterintelligence schools, training corpsmen. All of those things exist. We know that because we saw them.

This was a very highly experienced group of four-star and three-star generals, sergeants major, police chiefs that went, and this was their assessment when they came back. And again, this seems to me very consistent with General Petraeus' report today that said, well, things are still tough over there, but the surge is working and we're making progress. I know my colleague wants to talk about some of those recommendations in a bit, but I just want to go to one more.

I thank the gentleman for that. Reclaiming my time, if it's mine to reclaim, I'm not sure sometimes in these Special Orders whose time it is. I think it's the gentleman from Georgia's, but I don't want to have my colleagues or Americans believe that General Jones or General Petraeus came with nothing but good news. That's not the case.

As we discussed earlier, the Jones commission recommended some major changes in how the police is trained and equipped and how it functions and how it's organized, that they were highly critical of the Ministry of the Interior and how they're functioning and, in many cases, failing to function. So there are clearly problems, but the Jones report, the Jones commission did not come back and say that all is lost and Iraqi security forces are all failing.

In fact, that paragraph that I read quoting General Jones talking about how he was pleasantly surprised about the terrific progress of the Iraqi Army underscores that some good things are happening.

I thought it was interesting in that hearing, as my colleague from Georgia no doubt remembers, during the question-and-answer period, the former Deputy Secretary John Hamre, former Deputy Secretary of Defense, was asked some questions about what we should do in Iraq, should we leave or should we leave quickly or were things too bad. And he said in part, and again I'm quoting, but we have strategic interests that are larger than just Iraq. I mean our continued influence and presence in the region, the ability to get continued access to energy resources, providing a counterweight to Iran. We have large strategic interests. Every one of those interests would be seriously diminished if we had to crawl out of Iraq or run out of Iraq.

I think that is significant, Mr. Speaker. He made the point that when we leave Iraq, we walk out of Iraq on our terms, having defeated in large measure al Qaeda and left an Iraq with a promising future with the violence under control and political progress being made.

And so I just think that we have seen some unfortunate, really strident partisan statements made in the last week or so, and I guess it's unavoidable that people tend to go to sources that match their perspective. But I thought that the constant referring to the Jones Commission's report as somehow undermining what General Petraeus was saying or not consistent with it or indicating that all was lost in Iraq was simply not correct. And these quotes were part of many in what I thought was a very thorough, complete testimony and thorough hearing when we had the members of that commission in before the Armed Services Committee.

If the gentleman would yield for just a minute, that's what struck me is that, very much like General Petraeus' testimony today, the media discussion and the political discussion and the partisan discussion that led up to the testimony simply didn't match the testimony that we heard in either of these hearings.

For example, I'm sure that many of our colleagues were surprised, and frankly I was, to hear General Petraeus say that it's tough but we're making progress, and we're making progress to the point where I'm going to recommend that we draw down our forces to the presurge level of brigade combat teams and we do it by next July. I was surprised that he put that date in there and that certainty in there when he made that statement.

He said we're going to start drawing down this year, brigade combat team is going to come back, Marine expeditionary unit is going to come back, and we're going to continue to draw down through the spring and into the summer. And that is consistent with the original intent of the surge. It was temporary with what the Iraq Study Group said about a temporary surge, and in fact, I think it's very consistent with what the Jones commission said as well.

I believe that's right.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today in support of H. Res. 606 to honor all of those who so bravely risked their lives in the face of this catastrophe. I had the privilege of meeting with many of the first responders, volunteer organizations, local and State officials in my tours of the site of the collapse.

The first emergency personnel on the scene responded to the tragedy without hesitation, as has been discussed by my colleagues here today. They risked their health and safety to rescue victims and to provide emergency care to the injured. Scores of ordinary people did, indeed, become extraordinary citizens following the tragedy by rushing to the aid of their fellow Minnesotans. The outpouring of support and assistance from surrounding communities, including more than 50 volunteer organizations, was tremendous. Throughout the rescue and recovery mission, there have been countless stories of the generosity by the citizens of Minnesota. From organizing blood drives to caring for the needs of the bridge recovery workers, Minnesotans continue to go above and beyond the call of duty. In a

time of sadness and sorrow for so many, we remain thankful for the true kindness and compassion of Minnesotans.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take just a minute here to discuss, as some of my colleagues have alluded to, another catastrophe which struck the State of Minnesota in Mr. Walz's district. My family has a farm down in Houston, Minnesota, in the very southeastern tip, and I spent 3 days there at the end of the August break. It is distressing. It is an awesome power that we saw when those creeks and rivers flooded and the destruction is immense. Again, it is not just the first responders in Minneapolis and the surrounding communities, but I am sure that my friend and colleague from the First District, Mr. Walz, can attest to the fact that first responders throughout the State came to the aid of those in southeast Minnesota.

So, Madam Speaker, as always, we are mindful of the lives that were lost in both tragedies and our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the victims and their families and with all Minnesotans as we recover and rebuild.

I want to thank the gentleman, my colleague, Mr. Ellison, for offering this legislation and bringing it forward and Mr. Walz for his leadership.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to add my thanks to all of our colleagues here in the House, the Minnesota delegation certainly, and, of course, as Mr. Ramstad said, to our dean, the chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar.

While reports continue to be updated due to the ongoing recovery operations, the number of victims is already shocking to us in Minnesota. But these numbers are not simply statistics that might roll off the tongue as a footnote to a tragedy which Governor Tim Pawlenty accurately described as, quote, a catastrophe of historic proportions for Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, these numbers are people. These numbers are the family, friends and neighbors who were simply going home to their loved ones after what appeared to be just another workday. Among the deceased is a mother of two from Savage, Minnesota, in my congressional district, and my heart and prayers go to her family and to all the victims.

Although this is a time of sorrow for many, there are countless stories emerging already about the generosity and compassion of the citizens of Minnesota. From organizing blood drives and volunteers, to caring for the needs of the recovery workers, Minnesotans are going above and beyond the call of duty.

Mr. Speaker, as the citizens of Minnesota have come together during this difficult time, my colleagues in the Minnesota delegation and I remain committed to helping restore the I-35W bridge. Together, we're working to provide the Federal resources necessary to recover from this tragedy, and the fine effort brought forward by our chairman, Mr. Oberstar, putting forth $250 million is so important to us in Minnesota.

In the wake of this disaster, it is difficult to imagine when all the questions will be answered, but the day will come when recovery efforts will be complete, investigations will conclude, and eventually a new I- 35 bridge will reunite the banks of the Mississippi River.

Mr. Speaker, again our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the victims and their families and with all Minnesotans as we recover and rebuild. Again, I want to thank the gentleman, the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, for authoring this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 2831. I think it's been really an interesting debate this evening. We've heard views on both sides, and clearly, we simply disagree on some fundamental aspects of this, and I want to address that as well during my 3 minutes.

Speaker after speaker on this side of the aisle has stood up and said that this legislation effectively eliminates the statute of limitations for a broad range of discrimination claims. I believe that's correct.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) stood up here and recounted for us the activities of the Supreme Court, and he quoted from the justices the language that pertained, and it seemed clear to me that there was a fairness issue here. And while our hearts were all touched by the testimony of Lilly Ledbetter and by the circumstances of her case, it was clear to the court and to Mr. Keller and to me that it's simply unreasonable to allow year after year after year to go by after a discriminatory act occurs before you make the claim, when in some cases people will have left, perhaps have died and moved on.

This is a huge boon to the trial lawyers of America. It's going to bring forward endless litigation, case after case going on day after day. What businesses will have to do in terms of recordkeeping is staggering in its scale.

This imperils pensions. One of our colleagues brought up that issue. It is not at all clear, despite some findings language in the bill, that our pensions will be protected in this legislation. Potentially, you can have pensions who simply don't have the funds to pay the earned benefits. This is bad policy, Mr. Speaker, and it's made in haste.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this legislation amounts to a significant change in our civil rights laws. It's very clear to me, and unfortunately, many of the questions of concern raised by the Ledbetter case have yet to be answered. In the normal legislative process, such questions would have been raised in committee hearings, subcommittee and full committee. Concerns would have been debated in good faith.

Unfortunately, this was not the process that brought this bill to the floor. The Committee on Education and Labor had no legislative hearings. The bill was not before us the one time we had some witnesses before us to talk about this at all. The time elapsed from the bill's introduction to committee markup was little more than 24 business hours, and we learned on Friday that we were going to be debating this bill on the floor today. Surely, a huge change like this to our civil rights laws deserves more of our time, attention and effort than the majority has seen fit to provide.

Once again, the majority has chosen haste and speed over quality in making public policy. My concerns and unanswered questions can only lead me to say that the Ledbetter bill makes for bad policy, creating a flawed legislative process.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the community of Chaska, located southwest of the Twin Cities, and a town I'm proud to say is part of Minnesota's Second Congressional District.

Money magazine confirmed what many of us in the great State of Minnesota already knew by naming Chaska as one of the top 10 best places to live in America. Money magazine accurately describes Chaska as having both beauty and brains. A stroll downtown Chaska by City Square Park brings to life images from Norman Rockwell paintings, depicting all that is good about small town America. Chaska's small 19th-century downtown quickly yields to open fields, farmland and the Minnesota River. It is also home to innovation, with more than a dozen technology and biotech companies. It is no wonder why this town is a magnet for families who can find reasonably priced homes, low taxes and quality schools.

Congratulations again to the entire community of Chaska for earning this prestigious distinction. We in Minnesota's Second District are proud.

I thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, for yielding the time and for bringing up this amendment.

Each time he does, of course, I am reminded of our former colleague, our great friend, Joel Hefley from Colorado who brought this amendment up in past Congresses.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't understand, perhaps I would have to admit, the full significance and importance of what he was trying to do, and that was just to, in a very, very, very modest way, curtail the spending spree that we have here in Washington, that spending spree that our friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina, was just explaining.

Of course, this is a modest effort, 1 percent on one spending bill. We know that the real issue here in Washington is the explosion in entitlement spending. The gentleman from New York earlier said that there was no tax increase in this bill. Of course, we understand that. This isn't a tax bill; this is a spending bill.

But it is tied to a budget, to a budget that significantly did one thing: it brought us the largest tax increase in American history. Yes, that tax increase won't hit in a significant way in this year, but in order to make that budget balance, it was necessary to bring us the largest tax increase in American history so that by the end of the budget period, the budget could balance.

The other thing that budget had, or, more significantly, did not have, it didn't have anything to constrain entitlement spending. Well, it did. It had a small piece, a very small piece, where there was an effort to save less than $1 billion in entitlement spending; and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle stepped up to the plate to save that less than $1 billion and created nine new entitlement spending programs.

We do have a spending problem here, and that is followed by an enormous taxing problem. This is a spend-and-tax issue that I think the American people can understand. Their budgets aren't growing by 7 percent. The Federal Government is growing its spending by more than that. This effort by my good friend from Georgia is, indeed, a modest effort.

This is a tiny, let's save one penny, one penny on the dollar that this spending bill has. We can't seem to find a way to save that one penny, and yet we are letting entitlement spending grow by trillions of dollars.

I think the American people are going to grow increasingly aware that we have an unfunded liability in entitlement spending of trillions and trillions of dollars, well over $50 trillion.

So this is a modest effort, but I would call on my colleagues to take this tiny step that Mr. Hefley brought us in the past and that my colleague, Mr. Price, has brought us here.

Let's support the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time. I appreciate that because I would like

to respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts on just a couple of points.

One, we had a number of discussions on zeros and what that means when we talk about the debt, nine zeros, 12 zero, six zeros, I would say there are a lot of American families that are concerned about five zeros and what the impact of the tax increase is going to have on that.

With all respect to my friend from Massachusetts, the Democrat budget does have the largest tax increase in American history. In order to make that budget balance, all of the tax relief which we have worked so hard to achieve in the last few years, and which is behind the growth and the economy, all that would go away, tax relief for married families, tax relief for every American worker who pays taxes. All that's erased in the Democrat's budget that is behind this spending bill that we are in today.

I think he helps me make the point that this is, when he talks about trillions of dollars, that this bill, that this amendment is a very modest step in curtailing that spending.

I thank the gentlelady from Colorado for yielding, and for her excellent, truly excellent amendment.

I have been following the debate for some time now. Like many of our colleagues, sometimes we have to follow it in our office as we are conducting other business. And I hate that we have stooped to sort of name calling, which unfortunately I have seen.

I guess the gentleman from Ohio says that we're embracing the ``fringe'' label, and so therefore I suppose I'm down here to make the fringe larger. And I guess there is a little humor in that, and I will just take it in that sense because I'm sure my friend from Ohio didn't mean any harm by it.

But as my good friend, Mr. Pence, said in his comments, that if the fringe are those hardworking Americans who think they make better decisions on how to spend the money that they earn than we do here in Congress, then I'm in the right place.

We heard that this amendment, this very modest amendment to look for .5 percent savings would place an increased burden, a .5 percent increased burden on the American people. There is no question that the largest tax increase in American history will place a huge burden on the working families of America.

And with all respect to my good friend and colleague from Ohio, the Democrats' budget, in order to balance as the rules require by the end of the budget period, does impose the largest tax increase in American history. And already we're starting to see the majority party have to start to pay the price for some of the budget gimmicks that have been involved in making that work.

Now, the Democrats, while increasing spending, it seems like almost across the board, certainly in the Department of Labor, couldn't manage to keep the spending for the Office of Labor Management Standards at last year's level. There they could find the cut. When it came to the office whose responsibility is to find the crooks who are stealing from union members, they found a way to impose a 4 percent cut in that office. And what a shame that is.

I offered an amendment, it received some bipartisan support, but nevertheless, on a largely partisan basis, that amendment was defeated. That amendment would have just restored the funding to last year's level for the only office in government who has the responsibility and the capability to hunt down and catch the crooks that steal from our American workers, but the majority party could find a way to cut there.

So, I think that the choice here is clear. It's been stated by many of my colleagues. Many of us, fringe or not fringe, believe that the American people can make better decisions on how to spend their money, and we should let them do it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 2,600 men and women of the Minnesota National Guard who, after serving our country with great honor and courage, are returning home from their 16- month deployment to Iraq.

Last Friday my friend and colleague, Congressman Tim Walz, and I had the privilege of visiting Volk Field near Fort McCoy in Wisconsin and welcoming home soldiers from the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division, the famed ``Red Bulls.'' It was truly a memorable experience greeting these proud soldiers as they returned from the longest combat deployment of any Army brigade combat team in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Minnesota's ``Red Bulls'' escorted supply convoys and traveled 2.4 million miles in Iraq. Other members of the BCT provided essential security to U.S. bases throughout the country.

Speaking with the fine men and women of the ``Red Bulls'' as they stepped off the plane and smelled that clean, fresh air and stepped on American soil, it became clear that these soldiers are justifiably proud of their accomplishments. The great State of Minnesota and all Americans can be proud as well.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, my amendment is very simple.

The committee bill cuts the Office of Labor Management Standards, known as OLMS, down to fiscal 2006 levels. My amendment would restore just over $2 million to get this enforcement agency back to its fiscal 2007 level. To offset the increase for OLMS, we have reduced the International Labor Organization earmark from the International Labor Affairs Bureau by the requisite amount.

What is OLMS and why I am taking to the floor of the House to make a $2 million adjustment in this small agency? That's a fair question.

Without this amendment, the OLMS will have to cut staff. OLMS is the agency within the Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration that enforces the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act of 1959. This Federal statute was championed by then-Senator John F. Kennedy and enacted as an outcome of the McCollum hearing on labor racketeering.

Then-Senator Kennedy knew, as we affirm today, that rank-and-file union members deserve the right to know how their unions were spending and investing their members' dues money; that their unions' books were clean; and that elections for union officers would be fair and free of intimidation or scandal.

Do labor unions need a government watchdog? Apparently so. Since 2001, OLMS has helped obtain 750 convictions and restitution of over $70 million for union members in criminal cases of embezzlement and election irregularities.

Some of my colleagues may dismiss these monetary results as just small change compared to the billions of assets held by labor unions, but they miss the point. Stealing from your fellow union members is against the law, regardless of whether the theft is $10,000 or $100,000. And anywhere in the country but Washington, D.C., $10,000 is a lot of money.

OLMS functions like the Securities and Exchange Commission for labor unions. Why should rank-and-file union members not be protected in the same way as individual shareholders of corporations? Senator Paul Sarbanes agreed. During the debate on the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, he argued that if union financial disclosure and accountability was already required by law and wasn't being funded, he suggested that the Department of Labor request the money from Congress.

Madam Chairman, DOL is not only being denied the increase it asked for; it is being cut to the bone. Federal law requires financial transparency and disclosure from corporations, pension plans, lobbyists and Members of Congress. Why would we not enforce the one law on the books that enables rank-and-file union members to review the financial expenditures of their unions?

I find it ironic, Madam Chairman, that the House Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee provided $3.1 million over the administration's budget request for the SEC, while OLMS was being cut below fiscal year 2007 levels. Clearly, we put a high priority on corporate accountability. We need to put the same high priority on union accountability.

Although this is a modest amendment, it will enable this enforcement agency within the Department of Labor to maintain its audit program and other activities under the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act. I cannot believe that this House would say to union members throughout America that we do not support your right to know and your right to union integrity.

I urge all Members to vote for this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There are a couple of points I would like to address. It has been an interesting debate, as these things often turn in to be. We have heard the gentleman from Rhode Island say that this base bill just keeps it going presumably at the current level. And, as we have already heard established, this is in fact a $2 million cut, $11 million below the President's request.

The gentleman from Rhode Island is right, though, when he talked about this being about people checking their own books and covering their tracks. That is exactly what this is about. He was talking about perhaps corporations, and we have already talked about increasing the money to provide oversight and law enforcement for corporations. But this is about unions. This is about American workers.

We have looked at the money percentage cut/percentage increase. We have already confirmed that this is a $2 million cut, as my colleague from Georgia says. And I just find it interesting, looking at the figures here, we have added $935 million to President Bush's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department of Labor, and within that budget increase are individual funding increases for every single enforcement office within the agency except this one, this one whose job it is to make sure that union leaders who are misbehaving are not able to just check their own books and cover their tracks. Somebody else has got to hold them accountable.

And this embezzlement is not restricted to one or two people in one or two States. We have examples over the last 3 or 4 years of misconduct by union leaders in 48, at least, of the 50

States. A couple of examples here might be relevant.

Looking at the neighboring State of Wisconsin, on September 21, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Felix A. Robinson, former president of the Industrial Division of the Communication Workers of America, Local 84101, pled guilty to one count of embezzling union funds. The guilty plea followed investigation by the OLMS Milwaukee district office.

Sad to say it happens in my own State. On February 22 of this year, 2007, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Catherine Bronson, former business representative for Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local 21 in Rochester, Minnesota, was sentenced to 180 days of home confinement.

We have pages and pages of examples. Let me just give another one so that my colleagues and the workers of America understand that we are talking about misbehavior, illegal behavior on the part of people who have the responsibility for taking care of their union dues.

November 7, 2006, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Timothy J. Pulvermacher, former financial secretary for USWA Local 9444 pled guilty to embezzling union funds.

January 8, 2007, Kathryn Stark, former office manager for IBEW Local 31 was sentenced to a 6-month confinement.

Why? Because they are abusing their union members. They are stealing from them. And this is the only office that has the responsibility and authority for holding them accountable.

So we can debate for all day, I suppose, who is for the worker and who is not for the worker and whether the tax cuts are good for the worker. We certainly believe they are on this side of the aisle. But that is not what my amendment is about. My amendment is about making sure that the office who has the responsibility for holding union leaders accountable for their workers' funds has the staff it needs to do the job.

The base bill, cutting $2 million would force that office to cut staff members, the very people who conduct the investigations and bring these people to justice.

Again, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment which supports the union workers of America and holds those who misbehave accountable. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this bill are fond of citing historical examples as they declare the futility of combat operations in Iraq. The Congressional Record is full of stories describing the failed British invasion of Gallipoli or the far more popular comparisons to the American experience in Vietnam.

Another more prescient historical comparison, however, was made by the British author George Orwell. Contemplating the defeatist rhetoric of the English intelligentsia during the German offensive against Britain in World War II, he remarked, ``The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. And if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory.'' Those in favor of the bill presented on the floor today, Mr. Speaker, do not believe in the possibility of victory, despite the protests of the soldiers and Marines returning from the battlefield saying otherwise.

By advocating a rapid withdrawal, they endorse the quickest way of ending the war, by losing it. It has been less than a month since the full force of troops requested by military commanders arrived in Iraq, but already some have declared the operation to be a failure. General Petraeus arrived in Baghdad in February with a new strategy designed to reinforce the Iraqi security forces confronting al Qaeda, terrorists and Iranian-supplied insurgents. Rather than giving him the opportunity to fully implement his surge strategy, opponents in Congress immediately sought to undermine his credibility and his ability to command.

Mr. Speaker, our troops serving in Iraq don't need 435 armchair generals dictating the tactical movements of troops, as this legislation would surely do. They have true commanders whose professional military skills have been honed by decades of military service. They need us to renew our commitment to them and their commanders. And more importantly, they need us to trust their commanders' decisions.

General Petraeus said in a letter to his troops, ``Success will require discipline, fortitude and initiative, qualities that you have in abundance.'' The question before us today, Mr. Speaker, is, do we have those qualities?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. Once again, the majority has seen fit to stifle debate when considering significant legislation.

Yesterday, I and several other members of the Education and Labor Committee presented amendments to the members of the Rules Committee with the expectation that those amendments would be seriously considered. It's now become apparent that that hearing was really just a facade; the decision had already been made to exclude those amendments.

If I had had the opportunity to offer my amendment today under a fair rule, House Members would have seen that the concept of my amendment was simple: to ensure that those most in need, college graduates that serve the public interest and college students in need of government grants, are the direct beneficiaries of Federal interest rate reductions. Instead, the majority has treated us to a show worthy of the best Las Vegas illusionist, a reconciliation process intended to reduce the growth in entitlement spending that instead creates nine new entitlement programs. That's right. The reconciliation process is designed to reduce the growth in entitlement spending to cut the Federal deficit; and, instead, this bill creates nine new entitlement programs.

While openly declaring that the underlying bill expands educational benefits for students, a little sleight of hand instead reveals legislation that fails to target aid to those students most in need.

My amendment, rejected by the Rules Committee along party lines, would have focused our limited Federal funding on those college graduates that chose a path offering less monetary reward, but serving, arguably, a much greater public purpose. My amendment achieved this goal by ensuring that those graduates who can pay their loans under a higher interest rate do so by establishing an income cap of $65,000 for single graduates and $135,000 for married couples, the income levels at which the existing student loan tax reductions are phased out.

After reaching that income level, which is almost twice the average family income of a student eligible to receive a subsidized student loan, the interest rate for a loan would have reverted to the current level of 6.8 percent. Those graduates who may not have as high an income, however, would have seen their interest rates stay at the reduced level. This includes, of course, those most in need because they chose to serve the public interest: members of the Armed Forces, first responders, nurses, teachers, and other graduates who choose careers in public service. By adding a fair, balanced income cap adjustment, we would have generated additional savings that could have been directed toward another truly deserving group, those utilizing need-based aid through the Pell Grant program.

Unfortunately, more than 400,000 students, Mr. Speaker, are fully prepared to attend a 4-year college but will be unable to do so because of enormous financial barriers. As a member of the Education and Labor Committee, it is paramount for me to prioritize the expansion of secondary education access for low- and middle-income students whenever possible. I am disappointed, but sadly, not surprised, the majority has instead chosen to rely on the same tired strategy of expanding entitlement spending for institutions to the detriment of currently college students struggling to pay their high tuition costs.