Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Corporal Charles W. Lindberg, and I offer my most sincere condolences to his family.

Mr. Lindberg, a fellow marine and fellow Minnesotan, was the last survivor of the six U.S. Marines who raised the first flag over Iwo Jima during World War II.

On the morning of February 23, 1945, Corporal Lindberg and his fellow marines made their way to the top of Mount Suribachi. At the request of their battalion commander, they placed an American flag at the summit.

Years later, as he reflected on that fateful day, Corporal Lindberg said, ``Down below the troops started to cheer, the ship's whistles went off, and it was just something that you would never forget.''

This was the first time a foreign flag was flown on Japanese soil. The moment was captured in a photo by Sergeant Lou Lowery. This event, along with the famous photo made by Joe Rosenthal of the second flag raising, became a symbol of courage and victory in our country.

Just weeks after the flag raising in Iwo Jima, Corporal Lindberg was injured in the line of duty. For his bravery, he was awarded a Purple Heart and the Silver Star.

Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber we often speak of service to our country. Corporal Lindberg's story is a symbol for generations on the importance of service and duty.

After his retirement, Corporal Lindberg spoke to hundreds of veterans groups and student groups, inspiring all who heard him. He is much loved and admired by those who knew him.

God bless the Lindberg family, and God bless America.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership here. I think many of us miss the presence of our former colleague Mr. Hefley from Colorado, and I am very pleased to see that Mr. Price has stepped up to fill that gap, because what we are talking about here is trying to control runaway spending.

We are spending billions and billions of dollars, and this proposal suggests that we try to pare back 1 percent, $316 million in this bill.

Some speakers from the other side have said when the Republicans were in charge, the Republicans spent too much. In fact, the gentleman from Ohio just reminded us of that. He is right. Republicans, when we were in the majority, spent too much.

But the Democrat answer to spend more just doesn't make sense. We are increasing spending here by billions and billions of dollars, and that apparently is backed up by a budget which is reportedly balanced in 5 years by giving us the largest tax increase in American history. That is how you balance the budget in 5 years, with the level of spending that is being proposed here today, billions of dollars too much.

My friend, the great gentleman from Georgia, is proposing a 1 percent, 1 percent across-the-board cut. I commend him for that.

We are spending too much. Let's get this under control. This is a very modest proposal. I commend him for it.

I thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Wilson, for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise because we have had a debate here about how much money we're spending and how much we're taxing. There seems to be some confusion about that. We on this side of the aisle have been accused of having spent too much money. And, as I said in discussing an earlier amendment, I fully agree. The Republican majority spent too much money. But what we have before us is a proposal to spend even more money while we're getting criticism for having spent too much, and I have a hard time balancing those out.

We need to get spending under control. And we've had my colleagues, colleague after colleague have come to the floor to propose amendments to make modest reductions in what appears to be runaway spending, billions of dollars too much. And then we've had an argument that said, well, we're not taxing too much because we're not going to add to the tax burden in 2008. I suppose that remains to be seen before the process is over, but I think it's undeniable that the Democrats passed a budget which in order to balance in 5 years results in the largest tax increase in American history. And as the spending goes up to make that match in the end, they force all of the tax cuts which we have fought so hard to get into place, that have spurred this economy and caused jobs to be created and rapid growth in the economy, all those tax cuts would go away, taxes would go up, and we would in fact see the largest tax increase in American history. So we have a huge tax increase, huge spending, that's not the way to see this economy grow. Let's take some steps to curb this explosive rate of spending and stop the semantic arguments here. Let's slow down this runaway spending.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding for the fossil energy research and development account in this bill by $142 million. These funds appropriated in this account go toward research of oil, gasoline, coal and natural gas.

Funding this account at $709 million, as in this bill, would be a 19\1/2\ percent increase over last year's appropriation amount and 20 percent higher than what was requested by the administration.

This massive increase in spending is aimed at research of oil, coal and natural gas. With energy prices rising, our research dollars are better spent by going toward alternative and diversified energy sources like nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower and others.

You may be interested to know that some of the research projects funded by this account include: a submersible-deployed micro-drill for sampling of shallow gas deposits, ultra-lightweight cement, and an oil and gas resource assessment of the Russian Arctic.

Given the record profits being made by oil, gas and coal companies, the research of oil and gas resources of the Russian Arctic should be done and paid for by those oil companies, not by American taxpayers who have already paid for it at the pump.

A half a billion dollars in Federal funds appropriated to this account, as was the case last year, should be more than enough for the government's share of this research.

Any additional funding, and I'm talking about funding over the half a billion dollar plus what's already in last year's bill, any additional funding should be borne by the private sector.

My amendment would save the taxpayers $142 million and remove that 20 percent increase in spending on fossil fuel research.

Solutions to our rising energy prices are not found in a massive increase in deficit spending, and we've been talking a lot about deficit spending today.

Not only does this bill have a 20 percent increase in spending for fossil fuel research, it contains a $1.3 billion increase over last year's Energy and Water appropriation.

It seems that this appropriation bill is another example of ballooning Federal spending and increasing Federal deficits to be paid for by ever-higher taxes.

We know it's been discussed today that the Federal budget that was passed by House Democrats earlier this year does indeed include the largest tax increase in American history. It would raise taxes by at least $217 billion. We're looking for ways to reduce spending, modest ways. That's all that these appropriation bills allow us. We can't address the massive spending that comes from entitlement spending, but we can get at sensible ways to control the spending in these discretionary funds.

My amendment is a step in the right direction. Let's save the taxpayers $142 million and remove this huge 20 percent increase in spending for fossil fuel research.

There have been proposals to put price controls on oil companies. I vehemently oppose those, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to put some of those profits back into this essential research and development, take the burden off the taxpayers. Let's in a bipartisan way support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

This evening, we have heard some talk about the war that we're engaged in, the fighting in Iraq, the fighting in Afghanistan, this long war against Islamist extremists that we're engaged in. And tonight I am very pleased I am joined by a number of my colleagues here this evening to talk a little bit about that military action, to talk about that war and to talk about the military leaders that we are so blessed to have in this country.

I think sometimes we sort of forget that there are people who have devoted their entire lives to serving this country and to providing exemplary leadership to our young men and women as they fight for us in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. We have some new officers in the lineup, and we will talk very briefly about those tonight, I suppose. We have a new commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon. We have, of course, General David Petraeus, named by the President to be the senior U.S. commander of the multinational forces in Iraq and confirmed unanimously, I might add, by the Members of the Senate. Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, and other fine officers that are leading our young men and women.

I know some of my colleagues would like to talk about one of the officers who is going to be leaving that chain of command, the very fine Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the first Marine Corps officer ever to hold that position, my good friend and a great American, General Peter Pace.

I would like to afford a few minutes to my friend and colleague from South Carolina who I know has some words he wants to say about my friend, Pete, and give us a little idea of what his biography is.

I yield to the gentleman.

Will the gentleman yield? Could you say that again?

I thank the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his comments, and certainly for his service and for the service of our sons. I know that the South Carolina National Guard is held up by the Wilson family, and we are grateful. I know that all the people of South Carolina are grateful to their service to the National Guard, and for your service in the Guard and here in Congress. And I know that General Pace appreciates your kind remarks.

Pete and Lynne Pace were next-door neighbors for Vicky and I when I retired from active duty in the Marines in 1994. He is not only a fine man and a fine officer, but a good neighbor.

I understand that we are joined now by my colleague from Missouri, who had some words that he wanted to share with us concerning General Pace's forthrightness; is that right? I yield to the gentleman.

Again, I thank the gentleman for his service and his son's service and obviously the good parenting job that you have done, having your sons go into the Marine Corps. My son went into the Army. I have got to tell you, I am so proud of him sometimes I just bust out, but occasionally I wonder where I may have gone wrong in that upbringing thing. But I know you are proud of your sons and I of mine and Joe of his and all of our sons and daughters who are serving so well and so bravely in this war and in wars past.

I want to just remind my colleagues and those who may be following this discussion tonight what is at the core of the fine men and women who are leading our men and women into combat, and I go back to the very, very famous words of General Douglas MacArthur after he retired and he went back to West Point, his alma mater, and gave a speech. In that speech, I am just going to read a paragraph of it here, he said some words that strike to the core of these men and women that we are talking about tonight. This was back on May 12, 1962.

General MacArthur said, ``For all eyes and for all time, it is an expression of the ethics of the American soldier. That I should be integrated in this way with so noble an ideal arouses a sense of pride and yet of humility which will be with me always.

`` `Duty,' 'Honor,' `Country,' those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you want to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.''

I think it is important for us to understand, and a little bit later this evening I am going to talk about some of those values and some of the fine young men and women who go to these service academies and provide the outstanding leadership that we have.

Of course, tonight we are talking about that leadership and quite a bit about General Peter Pace, the first Marine Corps Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the man who is going to be retiring here in the coming months after he has served us so well in so many years.

I am joined now by my friend and colleague and classmate, I guess, we came to Congress together in the 108th Congress, Dr. Phil Gingrey.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks and for his service here. You have been a great colleague and a great champion for our men and women who are serving so bravely and so well all around the globe. It is not just Iraq, as my friend knows, and here shortly I will be recognizing another colleague to talk about this threat that we face. But first, I want to recognize my friend and colleague on the Armed Services Committee and a great American himself, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words and for his strong support of our men and women in uniform. I know the people down in North Carolina are very proud to have you serve. There is no greater champion for our Special Operations Forces than you are and for all those fine soldiers down there, and I know that General Pace appreciates your support. So I thank the gentleman for joining us this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking about the kind words that have been said tonight about General Pace. I certainly add to those.

I mentioned earlier that I thought that General Pace was a fine man and a fine marine and a fine commander and a great neighbor when he and Lynn lived next door to Vicky and I down at the Marine Base at Quantico. I just have to share another story with my colleagues standing here.

There was another time when General Pace and I were neighbors, and it was not such a nice location as the Marine Base at Quantico and the fine quarters there up on the hill.

We were serving together in Mogadishu in 1992 and 1993 in the rubble of that country, in some pretty tough times and bad weather and bad conditions and starving people. We had some folks who were intent on shooting each other and shooting us.

I remember going into the building one time and General Pace was sitting there, sort of an old, bombed-out room of the Embassy.

I said, ``General, how is it going?''

He said, ``We are here, we are serving our country and we are in the Marines.''

He was a fine friend and fine neighbor, whether he was in the idyllic hillside down in Prince William County or bombed-out rubble in Mogadishu. You couldn't have a finer man with you. I am very proud to have known him and served with him, and I am very grateful for his many years of distinguished service, living by those ideals we discussed earlier.

There are some more commanders that we want to refer to later tonight, but we want to put this in the context of this terrible war we are fighting. We are fighting an evil and adaptive enemy, and I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

I couldn't agree with you more in your explanation of what we are up against; but it strikes me the differences we hear on the floor of this House. This evening some of our colleagues were saying we have to get out of Iraq now. We have to end the war. If we bring our troops tomorrow, say they, we will end this war. And presumably, then, everything will be fine. And that simply doesn't track with the history that the gentleman is describing. It does not describe the enemy that was willing to hijack planes and fly them into buildings and kill women and children. Every day we see the stories in Baghdad of people blowing up women and children. Our just bringing our troops home doesn't, wouldn't, couldn't, signal the end of this war and of the determination of that enemy. It strikes me the difference that we see in this body.

I thank the gentleman very much for his insight and certainly his passion on this issue. I, too, want to thank all of the men and women in uniform. And certainly we are here tonight talking some about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, who will be retiring this fall, but we are also here to talk about the other leaders and the values that are at their core.

Minnesota is like other States in the Union. We have members of our National Guard who have deployed, and deployed again in some cases. We have 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard serving in Iraq now as members of the Red Bulls, and we are so proud of them and looking forward to them coming back this summer. The sooner the better.

That is an issue that has been mentioned by Members on both sides of the aisle that there have been mistakes made, and there certainly have. One of the early mistakes was not building up the size of the active forces and relying so heavily on these men and women in the reserve component, the reserves that the gentleman from Tennessee mentioned, and the members of the National Guard from all over having to go, having to leave their civilian jobs and leave their families and go and serve, and they do so willingly and bravely and well. And then they come back and have to resume their civilian lives, and we have to do a better job of reintegrating them in this body. We need to not let up.

But I want to thank you, Mr. Wamp, for coming down here and helping us understand what it is that we are fighting. You put it so well.

I know the gentleman remembers way back when the 9/11 Commission came out, and in that report they said we are fighting Islamist extremists. They didn't say we were just fighting al Qaeda. Certainly we are fighting al Qaeda. And it seems so long ago now,

and as you pointed out, it is even clearer now that this enemy that we are fighting is very, very determined. It is the jihadists in that moment that are at the core of this, and they are not going to quit.

America's a great country, greatest in the world with great people. But we're an impatient people, and it's difficult; no, it is impossible for us to understand what's in the minds of people who are not only willing but apparently eager to strap bombs to children and blow them up and kill innocent, innocent men, women, and children in the name of their cause and reestablishing that sharia law and that caliphate and then moving on to the world.

And so like you, I am just grateful for the men and women in uniform and for all they have done and for their leaders. And before we wrap up here this evening, I want to mention briefly some of the other leaders that we don't sometimes talk so much about, but they are part of this fight, and they're an integral part.

We just got a new commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, a new leader, will bring new ideas and a new face. We've been ably led in the past, but it's important sometimes that we get a change of face and a new idea, get a new team sometimes. And Admiral Fallon is bringing some new insights into this fight.

He was a naval aviator, a graduate of Villanova University in 1967, came through the Naval ROTC program, as I did. I have a lot of good things to say about the service academies. I think they do a terrific job, but there is no question that we get fine officers, men and women, who come through our other commissioning programs like the Naval ROTC program.

Admiral Fallon served as an aviator in Vietnam, has had a very distinguished career. He is going on now to take overall command of everything in Central Command which, of course, includes all of Iraq and the surrounding countries, and we're glad to have him.

General David Petraeus has been mentioned this evening, a really fine officer, graduate of the West Point Military Academy, has a Ph.D., very distinguished career. I've had the pleasure of sitting and talking with General Petraeus on two previous trips to Iraq. He was the commander of the 101st Airborne Division and Operation Iraqi Freedom One, and when I went over there, my first trip to Iraq, he was the commanding general up in Mosul. I had a chance to go and talk to him, and I was impressed then with his intelligence and his determination and his leadership.

What a fine job the 101st did, not only in winning the initial combat but in starting to establish some local government and progress amongst the people of Mosul. And I thought at the time, what a fine officer, and all my colleagues who traveled over there, Republicans and Democrats, came back with glowing reports of General David Petraeus.

It was later my son became a member of the 101st under a different commander and has gone to Iraq and served for a year and come back and served well, and General Petraeus left that division in good shape.

General Petraeus went back to Iraq and served as the man in charge of training the Iraqi security forces, and so he was able to see firsthand what the difficulties were and what we needed to do there. And then he went on to become probably the Nation's foremost authority in unconventional warfare, ideally suited to his job. And so when the President nominated him to be the senior American commander in Iraq, he was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate.

And under him is Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, another fine officer with previous service in Iraq and a graduate of the United States Military Academy. All of these officers, too many awards and decorations to name.

My point this evening is that we are ably led by fine men who hew to an ethic of, as General Douglas MacArthur said, ``Duty, Honor, Country,'' but the core values seen at the Naval Academy and the United States Marine Corps of honor, courage, commitment, all of these men exemplify those core values, and they provide firm, steady, well- informed leadership to the men and women who serve us so well in all the corners of the world. And they're doing a good job.

I just want to share with you a couple of quotes that I've got here about things that are going on in Iraq. Goodness knows we see plenty of bad news, and there is certainly some to share. And every time there's an explosion and our soldiers are killed or wounded, it pains us deeply. And when civilians are killed, it's a tragedy. But we're fighting against an enemy that is fierce and determined, as my colleague Mr. Wamp from Tennessee outlined so well.

This is a tough enemy and we need tough soldiers to fight them, and all of us recognize that you cannot win this only militarily, that you need economics and you need politics and you need diplomacy. And I would say that these leaders that we've talked about tonight, Admiral Fallon, General Petraeus, General Odierno and certainly the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, understand that very well. But they're attending to the first order of business first. They want to make sure that our men and women are well-led. They're fighting to win. We in this body, my colleagues, need to make sure that we're giving them every chance to win.

And I just notice some quotes that have just been in the news in the last couple of days. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker says, ``It is noteworthy that violence is down in the two areas where the surge is focused, Anbar and Baghdad.''

And our friend from the other side of the Capitol, Senator Joe Lieberman says, ``Our troops have succeeded in improving security conditions in precisely those parts of Iraq where the surge has focused.''

We can't win it all in a day. It's going to be a long fight. The men and women serving and fighting understand this. We need to understand this and make sure that we are, in fact, being true to ourselves and true to them.

I want to share just a brief story about the fine leadership that we have, not just these men that we've talked about tonight, but the fine young men and women who are stepping up to lead our Armed Forces today.

One of the great things we get to do as Members of Congress is nominate these fine young students to go forward to the academy. We're always thrilled when one is selected to go, and the joy that they have and the pride that their families feel is certainly moving.

In my first year here as a Member of this body, my niece graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Vicky and I went up for several days of ceremonies and to share with my sister and brother-in- law and nieces their joy and pride in my niece's accomplishment.

She, by the way, now Captain Stroecker, is serving in the United States Army. She served a year over in Kuwait. She served in Germany, and she's the kind of officer that makes us proud.

But while we were there at West Point, we were surrounded by these young cadets, some of them just getting ready to be commissioned. And we were there when the second lieutenants' bars were pinned on, but I remember sitting with Vicky in the audience and witnessing a ceremony that I found to be very moving. It was a very impressive thing to watch.

This is a ceremony where the graduating class turns over command, turns over command to the brigade, to the rising seniors, the juniors rising to be seniors, and you see the long gray line march out in that ceremony. Movies are made about the long gray line, stories written, and it's moving to watch it, and they march out, and they pass command from one class to the next.

And I remember thinking as that ceremony was going on and looking at those fine, fine young men and women, I remember thinking, no wonder, no wonder that the United States has the finest Armed Forces in the world and no wonder that we're the best we've ever been, with all apologies to the Greatest Generation, my father's generation, an Army World War II veteran, but today's Army and today's Marine Corps and Navy and Air Force and Coast Guard are the best they have ever been, all volunteer, all eager, all determined. They understand that enemy that my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee, was describing. They know that what they're doing is

important, that without their success we are in great danger.

But as you look at those fine young men and women and when you are there, when they move on to become second lieutenants, you just can't help but notice that that's the reason why our men and women in uniform today are led by very, very fine leaders.

Well, I see that we're nearing the end of the time for this Special Order. I'm sure there is more to be said about the fine men and women who are leading our military, and that's what we were about this evening, to talk a little bit about the conflict we're involved in, the importance of that leadership and the people who are leading and certainly to talk about General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Pete, I think it was my colleague, Robin Hayes, who said, we love you, and we thank you, and we wish you all the best. And I know that sometimes you thought about these words, I certainly have over the years, President Ronald Reagan said way back in 1985; he said, some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world, but the Marines don't have that problem. And Pete Pace has never had that problem. He has been a great leader. He is a great leader. We're looking forward to his leadership in the closing months of his tour as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We thank him for everything that he has done, that he is doing and that he is going to do.

Offered By: Mr. Kline of Minnesota

Amendment No. 19: Page 18, line 10, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $142,000,000)''.

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

I want to commend my colleagues for their activities over the last day. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have come to the floor and offered amendments, in some cases, to do something, perhaps small but something to try to control the explosion of spending that we're seeing come forward through this budget and through this appropriations process. And so I want to commend my colleagues from North Carolina, Mr. McHenry, whose amendment we are debating now, which is a secondary amendment to our colleague, Ms. Foxx from North Carolina. I know it's a little confusing sometimes. These are efforts to try to control runaway spending, billions and billions of dollars, to be paid for, as we have heard in this debate, by the largest tax increase in American history. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues to try to do something to get our arms around that spending.

But there is another reason why we have been coming to the floor, and that is to shed some light into a horribly flawed process of earmarks. One of our colleagues, the gentleman from New York, I believe, earlier came down and said, ``Why are we talking about earmarks? There aren't any earmarks in this bill.'' Well, you see, that's the point. We don't know if there are earmarks in this bill. We don't know if there will be earmarks in this bill, but frankly the suspicion that we have is that sometime in July, or perhaps August, we will find out that indeed there are going to be earmarks in this bill and we, Members of this House, are not going to have a chance to challenge those earmarks on this floor, and that is simply unacceptable.

Now, there has been a great deal of media interest to bring focus to this. In fact, in this morning's paper, a local paper here, Roll Call, there is an editorial called Pork Rules that ought to underscore the very problem. I am just going to quote a couple of paragraphs from that story, because I think it does underscore the very issue that we're talking about on the floor of this House.

It says:

``Under furious attack from editorial writers and Republicans, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) has come up with a new disclosure policy on earmarks. It's better than his previous one, the airdrop policy, but it's a far cry from full transparency.'' It's that transparency issue that we've been trying to get at.

Continuing the quote:

``In a remarkable press conference Monday in which he read nearly every word of a 14-page earmark policy declaration before taking questions, Obey pledged that Democrats would fully disclose every earmark and its sponsor by the end of July.''

I would say to my colleagues, that is well past the proposed date that we are supposed to be voting on this and every appropriations bill in this House. So we will know every earmark and its sponsor by the end of July, at which point we can do absolutely nothing about it.

Continuing the quote:

``That kind of disclosure would be only partially in keeping with the earmark rules Republicans put into place in September, after they got into no end of political trouble for corrupt, opaque special-interest pork trading. But the GOP rule made it possible for earmarks to be individually challenged in debate on appropriations bills.'' And that's the point.

We heard the debate last night repeatedly that went something like this: Well, you Republicans put in earmarks, thousands of earmarks, and you airdropped earmarks into bills in conference, and so you did it, we're going to do it. But we're going to do it better because we're going to post a list sometime in July or August, at which time nobody will be able to vote on it.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, the earmark process in this body, in this Congress, on both sides of this Capitol, has been broken for years. There is no question about it. There is a reason why many of us have decided that the process is so broken that we won't participate in it. So claiming that you were bad and, therefore, we can do it,

strikes me as a very hollow and weak argument. I hope my colleagues would agree with me on that. Just because somebody made a mistake doesn't mean that we are then authorized to make a mistake. We are seeking transparency. That was the promise made to us and the American people, that we would be able to look at these earmarks and be able to debate them on this floor and be able to vote on them on this floor, not have them given to us, pulled from what has been called a secret slush fund. Frankly, I don't know what else to call it. Because in this very bill that we are debating today, we simply don't know where that money is and where it's going.

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

Mr. Chairman, this has been a fascinating debate. I have heard, unfortunately, some language that I certainly find offensive, that we are dishonoring, for example, those who have died in this country. I certainly don't believe that is the case. I don't understand how our insistence on making sure that we are appropriating the taxpayers' dollars responsibly dishonors anyone.

Repeatedly I have heard that in this bill there are no earmarks. Again, I would reiterate, that is the point. We simply don't know if that is the case. The gentleman from Texas just stood down here and said he has requests for two earmarks in this bill. I don't know how many earmarks will end up at the end of the process, and, frankly, none of us do, because there is no transparency and we do not have visibility into this very, very flawed system for Members' projects for earmarks.

Mr. Chairman, I know that my dear friend and colleague from North Carolina would like the opportunity to talk about his amendment and this process once again, so I would be happy to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Madam Chair, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the committee members and Chairmen Skelton and Snyder for their support of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program in this year's Defense authorization bill in the en bloc amendment. Inclusion of this program in the bill will move us forward as we seek to fill a gap that has only widened as our Nation has come to rely increasingly on the National Guard and Reserves to assist in combat operations.

Based upon his experiences as a returning Vietnam War veteran, Minnesota National Guard Adjutant General Larry Shellito took the lead to build a reintegration program for returning Guardsmen who lack the established support infrastructure of their active duty counterparts. General Shellito and the Minnesota National Guard leadership have developed an innovative program to change how returning soldiers and airmen are reintegrated back into their communities.

Through experiences drawn from the deployments of smaller units to Iraq and Afghanistan and Kosovo, they developed a unique combat veteran reintegration program with a focus on supporting soldiers and their families throughout the entire deployment cycle. This multifaceted program includes workshops for families and communities to help them for their servicemember's return and training events at 30, 60 and 90- day intervals for servicemembers following their demobilization.

The training events have given Guardsmen and Reservists the opportunity to engage VA and health care representatives, while also allowing platoon sergeants and commanders to check in with their troops. Experience has shown that catching signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or even marital problems early can prevent even more severe problems in the future.

I believe the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program represents the best ideas of not only Minnesota but also States and territories throughout the Nation that have stepped in to provide reintegration services to their troops.

As envisioned, the Yellow Ribbon program included members of the other Reserve components in only a voluntary, unpaid status due to financial constraints. So I would like to thank Chairmen Skelton and Snyder for their support in finding the additional funding necessary to expand this program beyond the National Guard to all Reservists.

Let me just close by saying that this program has the support of Lieutenant General Blum, the chief of the National Guard Bureau and many other organizations, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the Naval Reserve Association, the Noncommissioned Officers Association, and the Retired Enlisted Association. I will submit those letters for the Record.

Again, I would like to thank Chairmen Skelton and Snyder for their hard work in making this possible.

Departments of the Army

and the Air Force,

Arlington, VA, May 4, 2007.

Hon. John Kline,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Kline: As you describe in your letter, the

Minnesota National Guard's ``Beyond the Yellow Ribbon

Reintegration'' program does a great job filling the gap in

transition assistance services experienced by all Reserve

Component members returning from a combat deployment. I

consistently hear from Adjutants General, our troops and

their families that the current transition program conducted

at the active component demobilization station doesn't well

serve the needs of the National Guard and the other Reserve

components.

We see, for example, that many DD Form 214, Certificate of

Release or Discharge from Active Duty, prepared at the active

duty demobilization station contain significant errors and

require correction at the home station. As you know from your

own military experience, the DD 214 is an essential ticket to

access veteran's benefits. The time required to correct these

forms is a burden on our veterans. Like the rest of the

transition assistance program of health care, education, VA

and employment counseling, Minnesota, among other states, has

demonstrated that it can be provided better at the home

station.

Several states participated in a National Guard-wide

working group convened last fall to capture the best

practices nationwide. The recommendations of that working

group echo the results of previous twenty-four months of DoD

working groups in which my staff has participated. We have

just begun another DoD working group, this one chartered by

Congress on the subject of Guard and Reserve transition to

civilian employment. That report is due to Congress in

October 2007. There are several very effective programs in

our States to model--the solution set to this issue is well

defined. The National Guard Bureau has well documented

lessons learned from studying this issue. The need for more

time to accomplish transition assistance at the home station

is clear.

Providing a better transition and reintegration experience

for our Guardsmen is a top priority for me and Lieutenant

General Clyde Vaughn, the director of the Army National

Guard. There are currently 37,000 Guardsmen deployed to fight

the war on terror. It's expected that another 60,000 will

deploy within the next 18 months. Almost a full third of the

National Guard and their families will require transition

assistance in the near term. A national program, implemented

swiftly, would arrive just in time for them. I salute and

appreciate your continuing interest in the welfare of our

National Guardsmen.

Sincerely,

H. Steven Blum,

Lieutenant General, U.S. Army,

Chief, National Guard Bureau.

Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for the purposes of making a motion.

motion to rise offered by mr. buyer

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Madam Chair, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Yes, I yield for purposes of the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times this evening and for the last days and weeks and months, indeed for years, we have Americans in harm's way in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the Horn of Africa. Around the world, these Americans need our help, and they deserve our help.

It has been over 3 months since the President sent to us his request for emergency supplemental funding for our troops. It is time for us to stop playing politics and step up and do our part. We need to appropriate all of the funds our troops need, and we need to do it now.

The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee said this afternoon that our young men and women are entitled to have the funding that they need. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not give them the funding that they need. It has been made very clear that the President will veto this legislation, and I believe that he should. He showed us that he would veto legislation that shackled our generals and made it impossible for our troops to do the job. This piecemeal approach, the 60-day funding, is unacceptable.

We have men and women not only in harm's way, but men and women here who are already starting to feel the pain of the restriction in funds. Secretary Gates said they are shifting funds now. It is not fair for our young men and women to serve overseas and come back here and not have what they need even here in the States. We need to move forward on legislation that genuinely funds the troops and allows us a chance for success.

I would like to close with just a couple of comments. General Petraeus said to his troops when he took over that the way there was going to be hard, but hard was not hopeless. As I said on this floor weeks ago, this legislation makes hard hopeless. In fact, this legislation is hopeless because it will not become law. We need to step up and take care of these troops.

Madam Speaker, House Republicans believe that our commanders on the ground in Iraq deserve to have the resources and flexibility they need to lead our troops in harm's way during this critical phase of their mission.

On the other hand, Washington Democrats would rather use our troops to make a political statement than work in a bipartisan fashion to get our brave men and women in uniform the funding they need to succeed in their mission.

I thought the San Diego Union Tribune made a good point in an editorial stating: ``And even though this sham bill is merely a political show, the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate managed to lard it up in nearly $25 billion in wasteful pork, most of it entirely unrelated to war funding.''

It's time the Democratic leadership send the President a clean supplemental. It is simply unacceptable for Democrat leaders to restrict the necessary funds our troops need so political points can be scored with their defeatist base.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for her thoughtfulness and leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor.

I rise in strong support of H. Res. 305. Mr. Speaker, next week will mark the 27th anniversary of Operation Eagle Claw, better known to most Americans as ``Desert One,'' which the distinguished chairman mentioned moments ago.

On April 24, 1980, a task force consisting of Army special forces, Army Rangers, Air Force special operations wing personnel and the Navy, Marines and Air Force succeeded in moving thousands of miles, undetected, until reaching a remote location in the Iranian desert 200 miles from Tehran in an effort to rescue the American hostages being held at the American Embassy.

A combination of helicopters and C-130 aircraft rendezvoused with the intention of rescuing these hostages in Tehran the following evening. Due to mechanical failures and weather problems, only six out of eight helicopters successfully arrived at the Desert One rendezvous. Once the six helicopters arrived, the rescue attempt was dealt a final blow when it was learned that one of the helicopters had lost its primary hydraulic system.

As the various aircraft began moving into position to return to their respective launching points, one of the helicopters, flown by one of my very best friends, collided with a C-130 aircraft on the ground. Flames engulfed the helicopter and the C-130, which resulted in the death of five airmen and three marines.

During my 25 years in the Marine Corps, I had the good fortune to know many of the heroes of that day, and I did, in fact, count many of them as my best friends. These brave men were asked, and all proudly volunteered, to undertake the challenge of rescuing their fellow Americans in a mission of the utmost secrecy and gravest danger.

Members from all branches of our armed services came together, bringing with them the best of skills and experience, but it was not enough to do the job. In the end, inadequate equipment, tremendous dust storms, extraordinary logistical challenges contributed to the mission's failure. But these circumstances in no way diminished the skill and bravery of the men who took on this hazardous mission against all odds.

Out of the ashes of Operation Eagle Claw arose the organization that we honor today. In 1986, Congress established a new unified command for special operations forces, designated as the U.S. Special Operations Command. And today we gratefully honor the 20th anniversary of SOCOM's founding and the men and women who fill its ranks.

Like their predecessors, the men and women that comprise today's special operations forces have accepted the challenge of tackling some of the most difficult and dangerous missions assigned to our military. As we have witnessed in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines and in many other locations across the globe, they have handled these missions with honor and skillful professionalism.

To those who perished in Operation Eagle Claw and the many SOCOM missions since then, we offer our sincere appreciation. And to those who carry on their noble mission, we pledge our Nation's support.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses the situation that we are facing on the ground overseas and at home. The United States Marine Corps is suffering a little over 30 percent of the combat casualties. My amendment makes sure that they and their program, in support of this very important bill, gets 20 percent of the money allocated in the fund established in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, on October 7, 2004, Marine Lieutenant Colonel Tim Maxwell's life changed forever. While on his third tour in Iraq, an enemy mortar attack left him with a battered body and severe brain trauma. But Colonel Maxwell is a marine, and despite the frustration of relearning how to walk and read, he has refused to give in to his wounds. In an open letter posted on his Web site, Colonel Maxwell talks about what it is like to be a wounded warrior:

``We tend not to complain about our injuries too much. Most of us know others who are worse off--a guy with a bad leg knows a guy who lost a leg, or both legs. I, with a brain that is `cracked,' know youngsters with brain injuries who are unable to walk or talk. We all know some who died. So it is not a good thing to complain. We are tough guys. We are all going to whip it.''

Having experienced loneliness, frustration, and depression during his recovery, Tim Maxwell set out to ensure that fellow wounded marines would have a place to recover with others like them. He said: ``When you're in the hospital, your morale is okay. You are with other wounded warriors. You can chat about it. Sometimes we just look at each other in the hallway and nod. That's all. Acknowledgment. But once you are out of the hospital, it's tough. It sounds great on the day you leave. But there's irritation, frustration.''

In May, 2005, Colonel Maxwell came across a 20-year-old wounded marine sitting alone inside a Camp Lejeune barracks. The young man couldn't use his arm and was lonely and lost, having seen his buddy killed in combat and with his family living far away in Florida. Colonel Maxwell decided that ``no marine was going to be left alone like that.''

So along with Gunnery Sergeant Ken Barnes, he convinced the Marine Corps leadership that wounded marines needed their own barracks to help them heal among other wounded warriors. The Marine Corps leadership agreed, and in September 2005, Camp Lejeune opened the first barracks for wounded marines. The following month the barracks was dedicated to the man whose vision led to today's Wounded Warrior Battalion: Lieutenant Colonel Tim Maxwell.

Maxwell Hall at Camp Lejeune now houses 80 marines and provides them with the support structure necessary to heal. A similar barracks has also been established at Camp Pendleton, California, to care for west coast marines. The program has been so successful

that the concept was formalized by establishing the Wounded Warrior Battalions at Lejeune and Pendleton.

Simply put, Colonel Maxwell's vision of Wounded Warrior Battalions seeks to ensure that marines don't fall through the cracks that were so evident at Walter Reed. This amendment will help ensure this unique program succeeds and acts as a model for other services by assisting the Marine Corps transition this successful program from independent battalions on each coast into a single regiment with a headquarters located at Quantico.

The regiment's 54 staff members will help oversee the battalions at Pendleton and Lejeune, track active duty and discharged wounded marines through their recovery, and connect them with resources at the VA, other government agencies, and through private organizations. The battalions will continue to handle the day-to-day tasks of ensuring that marines are scheduled for medical appointments, that they are transported to those appointments, and that they receive counseling support to help heal their mental scars.

Earlier this week, I spoke with the newly appointed Wounded Warrior Regimental commander, Colonel Gregory Boyle. After the conversation I was even more convinced that the Wounded Warrior Regiment is the model for how to treat our wounded servicemembers. Colonel Boyle is motivated and ready to go forward. He came from infantry regimental command. Passage of this amendment will ensure he is able to do so.

I appreciate the opportunity to bring this amendment to the floor, and I very much appreciate the support of Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter.

I will be happy to yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I would be happy to yield.

I thank the chairman.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened and, frankly, appalled that today in this House of Representatives we are debating a bill to put ``retreat and defeat'' into law at a time when we have our young men and women engaged in combat. There are many things, Mr. Speaker, which affect the morale of men and women in uniform and men and women in combat, but putting into law mandating their defeat is certainly one of them.

Mr. Speaker, on February 10, 2007, General Petraeus addressed the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and civilians under his command in a short letter. In that letter, General Petraeus explained quite clearly that ``the way ahead will not be easy. There will be difficult times in the months to come. But hard is not hopeless, and we must remain steadfast to help improve security for the Iraqi people.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill makes hard hopeless.

As a 25-year veteran of the Marine Corps and the father of a soldier recently returned from Iraq, it is with great hardship that I now oppose this emergency supplemental. This supplemental does not support our military; it undermines the best opportunity to prevent the dire predictions of our Intelligence Community when they put out that NIE saying that this course of action which will be driven by this bill will increase sectarian violence, cause massive civilian casualties, create a terror safe haven and a potential for wider conflict that would draw in other regional powers.

Again, General Petraeus said, in talking to his soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, ``Success will require discipline, fortitude and initiative, qualities that you have in abundance.'' Would that we have more of that here.

February 10, 2007.

To the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Civilians of

Multi-National Force--Iraq:

We serve in Iraq at a critical time. The war here will soon

enter its fifth year. A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder-

to-shoulder with our Iraqi comrades, we will conduct a

pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people.

The stakes could not be higher.

Our task is crucial. Security is essential for Iraq to

build its future. Only with security can the Iraqi government

come to grips with the tough issues it confronts and develop

the capacity to serve its citizens. The hopes of the Iraqi

people and the coalition countries are with us.

The enemies of Iraq will shrink at no act, however

barbaric. They will do all that they can to shake the

confidence of the people and to convince the world that this

effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them.

Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who

oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold

the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our

Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our

enemies. And together we must prevail.

The way ahead will not be easy. There will be difficult

times in the months to come. But hard is not hopeless, and we

must remain steadfast in our effort to help improve security

for the Iraqi people. I am confident that each of you will

fight with skill and courage, and that you will remain loyal

to your comrades-in-arms and to the values our nations hold

so dear.

In the end, Iraqis will decide the outcome of this

struggle. Our task is to help them gain the time they need to

save their country. To do that, many of us will live and

fight alongside them. Together, we will face down the

terrorists, insurgents, and criminals who slaughter the

innocent. Success will require discipline, fortitude, and

initiative--qualities that you have in abundance.

I appreciate your sacrifices and those of your families.

Now, more than ever, your commitment to service and your

skill can make the difference between victory and defeat in a

very tough mission.

It is an honor to soldier again with the members of the

Multi-National Force--Iraq. I know that wherever you serve in

this undertaking you will give your all. In turn, I pledge my

commitment to our mission and every effort to achieve success

as we help the Iraqis chart a course to a brighter future.

Godspeed to each of you and to our Iraqi comrades in this

crucial endeavor.

David H. Petraeus,

General, United States Army Commanding.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 327, the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act.

I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Iowa, for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. This bill bears the name of a constituent of Mr. Boswell's, Joshua Omvig, who tragically took his life.

I wish that I could stand here today and say that Joshua was the last soldier, sailor, airman, or marine to fall through the cracks, the last young life to end prematurely because the system was unwilling or unable to assist them. But if that were true, the gentleman would not have had to introduce this bill, and we would not be here today discussing it.

In January of this year, this tragedy repeated itself when Jonathan Schulze, a young marine from my district who had served honorably in Iraq, took his life after seeking assistance from two VA medical facilities in Minnesota. The loss of such a promising young life has sparked both sadness and outrage throughout Minnesota and the Nation; outrage not only at the loss of a young life, but because the VA system in which he was enrolled had apparently and tragically failed him.

In the months since Jonathan's unnecessary death, the VA has launched two investigations to find out why this marine did not receive the care he so desperately needed. An initial medical inspector's investigation was inconclusive, but it is my sincere hope that the ongoing VA Inspector General's investigation will fully explain the circumstances that led to his death.

Along with the full accounting of the VA's action in Jonathan Schulze's case, I am hopeful the passage of this bill today will provide the professionals of the VA medical system with the tools necessary to prevent the tragic deaths of young veterans like Joshua and Jonathan.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Iowa for introducing this vital legislation. I urge my colleagues, all of them, to support H.R. 327.

I thank Dr. Price for yielding and for really exerting the leadership to take the floor week after week and shine the light of truth on a lot of the obfuscation which, unfortunately, takes place on this floor and in this House.

We had the opportunity to chat a little bit today about the Democrat Party's plan here in the upcoming weeks with the supplemental funding and, in general, their plans for the war against Islamist extremists, the war, if you will, which is being certainly heavily fought in Iraq. And they do kind of have a plan. Their plan is not a plan for victory, however, and that is what I think we need to keep in mind. Their plan simply says: get out; get out of Iraq. And that is not a plan for victory.

There is a very interesting headline; perhaps you had a chance to talk about it before I made it down to the floor. In the Los Angeles Times editorial, it starts with a little headline that says: ``Do we really need a General Pelosi?'' I will quote: ``Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landing, or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.'' The Los Angeles Times, not the place I would normally go to find criticism of the Democrat majority.

Well, I think that you and I would certainly concur that we don't need a General Pelosi. But we do have a general. We have a new general on the ground in Iraq, General David Petraeus, named by the Commander in Chief to execute this new strategy in Iraq, and confirmed, by the way, with no dissenting votes in the United States Senate.

Let me just go through a few quotes that the new commander has shared with us in the last couple of months. This is General David Petraeus, the commander of multi-national forces in Iraq, senior commander on the ground. In looking at what would happen if we precipitously withdrew from Iraq, he said, a number of other potential outcomes, none of which are positive, could occur: ``Sectarian groups would obviously begin to stake out their turf, try to expand their turf. They would do that by greatly increased ethnic cleansing.''

On another occasion he said: ``The very real possibility of involvement of countries from elsewhere in the region around Iraq entering Iraq to take sides with one or the other groups.''

A new quote: ``The possibility of an international terrorist organization truly getting a grip on some substantial piece of Iraq.''

New quote: ``There is the possibility of problems in the global economy, should in fact this cause a disruption to the flow of oil,'' and so forth.

We have a general on the ground, I would say to my colleagues, and it is General David Petraeus, and it should not be either General Pelosi or, for that matter, anybody else in this body. We cannot, we cannot prosecute foreign policy at all and certainly a military operation with 535, or maybe it is 540 with the delegates voting, different Commanders in Chief. You cannot run an operation like this by committee. And I think it would behoove us, certainly as Members of this body, but as American people, to go with the Constitution, recognize that the Commander in Chief is in fact elected by the Nation to be that, and to abide by one of the fundamental principles of military operations, and that is unity of command. That is now being exercised by the Commander in Chief overall, and by General David Petraeus in Iraq.

Yes. And I am smiling a little bit, but of course we learned a very tough and bitter lesson when we tried to use the Continental Congress to, in fact, command the Army of the soon-to- be the United States and it did not work well. We would be foolish to try to duplicate that now. And, in fact, the proposed

supplemental, which we can talk about in a little more detail perhaps a little later in this hour, is an attempt to dictate the tactics that are being involved. It is micromanaging the war. It is taking away the resources that our troops need.

I wonder if I could take just a minute of our time here. I know that I have been a big supporter and I am sure you have of a bill sponsored by our colleague, a real American hero, Congressman Sam Johnson from Texas, who, as my colleagues know, spent 7 years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi and understands the stakes here as well as I am sure anybody in America. He has a bill that this entire body ought to get behind. It cuts to the heart of the matter and reassures our troops, our allies, and our enemies that we are not going to undercut our troops. So if I could just read a little bit of that bill because I think that that is what we should be about. I will skip a couple of paragraphs, all of which are important, talking about previous acts and resolutions of Congress, but picking up on subparagraph (4), it says: ``Members of the United States Armed Forces have served honorably in their mission to fight terrorism and protect the greater security of the United States.

``These members of the Armed Forces and their families have made many sacrifices, in many cases the ultimate sacrifice, to protect the security of the United States and the freedom Americans hold dear.

``Congress and the American people are forever grateful to the members of the Armed Forces for the service they have provided to the United States.''

In that light it says: ``Faithful support of Congress--Congress will not cut off or restrict funding for units and members of the Armed Forces that the Commander in Chief has deployed in harm's way in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.''

And that is the road that we ought to be going forward on. I would hope that more and more of our colleagues would sign onto this bill and that this really awful effort to take central funding away from our men and women who are, as we stand here now on this floor, engaged in protecting our freedoms and advancing the cause of liberty around the world, to keep that funding from being taken away from them.

I have talked to Sam many times. He and I are a part of an ever- dwindling group of Vietnam veterans in this body, and he and I and others have watched what happens when our young men and women go fight and give it their all and have the rug pulled out from under them by politicians in Washington, D.C.

We watched what happens when combat operations are run from Washington, D.C., and it doesn't matter whether it is being run from the White House situation room, as bombing targets were selected sort of famously by President Johnson, or whether it is dictating from the floor of this House. We should not let that happen. And since this is the Official Truth Squad, I think that our colleagues need to understand that that is at the core of what this very dangerous supplemental bill has added. It is a terrible micromanaging of the war, and it will be forcing, forcing, our defeat in Iraq. And, unfortunately, with that defeat the war doesn't just end. We are still in a war that is going to last a long time against radical Islam, against jihadists. Were we to suffer defeat in Iraq, the war becomes tougher for us, not easier.

And I see we are joined by some of our colleagues.

If the gentleman will yield, we forget and time slips by that following that disastrous day, not some people were killed, but millions died. Again, we have forgotten the boats, the ships, with hundreds and thousands of Vietnamese scrambling to stay on board, leaky boats, rafts, as they tried to escape the horror that followed that day. A movie was made called ``The Killing Fields'' that depicted quite graphically the humanitarian disaster that followed that withdrawal.

I think that that scenario of a humanitarian disaster has been painted for us by a number of true experts in the field, even those who have been harshly critical of the administration's conduct of this war. The recognition that you could have that kind of bloodbath is widely seen, except perhaps by the House leadership, who has, as we said earlier, a plan for defeat in Iraq, which I am afraid would in fact lead to that kind of disaster.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. That is exactly the point.

You had a chart up earlier that said something about you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. We seem to be very selective. We have heard a lot of very selective fact-choosing recently.

I remember in the debate we had on the floor of this body a couple of weeks ago, there were people who said consistently that the President's troop surge was in violation of the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group. We know for a fact that is not true, that on page 73 the Iraq Study Group agreed that a surge would be appropriate if it was requested by the commander on the ground, and we have covered in this Special Order the fact that the commander on the ground, General David Petraeus, has in fact said that he needs those troops, and it will be for a temporary basis.

If I can take one more minute, because I know our colleagues have joined us and others want to speak on this critical issue, we do have some details of the Democrat supplemental so far that I have been looking at and trying to figure out. It is just a barrage of demands on the administration for reports and certifications which will make this unworkable for the Commander in Chief. It is in fact micromanagement.

There is by July 1, 2007, the President has to report on a whole series of things. By October 1, 2007, he has to have another report verifying the report from July 1. In either case, if that doesn't satisfy the majority in the Congress, we have to start withdrawing troops within 180 days. If none of that applies and nothing else pertains by March 1, that is less than a year away, we have to begin deployment and redeployment. We have to leave; we have to retreat from Iraq within 180 days. This indeed details a plan for defeat.

I don't know yet exactly all it is going to say, but one of the things that is in this bill would require that no Federal funds could be used to send any military unit to Iraq ``unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified in writing at least 15 days in advance as to the readiness of this unit.'' I don't know, but if you are in the 82nd Airborne, within 15 days you are already long since on the ground and in combat.

It is horrible micromanaging. As I said in my opening remarks joining you here on the floor, I agree with the L.A. Times, and I don't get to say that very often, so perhaps I should say it again: I agree with the L.A. Times that we don't need a General Pelosi or a General Murtha, or for that matter a General Price or a General Kline. We have a general on the ground, and we ought to be doing everything in our power to make sure that he and our young men and women have everything they need to succeed.

I know that all of us worry about our sons and daughters that we send over there, we as a body. I certainly worry. My son has been over and back and is planning to deploy again to Afghanistan. I worry about my son and about all sons and daughters. But I absolutely do not want to be part of sending our sons and daughters into conflict knowing that all we have is a plan for them to fail. That, in my mind, and I think in many of their minds, is a betrayal.

I had some of the $21 billion of extra spending here, but I know that we have other colleagues that are joining us, and for that I thank you again for your leadership and yield back.

Mr. Price of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota again for his participation here and great perspective and for outlining truly what the majority party has done, and that is outlined their plan for failure. This is not a plan for victory. It is not even a plan for the defense of the United States. It is a plan for failure.

I think it is important that as we bring truth and light to this discussion and this debate that the American people appreciate that.

It is not by any grand fabrication that we come up with this Commander in Chief notion, it comes out of the Constitution of the United States. Article II, Section 2, for those who are interested in looking it up for themselves, says the President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the militia of several States when called into actual service of the United States.

It doesn't say as long as the Speaker of the House says it is okay. It says that the President shall be the Commander in Chief. So if the majority leadership in this House wants to have a debate about whether or not we ought to fund the military challenges that we have around the world, including in Iraq, let us have that debate and let's have that vote. But let's not go through a micromanagement and a slow-bleed process which would be the death knell of our military accomplishments in the Middle East and in Iraq.

With that, I am pleased to have join us the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis). I welcome you and look forward to your comments.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to add my voice to those deeply disappointed by conditions found at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The physical infrastructure and administrative problems revealed are absolutely inexcusable. As a Nation and as a military, we have a responsibility to provide both top-quality acute care and top- quality outpatient treatment.

The fine doctors and nurses in Iraq; at Landstuhl, Germany; and at Walter Reed provide excellent medical care that has saved countless lives. But it is clear that a lack of leadership and administrative initiative at the top created these shameful conditions.

The American military has historically entrusted the ultimate responsibility and accountability to those in command. I was pleased that the Army leadership followed that proud tradition, and I am hopeful that Walter

Reed's new commander, Major General Eric R. Schoomaker, will rebuild trust in the Army's medical service. I am also hopeful that a number of corrective actions announced last week by Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker will help ensure each soldier receives the care which he or she deserves and that no one, no one, falls through the cracks.