Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, and the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, Mr. Johnson.

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

Madam Chairwoman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Madam Chairwoman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Madam Chairwoman, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Madam Chairwoman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds only to point out in response to the gentleman pointing out that when we vote it is displayed on the board, I would remind the gentleman that when we vote it is on behalf of some 700,000 people who have a right to see how we voted. That is different in this case.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Madam Chairwoman, in the interest of balancing time, I reserve my time.

I continue to reserve.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Madam Chair, I reserve my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

We are doing some math here, Madam Chairman. Could you give us, again, the time remaining on each side? We have been trying to keep track of the minutes here, but I have kind of lost a little bit.

Would you like to take some of that time now?

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I could not agree more with what the distinguished majority leader just said. This is not about business versus labor. We should all be pro-worker, and I believe that this bill is anti-worker.

I agreed with the distinguished Speaker of the House who said it is about liberty and justice. I would add it is about the American way. It is about the sanctity of the private ballot, the secret ballot. It is about preserving the security of our workers, and make no mistake, despite claims to the contrary, the effect of this bill would be to eliminate the secret ballot and the process of selecting a union. Now, there is a subparagraph in there, 6(c) or something like that, but the effect of this will be to eliminate the secret ballot.

Madam Chairman, let us, today, protect the essence of democracy. Let us protect the American workers. Let us support Mr. McKeon's substitute and let us oppose this bad legislation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am now very pleased to yield the balance of our time to the ranking member on the Committee of Education and Labor, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will overlook the ``ex-Marine'' slight. Never an ex-Marine; always a Marine.

It is a tremendous honor for me today to even be on the same floor as this great American here. We heard earlier today the hardship of some of our servicemen and -women missing a holiday with their families, and I know in my 25 years in the Marines I missed a number of those. But there is nobody who has missed more holidays with his family than this great American next to me.

We have heard a lot of speeches during this so-called debate. I am not sure how much real debate there is, but certainly a lot of speeches. Some of them have been very eloquent. I think of Mr. McHugh the other night giving one of the best speeches I have ever heard on the floor of this House. Some of them have been partisan. Some of them have been shrill. Some persuasive; some not. We have heard a number of opinions expressed, and it reminds me a week or so ago we had a hearing in the Armed Services Committee and we had three experts, Ph.D.s all of them, experts in the field of international relations and military operations.

One of them, the former Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, and it turns out that at the end of the hearing, each of the three of them had a different idea about what we ought to do. None of them supported what the President had been doing. One of them sort of supported what the President was doing. But each of them had different ideas. They had an opinion, arguably an informed opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

And on this floor we have heard more opinions. We have heard people say, I don't agree with this; I think this is a bad idea; or I think this is a good idea. We have heard some people say I have a better idea; or I am a member of a caucus who has a better idea; or I propose this; or I think that. And it kind of reminds me why it is a very bad idea to conduct a war by committee. But I fully acknowledge that people are allowed to have opinions and certainly every Member of this body can have an opinion.

I remember the principal author of this resolution before us, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, stood up on the other side of the aisle here on the first day of this debate and he said, ``Everybody is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts.'' So I would just like to take a little bit of my remaining time here to talk about some of the claims and some of the facts that have been brought forward in this debate.

One of the proponents said the new plan ``ignores the recommendations of the military commanders on the ground.'' How many times have we heard that in these two days? Well, what is the truth? General Petraeus, the new commander of the multinational force in Iraq, confirmed by the Senate with no dissenting votes, said: ``If we are to carry out the multinational force-Iraq mission in accordance with the new strategy, the additional forces that have been directed to move to Iraq will be essential . . . '' He said that last month.

General Odierno, a new U.S. commander, Corps commander, says: ``This is about Iraqis taking charge of their own security. In order for them to do that, we have to buy them time to continue to train and for the government to become more legitimate to the eyes of the Iraqi people. They are doing that by moving forward. By bringing more troops in, it provides us the opportunity to work with them, to provide more time, and defeat this threat, which is both al Qaeda threat as well as sectarian violence.''

Even General Casey last month said he thought we needed more troops.

Another claim has been by one of our colleagues: ``Prime Minister al- Maliki has indicated in virtually every way he can that he too opposes the surge.'' And yet on January 13, Prime Minister Maliki said: ``The strategic plan announced by U.S. President George W. Bush represents the common vision and mutual understanding between the Iraqi Government and the U.S. Administration''?

I have more examples here, but one that we have heard over and over and over again in various forms was stated by one of our colleagues yesterday saying: ``Our President, again, is ignoring . . . members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group who opposed this escalation.''

This is the book. I commend it to every American.

I would like to quote now from my dear, dear long-time friend and hunting partner, the former Secretary of State, James A. Baker III, who said on January 30 of this year: ``This is the language and all of the language of the report with respect to a surge: `We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.' The only two conditions are `short term' and `the commander in Iraq determines it would be effective.' ''

Both of these conditions have been met.

There have been many claims of fact which I have some counterarguments with.

I would just say to all of my colleagues that I would concur with Chairman Skelton that we are entitled to our own opinion. We can certainly express it. But we are not, in fact, entitled to our own facts. So let's stick to the facts.

Mr. Speaker, of course I rise today in strong opposition to this resolution.

It occurs to me, Mr. Hunter, that I need to thank you not only for your service, but for your son's service in the Marine Corps. It is one of those little twists of those things that I served my whole life in the Marine Corps, and my son is serving in the Army. You served in the Army, and your son is serving in the Marine Corps. And I don't know if we will ever untwist this. But I thank you and him for his service.

Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this resolution will have us believe that this resolution supports and protects our military personnel while criticizing the President for changing course.

We have listened to several speakers today who, like me, served in Vietnam and witnessed firsthand the micromanagement of the war from Washington. Ironically, they stand here today endorsing the same incompetent policy of interference. Instead of President Johnson choosing bombing targets, however, we have 535 legislators dictating General Petraeus's reinforcement levels; yes, dictating his tactics. It was wrong in 1967, Mr. Speaker, and it is wrong in 2007.

I notice that the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has risen several times today to point out his belief that what the President is doing is not a change of strategy, it is a change of tactics. And I would say to my good friend, that great gentleman from Missouri, that if that is right, if this is tactics, then in fact this resolution is trying to do just that, micromanage the tactics of this war.

If congressional micromanagement were the only problem with this resolution, I would still argue vigorously for its defeat. But it is not the only problem. Understanding the purpose and intent of this resolution, its proponents have revealed their true intentions in the course of this debate. They intend for this resolution to be the first step on the path to defunding our troops, withdrawing them, and allowing Iraq to become a chaotic, ungoverned space that will act as a training ground for al Qaeda and the radical jihadists that we are at war with.

Though few in the West knew it, a new war had already begun during my days as commander of Marine aviation forces in Somalia. In the intense battle in the back alleys of Mogadishu that inspired the movie ``Blackhawk Down'' and the bombing of vulnerable U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya captured America's attention briefly, but it took an unprecedented attack on our homeland for the country to realize what Islamic extremists had long known: The United States was at war. And I think Mr. Saxton did a very thorough and eloquent job of explaining the length and nature of this war. Every country was now a potential front and every city a battlefield in the enemy's war against Zionist crusaders and nonbelievers. Whether by design or not, Iraq has become the front in not only a physical war of attrition, but in the war of wills between free societies and Islamic jihadists who seek to destroy them.

The proponents of this flawed resolution prefer to ignore reality. They believe that repeating the mistaken belief that Iraq is not a central front in the war against Islamic jihadists will make that perception real. Unfortunately for those who hold this belief, the enemy, our enemy has a say in the matter. Al Qaeda's second in command, al-Zawahiri, in December 2006, made it quite clear where al Qaeda stands. In a video posted on jihadist Web sites, al-Zawahiri sent a clear message: ``The backing of Jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq today is to back the most important battlefields in which the crusade against Islam and Muslims is in progress. And the defeat of the Crusaders there, soon, Allah permitting, will have a far-reaching effect on the future of the Muslim Ummah, Allah willing.''

We have heard repeatedly that al Qaeda and the jihadist terrorists understand that Iraq is the central front in this war against radical Islam. Thankfully, the U.S. military leadership has also recognized this fact.

In his recent testimony before the Senate, General David Petraeus was asked if he believes that Iraq affects the overall war on terror. His response was clear and unequivocal: ``I do, sir.''

Clearly, there are elements of the greater al Qaeda network of international extremists that want something very different than most Iraqis want, and want something very different in that region and in the world.

Many mistakes have been made as our military, unparalleled in conventional strength and maneuver, has changed strategy and tactics to fight the counterinsurgency battle. In response to the frustration at the lack of progress felt by those in Iraq and at home, the American military demonstrated its greatest strength: the ability to adapt to new conditions on the ground and develop new strategy.

To those who have lived and studied the art of military strategy and tactics, the plan we debate this week, developed by American commanders in Iraq and here at home, represents a fundamental shift. In a study updated last week, Anthony Cordesman from the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies, declared that, ``Much of the criticism of the new Bush approach has been unfair. The new strategy is considerably more sophisticated and comprehensive than the details the President could fit into his 20-minute address,'' or, I might add, Mr. Speaker, than I can include in this 10-minute address, ``presuming it combines political, military and economic action in ways that do offer a significant hope of success.''

But rather than acknowledge the comprehensive nature of the new Baghdad and al-Anbar security plan, opponents prefer to ignore the pleas of General Petraeus to provide him with the troops necessary to turn the security situation in Iraq's capital city around. Instead, they pat him on the back, wish him ``Godspeed'' in his endeavor, and then promptly move to deny him that which he has requested and needs to succeed. As a Vietnam veteran, I cannot in good conscience watch as Congress once again undercuts the morale of those in uniform.

I will not stand idly by and watch others resurrect the ghost of that painful conflict, and we have heard it resurrected many times this day, Mr. Speaker, without acknowledging the slaughter and humanitarian disaster that resulted from the fall of Saigon. And it was a humanitarian disaster. Millions died. Just as in 1974, decisions we make today in this body will have consequences for entire nations and generations to come. History stands ready to judge the wisdom of this body, its ability to learn from past mistakes and its ability to comprehend the ramifications of its actions. In spite of countless warnings, I fear we will come up short in the eyes of posterity.

Opponents call for the administration to heed the advice of its generals, only to reject the commanders' pronouncement when such states are at odds with their own misguided perceptions. They criticize the ``cherry-picking'' of prewar intelligence, and then proceed to do just that, while reading the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, choosing to ignore the dire warnings of the Intelligence Community's most authoritative written judgments on national security issues.

But to those who criticize this new security plan and offer no solutions for success, only demands for capitulation, we must demand that they answer a vital question they choose to ignore: What will happen if the Iraqi Government does not succeed and we withdraw prematurely?

One critic of the administration's handling of Iraq, a very vocal critic, and a man who I knew and admired throughout my Marine Corps career, retired General Anthony Zinni, the former commander of Central Command, spelled it out bluntly when he noted that, ``We cannot simply pull out, as much as we may want to. The consequences of a destabilized and chaotic Iraq sitting in the center of a critical region in the world could have catastrophic implications.''

The recent National Intelligence Estimate was even more specific in its analysis. If the United States were to withdraw rapidly, the Iraqi security forces would likely collapse, neighboring countries might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; and al Qaeda in Iraq would attempt to use parts of the country to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq.

It seems pretty clear to me, Mr. Speaker, what we are debating here is success or failure.

Let us not support that catastrophe. Let us not promote a humanitarian disaster which is almost unimaginable. Let us support success in Iraq. Let us support the new commander in Iraq and give him what he needs to succeed in this mission.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res 31.

First, I would like to thank the gentleman from California, my friend and our committee's new chairman, for bringing this important legislation to the floor of the House.

Madam Speaker, the British political philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke famously observed many years ago that, ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.''

Forty-five years ago, at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, there was such a group of good men who chose not to do nothing, but instead to do something. These men whom today we know as the Mare Island Original 21ers took a brave step by coming forward and raising complaints about how they felt they were being treated and about the discrimination they faced based on their race.

Madam Speaker, we lived in a different time then. The year was 1961, and there was no Civil Rights Act protecting Americans from discrimination in the workplace based on race or color. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which today works to ensure that our workplaces are free of discrimination, did not yet exist. Indeed, then- President Kennedy had only just established the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and the things we take for granted in our society today. That the color of one's skin, whether in a boardroom or a boiler room, simply does not matter was not yet ingrained in our national consciousness.

Now, the Original 21ers' complaint did not immediately serve to address all of the issues they faced. As with all struggles, they faced backlash and challenge. In the end, though, they prevailed.

Today, I can state with authority from firsthand experience as a former United States Marine that our Armed Forces are a model of integration and

nondiscrimination, that in today's military it truly is one's skills, talents, ability, and merit that allows men and women of any color, race, or creed to advance to the highest levels of leadership. That is exactly how it should be.

I would also echo the gentleman from California's comments with respect to the importance of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the continued good work done by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the hundreds and thousands of employers and businesses in this country who have worked to ensure that the workplace of 2007 is free from discrimination on any racial or any other grounds.

Today, as our military looks forward and continues to prepare itself for the challenge of the 21st century and beyond, we pause for a moment to look back and remember some of those who took brave first steps. The Mare Island Original 21ers are among those courageous men, and it is proper that Congress today should pause to commemorate their efforts.

I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership and initiative on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the tax relief and fiscal policies passed in recent years by, frankly, House Republicans, provide a track record of proactive and successful economic reform. As we take our first steps in the 110th Congress, we must build upon that record and ensure that any minimum wage increase includes meaningful considerations for America's small businesses, while protecting and expanding benefits for working families that depend upon them.

Less than a week ago, the Labor Department announced the creation of 167,000 new jobs in December. We have experienced more than 3 years of uninterrupted job growth that includes the creation of more than seven million new jobs since August, 2003. Worker wages have risen more than 150 percent faster than in the early 1990s. Per capita disposable income has risen over 9 percent since 2001.

Let's not stop the momentum we have built together. Let's not pass a minimum wage increase without keeping employers in mind. Let's not fall into the temptation of passing a bill that is nothing more than symbolism, lacking the necessary substance to help our economy continue to grow.

As we consider an increase in the minimum wage, we must consider the impact it will have on businesses that create two-thirds of our Nation's new jobs. I was proud to support Mr. McKeon and Mr. McCrery's Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care legislation, which advances this discussion and also offers meaningful measures that will benefit those employers who bear the brunt of any minimum wage increase. If we don't support them, the cruel irony of any minimum wage increase will be a loss of jobs.

Independent studies confirm that the proposal by the House Democrats to raise the minimum wage without including considerations for those who pay the minimum wage and their workers would halt the momentum of recent economic growth dead in its tracks. According to a Federal Reserve economist, as many as one million workers in the restaurant industry alone could lose their jobs under this current proposal.

Recently, my office received a phone call from Mr. John Wiederholt, the owner of Wiederholt's Supper Club in Miesville, Minnesota, a wonderful little community of 135 people located in the heart of my district. Miesville is known for amateur baseball, a historic hamburger joint and Wiederholt's.

The Democrats scaled-down proposal would cost Mr. Wiederholt's charming supper club nearly $2,000 a year. He says: ``I've been at this 34 years. If this passes, because my waitresses get tips already, they just walked into my place and gave the highest-paid people in my place a raise.''

Throughout the country, there are tens of thousands of stories just like Mr. Wiederholt's. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. It is absolutely essential that Congress keeps these creators of jobs in mind when we consider this legislation. We must make sure a minimum wage increase does not have harmful effects on businesses and their ability to foster job growth and provide benefits for working families.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1998, the Stolen Valor Act. To many Americans, the collections of colored ribbons and bronze medals that adorn the uniforms of military personnel and veterans are difficult to comprehend. To those who have served, the rows of ribbons and medals serve as an unwritten resume. A quick glance can tell much: how many deployments at sea he has made, in what combat theaters she has served, or even the value placed upon his work by his superiors.

But even for those who did not serve, these decorations and awards have a

deeper meaning and value that far outweigh their monetary worth. In many instances, they symbolize overcoming an instinctual desire for self-preservation found in all of us and summoning a level of courage rarely found but highly coveted.

It is for this reason that some seek to bestow on themselves the symbols of honor and sacrifice earned by others. Regardless of their rationale, those that impersonate combat heroes dishonor the true recipients of such awards.

By passing the Stolen Valor Act this afternoon, we have a unique opportunity to return to our veterans and military personnel the dignity and respect taken by those who have stolen it and dishonor them.

Madam Speaker, there has been much celebration this year in the little town of Hastings, Minnesota. I rise today to recognize a small business icon in the State, a document management company with a rich heritage of innovation and quality.

This year, Smead Manufacturing celebrates its 100th anniversary. A cornerstone of the Hastings community, Smead is the world's leading provider of filing and organizational products.

For 100 years, Smead has been committed to one purpose, keeping business organized. For the last 51 years, Smead has been a woman-owned company which now employs more than 2,700 workers in 15 plants. I have enjoyed the opportunity to visit the Hastings facility and meet many of the dedicated employees. On the occasion of this milestone achievement, I want to thank the men and women of Smead Manufacturing for their service to the community and the State of Minnesota. I commend the employees and leaders of this great institution and wish them much continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say the people from the community of Farmington, Minnesota, have spoken and they have been heard. Earlier this year, as part of the Farmington post office's 150th anniversary, the community of Farmington conducted an election to name their post office.

The overwhelming majority of citizens voted to name their post office after Hamilton Harris Judson, a well-liked mercantile businessman who the Dakota County Tribune once described as: ``The greatest of all citizens.''

Hamilton H. Judson proved to the Federal Government that the possibility of a rural free delivery system of conveying mail to farmers who lived far from the post office outside of a town or village boundary could be a realty.

Hamilton Judson was appointed postmaster in 1884 and served his community and the Federal Government for the next 29 years. Mr. Judson worked seven days a week from seven in the morning until 10 o'clock at night to ensure that the citizens received their mail in a timely fashion.

Before rural free delivery, Mr. Judson kept the post office open late into the evening to accommodate the areas farmers during the harvest season. In 1896, Minnesota Congressman Joel Heatwole convinced Congress to have Farmington attempt the rural free delivery experiment.

A year later, Farmington became the second city in the United States to offer rural free service. Hamilton H. Judson's system became a model for post offices around the Nation.

I urge all Members to support H.R. 6151.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 419) recognizing and supporting the efforts of the State of New York to develop the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor in New Windsor, New York, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 419, recognizing and supporting the efforts of the State of New York to develop the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor in New Windsor, New York.

Mr. Speaker, let me first take just a moment to thank my colleague and good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), and the State of New York for establishing a place for Americans to come and honor those men and women of our military who have sacrificed so much for America. They are the individuals who fight for us, who sweat for us, who bleed for us, and, sadly and unfortunately, sometimes who die for us.

The Purple Heart is a unique symbol that recognizes the sacrifices made by the men and women of the Armed Forces, sacrifices made for the freedoms this great country offers, freedoms not just for themselves, but for future generations of Americans.

It is only fitting that we have a place such as the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor to honor those men and women so that future generations can go there and learn about those fine young Americans who have ensured that we can all live free.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 419, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 1 million senior citizens and people with disabilities who call the Nation's 36,000 assisted living and residential care facilities ``home.'' Every day, quality assisted living and residential providers are striving to ensure that their services are harmonious with residents' desires.

I am certain that virtually each and every one of us here is cradled by the comfort of knowing that our grandma or grandpa, mom or dad, aunt or uncle, friend or neighbor is being cared for by the noble workers and volunteers at assisted living facilities.

Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the assisted care facility whose faithful employees provide around-the-clock care for my mother, Litta.

As we celebrate the 12th annual National Assisted Living Week, I stand today with my colleagues to salute the dedicated workers of assisted living facilities across America, and to salute the 1 million seniors and people with disabilities that call those facilities ``home.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my chairman, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 4, the Pension Protection Act of 2006. This legislation provides security and peace of mind for working families across our Nation. Many Americans have worked their entire lives for their pensions, and nothing is more important to them than making sure these obligations are met. This legislation protects the interest of workers, retirees, and taxpayers, and it helps employers continue to offer these benefits.

As vice chairman of the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee, I have worked over the last few years with my colleagues to reform these antiquated pension laws. This legislation reflects our negotiations with House and Senate leaders concluded in recent days. I am proud to have championed the inclusion of airline relief in this final package.

The Pension Protection Act strikes the necessary balance between the many diverse groups with an interest in a healthy pension system. The passage of this bill protects the pensions of more than 9,000 Northwest Airline pension plan participants who live in my district alone. I am honored to represent these individuals here in Congress and to support this much needed legislation on their behalf and on behalf of all my constituents.

Without this legislation, Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of if the airline terminates its plans; it is a matter of when. This bill will allow Northwest Airlines to emerge from bankruptcy with its pension plans intact.

Curtis Shoemake, a 30-year Northwest Airline pilot from Minnesota, summed up the situation when he remarked, ``It's a win-win for everybody. It's a win because it protects our pensions. It's a win because the PBGC is not burdened with the termination of our pension. I'm hopeful that Congress will step up to the plate and do the right thing.''

Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to join me in doing the right thing. Let's take the next step toward solving our Nation's pension crisis. Vote for this legislation and strengthen America's pension system for the workers of today and of tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct for two reasons, because of process and because of substance.

First, on process. As the pension conference draws to a close, the matter before us today is little more than a last desperate attempt by some to distract from the fact that we are on the verge of the most fundamental reforms to the private pension system in a generation. In fact, this is more of a motion to obstruct than it is a motion to instruct.

This kind of obstruction shouldn't surprise us, however. It has been going on for quite awhile. Let's not forget that those offering this motion were the same Members who could not even bring themselves to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on the House pension bill when it was being considered by the House Education and Workforce Committee last summer. Rather, they voted ``present,'' acknowledging that they were, in fact, in the room.

While they attempted to politicize this issue, did they ever offer a comprehensive pension reform plan of their own? No. They just stood on the sidelines trying to obstruct our progress, just like they are today.

I also oppose this motion because of its substance. This pension reform debate is and always has been about the massive underfunding in worker pensions, about the need to change the status quo. This obstructionist motion to instruct does just the opposite: It essentially preserves the status quo and even makes the situation worse.

First, on hybrid plans. This motion to instruct essentially codifies benefit expectations in hybrid plans, tying the hands of those who voluntarily offer them. To require a guarantee of minimum benefits before participants have actually earned them sets a very bad precedent. Let's not forget that hybrid plans are the sole bright spot in the defined benefit world. If not for these plans, the defined benefit system would be withering on the vine. To place restrictions on a system that actually provides more generous benefits for the majority workers than do traditional plans would be neither reasonable nor responsible.

And on the airline pilots provision, again, this would make matters worse for the pension system and the American taxpayer. The motion to instruct would actually increase the deficit of the PBGC even though this pension reform process is designed to save the agency from insolvency and taxpayers footing the bill for a massive bailout. It is estimated that if this provision were applied, the cost to the PBGC for all pilots' plans would probably exceed $2.5 billion over the next 10 years. That additional debt would be borne by all the other companies that sponsor and fund defined benefit pension plans. Again, this is neither reasonable nor responsible.

Mr. Speaker, our ultimate goal is to ensure our defined benefit system remains viable for generations to come. This motion to instruct would undermine that effort. It is as simple as that. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to instruct and reject this attempt to obscure progress on pension reform.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely fascinating to listen to the speakers, one extolling the virtues of cash balance plans, and the other condemning them.

I believe that the gentleman from California has the right to close, so at this time I would like to yield the balance of our time to the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution today. I have enjoyed the debate immensely. The rhetoric has been sometimes heated, the facts sometimes obscured. But I think it is healthy for the American people to see this debate. I am sorry that the gentleman from New York is not here. I wanted to have a discussion about what buck sergeants know and what they do not know in today's Army. But I suppose we will have to let that one slide by.

But I will tell you that my son, serving in Iraq today, and his colleagues and his soldiers in the 101st and the other soldiers and marines that I have talked to, they know why they are in Iraq. They know what they are doing. They know what their mission is. And they understand that not everyone here does, that Iraq is the front line in the war against Islamist extremists in the words of the 9/11 Commission.

But I am here this evening to talk about a trip that I took to Iraq a week ago at the request of the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee to assess the progress of the Iraqi armed forces. I am pleased to report that I was very heartened by what I found. I think all of us now understand that the Iraqi Army is progressing with amazing speed. We know the numbers. Over 260,000 Iraqi security forces, over 100 Iraqi Army battalions, almost 30 Iraqi police battalions, either leading the fight or serving with their coalition partners.

But it is not the numbers that count; it is the quality of the troops. It is what they are able to do. In a previous trip to Iraq in November of 2005, I had the opportunity to meet with and assess the progress of the Iraqi counterterrorism forces. These are special forces trained by our Special Operations Command, and they are impressive.

The Iraqi special forces have proved their mettle in combat and in training. Last month, last month a young captain became the first Iraqi to graduate from the United States Army Ranger School, an exceptional feat achieved by only 35 percent of any foreign military personnel who try.

Over Memorial Day weekend, my confidence was further boosted when I visited with Major General Bashar Ayoub, commander of the Iraqi 9th Mechanized Division, and Major General Jamal Khalid, Commander of the Iraqi Second Division. Both commanders expressed their frustration with the bureaucracy in the interim ministry of defense but both generals demonstrated a quite confidence and professionalism exhibited by seasoned battle-hardened commanders.

These two commanders demonstrated the will and the ability of the Iraqi security forces to battle the terrorists and the insurgents who plague their country.

In our discussions, Mr. Speaker, they were blunt. They were proud of their accomplishments. They were confident in their ability to move forward, but they recognize that they continue to rely on U.S. logistical and medical assistance, that they cannot move forward by themselves. Not now.

We have made a commitment, Mr. Speaker, not only to our American forces, but to these Iraqi forces. We have got to stay with them and help them achieve their freedom and their independence.

We have made a commitment--not only to the American men and women of our Armed Forces--but to those who wear the uniform of the Iraqi Security Forces. They have shed their blood alongside our soldiers and Marines in pursuit of a stable and peaceful Iraq.

Now is not the time to abandon them, now is the time to stand firm with those who defend freedom in a land that has known only tyranny.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Gutknecht for his leadership on this issue and for yielding me this time.

I rise today in strong support of this amendment. In my 25 years of military service, sadly I have witnessed other examples of pay discrepancies. It is unfortunate that even today such issues arise, but I am pleased to be in a position now to help solve this problem.

In a true sign of their dedication to duty and camaraderie, many members of the 34th Brigade Combat Team volunteered to join their fellow Guardsmen in Iraq despite having previously deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo. I was disappointed to hear that many of these dedicated citizen-soldiers were denied incentive pay simply because of the administrative mechanism used to mobilize them. This is not the way we as a nation should treat those who have volunteered to serve.

Mr. Gutknecht and I promptly engaged the House Armed Services Committee professional staff to help solve this problem. As a member of the House Military Personnel Subcommittee, I was gratified by the staff's prompt action, and I would like to thank them as well as Chairman McHugh and Chairman Hunter for their efforts.

I would also like to commend the entire Minnesota delegation for their strong support in both the House and Senate.

This past week, my staff delivered a letter signed by the entire delegation to the Department of Defense requesting their assistance in resolving this inequity, and I will include a copy of the letter for the Record.

This amendment is a fitting addition to that initial effort, and it is my hope it will help spur the resolution of this significant problem. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.

Hon. Thomas F. Hall,

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Hall: We are writing to request a review and

adjustment of the current policy regarding Assignment

Incentive Pay (AIP). Several activated members of the

Minnesota National Guard (MNNG), now deployed to Iraq,

recently brought to our attention a pay technicality that

makes the distribution of AIP inequitable. Specifically,

under current finance rules, the soldiers who previously

deployed and served in Kosovo are eligible for AIP, whereas

the soldiers who previously deployed and served in Bosnia are

not. We believe these soldiers, whether having served in

Kosovo or in Bosnia, should be treated equally for purposes

of AIP eligibility.

After consulting with House Armed Services Committee staff,

we conclude that this would best be treated as a Department

of Defense (DOD) policy matter. There appears to be nothing

in the law that would preclude DOD from modifying the

technical eligibility criteria, making these soldiers, and

others like them, eligible for AIP.

Enclosed please find the letter we received from the MNNG

soldiers who brought this matter to our attention. Also

enclosed is a letter from Major General Larry W. Shellito,

Adjutant General of the MNNG. General Shellito's letter

supports our view that a change to current policy regarding

AIP is needed.

After an initial review of this issue, we would request an

update from your office. If you have any questions, please do

not hesitate to contact Fred Chesbro in Congressman John

Kline's office at (202) 225-2271.

Sincerely,

John Kline; Martin Olav Sabo; James L. Oberstar; Collin

C. Peterson; Jim Ramstad; Mark Kennedy; Mark Dayton;

Gil Gutknecht; Betty McCollum; Norm Coleman.

Enclosures.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, in all of the days and weeks and months that we in the committee were debating the state of pensions, defined benefit pensions, it was clear to all of us that we are losing more and more of those plans. More and more employers are going out of business, going into bankruptcy, terminating their plans or simply not starting them.

As has been pointed out, we passed in the House, and I think the gentleman from California called it a Republican, but I think it was a bipartisan bill with 70 Democrats joining us in that vote, including provisions for these hybrid and cash balance plans.

My fear is that as we put more and more mandates on employers, we will lose more and more plans. Without some legal certainty from Congress, employers will stop offering these benefits, and cash balance plans will simply fall by the wayside like so many other pension options.

This Democrat motion and the Senate bill mandate particular pension

benefits which could have a devastating effect of accelerating the demise of the defined benefit pension system, and I do not think any of us want that.

Consider that in 1986 there were 172,642, that is, 172,642 defined pension plans, and that number dropped to 29,000 in recent years. That is the wrong direction.

Greater mandates on employers will only increase this trend. Mandates would create enormous problems for employers. For example, a mandate would determine pension designs instead of allowing employers to decide what is proper for individual businesses, and that would result in more plan freezes and terminations if employers are denied the flexibility to adapt their plans to business circumstances and employee needs.

Again, we are faced with the specter of more and more plans going away. Employers should be encouraged to offer pension plans, and the government should not mandate the vehicle by which to offer such benefits to their employees. Mandating a particular type of conversion would be harmful to workers. More workers receive higher benefits from their cash balance plan than benefits earned under the traditional defined benefit plan.

In any case, we want a solid pension plan and more businesses for more workers, and my concern is that this motion to instruct in the Senate provision would work the other way. Let's not drive out more pension plans. I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to instruct.