Floor Statements

I can tell you, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, it was definitely a pleasure hearing you speak as we were talking before in the cloakroom, in the back here, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about what happened here on this floor less than 2 hours ago. A major vote that took place here in this House. And it didn't pass by one or two votes. It only takes one vote to win as it relates to a bill or what have you, a resolution moving through the floor here. I just want to say that I am proud of the Members that voted in the affirmative for this bill. The emergency supplemental funding bill has started a new era as it relates to how Americans think about the war in Iraq, how our troops are being treated in Iraq and Afghanistan and even here back at home on health care services. And also it gave voice to those individuals that went to the voting booth looking for representation, looking for a new direction, looking for the Congress to carry out the kind of oversight that we should carry out as Members of Congress on behalf of any action that will involve the American taxpayer and in many cases involve foreign nations loaning money to the United States of America. We have to pay all of that back. We have to be accountable to the U.S. taxpayer. And we have to make sure that we provide the oversight for the American people.

Now, I heard Ms. Wasserman Schultz speak to the point. As some members came to the floor to vote against the bill, some voted against the bill because that's just what they do. They vote against war. They vote against whatever their philosophy may be as it relates to war, but also you had people that voted for the bill that is against war, that want to see an end to war. No other emergency supplemental up until the one that came before this House today actually put forth benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, actually hold the feet to the fire of the executive branch saying that if you are going to send additional troops, then the parameters that you put on the Iraqi government will actually be enforced. Department of Defense regulations as it relates to how troops can be deployed and the readiness of our troops before they go into theater. They wrote that in the Department of Defense, the administrator, bureaucrats, Secretary, what have you, in the Bush administration wrote those regulations. We put it inside this piece of legislation and enforced it. And also we made sure that Members had the opportunity to show their constituents where they stand.

Now, let's talk a little bit about that, because I heard the gentlewoman from Florida mention something, folks coming to the floor, saying things like, ``never before in the history of the country that we've ever voted to micromanage.'' They would use words like ``micromanage.'' ``We've never come to the floor to limit anything as it relates to war.''

And when will we have a victory?

And that has never, ever, ever happened.

You know, I am in my office, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and I am watching these Members on the floor, and I spoke to this point last night, because last night I was here after 10, 10:30, I actually closed the House last night, moved to adjourn the House last night, and I couldn't help but try to get the evidence to show that it has happened.

As a matter of fact, timelines have been set by some of the very Republican leaders that are now in the Republican leadership right now that came to this well here today and had issue with what the majority of the Members of the House wanted to do and ultimately did in the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure, because this is what this whole 30-Something Working Group is about, making sure that we shed light where it needs to be. Let's look at this.

Bosnia, June 24, 1997, the House brought to the floor an amendment that would set a timeline and a date certain for withdrawal of U.S. peacekeepers from the mission in Bosnia. Pay attention to these dates.

On December 13, 1995, an attempt to prohibit funds from being used for the deployment of ground troops in Bosnia. It actually failed 210- 218, which I have the names of those individuals that are in the Republican leadership now that voted in the affirmative to try to stop that from happening.

December 13, 1995, a resolution passed expressing serious concerns in opposition to the deployment of troops in Bosnia, where ethnic cleansing was taking place. Some of our same Members in the Republican leadership voted to pass that piece of legislation.

Again, June, there was also another vote that was taken on June 24, 1997, voted to set a timeline, date certain for withdrawal of troops from Bosnia, and that passed 278-148. The date certain that troops had to leave was June 30, 1998.

I am going to say it again. Some of the same individuals that voted today against, their reason for voting against

this emergency supplemental for the men and women in harm's way and the veterans to be able to receive the kind of healthcare they deserve, voted for a timeline in Bosnia.

Let's talk about the comparisons here. The Bosnia conflict was 18 months, Mr. Speaker. This conflict is 48-plus months, moving well into its fifth year. The cost of Bosnia to the United States of America, $7 billion. The cost of the war in Iraq, $379 billion and counting, well beyond $379 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars and loan money.

Casualties in Bosnia, casualties in Bosnia, I repeat, zero of U.S. troops. Zero. Casualties as of 10 a.m. today in Iraq of U.S. personnel, troops, men and women in uniform, 3,229. I would even go further to say 13,415 wounded in action and have returned to duty. I would even go further by saying 10,772 wounded in action who cannot return back to duty.

I think it is important that we look at the facts. Again, I want to say we didn't come down here to play around, we came down here to share the facts, because we are both very busy people and we have things to do and this is the end of the workweek and Members are heading back to their districts. We want to go back to our districts too. But we want to make sure this moment of leadership, this moment of courage, is in the Congressional Record, to let it be known that we did have Members that stood up on behalf of our men and women in uniform and we had the men and women of this House that were in the majority that were willing to put their name and their vote on the line on behalf of the men and women that serve our country and their families.

I have the vote sheet here from the Bosnia vote. Every Republican voted yes for the timeline, with the exception of two. It is right here. Any Member that wants to run down to the floor and take a look at that, they can.

Also we have here the vote as it relates to passing the resolution that we had today, which is the emergency supplemental, roll call vote 186. I can say for the two Republicans who voted in opposite of the Republican leadership, when we took the vote on June 24, 1997, were consistent today of the only two Republicans that voted in the affirmative with the majority of the House to make sure that we place benchmarks and a timeline in Iraq. Consistency for those two Members, that anyone can find in the Congressional Record, and we commend them for their consistency.

So I think it is important, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that we look at the hard facts here and the tough votes that need to be taken. Does everyone agree with what is in the emergency supplemental? I don't agree with everything that is in the emergency supplemental. But for the greater good of the men and women in harm's way, I voted for it.

There are Members in here who had a rough time and it was also very tough vote for them. But they didn't want to continue to look in the eyes of their constituents as they go to high school programs and junior high school programs and they are asked a question, as I am asked a question, and I don't ask folks for their voter registration, I don't ask, well, are you a constituent of mine or not?

The prevailing question is, Congressman, how long are we going to be in Iraq? I can't answer the question, because the President says we are going to be there as long as we need to be there. And, guess what? Those very same individuals, Democrat, Republican, independent, some individuals never voted before in their lives, went last November and voted for a new direction, voted for leadership, voted for an opportunity to have this Congress stand in the position that it should be standing, and that is oversight and accountability on behalf of the men and women that are in harm's way.

So I feel that the Members that voted in the affirmative, voted for outstanding healthcare, moving in the direction of outstanding healthcare for our veterans, making sure that our men and women when they are deployed, some of them are deployed 120 days after they return back to their family because some bureaucrat in the Defense Department says, well, we got to make sure we keep our rotation and our troop numbers, levels, up to over 143,000 troops on the ground. I know this brigade has only been home for a couple of months, three months, we have to get them back in the fight, when the Department of Defense regulations rule against that.

But I must add, Mr. Speaker, to make sure since we are having a moment of clarity, in this bill it allows the President, if it is within the national security interests that these troops go back into theater, he has the ability to do that, but report to Congress on that action.

So anyone that says we are binding the President, we are endangering the troops, the general can't do what he wants to do, that has nothing to do with it. That is nothing but rhetoric. That is nothing but good talking points for a crowd that you may want to get a cheer out of based on where you are.

But the reality and the hard-core facts are we have been sent up here to legislate and to bring about oversight, and that the President of the United States is not the only person that can make decisions on accountability and oversight. It is the U.S. Congress constitutionally and also it is our duty.

We are not in the forward area. We don't wear a uniform. But we have been sent here to make sure things go the way they are supposed to go on behalf of the men and women in harm's way.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz, when you think about it, you can't help but think about the debate that took place, and the vote has now happened. And again, Mr. Speaker, I commend those that worked very hard day in and day out to make sure that Members felt comfortable in voting for this legislation.

I think it is also mindful for us to remember, because so many times here in Washington, D.C., and even when we return back to our districts, I return back to sunny south Florida; Ms. Wasserman Schultz does the same. Some of us go to the far West. Some of us go to the Northeast, where it is very cold and frigid. Some of us go down to the Southwest and Arizona and Texas and some of the other areas of the great part of our country. Some of us from the gulf coast, some of us from the great Blue Mountains.

I think it is very, very important for us to remember that over 56 of our men and women in uniform died this month alone, and we are not even out of this month yet. Over 55 men and women wearing the uniform, some citizens, some non-citizens, some are from the west coast, some are from the east coast, some are from urban areas, some of them are from rural America. They are not coming back home. Their memory will ever be in our minds and in our hearts. And we appreciate their paying the ultimate sacrifice. We pray for their families. And we stand on their behalf here today in making sure that we can bring the kind of accountability forward to this government and to the Iraqi Government, and to make sure that those that are in harm's way have what they need when they need it.

Also, what is in this bill, and I think it is very, very important because I want Members to not only go home and talk about that they voted for, the majority of this House, which was good, but for those who voted against it, I want not only them, but I want their constituents to know what they voted against. This is serious business. I have a lot of friends here in this Chamber. I don't know of a Member of the House that I have a negative relationship with that I don't talk to that person or that person doesn't talk to me. I get along. I am second generation here in this House of Representatives; my mother served here. But this is serious business when we start talking about the sacrificing that U.S. families are making to bring about some sort of harmony in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

So the vote that took place today, Mr. Speaker, is a vote in the right direction and in a new direction, to let it be known that this House of Representatives is willing to play a role in the oversight of the U.S. taxpayer dollar, and also on behalf of those that are in harm's way right now.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I am glad that she is a member of the Appropriations Committee because they spent a lot of time with this legislation, this emergency supplemental. It is probably going to be the last time that we have an emergency supplemental outside of the regular budget process. And speaking of the budget, Mr. Speaker, we are going to be debating the budget here on this floor next week. We are going to have a great discussion about where our priorities are as Americans and the things that are important to the financial standing of the country and where we are going to make the kind of investments that we need to make on behalf of this great country of ours.

It is also important to understand next week that is tied in with this bill that we are going to also consider the Wounded Warriors bill that is going to be coming up next week, which is 1538, for consideration before this House that I must add that passed Armed Services Committee this week with a unanimous vote, to make sure that we correct some of the issues that are dealing with our veterans. And we are going to deal with H.R. 1401, that is the Rail Security Act that will be coming up next week.

This is serious business, and we have to be very serious about what we do here. And I want to make sure that this vote will be seen as one of the many.

Now, we had a vote, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, about a month ago that folks criticized, the vote to say that we are against the escalation, against the President's escalation of troops in Iraq. Seventeen Republicans voted with the majority of the House Members on that. Obviously, 15 of those Republicans decided to vote against the binding resolution. Remember all those, oh, it's nonbinding, it really doesn't mean anything; why are you doing this? Why are you spending a whole week of debate? Even the President said, oh, it's nonbinding. And the President said at that time a binding resolution will be coming which will be the emergency supplemental. I want to know the House of Representatives' stand on the binding resolution.

Well, that message is clear today where we stand. And I think that in the Senate, with the passage of the legislation even has a shorter time line passed the Appropriations Committee last night than what the House is calling for, I think the issue of a time line and benchmarks are going to be in that legislation when it goes to the President. Now, the President is saying that he is going to veto it. Well, that is all a part of his right to do so. But I think the American people and Members of this Congress have to rise up. If the President is not willing to lead us in a new direction as it relates to Iraq, then we may need to lead the President. That is the reason why we have a democracy. That is the reason why we have an executive branch and a legislative branch. That is the reason why men and women who no longer can walk on two legs now paid the price for us to have this democracy that we celebrate here today, which I don't take

lightly. That is the reason why this specialist here, that covers the page of Newsweek, paid with her legs. She is a patriot.

So if Members or anyone has a problem with the way our democracy is working, then you have a problem with America. I am glad that I am free and able to stand here on this floor to say that what took place here today is a great testimonial to that democracy. And just because you said that you are going to do one thing doesn't necessarily mean that you have to follow through on it to show folks that you are tough.

You have folks coming to the floor saying, well, by passing this emergency supplemental, it will waive the white flag. What white flag? Okay. Continuing to do the same thing expecting different results? The Speaker of the House took the well here earlier, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and said there have been three other escalations of troops in Iraq and the same outcome is the fact that we lost more troops in the middle of the battle, in the middle of a civil war, and that did not turn the security situation around on the ground.

What did the Iraq Study Group say? They said that diplomacy is going to be the number one key in dealing with this. What did Mr. Murtha say, a decorated marine and chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee? This is a diplomacy issue, and we need to make sure that the Iraqi Government stands up not only on behalf of their country, but for the region and provide the kind of leadership that they deserve.

For every day we are in Iraq, Mr. Speaker and Members, that is a day that a U.S. city will not receive the kind of appropriations that it needs to be able to provide the quality of life that the U.S. taxpayers deserve. It is another day that we won't be able to fully implement all the 9/11 recommendations and be able to provide the kind of funding to secure the homeland. It means that what we pay now on the debt that the Republican Congress and the Bush administration has given us, that we will not have enough money to pay down on that debt, just on the debt of the money that this country has borrowed, and which is more than what we invest in education, more than what we invest in homeland security, more than what we invest in veteran affairs.

So I think it is important that this paradigm shift that took place here today is recognized as one of the great days of the U.S. House of Representatives and moving in a new direction, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. Speaker, we have all worked very hard this week to see the positive outcome of the legislation today.

As I started, I would like to close in my comments today by saying that I am glad that the Members voted in the affirmative for this legislation that passed. I think the American people will reflect on this day, and historians will reflect on this day that this has been the first day by the House of Representatives since the start of the war in Iraq that there were true accountability measures in there. There is reporting back to the Congress that the troops were protected by the language that the Department of Defense used as relates to its own policy of deploying troops, of sending troops back into theater on another rotation of what they have to have. I think men and women in uniform and their families will be forever appreciative of our action here today.

It is like when you are working at a work site, not at headquarters, you are working in a subsidiary, and you know there are certain policies management is supposed to meet, but because nobody is watching, they decide to waive the policy manual and have you work overtime without being paid overtime, or have you working in conditions that you should not be working in just to keep their numbers up so they don't get in trouble with their bosses.

Well, with the emergency supplemental that we passed here today, we have the backs of those workers. In this case, we have the backs of the men and women who wear the uniform.

Furthermore, I think it is important for those who have served in a battle zone that we have started down the track of making sure that we provide the kind of funding so when they get back, they will be able to get the counseling that they deserve. There is money in here to prevent abuse as it relates to children and families when they get back to military bases, and there is money to make sure that veterans don't have to wait months to be able to see a specialist. I think it is very, very important because there is a back end to this war, and there is a reality to this war, and it is our responsibility to ensure there is assistance to those who need it when they come back.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the American people for the role that they have played during this whole war. This week here at the Capitol we had people that were supporting the war, and against war but saying we have to support our troops. And I commend both of them for exercising their rights as Americans to be able to speak to their government about their feelings. I am glad that we live in a country that you can do that.

I am glad that Members did come to the floor. Some of them voted their conscience, some voted partisanship, and some voted because it was the right thing to do on behalf of this legislation.

As we move on with this process of bringing accountability to the war in Iraq and bringing an end to the war in Iraq with troops on the ground, that Members continue to pay attention to what our democracy is all about. I commend the Speaker for standing in the wind, getting bugs in her teeth on this issue and being tough on this issue even when we were in the minority. Now we are in the majority, and I think the American people are going to be very appreciative.

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for hosting this hour today. It is always an honor to come to the floor and talk about the actions of today and look forward to tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be down here, and I am glad that the chairman brought this bill up.

I can tell you the only thing that I can see in this bill is ultimate accountability and oversight by this Congress, which hasn't happened in the last two emergency supplementals, those that I voted on and those that I voted in the affirmative on.

But the good thing about this bill is that we have the troops back. We are saying that they have to be prepared, just like the Department of Defense says that they have to be when they go off to war. This is actually in this bill.

We look at this bill dealing with health care for our veterans, we look at planning, we look at the needs of our troops. Once they get back here to the United States, this bill covers and starts that investment that we have to make to make sure that we take care of our troops in the field and when they get back here at home.

So this is very, very important, Members. I would hate for my Members on either side of the aisle to be on the other side of this bill, because you have a lot of explaining to do when you get back home, the reason why you voted against this bill. You can call Members of Congress, General X and General Y, but the bottom line is accountability is in this bill and funding.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come back before the House this evening. And I must say that tomorrow is going to be the judgment day as it relates to Members that are willing to lead on behalf of the men and women in uniform and those that have worn the uniform, and even making sure that we take care of some of the issues as it relates to homeland security.

Today there was a 3-hour, 4-hour-or-so debate on the emergency supplemental that is coming up tomorrow. And you know, part of the mission of the 30-Something Working Group is to come to the floor to make sure the Members have accurate information and to make sure that we provide good information, not only to the Members, but also to the American people. And having Members come to the floor that may represent one view or another is a part of our democracy, and I embrace it 110 percent.

I think it is also important for the Members to be able to receive up-to-date information and also talk a little bit about the past. And I think the past is something that we should embrace from time to time to allow the Members to be able to make a good assessment on how they should vote.

A couple of days ago, Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor and I recommended to some of the Members that it is important on both sides of the aisle that maybe some of us need to go see the wizard and find some courage and also find a heart when it comes down to standing up for the men and women in uniform.

And I talked a little bit about what is in this supplemental bill, emergency supplemental, which is over $125 billion and which will be, from what I understand, the last supplemental outside of the budget.

Now, when we talk about this emergency supplemental, this is for a war that we are going into the fifth year of. And I just want to say that again: a war that we are going into the fifth year of. It has lasted longer than any other conflict in U.S. history. And I just want to make sure the Members understand that.

We have heard statements on the floor. Members come to the floor, especially on the other side of the aisle, saying, well, we just need to give the troops what they need and then, you know, not have any oversight or any language in the bill that may bring about accountability.

Well, I voted for two past supplementals. I said that the other night. I will say it again. Some parts of that supplemental I did not like, but the last thing, the last thing that I wanted to do was to vote against the troops having what they need that are in harm's way. And I think that is important.

I don't know how I would have been able to go home to talk to my constituents and say that I voted against the supplemental because there was a part in it that I didn't agree with, while we have folks that are in a forward area, while we have men and women on the ground in Afghanistan, while we have men and women that are patrolling the streets of Baghdad now because the Commander in Chief sent them there to do so.

We want to support those men and women in harm's way and their families while they are here, and in this supplemental we are going to support them when they come back.

We are in the majority now. The Democrats are in the majority. But we have a minority spirit, to make sure that there is no Member in this House left behind because of a lack of information on what they are going to vote

on. And that is the reason why I am here.

I returned back to the Capitol tonight to talk a little bit about what is in this supplemental and what has happened in the past. Now, we had a number of Members on both sides of the aisle that talked a lot about what is not in this supplemental and what should be in this supplemental in the future. And I can tell you right now, it is far beyond what the President has called for as it relates to emergency dollars.

And when I see my friends on the other side, and I do say friends, I can tell you every Member that is in leadership now on the Republican side voted for a timeline for Bosnia. I mean, I just want to make sure that Members understand that, because there may be some Members who weren't here at that time, including myself, and it is important.

When we start to close out on this bill tomorrow, you are going to have Members of the Republican leadership that are going to come to this floor and call the Speaker of the House ``General'' what have you, call the majority leader ``General'' whatever they want to call him, call the whip ``General'' this, that, and the other. Meanwhile, here is the Congressional Record where they voted for the very same thing when President Clinton was in office.

Bosnia didn't have half of the conflict that Iraq has now. Not even a quarter of the money that has been spent in Iraq was spent in Bosnia. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. There is a difference when you come to the floor and speak a cappella and when you come to the floor with the Congressional Record.

Let us talk about what the Congressional Record says because I want to make sure that Members understand. And if that was all about politics, I would be home right now doing whatever, reading a book or spending some time with the family right now, because if it was about politics, I would say I want the Republican minority to vote ``no.'' I want them to vote ``no'' so that they have to go home and tell their constituents that they voted against increasing veterans' health care funding, they voted against making sure that out of the 100 Stryker Brigades that we have in the Army, that they voted to make sure that some bureaucrat from the Department of Defense can waive their own rules and not make sure that those men and women have what they need to go to battle. And in every Stryker Brigade and every Stryker unit, you have to have a driver, a gunner. You have to have three individuals in that vehicle. And it is very, very important that everyone understands that we have to give our men and women what they deserve when they go into harm's way.

Let me just talk about the Congressional Record here. June 24, 1997, House Republicans brought to the floor an amendment that would set a timeline, a date certain, to withdraw from the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, a mission that was only 18 months old. Mr. Speaker, I said this mission now in Iraq is in its 5th year. That was 18 months old.

Now, if my colleagues on the other side want to call someone General, Colonel, four-star, Secretary of Defense, whatever they want to call them, we are, as Members of Congress, to make sure that we carry out the oversight of any action of the U.S. taxpayer dollar. They don't want to talk about the investment that U.S. taxpayers have made in this war. They don't want to talk about the sacrifice of the over 3,222-plus members of the Armed Forces that are not coming home again, Mr. Speaker. They don't want to talk about the 10,000-plus members who were injured in Iraq that cannot return back to battle because of their injury. The Republicans do not want to talk about the casualties of this war as it relates to families that will no longer have their loved one back home, and they don't want to talk about the accountability that they did not put forth when they were in charge of this U.S. House of Representatives to say, Department of Defense, if you have regulations saying that military personnel that are going into harm's way, that they have to have armor, that they have to have the support staff, that they have to have everything they need to go to battle; if you aren't willing to stand by that, then don't criticize what we are doing.

I hope that my Republican colleagues follow and come along and join us because this is national security. This is not an issue of partisanship, or I am a Republican and you are a Democrat. That should not be the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I have said personally I voted for the supplemental that the Republican majority put forth two times in a row, not saying, I am a Democrat and, because they are Republican, I am going to vote against it.

Yes, I want to see redeployment in this war, but I do not want to leave our men and women without what they need to be able to fight the battle. There won't be a lack of ammunition or a lack of food or a lack of support or a lack of backup when there is a patrol out on the streets of Baghdad.

Do I support the President's surge? No, I do not. And I voted in the affirmative for the nonbinding resolution that came before this House that said that we do not support the surge that the President has put forth. Just because I disagree with the President doesn't mean that I need to disagree with the men and women in harm's way.

Now, some Members may have problems with this. They may not like a word over here or something that is said over there. But the bottom line is when you start looking at the morale of the men and women in uniform, the worst message that we can send to them is that because of partisanship, because someone is a Republican or someone is a Democrat, that I am voting against it because my party leader said that I need to vote against it. I am here as an American, not as a Democrat here tonight, because I think it is important that we think about those families that cringe to hear about another casualty in Iraq of a U.S. military personnel or a nonforeign personnel that is in Iraq. And by Members saying, I don't want to vote for that because there is certain language in there that I disagree with, I think it is not a good enough reason for Members to say that I am not going to vote for it.

We talked about a commander. We talked about a gunner. We talked about a driver in a Stryker force vehicle. We talked about 100 brigades that are out there now. I have been to Iraq twice. I don't need to come to the floor and say, I am a member of the Armed Services Committee and I have been to Afghanistan, and I have been to many of the other ``stans'' in the Middle East to understand what our men and women are facing in harm's way. I have been to military bases. I have met with military families before. I don't need to come to the floor and talk about that. We have some Members saying, well, I love the troops.

Well, I love the troops more than you.

No, I have a tattoo saying that I love the troops more than you.

I believe we can come to the floor and talk tough and talk about what we believe in. But when it comes down to it, Mr. Speaker, Members are going to have to take out their voting card come tomorrow, and they are going to have to vote if they support the troops or not, period, dot. They can say, well, I support them, or what have you, go home, talk to the VFW and march in the Veterans Day parade and write letters back to their constituents that I support them 110 percent. The bottom line is that there is nothing in this bill that the Democratic majority has put forth that has not already been recommended.

Think about the policy. Okay. Readiness. It comes from the Department of Defense regulations. Who can argue with that? Who can complain about that? Who can argue, saying we are micromanaging?

No, not micromanaging. We are just saying if you have rules and regulations that have been set forth for the men and women in uniform, follow them, period, dot.

Being a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have watched individuals sit at a table testifying before Congress in committee, saying that the troops have what they need, and, yes, they all have body armor, and, yes, they all have up-armed vehicles, and, yes, they have the jammers to stop the improvised explosive devices; and better yet, you go to Iraq and you talk to the men and women in uniform, and they say they don't have it.

So what should we do? Should we just say we trust the bureaucrats over at the Department of Defense because they say they have what they need? Or do we come to this Congress and put in a language of legislation that not may or if you get around to it, or if you think about it, that you make sure that you live by your own standards. No. We say ``shall'' in this bill. We say, yes, readiness is important. Yes, we say that what General Schoomaker has asked for as it relates to additional soldiers, we said yes to it in this supplemental. You will be voting against readiness if you vote against the emergency supplemental.

The Commandant of the Marines asked for three new brigades. That is in this supplemental bill. If you vote against this supplemental, you are voting against the readiness of the U.S. Marines.

There are a number of issues that are in this bill that I think are important. But I think when you look at House amendment 302 by Representative Buyer, Republican from Indiana, and the timeline of December 15 of 1997, President Clinton was required to report to Congress on the political and military conditions in Bosnia and by a date certain, by June 30 of 1998, all troops to be withdrawn. Mr. Speaker, that actually came to the floor. And the Republican leadership that was here at that time voted in the affirmative for the amendment. And so for Members to come here and start talking about it as though this is some new idea like ``never before.''

I heard that today. I was sitting in my office. I could not believe that Members on the Republican side of the aisle were saying never before, that this never happened, that we have micromanaged generals and commanders and all the men and women that are in uniform and from this Congress we have 135 generals. Here is the Congressional Record right here.

One guy once said, ``I am not talking about anybody. I am just talking about what I am talking about.'' And the bottom line is in the Congressional Record, just as clear as I am speaking now, 20 years, 200 years from now, someone can unearth what I have said here tonight. And we have unearthed, to my colleagues on the Republican side, what took place, and guess what? Only four Republicans voted ``no.'' Here is the voting record right here. I have it. Of all the Republican Members that voted at that time, only four Republicans voted ``no'' when it came down to a timeline for Bosnia.

Now, this is not something that came from the Democratic National Committee or from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or from my office because it sounded good. This came out of the Congressional Record.

So I want to make sure that the Members know and their constituents know that when Members come to the floor and give inaccurate information to the American people and to Members of the House, it is a disservice. And I am not calling any names. I am just saying that here is the Congressional Record. For those Members who said never before in the history of the House of Representatives, you have got to know what you are saying before you say it, and if you said it, you should come to the floor and correct yourself so that individuals are not misled.

This is 18 months in Bosnia, let alone going into a 5th year in Iraq. No matter how you feel about the war, whether you voted against it or voted for it, I am not going to editorialize or have an opinion on how you voted when you voted. We are talking about right now. We are talking about tomorrow, less than 12 hours from now, you are going to have an opportunity to say if you are with the troops or you are not with the troops. And it is not going to be a floor speech, and it is not going to be a press release. It has to be if you vote ``yes'' or ``no'' tomorrow.

And I am speaking to every Member of the House. This is something that you have to live with. You cannot go to Iraq or Afghanistan or even write a letter or answer an e-mail from a troop if you found yourself in a situation where you said, no, I don't agree with what you are doing; that is fine, but to defund the mission while it is ongoing, our men and women that are in harm's way right now, is something that you are going to have to answer to your constituents. You don't have to answer to me, you just have to answer to your constituents. And I think that it is something you should take into consideration. And one of the great reasons why we come to the floor is to make sure that the Members know exactly what they're voting for.

And, Mr. Speaker, if I can, and Members, if they will indulge me, I would just like to talk a little bit about what is in this bill, what is in the emergency supplemental, because I want to make sure that the Congressional Record reflects it when you have some voters that may go into the archives of what took place at this time right now. Mr. Speaker, I used to see all the time in 109th Congress where we had some rough, rocky water, in the 109th Congress.

We had Members that are no longer Members of this House, not by vote but by the fact they had to leave the Congress because of unethical behavior, not unethical, criminal behavior, and we never once called the names of those individuals. But we said we have to do away with the K Street Project and other projects like it, because once upon a time this House, when the other side was in control, you had to pay to play. Either you were on a list or you didn't get access to this House.

Now we have returned this House to the people of the United States of America. We are going to continue to move in that direction, and I think it is important that we make sure that every Member of the House has the opportunity to vote on good legislation.

We are going to consider H.R. 1591, which is the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007.

I am sorry, I was just corrected, not only four Republicans will vote against it, only two Republicans will vote against it. We are checking while we are on the floor. I want to make sure the Record reflects the accurate information.

I think it is important that Members understand the defense healthcare is $1.7 billion more than what the President has requested. I want to just outline that. The President put forth his recommendations which should be in this emergency supplemental. We have on top of that, as it relates to the Appropriations Committee, which I commend not only the chairman but the chairman of the subcommittee and the members of the Appropriations Committee giving us an opportunity to vote on $1.7 billion more for healthcare, defense healthcare, above what the President has called for.

$450 million for posttraumatic stress, which is going to happen. This vote is going to come up tomorrow. That is very, very important. And counseling. We talk about families, you have to remember that there are men and women that have seen a lot, an awful lot, some things that we would never see. Members of this House, a few Members serve in the Reserves, some have served in the Guard, some have seen some of this. But the majority of Members of the Congress has not seen what these men and women have seen or gone through what they have gone through, seeing someone in the mess hall one day and not seeing them the next day, and hearing about what took place with them, that happened to them.

Sniper fire, improvised explosive devices, we could never understand that. But they come home with those real issues, and we have a number of members of our armed services that have admitted that they have issues mentally that they need help with. Now, let's think about it. We are talking about men and women of the armed services that admitted they have issues. How many of those have not?

We talk about preparation for when our troops come home. It is not just when you are in harm's way that some Members may say well, you know, it is important we take care of them. No, when they get home, we need to be there for them. $450 million in traumatic brain injury care and research.

$730 million for prevention healthcare.

$20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed Hospital. I think it is important, and I think we have that chart here dealing with Walter Reed, that is so very, very important. The Washington Post broke the story saying that Walter Reed wasn't up to par.

Then you had U.S. News and World Report. We have a specialist here. We have troops, men and women in need, and I think it is important that you look at this Newsweek cover. If you have this at home, take a look at it. It just came out March 5, 2007. I think it is important that everyone pays attention and focuses on this.

We have to make sure we are here for them. $14.8 million for burn care. For veterans care, $1.7 billion more than what the President requested.

I want to stop there to say we put I believe $3.7 billion in the continuing resolution. What do we mean when we say continuing resolution? We mean that the Republican Congress did not finish their work in passing all of their appropriations bills on time. The fact that they weren't able to do so, we were able to meet that shortfall.

Let me correct myself. $2.7 billion that was a shortfall for that. We were able to put $3.6 billion in January 31. The Democrats increased the veterans healthcare budget by $3.6 billion. And that was prior to the story coming out about Walter Reed. We had several amendments on the floor where we tried to increase veterans healthcare because we knew already there were issues in VA hospitals, VA clinics, our veterans getting what they need, leave alone the number of troops and soldiers and also their families that we are going to put into the system of active and those that have left the military, the strain on it. That is when it comes down to planning, and that is already there.

But when you look at the $1.7 billion more than the President asked for, we are talking about $550 million to address the backlog of maintaining VA health care facilities that were intended to prevent veterans from experiencing a situation similar that they found at Walter Reed.

$250 million for medical administration to be able to bring on sufficient personnel to support the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and to maintain the level of service at all VA facilities and for veterans.

$229 million for treatment for a growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

$100 million for contracting mental healthcare, with the funding to allow the VA to contract with private mental healthcare providers to ensure that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are seen in a timely manner. I think this is an important point.

We have veterans now, Members, that are waiting, not hours, not weeks, but months, and it is real really unfortunate they have to do so. I told the story about a friend of mine that was in a VA hospital that had my cellular number in his cell phone, and he called me and said, ``Kendrick, things are not going the way they are supposed to go. I am waiting to see a specialist, and I have been here for some time and I haven't seen one and I don't think I am going to see one.'' He was admitted.

Of course, my office called. We were in a truck moving around. My office called the administrator of the hospital, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure not only did he have the specialist, he had the head of the department of the area that he needed assistance in, and he got what he needed.

But, guess what? Every American, every American, every family member of a veteran, doesn't have the cell number of a Member of Congress. That shouldn't be the requirement for service, and that is why we are trying to respond to it.

It is also important, as I talk about readiness and support for our troops, $2.5 billion more to address the current readiness crisis that is the situation on stateside for our troops, including those that are better equipped and trained.

It is important that we make sure that our National Guard units are equipped. Mr. Murtha, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, has said there is not a National Guard unit that is at a point of readiness right now, Mr. Speaker. They are not ready? Why? Because half of their equipment is in Iraq. Why? Because the training has not been taking place because of the lack of funding to be able to allow them to be battle ready. I think it is a disservice for those who have volunteered to serve our country.

You have $1.4 billion more for military housing allowance, $311 million more to make sure that you have the mine resistant ambush protection, which we call MRAP, for the vehicles in Iraq at this time. Everything that the military has asked for to make sure that our men and women don't come back in a way that this specialist had to come back.

She didn't have a choice, Mr. Speaker. Members, by voting for this supplemental, you are going to give her and many other people like her an opportunity to know that we have done everything possible that we can do here in the Congress to avoid what has happened to so many of our men and women that are going in for treatment, physical therapy, to make sure that we can avoid misfortune from happening to them, even though they keep the spirit that we ask them to keep, and these are the most resilient men and women in our society that are citizens.

I think it is important also to look, when I talked about the size of the military, $2.3 billion for the full cost of fielding an additional 36,000 Army troops and 9,000 Marines, and also $720 million as it relates to military construction costs. I think it is important that we look at this.

This is exactly what I was stating earlier. Members want to talk about readiness for voting against this bill? You are saying you are fine with the status quo. We don't know when the next conflict is going to take place. We don't know when. We asked the Army, why do you have soldiers rotating in in 120 days when they just served several months, almost a year, and beyond a year in Iraq?

We don't have the troops. That is what the Army is saying. The Marines are saying we are stretched thin. They are asking for help, and we are saying we are there to help them, and it is in this bill, and I think it is important that Members understand that.

I could not go to Iraq, which I am going to be going again for the third time, and look a marine, soldier, sailor, airman, Coast Guard person, in the face and say that I am there for you if I voted against the supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, I go back to say that I voted for the Republican version of the supplemental. I believe we should have redeployment, but the last thing that I want to do as a Member of Congress, the last thing that I want to do is vote against our men and women having what they need when they are in harm's way. That is the last thing I want to do. There has to be a really rough day for me not to vote to support these troops.

I know that there are some Members that are going to do what they need to do, but I just want to make sure, especially for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, those conversations that I have had with many of my friends, they say, ``Our leadership tells us that we need to vote against it.'' In the Appropriations Committee, some of my good friends on the other side of the aisle, the leadership said that.

Well, what about what our troops are saying? What about what their families are saying? What about our responsibility as men and women of the U.S. Congress?

Of course, I am not a general. I am not even a sergeant. I am not even a specialist in the Army. But I have been elected and federalized by my constituents to come here and represent them and the United States of America and make sure that we carry out our responsibility as Members of Congress to have oversight.

It is not making decisions here in the Chamber. It is oversight. What is wrong with the Iraqi government having to meet benchmarks? Let's just put it this way, Members. How long have we been talking about, and I do mean talking, about the training of Iraqi troops to secure their own country? How long? I just want to know how long. We have been talking about it I know for at least 3 years, which this is a war in its fifth year.

For at least 3 years there has been a strong conversation about training Iraqi troops, taking over patrols. They have a brigade now taking over a city. We look the next couple of months, U.S. troops are riding side-by-side with Iraqi troops, and in some cases it is a U.S. patrol, because that is what we are down to. A coalition of the few. Great Britain has already said, you know, guess what, folks? We are out of here. We have done our mission. Saddam Hussein is gone, has gone on to

another place. His two sons are gone. And they know it is a civil war going on right now in Iraq and they know full well that the key to Iraq, using the Iraq Study Group, I must add, and also every other expert as it relates to Iraq, will not be solved militarily.

It will not be solved militarily. Diplomacy is going to play a big role. Unless we start to endorse diplomacy, and Members are coming to the floor and saying, by passing this bill, we are saying we are surrendering.

Let me go back to what President Bush said. He was asked during the last campaign when would there be a victory. Well, there won't be a victory.

What he meant by that by saying there will not be a time when someone will go and hand a flag over to the United States and say ``you won.'' That is not going to happen. That is not going to happen. So for Members thinking there is going to be some big conversation at Little Big Horn or whatever the case may be for those historians that are around, that is not going to happen.

If you are waiting for an insurgent to come up and say let's sign an agreement and say, let me borrow this pen. This pen is fine. I will sign right here to say we surrender to the great U.S. military. That is not going to happen, ladies and gentlemen, and every Member of Congress has to know that. So to say we are going to hang around officiating a U.S. war, and losing two to three troops on average to sniper fire and IEDs, just to say we are tough and we are going to keep riding until we can't ride any more, we are moving into $525 billion-plus, with a B, in spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a worthy cause because they had everything to do with 9/11. Because of Iraq, the Taliban and al Qaeda still live in Afghanistan, and they are getting stronger because of the lack of oversight by this Congress and the White House saying we need to send more troops because we have the coalition of the few who are leaving Iraq. So we have to continue to send brigades and troops into Iraq. This supplemental is moving in a new direction. It is moving in the direction of oversight saying that the President of the United States put benchmarks on the Iraqi Government, and in this bill it addresses that. If they don't meet those benchmarks, we start reversing our troops out. If we have an unwilling government in Iraq saying we can continue to do what we are doing because the Americans are going to be here, that is not so. The American people are far beyond several Members of Congress on this issue. Democrats and Republicans and Independents know full well that the reaction in Iraq of saying we are going to continue to send military in and some bureaucrat over at the Department of Defense saying, well, regardless of the fact that they had enough downtime, we are going to send them anyway because we have to keep over 140,000 troops in harm's way, just in Iraq. In this bill it goes against that theory.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just clarify. Does it tie the hands of the administration? No, it doesn't. It says if it is within the national interest of national security, you have to come before Congress and justify stepping out of what we want to pass here in this House. It doesn't do anything to the President. It doesn't tie the hands of the military. It says if you are going to do something outside of the rules that you have already set, you have to come before Congress and let us know what you are doing. What's wrong with that?

Newsweek, Time, and other periodicals that are weekly, and some daily, have asked, Is the President listening? What is the President thinking?

The American people are saying they want to do certain things as it relates to Iraq, but they don't want to be in the middle of a civil war.

The Department of Defense 2 weeks ago admitted there is a civil war in Iraq. They said that 2 weeks ago, and it has been going on for over a year. The media 6 months ago said we are now calling it a civil war. And the Department of Defense just came to grips with that.

I am going to tell you, there are four star generals that are friends of mine that know full well and have told me, Just between you and I, Congressman, we are in a civil war.

But the administration had to give the okay. So, you know, things are getting tough now, and you go ahead. You can say it, yeah.

That is the kind of DOD that we have right now. When I say DOD, the Department of Defense. This bill unearthed that kind of philosophy. We want the Department of Defense to be professionals. We want our three and four star generals and our people in harm's way to make the decisions and come before Congress and tell us the truth, not because someone in the White House or someone in the Department of Defense said if you tell it, there is going to be a price to pay.

Mr. Speaker, I have a list of generals that have paid that price that have said otherwise than what the Department of Defense wanted them to share.

One thing that is good, Secretary Rumsfeld is gone, and that is good. I am glad he is gone from the Department of Defense. I asked him politely, Maybe you want to consider retiring after Abu Ghraib. When you have the kind of power over DOD, it smothers other ideas. This is not something in DOD. This was printed in newspapers. If you disagreed with the Secretary of Defense, you had a problem. We want to fight against that.

I want to talk about my colleagues on the other side. My good friend who used to be the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he said he never felt stronger against what was going on as relates to the surge. They are going to have an opportunity to vote on the supplemental.

You had Senator Hagel who is also a Republican and I consider a good person. He said: ``I think the speech that was given last night,'' and this was after the President presented his plan for the surge, ``by the President represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam. If it is carried out, it will be resisted.'' That is Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony of 1-11-07. It goes on and on. Senator Snowe, Senator Collins, Senator Coleman, Senator Smith, Senator Brownback, Senator Specter, Senator Bunning, and on and on and on. Senator Sununu.

So we can go on and on talking about the justification of third-party validators that are here. And then we have generals, Mr. Speaker, that have said otherwise against what this administration is proposing. The President has threatened to veto this supplemental. I wonder why. It is his words that he said here at that podium that the Iraqi Government has to be held accountable because we will not be there.

We used his words and put it on paper, put it into law. Here is the bill. It is on the Internet. Folks can read it. Every Member has a copy. There is no secret. It is not in some back room, it is not like, I have not seen the bill yet. H.R. 1591. You can read about all of the good things that are in here that are already Department of Defense regulations. That is what the President said when he made his surge speech and the accountability that is being placed on the Iraqi Government.

The Iraq Study Group, it is in here. Their recommendations are in here. It is nothing new. They were bipartisan, appointed by the President of the United States.

All we are saying is we are going to hold you to your word. What is wrong with that? Whatever happened to those good old days, if you say it, you are going to do it? What is wrong with that?

I don't know what the problem is, Members, but the only problem I can find with holding you to your word is probably politics, partisan politics. When we look at national security, there is no room for that.

Let's talk about some of these military leaders that have raised a concern about the escalation.

General Colin Powell, can't say enough about him, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Secretary of State. That is some resume. ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops in Baghdad for the purpose of suppressing this continued violence, this civil war will work.''

That is General Colin Powell. It is not Kendrick Meek. And he is a Republican. He is just being an American when he said this. I know General Powell, and he is a friend.

General Wesley Clark, retired, former Supreme Allied Commander of

Europe of NATO. This is a man who led us in Bosnia. He said troops surge and accountability will be seen as rhetoric. The bottom line of what he is saying is that the accountability of what we say that we want to be accountable for in Iraq as it relates to security is not going to see itself through.

General McCaffrey, who is retired, he said: ``It is a foolish idea. Our allies will leave us.''

Mr. Speaker, that is what has happened.

``Make no mistake about that, most will be gone by the summer.'' This is what he said. And sure enough, they are going to be gone by the summer.

These are our decorated members of the military that are saying this. So when Members come to the floor and start calling Members names and calling the Speaker names and calling the Speaker ``general'' and carrying on and trying to make a point and trying to sensationalize the obvious, it is not serving our troops well and it is not serving our country well.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to close with this: we have a responsibility as Americans and also as Members of the House to make sure that we follow through on what we said and told our constituents that we would do, that we would come as thinkers to this process and that we would represent them in the best way possible.

For the men and women that allow us to salute one flag, for those who have served in the past, we thank them and honor them. Let's honor them tomorrow when we come to this floor and vote for this emergency supplemental. We had a nonbinding resolution a couple of weeks ago that said we were against the escalation of troops in Iraq. This bill and this emergency supplemental is binding, and it has meat and teeth on it on behalf of those in harm's way, and even those that have served. In this bill we are taking care of the needs of not only military but military families. We are providing homeland security with the necessary funding that they need. And so when you think about, when you pray about what you are going to do tomorrow, think about those that are counting on us to represent them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker and majority leader for allowing me to come to the floor tonight. I want to thank the Members of the House for listening. It is always a true honor to address the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, March 23, 2007, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the House once again. I am glad to see you there in the Chair. Also, I am glad to be joined by Mr. Murphy and also Mr. Ryan. We are pleased Mr. Ryan can be here at the top of the 30-Something Working Group hour.

We come to the floor every week, sometimes two or three times a week, to talk about the great things that are happening here in the House, talk about how we are getting better not only as to oversight but appropriations, and also budgeting, making sure that we budget so we no longer have to borrow money from foreign nations.

The discussion here tonight is important because we have the emergency war supplemental that is coming to the floor on Thursday. The Appropriations Committee dealt with that today. To have such an important Member like Mr. Ryan who is a member of the Appropriations Committee, they have been doing quite a bit of work. I know he has a lot to share with us making sure that we sling-shot the troops in for a win, and also the folks who have served our country, the men and women who have served our country in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note there is $1.7 billion in this bill for health care; it is $1.7 billion more than the President has asked for. Also as relates to veterans health care, there is $1.7 billion more than what the President requested.

We had a chart on the floor last week that talked about Democrats when we were in the minority putting forth proposals to make sure that our veterans had what they needed once they left Afghanistan and Iraq, and even for those still in the service.

We have also put additional dollars in as relates to readiness, and we will talk about that because we have some definitions we want to share with Members.

But since Mr. Ryan has been spending a lot of time in the Appropriations Committee working on these very issues, I thought I would yield to my good friend and allow him to elaborate on the very work they have been doing over the last couple of weeks. I said before you came in, Mr. Ryan, that we are so happy you are here at the top of the 30-Something Working Group hour because you are an appropriator and that is an important position.

Please say it.

When did you pass this legislation? I mean, pass it out of Appropriations Committee, when did that happen?

That just happened. That just happened.

On Thursday?

We are within our fifth year now, our fifth year, and Mr. Speaker, I always say there is nothing like the Congressional Record. That is the reason why the 30-something Working Group, we like third-party validators, and we love the Congressional Record because that is the reason why we meet. That is the reason why we make sure we have what we need to have to give good, accurate information to the Members.

But we have a very important Member that is on the floor that is a member of not only the Financial Services Committee, but also Government Oversight, that has their work cut out as it relates to making sure that this government is efficient, and that is Mr. Murphy. I think that it is very important that we hear from him and some of the information that he has to share, because a lot of the information we have now is from Mr. Murphy's committee.

Nothing like a good chart.

Another thing that is so very, very important, is his name David Broder, the conservative writer? I was home reading a hometown paper. Some folks in this town admit that they do not read the paper, but I do, and he wrote an article saying no blank checks out of this Congress, and it talked about oversight hearings and talked about what is happening in Justice, Mr. Speaker, and it talked about what is happening in some of the other Federal agencies. But he ended the article by saying it really does not change government. It does. This is where he is wrong. It does.

Half of the things that we know now about Walter Reed, most of the things that we know now about the Iraq war is that the Congress is now carrying out its constitutional responsibility, and that is to have oversight. So I just wanted to, just if we continue like Mr. Ryan was saying, listening to these voices of the past, saying let us stay in the same direction, oh, do not worry about having oversight hearings, where were these voices when folks were giving away millions of dollars in special interest tax cuts to the superwealthy and to the superconnected? So I think it is important we are on the right track.

I think it is important, as we start to look at this, I cannot help but reflect on the fact that as of 10 a.m. today, and that is today, that we have lost 3,222 men and women in Iraq. I mean, that is not a small number when we look at the sacrifices that have been made. Also, we are looking at another 13,415 wounded that have returned to duty, and 10,722 wounded that cannot return to duty. Then we have folks that are whining about having some accountability in what we now call 5 years later emergency supplemental funding.

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, for the Members to understand because we want to come to the floor, we do not want a Member going back to their district saying they did not understand what was in the bill because we know it is on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Ryan pointed that out we have some folks that are just going to vote on principle; I am going to vote against this because it was not my idea. I am going to vote against it because I am a Republican. Well, guess what? The American people voted last November for leadership, not saying that I am going to send a Democrat or Republican. We had Republicans that were tenured in this House, served 10-, 15-year terms unelected because they were following partisan politics. It is very, very important that we look at the bipartisanship in this.

I will yield because I was about to make a point on the readiness issue.

Mr. Murphy, I think it is important for us to look at the following line. This bill puts also enforcement behind what is already out there. There is no policy risk here in this bill. We know that the Iraq Study Group says that we should have timelines. That is in this bill.

We know that the military, as it relates to readiness, and we know that there are four basic components to readiness, you have, for instance, we have 100 Striker brigades that are in our military right now. We know in every Striker vehicle you have to have a commander, a gunner and a driver. We need to make sure that we have all three of those components before we send a Striker force into Iraq or Afghanistan. That is in this bill, and that is what the military calls for.

I think it is important to also outline that there is not a National Guard unit that is right now in our National Guard force that is combat ready. Right now, I say that with great confidence. We don't have that right now. I am on the Armed Services Committee because I know this stuff. I mean, I know this stuff because we talk about it.

We talk about the fact that we are not ready to do the things that we need

to do as it relates to equipment maintenance. In many parts of the theater we don't have what we need to keep heavy vehicles moving. We look at the reason why we don't have up-armored vehicles, in some instance, going out on patrol. If you ask some here in Washington DC, that is every time, but not all the time.

In Baghdad, this is very, very important, the training and making sure that everyone is trained and have what they need to have to carry out the task within a brigade is very, very important.

In this supplemental we are meeting the needs of the Army as it relates to what they need. I think it's 36,000 troops, additional troops. They need an Army, and we are also increasing the Marines by three brigades, if Members want to vote against this piece of legislation.

I think it's also good to outline in 2001, we were at 80 percent of readiness. When we say ``readiness,'' everyone was trained and equipment was in place to be able to deal with it. We haven't been down at the numbers or the level we are now as it relates to readiness or a lack thereof since the end of the Vietnam War.

In this day and time when we have Iran and we have Syria and we have North Korea and we have other countries of interest to the United States as it relates to a threat, now more than ever we need to make sure that we are there not only for the troops but also for the American people.

I think it is also important to shed light on the fact that there are several other great things that are in this bill, $2.6 billion to deal with Homeland Security issues that were not dealt with, Hurricane Katrina relief, $2.9 billion, also as it relates to urgent State children's health care and insurance needs at $750 million, urgent needs for pandemic flu preparedness at $1 billion.

As we start to look at and uncover in these hearings, as some talk about, that are a waste of time, we start looking at the gaps of the lack of oversight and a lack of execution on behalf of programs and initiatives that will make our troops' lives better, those that are enlisted, those that are Reservists, to be able to secure our troops that are in theater at this time, many of whom are in the areas of great danger and constant fire, and also looking at the needs of the country, of the everyday American people.

Now, it is interesting because the minority side, the Republicans over there, when we start looking at some of them, when we start looking at some of these votes that have taken place, many of the Members of the leadership, if not all, have voted against commonsense legislation that we passed on a bipartisan basis.

I mean, we had a number of Republicans voting for bills that were brought up by this Democratic Congress. You look at implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, we had 299 votes, Democrats voted in the affirmative, we had 299 overall votes, 86 of those individuals were Republicans. Minimum wage, to be able to raise minimum wage, 315 with 82 Republicans joining us.

Also, you have funding enhancement for stem cell research, 253, and a majority of Members voted for that bill. Thirty-seven Republicans joined us making prescription drugs affordable for seniors. H.R. 4, 255, it passed with 24 Republicans joining us. Cutting the student loan interest rates in half, H.R. 5, 356, with 124 Republicans joining us.

Again, creating long-term energy initiatives, H.R. 6 passed, 264, with 36 Republicans joining us.

Now, I can tell you tomorrow or Thursday, there will be a number of individuals thinking about how they are going to vote. But I can tell you this, there are several things that we can say about this emergency supplemental that is really, really good for the country, and there are also eight or nine points that I can point out that are leadership calls. You have to be a leader to take a position on anything, and I think we have some Members on the minority side that don't want to take a position.

Let me go back to David Broder's article that he wrote, and the Members can get it at miamiherald.com; it was March 18. It should still be on, you can get it for free on the World Wide Web: ``Congress won't sign any more blank checks,'' but it goes on down to paragraph 6 and talks about the fact that for 6 years the Bush administration and the aids that they are talking about earlier in the bill would have free rein on carrying out whatever political policy or assignment they wished, and also the President. Let's just say hypothetically, that the President wanted this done.

A Congress, under a firm Republican control, was solemn when it came down to oversight of the executive branch. No Republican committee chairman wanted to turn rocks over as it relates to the Republican administration.

I think it's important that we have the kind of forward lean that we have now, because that is what the American people have called for. They asked for accountability. They asked for oversight. They asked for Members of Congress to come here and be Members of Congress, not just say Mr. Murphy is my friend, and we all get along and I see him in the hall, he wears nice ties, what have you, is a member of Financial Services and also Government Oversight.

They didn't send us here to have great relationships and to slap each other in the back. They sent us here to provide the kind of leadership that they deserve. The bottom line is, when that bill and this emergency supplemental bill comes up, war supplemental comes up on the floor, we will have to take a position. We have to answer for the fact that we have put benchmarks in this bill saying that the Iraqi Government, their feet have to be held to the fire, because, guess what, back in my district there are mayors and there are county commissioners and there are city commissioners and there are school board commissioners and there are constituents of mine that want health care, and their feet are being held to the fire. Mayors have to fill out more paperwork. I guarantee you the mayor of Baghdad has to fill them out too as it relates to Federal dollars.

You talked about in the early days of voting money on the back of a truck and passing out cash money to pay government workers in Iraq and to do other things that we know very little about now. We also know that weapons that we bought are unaccounted for at this time.

To say that we are the so-called board of the United States of America, and the President is the chief CEO, the chief executive officer, we are not carrying out our responsibilities, making sure that the President does exactly what he said he would do, making sure that Iraqi government does what they said they would do. We need to make sure that our men and women don't have to speak under their breath as it relates to readiness, as they board a plane to go to Kuwait to then be shipped to Iraq, that they don't have what they need in a Striker brigade, that they don't have what they need as it relates to the training or the equipment or the down time that they deserve, not a rotation based on some bureaucrat in Washington DC saying, well, we need three more brigades in Iraq.

Oh, well, I know they have only been home for 120 days, but we need them there to keep up our troop level there at over 147,000. I must add, where other countries have announced or have withdrawn, we have replaced them with American troops. Yes, this is a leadership vote, and, yes, some of us are going to have to go to the wizard and get some courage and come here and vote on behalf of the supplemental.

Now, I respect folks having different opinions, but this is a far better supplemental bill than Members in this Congress have voted on in the past. We have voted on at least two of them since I have been here. I can remember two of them, and they did not have benchmarks. They just had money in the bill saying trust the President and trust the Department of Defense, they know what they are doing.

Guess what, the American people have said, I don't like that. I don't want to do that any more.

So now we have the opportunity to put the language in the bill that would hopefully get us to the point where the Iraqi Government will say, wow, the U.S. Government is no longer playing around with us. The American people are no longer playing around with us.

We will actually have to perform. We will actually have to turn out the troops and keep the retention as it relates to our security forces and to secure our own country. We are not going to be there forever. We are going to make sure of that.

For those that are saying we have to be there as long as we have to be there, I am saying that there has to be benchmarks. I am saying $500 billion has been spent in this war thus far and will continue to be spent unless someone stands up and takes the responsibility on.

I commend the Speaker, commend the leadership, commend every Member that has put their shoulder to the wheel and said this must be done now, not next year, not 3 years from now, not maybe we will think about it one day. The bottom line is there are folks here saying we don't want to let down Iraqi people but, guess what, I don't want to let down a U.S. taxpayer.

I don't want to let down that individual that is sitting in a veterans hospital now hoping and wishing they could get the kind of good care if the Congress was to stand behind them. It's not a gift issue as it relates to the majority here in this House. It is when we vote on this bill Thursday the they will be able to see the accountability they deserve. We have a process, get it through to the President.

This President can go on and on about how he will veto it, but I remember all of the tough talk. I have gone to the White House; I have spoken to the President. I don't have to talk in third party. I have done that. I don't have to have someone tell me what the President said.

The President said, even in his speech as it relates to the escalation of troops, well, we know that the people know that, yes, they are passing a nonbinding resolution now. It is nonbinding, but there will be a binding resolution as it relates to the emergency supplemental. And I agree with the President; yes, it was nonbinding, and, yes, we had a vote. And I told the President that bill will pass overwhelmingly against your initiative and escalation of troops in Iraq. He said, yes, Kendrick, I do know that will happen, but there will be a binding resolution. And this is the binding resolution. And if the President wants a blank check, he is just not going to get it. And he has to come through this House of Representatives, he has to go through the Senate. And it is something we have to hold this government's feet to the fire, the Iraqi Government's feet to the fire, or you might as well start going back home, Members, and sharing with your constituents, how old is your son? Oh, he's 12? Well, he is going to be going to Iraq one day, and he is going to do it because it is going to continue to go on and on and on if we keep following the Bush philosophy.

And there is nothing wrong with our volunteer force. We have some individuals that graduated from high school and want to go into the Army. I am all for that. I help recruit on behalf of armed services. But I think it is important that we do not give our men and women a fixed deck because we weren't man enough and woman enough and leader enough to vote on their behalf for their accountability measures so they will have what they need when they go into theater.

You know, Mr. Murphy, it is so refreshing to hear you speak about this legislation, especially being fresh off the campaign trail, especially being a new Member of Congress. And I can tell you that as long as you continue to keep that spirit, and Members of this House and the majority continue to keep the spirit of wanting to do everything that you said you would do on the night that you were elected.

You know, many of us gave these great speeches, Mr. Speaker, talking about when we get to Washington, this is what we will do, and that I am going to be there for you, and that I am going to make sure that you get the kind of accountability that you deserve. I am going to make sure that your tax dollars are being spent in an appropriate way. I am going to make sure that we take care of the troops. I am going to make sure that we hold this administration accountable. And then many times in the past, not this time fortunately, but many times in the past, a Member gets here to Washington, DC, starts walking around the Halls of Congress; a couple of folks call you Congressman or Congresswoman, you have a parking space downstairs. You know, folks, military folks, salute you when you get off a plane. You travel over into a foreign land, and in a motorcade going down the street, and then you forget about all those things. And I am so glad, Mr. Murphy, that you have that spirit still in your heart. And there are a number of Members of Congress who still have that spirit.

And, Mr. Speaker, the reason why sometimes I get a little animated and a little excited about the fact that we have some Members here in the House who are willing to be followers when it is time for them to be leaders, and to take a position on anything, it doesn't matter what it may be; if it is changing, you know, the color of the paint in your office, it takes leadership to be able to do that because you have to stand behind that decision.

The decision saying that we want to make sure that the readiness level of our troops before they are put into harm's way is an important decision to be made and a decision that has been endorsed by the Defense Department. This is not new language, this is not a new idea, this is something that has to be placed into this supplemental to make sure the Defense Department does exactly what they said they would do in their own policy. We are not putting forth any new benchmarks for the Iraqi Government; this is what the President said. This is what he said, this is what came out of his mouth, that they have to meet these benchmarks, or we will no longer continue to do the things we have been doing. So that is the reason why it is in writing.

It is almost like when you talk to someone on the phone, and you have a health care crisis, and you call down to the hospital and you say, listen, I have a problem, I need you to help me out. You are talking to a person on the phone. First of all, you may say, can I have your name, please; who am I speaking with? Or another example: If I'm looking for financing for my house, and I am talking to someone on the phone, and they say, yes, sure, we can give you a very low interest rate, a 3.2 percent interest rate. Hey, can you give me that in writing?

What we are doing here in this emergency supplemental is we are giving the American people and our men and women in harm's way a supplemental in writing. It is not a speech. We are not talking to the Kiwanis Club, even though we have great Kiwanis Clubs out there, don't get me wrong. We are not at a Rotary luncheon giving those speeches back home saying, ``I love the troops, I love the troops.'' We are putting it in writing. We are not saying we love the veterans, when the veterans come up here to look at this great Capitol and see the flags flying over the House Chamber and over the Senate and over the dome of the Capitol and over the office buildings and all, proud to be an American, proud that they had something to do with allowing us to salute one flag. It is not about a little speech I give out on the sidewalk thanking them for help. They want to see it in writing. They want to make sure we have their back.

This is a leadership call, you have to make a decision. And the bottom line is we have been elected and federalized by our constituents to make decisions. And I can guarantee you, Mr. Murphy, there is not a Republican voter or a Democratic voter or any Independent voter who has a problem with accountability, and that is what this bill does.

Now, someone may have a problem with the fact that they didn't do what they needed to do when they were in the majority to do it. And now we have provided an opportunity, and I have pointed out all of the votes here earlier, and then some, of the opportunities that we have allowed Republicans to have a bill that they wanted to vote for all along to the floor, and they voted in the affirmative, even though their leadership voted the other way. Now, that is for their leadership to say that they are accountable to their constituents because they decided to vote against something good.

But when you look at this emergency supplemental, this emergency supplemental is the first time since this war has started, Mr. Murphy, Members, Mr. Speaker, the first time that the President actually would have a document in writing that passed in the affirmative on this floor to say that the Iraqi Government will meet these benchmarks, or redeployment will stop; to say we will make sure that we invest in veterans health care and giving Homeland Security what they need to be able to carry out the duty and protection of the homeland.

It also says, Department of Defense, pulling a page out of your own regulations, and we are going to put it in the bill to make sure that you actually do it, not just some bureaucrat sitting over there at the Pentagon saying we have to find three more brigades from somewhere, if they are ready or not, we have to make sure that we have the numbers in Iraq. If that soldier has only been home for 120 days, and we call for 200-plus days of downtime with their families to be able to regroup from being in a battle zone, those are rights that our men and women have. So we are no longer leaving that decision up to some bureaucrat in the Pentagon to make on behalf of an American who goes off to fight on our behalf.

Now, is there language in there in case of emergencies; you know, if the

President, within the national interest that we have to redeploy, we have to send these troops back into the theater? Of course there is.

Are we hindering the President from him being Commander in Chief? No, we are not. But what we are saying is that there are rules, and you have to live by those rules. And it is going to be a majority vote here in this House, and the question, Mr. Speaker, how many Members are going to be with us when we make that majority vote here in the House to set forth the parameters of success on behalf of not only the men and women in uniform, but those that have worn the uniform and those that have been injured and cannot return back to battle, and even for those that are going to battle, that they have exactly what they need.

We know that we have the number one best military, most able military on the face of the Earth. But at the same time, we have to have respect for that military and making sure that the men and women have what they need and their families.

Mr. Murphy.

Well, I can tell you, Mr. Murphy, it has definitely been a pleasure and a joy to be here on the floor with you tonight. And I know that I have some information that you want to share with the Members that may want to get in contact with us.

Well, I know the good people of Connecticut have been well served. And we also want to thank, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ryan for coming down at the top of the hour to spend about 20 minutes with us. That is pretty good for an appropriator.

It was a good quality 20 minutes, I must add. And, Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor and a pleasure to address the House, and I mean the full House. I think it is important that we continue this discussion. As you know, we are going to be dealing with the emergency supplemental on Thursday, and next week we are going to get into the budget. These are real issues.

Timelines will be met. All the appropriations bills are moving through the process. They will be passed on time. We will no longer be in the business of continuing resolutions.

This is so, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say, I used to say in the 109th Congress, I mean, it is kind of rough when you go in front of your hometown and you say, well, I am a Member of the 109th Congress. It is almost like kind of saying like you are a bad guy. But in the 110th Congress, I must say, and every Member of Congress, I am not talking about just some Members, I am talking about every Member because there were so many issues that were going on here in Washington, D.C.

But now we have the opportunity to work on behalf of the American people. We have the opportunity to do good things for veterans. We have the opportunity to do great things for children that are on military bases. We have an opportunity to make sure that our troops have what they need when they go into harm's way. And that is something we should all feel good about, on both sides of the aisle.

And I think that, come Thursday, Members will have a work product that they will be able to vote for and not think about. I mean, I feel sorry for the Members who have to walk around and say, goodness, I have to vote not to fund operations of troops that are in harm's way. They shouldn't walk around with that burden. They should be able to say that we cannot, I voted for the supplemental. I voted for it twice. They didn't have the parameters and the benchmarks that I wanted in it. But for the greater good, to make sure that our men and women have what they need, Mr. Murphy, if they are in there doing what they were told to do, that they must have what they need.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that we will continue this debate, and we will also continue to do the good work up here in Washington, D.C.

Madam Speaker, today I rise with great gladness over the inauguration of Dr. Karl S. Wright as the 11th President of Florida Memorial University. On March 15, 2007 he will take over the reins of this university amidst ceremonies that evoke the historical significance of this occasion. Having earned his Ph.D. in Economics at Mississippi State University and his bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Maryland at College Park, Dr. Wright will preside over South Florida's only historically Black institution of higher learning which has played a major role in responding to the needs of a burgeoning urban center like Miami-Dade County.

He is not new to the challenge since he has served as executive vice- president and provost when he oversaw the dramatic increase in the size of its student enrollment. He has actively participated in navigating the rough waters of this university's change from a college status to that of a university. Dr. Wright is no stranger to this institution's upgrading since he has managed not only the quality of the faculty and staff, but also the number of courses and degree programs that now validate its status as a major university.

Being an institution of higher learning alongside the Baptist tradition, Dr. Wright's role is enhanced by his commitment to religious education amidst the challenge of academic achievement and higher learning, emphasizing financial management and entrepreneurship, aerospace engineering and personal development. He has also devised a very innovative program on physical fitness and dropout prevention strategies during a time when this urban university reaches out to inner city students in need of mentoring and tutorial assistance. These unique programs are making Florida Memorial University into one of those pioneering institutions whereby its outreach efforts to the youth of Miami-Dade County and beyond are generating dividends toward enhancing its prestige and reputation.

In the midst of these innovative educational strategies, Dr. Wright will continue to strengthen this university's graduate degree accreditation process, while expanding qualitatively its presence in the South Florida community and throughout nearby countries within the Caribbean basin. Having served for 7 years as Dean of the School of Business at South Carolina State University, he is well equipped with his educational background and hands-on experience to bring the necessary upgrade toward ensuring that Florida Memorial University become indeed a world-class university.

Defined by his ability to reach out beyond the confines of a university setting, Dr. Wright will no doubt bank on his role on the Miami-Dade County Investment Advisory Committee, as well as on the prestigious 100 Black Men of Ft. Lauderdale to give him the necessary tools to consolidate community and business support for the university. Most importantly, Dr. Wright has been recognized by the Kellogg Foundation as a leadership Fellow, and has earned kudos from the American Association of State Colleges and University, which recently selected him to participate in the Millennium Presidential Leadership Fellows Initiative.

As he is sworn into office, I am confident that Dr. Karl S. Wright will demonstrate to all those called upon by public service that excellence is never beyond the reach of those willing to make the sacrifice and dare the impossible on behalf of our leaders of tomorrow. I rest assured that he is truly imbued with the personal integrity and intellectual acumen to bring Florida Memorial University into one of the leading universities in our State.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Ryan, it is more than 67 hearings. You meant 97 last week, but now it is 104 hearings. Three digits.

March 15. That's a good thing, Mr. Ryan.

Definitely at this point in the 109th Congress, in the 108th Congress.

But go ahead, Mr. Ryan.

That is no-bid contract Halliburton.

Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Thank you for yielding. So kind of you. My good friend from Ohio.

Mr. Ryan, you know, yesterday when we were down here, we talked about the bipartisan votes, the fact that we are allowing an opportunity for the Members of Congress to vote for good commonsense, good government legislation that they have been denied of voting on for 12 years. And now we are in the majority, and we have an opportunity to put legislation forth. And as Ms. Wasserman Schultz experienced in the last Congress, we had, Madam Speaker, very few bipartisan votes because it was the bills that came to the floor that encouraged a lack of bipartisanship. As a matter of fact, it encouraged partisanship, to keep us divided. And that is not what Americans asked for. They didn't say, hey, Congressman, I am sending you to Washington, D.C. to be a partisan. I am sending you to Washington, D.C. to make sure that we have accountability; to make sure that we are fiscally responsible; to make sure that we hopefully move in a new direction when we need to move in a new direction.

And I am so happy today, with this whole Accountability in Contracting Act, that there were 347 votes in the affirmative. Madam Speaker, I am more concerned about the 73. How do they go back home and say, well, I don't believe in accountability in contracting; I'm against that. You know, I would think that the folks that did vote against this very good piece of legislation are probably going down the line of saying that I am committed to being a partisan, because it wasn't my idea or it wasn't their idea. Well, the good thing that I am excited about, because I am not going to focus on the individuals who decided not to vote for it, I am going to focus on the 119 Republicans that did vote for it and the 228 Democrats that did vote for it. Every last Democrat that was voting on that bill voted in the affirmative because it was the right thing to do. And I commend the bipartisanship, and we will continue to talk about that.

Whistleblower protection, we talked about that yesterday, such a good vote. I am going to say it again, Madam Speaker: 331 voting in the affirmative. Bipartisan, the House. The majority of the House voted to protect whistleblowers

Mr. Ryan, someone is in there in an office somewhere here in Washington, DC, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, or in a regional office in Atlanta and come to work every day saying that this is not the way we should be doing things. This is against the law. That individual will be protected once we get it through the legislature, once we get it through the Senate and hopefully to the President.

But what I am more concerned about, Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Ryan, is that the President has already said of these accountability measures that we are passing that he is willing to veto three out of four of them.

Which is very interesting. I don't know of the 73 that voted against it today, if that is going to be the basis for saying that that is the reason why I am going to veto it, because 73 Members of the House voted against it. But neither be here nor there, I am glad that we are here in the majority, Madam Speaker. We have been in the minority, but we still have not allowed the majority to get to our heads or to our heart.

I will yield, but I was just making a wonderful point. I will yield, Mr. Ryan, if you want me to yield.

We are not letting it get to our heads or our heart or the reason why we are here in the first place.

And the reason why the 30-something Working Group continues to come to the floor, Madam Speaker, because some folks thought, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, this is just a minority project. Oh, they are in the minority, they want to go to the floor, they want to talk about what's wrong, they want to talk about what they will do if they ever get in the majority, and that will be it. Well, guess what? We are here in the majority celebrating the fact that we are doing the things that we said we would do. I mean, that is a paradigm shift in Washington politics: you run for office and you come here and you actually do what you said you were going to do. And now that is being carried out.

We have always said some of our friends on the other side of the aisle wanted to be a part of good government, 6 in `06, implementing the 9/11 Commission. We were able to get 299 votes with 68 Republicans voting with us on that. Raising the minimum wage, we were able to get 315 votes with 82 Republicans voting with us. Funding on enhancement of stem cell research, H.R. 3, 253, with 37 Republicans, on and on and on. And the reason why that is happening is not because Republicans all of a sudden say, hey, I want to vote with Democrats and I am going to be bipartisan. They are voting because they always wanted the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to vote for good legislation.

Back home, I am going to tell you right now, there are Republicans that are saying I wanted the 9/11 recommendations to be fully implemented to protect America. They don't care who is the leader of the Republicans in the House and who is the leader of the Democrats in the House. They want to be secure. And those Republicans that voted with Democrats to implement every last one of those 9/11 recommendations did so on behalf of their constituents.

So we come to the floor to talk about bipartisanship. We come to the floor because we have always said bipartisanship can only be allowed, Madam Speaker and Members, if the majority allows it; and we are allowing it.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

That just happened.

Mr. Ryan, if you would yield. I mean, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, we were just talking just the other day about outing CIA agents; we were just talking about it. And in the last Congress folks were like, why are you all speculating? We are not speculating, I mean, someone is not telling the truth. Now a court of law said that people did know certain things. And you are right, Mr. Ryan, I mean, the most endangered job, especially if you are on the other side of the aisle, is to be chief of staff. Now people are looking at the chief of staff in a different way than they have done before in the past.

Make that point.

I know Ms. Wasserman Schultz will be returning soon, but while we have two high level members of the House Appropriations Committee on the floor at the same time, since you share with me how important the Appropriations Committee is, we need to talk about what's going to happen next week, because I think it's important that the Members understand that we are carrying out a great mission here.

On Tuesday, I know the House will meet at 10:30 for morning business, and we will consider suspension bills, what have you, but we are going to have on the floor next week H.R. 1227, which is the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act. That is going to resolve many of the issues that gulf coast States and States in the future will face, and will allow us, allow the Federal Government to work in an appropriate way versus an inappropriate way of not being prepared for the needs of the American people.

Then on Wednesday we are going to deal with U.S. troop readiness and accountability act, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. Mr. Ryan, you and I were talking about this yesterday, and you were marking it up, or you have marked it up in the Appropriations Committee.

I think it's important that we share with the Members, as they break to go home back to their districts, that the real story within this bill is that it has accountability, that it is protecting the troops in a way that the Department of Defense has said that they should be protected, using their own rules and regulations for readiness.

Now, what does that mean? That is to assure, Mr. Ryan, as you mentioned yesterday, that they have what they need when they go into theater, that it is already there before they get there. They have things that are simple like Kevlar vests, up-armored vehicles, to make sure that they have appropriate downtime before they are put back into the theater. These are Department of Defense regulations. These are not regulations that we came up with here in Congress, this is Department of Defense regulations. So we took those regulations and put it into this legislation.

Looking at holding the Iraqi government to the benchmarks that the President spoke about, when he spoke of his escalation on plan, it's holding the President and also the Iraqi government accountable for benchmarks as it relates to continued funding. Also, I mentioned the strategy of redeployment of U.S. troops by 2008. I think that is very important.

Yesterday I read some poll numbers, Mr. Ryan, that the American people are far ahead of the Bush administration on this issue. Guess what, we are helping the American people make sure their message makes it into law, makes it into this great emergency supplemental that has teeth in it and that has benchmarks for accountability and fiscal responsibility.

Also, when we look at refocusing military efforts on Afghanistan and fighting terrorism, it's in the bill. What is also in the bill is expanding funding for veterans health care and hospitals. Our track record is clean on this, $3.6 billion went into veterans health care prior to the Walter Reed story breaking, prior to this emergency supplemental, and the continuing resolution that we passed almost a month ago.

If we can talk a little bit about this legislation, the legislation is coming up next week, but talk about the significance, not only of housing for individuals who are in gulf coast areas, but also the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. You all just had a great discussion on it today.

Can you share it with the Members so they know exactly what they are voting on next week? You know, in the 30-Something Working Group, we hate to see Members that don't fully understand what they are voting on, because when they go back home and a veteran walks up to him and says, Congressman, Congresswoman, why didn't you vote for additional funding for veterans health care, or when they go to a military base, a Reserve unit, National Guard or Active duty, and they say, well, Congressman, Congresswoman, why are you putting me back into the theater and I just left the theater 120 days ago? That is against Department of Defense regulations.

I have to run to the whip's office for an important meeting. I am a member of the Ways and Means Committee. Maybe you all will get a call. I know you are all important, you may get a call as members of the Appropriations Committee to go to the Democratic whip, office of the majority whip, but let me just say this very quickly, the men and women in uniform are standing by for us to sling- shot them in. They want us to stand up for them.

Mr. Ryan, I told you the other day a great Ohio saying, you have to have these sayings in Washington, D.C. and in politics, where they said that we have to remember that the field mouse is fast, but the owl can see at night. It's important that every Member of the House remember why we are here in the first place. People voted for us, you mentioned families, people voted for us to stand up for them, not stand up for a political party or to stand up on behalf of, oh, well, my President is in the White House.

Guess what, the President is the President for the entire country. I don't say your President, he is my President too. When we have issues such as this and we have supplementals, the President said we had a nonbinding resolution, it's nonbinding.

Guess what, this is binding. For folks who are looking for a binding document, this will be a binding document with accountability measures. I hope the two of you as members of the Appropriations Committee can go into it further, because we do have some Members that are on the fence, and we want those Members to vote on behalf of the continuing emergency supplemental so that the troops get what they need. They want us to stand in for them. They want to make sure that we make sure that we sling-shot them in for a win for a change, and this is on behalf of the men and women in uniform, our veterans have been waiting for them.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come before the House here, the 30-Something Working Group. I am glad that we are here tonight to have an opportunity to really talk about the accomplishments under the 110th Congress, and also issues that we are going to be working on in the very near future.

But as you know, Mr. Speaker, day after day I have been coming to the floor sharing with the Members and the American people on the fact that we have really worked hard to make sure that we run a house in a way that all the Members can feel comfortable about voting on the public policy that comes to this floor, especially major public policy.

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act that passed this floor today is a piece of legislation that is going to assist not only the public knowing more about what happens here, but to make sure that we protect those that are trying to protect us.

As we start to head down the road of fiscal responsibility, as we start to have oversight hearings and Federal employees and others that are involved in Federal action, and just average Americans will be able to come forward and to share with this Congress and other agencies of accountability and oversight about waste, they will be able to come and share concerns or speculation of corruption, they will be able to come forth with recommendations without receiving the repercussions that they would have received prior to the passing of this legislation today.

One other thing that I think is important when we start looking at this legislation, the fact that there were 102 Members on the other side of the aisle that voted in the affirmative. The vote on this floor just moments ago was 331-94. And I think that will go right in line with other pieces of legislation that have passed this House floor in a bipartisan way on a major bill. I think we have a chart here that I think will be helpful for the Members to take a look at.

Implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, H.R. 1, passed 299- 128, with 68 Republicans voting with the Democrats.

Raising the minimum wage passed 315-116, with 82 Republicans voting along with Democrats.

The funding for enhanced stem cell research, H.R. 3, 253 Members of the House voted in the affirmative, only 147 voted against. But as you know, Republican votes, 37 joined Democrats on that vote.

Making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors, H.R. 4, passed 255-170, with 24 Republicans voting with Democrats.

Cutting student loan interest rates in half, H.R. 5, 356-71, with 124 Republicans voting for it with all Democrats.

Creating long-term energy initiatives, I think it is an important initiative, H.R. 6, 264-163, with 36 Republicans voting with Democrats.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why is this important? Why are we talking about bipartisanship so much when we come to the floor in the 30-Something Working Group? We are talking about it because this has not been the culture here in the House. Major pieces of legislation, from H.R. 1 to H.R. 6, and even today when we passed off of this floor the Whistleblower Act, H.R. 985, to see bipartisan votes on these major pieces of legislation goes to show you that we have been waiting; and when I say ``we,'' Members of the House have been waiting for a very long time to have the opportunity to vote on commonsense legislation that is going to assist the American people in their everyday lives, will assist this Congress in bringing about the kind of accountability that the American people voted for and hoped that we would, hopefully, enact one day.

I think it is also important to look at three House bills to shed light on public records. I think it is very important that the American people understand that we are going to open the Federal Government up to allow them to be able to receive public records in a timely manner. Of course, we are going to protect national security issues. Of course, documents that are not ready for public consumption will not be given to the public or anyone that may endanger Americans abroad or here in the United States. But there are so many documents by the White House that have been deemed secret when it wasn't necessary for them to be deemed secret. This piece of legislation and the three bills would deal with that issue, to be able to have a little more openness to the process so that we can do our jobs here on Capitol Hill.

I think it is important to continue to stick with the watchwords that we have been talking about here, the 30-Something Working Group, on accountability, oversight, new direction, and fiscal responsibility. I think it is important that we pay attention to what is happening right now, Mr. Speaker, when it comes down to Hurricane Katrina, Abu Ghraib, 9/11 Commission recommendations, which I must add that 10 Republicans and the Senate joined Democrats in passing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. All of these reports, as we look at good government, are taken from bipartisan commissions.

We are talking about governance here. We are talking about accountability here. Some may say, well, 9/11 Commission recommendations, that is a Democratic work product. No. That is just a Democratic leadership bill, that we said that we would fully implement the 9/11 recommendations even though the President has threatened to veto them. Even though it was a bipartisan commission, Mr. Speaker, chaired by a Republican Governor, former Governor, still the President and Republicans are saying that there is not a need to implement those recommendations.

I think, as we start to reflect, before I start talking about the supplemental appropriations bill that is being marked up in the Appropriations Committee this week, since Democrats have taken the majority, Mr. Speaker, Walter Reed, the misconduct was exposed by a newspaper here in the Washington area, The Washington Post. Democrats took action, making sure that we had hearings going immediately, not after, not 2 or 3 weeks later, saying we are waiting on the administration to see what they are going to do.

In kind, the administration started working very vigorously to take some action, and I commend the President on appointing two very outstanding Americans, Ms. Shalala and also Mr. Dole, to lead a commission to look at that.

The firing of U.S. District Attorneys became exposed recently, within the last 48 hours. Information that we received here in Congress was inaccurate.

And now Democrats, in control of the House and Senate, are immediately going into hearings dealing with the Justice Department, asking the tough questions because no longer are we going to allow politics to run public policy in this country.

And I think it is important for the Members to understand that we are here as board members of the largest corporation on the face of the Earth, if one wants to call it that. I am just using that as an example. We are the board of directors here in the U.S. House of Representatives. One of the Members of our caucus during a caucus meeting made this analogy, with the President's being the chairman of the board or President/CEO.

When you start looking at the President/CEO of any corporation and you start looking at the mismanagement and you start looking at the political overtones, it is important that the board respond to whom? The stockholders, in this case, the American people, because it is their tax dollar that we are appropriating. It is their tax dollar that we have oversight on. And they have sent us, made us members of the board of directors to watch out for their interests. And that is using, once again, the word of accountability, the oversight.

We talk about a new direction. We also talk about fiscal responsibility. But those are not just catchwords. They mean something, and I think it is important that we pay very close attention to that.

I pointed out in this whole issue at Walter Reed last week, Mr. Speaker, and I felt very proud as a Member of Congress and someone that voted for the continuing resolution because the Republicans did not do their work in passing all of the appropriations bills. We had to clean it up when we came into the 110th Congress by passing a continuing resolution.

All district projects that Members fought for in the appropriations bill were taken out, and we had to then take those dollars and we put $3.6 billion into the veterans' health care system. And I am so glad we did that because when the Walter Reed story came out and the media started to focus on the lack of resources to take care of our veterans and take care of those that are still enlisted on the health care side, and this was actually the front cover here with the specialists of Newsweek, it gave the American people an opportunity to see leadership in action and also see a policy response to what has been unearthed by the media. And I think that is important because there has been a lot of foot-dragging around here and there has been a lack of the majority in the past of having the will and desire to do the right thing. And I am glad we did it in that case.

I am so glad to be joined by my very good friend, Mr. Ryan, from Niles, Ohio. They have a saying in Niles, Ohio, Mr. Ryan--well, in Ohio; I don't if it is necessarily in Niles. But it goes something like this: Remember that the field mouse is fast but the owl sees at night.

I yield to Mr. Ryan.

Reclaiming my time, when I came over, it wasn't like can we pause for a minute and let me catch my breath. I mean, I was actually anchoring this special order and sharing with the Members the great work that has been done.

I talked about the bipartisan vote that we took today on the whistleblower legislation. And, Mr. Ryan, I did go to the gym today to make sure that I am in the right shape to be a Member of this House and serve as an example of making sure that you take care of yourself, that you do the right thing, and you live a long time.

So, Mr. Ryan, thank you for being concerned about my health care needs and making sure that you came down and allowed me to catch my breath. But I am so happy to see you, sir, because as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am honored just to be in the same Chamber with you, sir.

Mr. Ryan, I am glad, because you are a member of the Appropriations Committee. Let me just say this, Mr. Ryan. Putting everything to the side here that we have been talking about, again, I am glad, because you are here as a member of the Appropriations Committee.

We actually have some Members, Mr. Ryan, that are concerned about the kind of leadership that this Congress is putting forth on behalf of the men and women in uniform and the men and women that wore the uniform and their families.

You know, Mr. Ryan, they say when you point your finger, you have like three or four fingers pointing back at you.

That is right. In full effect. You have here U.S. Troops Readiness, Veterans Healthcare, and Iraq Accountability Act. Expanding funding for veterans healthcare and hospitals. What is wrong with that? Nothing.

The Bush administration must meet military standards for troop readiness. Mr. Ryan, this is the DoD policy as it relates to troop readiness. The Congress had nothing to do with the policy. The Department of Defense came up with the policy.

So basically what we are saying, Mr. Speaker, through this act, follow your policy, because it is in the best interests of the American people and the troops that are in harm's way.

What is in that policy? Making sure troops have what they need when they are deployed. What else? Making sure we have a military that is ready to respond at a moment's notice when we need them. We will go deeper into that.

Mr. Ryan, losing kids? We are losing 47-year-old Reservists. We are losing granddads in some instances that are still serving our country, Mr. Speaker, in the Guard, in the Reserve, active duty.

When you look at this, again, the Iraq government must meet the Bush benchmarks for reform.

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is not what the Democratic Congress put benchmarks on the Iraqi government for. The President of the United States of America, the Commander in Chief, marched down this aisle, walked that way and went up there to that rostrum right under where you are standing, Mr. Speaker, and said if they don't meet the standards and do X, Y and Z, then we are not going to be there forever. What is wrong with following the leadership, especially when you talk about accountability?

What is different this time, Mr. Speaker, is when the President has made those statements in the past, he had a rubber stamp Congress willing to do anything that he wanted them to do. But now you have a Congress that put forth legislation that will allow Members of the minority party, the Republican Party, Mr. Ryan, to vote with Democrats, for accountability, there is that word again; oversight, there is another word we use all the time; and to head in a new direction as it relates to Iraq. We have said that 100 times.

I think that is important, making sure that strategic redeployment of U.S. troops in combat by 2008, and reforming military efforts on Afghanistan and the fight on terrorism. What is wrong with all of that?

If I can, Mr. Ryan, I want to just talk about how the American people are way ahead of the Bush administration on this issue and the reason why we had this big transition in leadership here in the Congress back in September.

Nearly six out of 10 Americans want U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq by 2008 or sooner. That is a CNN poll of 3-13-07.

Fifty-two percent think the United States should set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. That is a CBS-New York Times poll on 3-12-07.

Sixty-seven percent of those polled by NBC-Wall Street Journal disapprove of the way the President is handling the situation in Iraq. That is an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, 3-9-07.

I can go on and on and on, Mr. Ryan, of how the American people are with us as it relates to making sure that we do the right thing.

When we are in Congress and we are here, we are not generals, we are not in a forward area, Mr. Speaker. We have Members that have never worn a uniform, not even in school when they were coming up. We are not in the Armed Forces. Some of us are. Some of us are Reservists. Some of us are Guardsmen, Guardspeople, women, what have you.

But we have been elected to be Members of Congress to carry out the things that we talked about, oversight, accountability, being fiscally responsible, moving the country in a new direction, coming and voting on behalf of our constituents and the American people.

So, brave speeches on the floor about how Members support the troops. No, I support the troops more than you. No, I have a tattoo on my arm saying I support the troops. No, I have raised money back home.

That is fine. That is all good and dandy. Come to the floor and say what you want to say.

But when it comes down to it, where are the benchmarks as it relates to over $500 billion that has been spent on the war and $100 billion- plus that is going to be authorized sometime in the very near future? Where are the accountability measures? They are there to make sure you meet the benchmarks.

I know you can go further into that. But the 97 hearings to date, it is unprecedented in the past Congress and the Congress before that, Mr. Ryan. We have been here for the last two Congresses, and I can guarantee you that 97 hearings at this point in the Congress did not happen.

Going on 5, Mr. Ryan.

Before the gentleman goes to the memo, you said this thing is not just about Iraq.

Let me just say very quickly, again, you know here in the 30- something Working Group, we love, we don't like, we love third party validators. We love it, Mr. Speaker. We can't get enough of it. It fires us up. We just love it.

Here is the deal. Requiring the President to honor the standards of the Department of Defense set for troop readiness, training, equipment before sending troops into battle, 70 percent favor requiring U.S. troops returning from Iraq to have at least 1 year in the U.S. before being redeployed to Iraq. That is a Gallup Poll, USA Today, 3-6-07. It is not a poll we did. This is just a poll that these news organizations have held.

Holding Iraqi government to the same standards for progress that the President outlined in announcing the escalation of troops. Seventy- seven percent favored requiring U.S. troops to come home from Iraq if Iraqi leaders failed to meet the promises to reduce the violence there. That is the Gallup Poll-USA Today.

This is very, very, very important. Providing urgency needed to support addressing the military medical care crisis at Walter Reed and other hospitals, 76 percent of Americans do not think the Bush administration has done enough to be responsible to take care of the needs of our men and women that are in uniform.

Mr. Ryan, the bottom line is that this is not a political speech that we are on the floor giving. This is reality. This is governance. This is oversight and this is accountability.

And for Members, Mr. Speaker, who feel that we shouldn't be venturing off into the area of leadership, maybe they didn't pay attention to what took place last November. I would say to some of my friends on the Republican side, because if this was political, I would keep it a secret. But you know, Mr. Ryan, we always talk about issues that may be detrimental to the Democratic forward progress of gaining more seats in the House.

If Republican Members want to vote on being with their, quote- unquote, leadership that has them in the minority right now, because they use catch words like well, you know, we don't need to make decisions because the President is making decisions and it is not our place to do it. Oh, we don't have to have accountability measures within the appropriations bill, within the emergency supplemental, because we need to leave the flexibility for Secretary Rumsfeld and unnamed individuals in the White House and unnamed folks over in the Pentagon to make these decisions.

I am going to tell you right now, that is the road leading to the minority, because it is a lack of oversight and a lack of leadership and a lack of accountability. And I am so happy, Mr. Ryan, I am very happy, it fires me up, Mr. Speaker, that we have a majority that is willing to do what we must do to give the American people, because we are responsible, they are our stockholders. They gave their tax dollars for us to have the opportunity to appropriate those dollars and have oversight over those dollars in an appropriate way.

And by reading these poll numbers and what you just shared, Mr. Ryan, is more than vindication, more than third-party validators; it is leadership, accountability, and being fiscally responsible on behalf of the taxpayer dollars. I can tell you that I don't know a Republican that would say, ``I am against accountability.'' I don't know of a Democrat who would say, ``I don't like being fiscally responsible; I like to be fiscally irresponsible.''

I don't know an Independent who says, and Independents came out in record numbers this last election. They voted for a new direction, and I am so glad we are giving it to them.

I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio. I am so glad that she comes to the floor often to share with Members and the American people on issues that need light. It is good when we are able to give good information out.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important as we go through this week of accountability in Washington, D.C. I think that is what people have been waiting on and counting on. The leadership is being provided to make that happen.

Earlier you heard me talk about the whistleblower legislation that was passed here today. When we start talking about ending waste in Federal contracting, we start looking at strengthening protections for Federal whistleblowers and moving to increase disclosure requirements for Presidential records, and also requiring disclosure of big donors to Presidential libraries. Providing long-term, overdue, constitutionally mandated oversight over veterans' health care crises and other Federal issues is very, very important. This is serious work, and there are some serious pieces of legislation that will cross this floor.

Tomorrow we will be dealing with the whole issue of accountability in contracting. That is so very, very important, not only with the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, but many of the contracts that are being executed in Homeland Security and the Defense Department. As we start to look at future disasters, looking at future contracting in our Federal agencies, it is important.

Limited duration of no-bid contracts awarded in emergencies to 8 months; within the emergency, Mr. Speaker, if it is an emergency, it is an emergency, not an emergency over the next 4 years for no-bid contracts. And many of the bigger companies have taken advantage of the no-bid contracts and have been the headline of several news articles about the fact that we have not provided the kind of oversight needed.

Also, requiring large Federal agencies to develop and implement a plan to minimize the use of noncompetitive contracts in having no-bid contracts, and many of these Federal agencies have not only doubled, but tripled in some instances.

So overall within the Bush administration that has doubled under this administration.

Also, requiring large Federal agencies to implement a plan in minimizing the use of cost-plus contracting. Cost-plus contracting are the type of contracts that give contractors little or no incentive to control costs. This is so very, very important. This kind of contracting has grown by 75 percent under this present administration.

This legislation that we are passing or will pass tomorrow hopefully as we debate it on the floor is not for the Bush administration. It is for the future. It is from this point on of how we are going to deal with contracting, how we are going to cut out some of this waste that is taking place here in Washington, D.C., and throughout the Federal Government.

This is really tackling many of the issues that we have right here under our nose, Mr. Speaker. We do not have to go off into foreign lands and try to figure out how we can correct. We need to correct some things right here in Washington, D.C., on how we do business.

Also, requiring agencies to prepare a public letter explaining why they awarded a no-bid contract. Again, shedding light where we do not have light now. This is leadership and work. It takes work to uncover the fact that we must shed light on the issue of no-bid contracting.

Also, requiring that contractors that overcharge more than $1 million, that it is disclosed to Congress. We want to bring about accountability. Disclose it. Right now, contractors that go over and overcharge, go over the billions of dollars. When I was on Homeland Security Committee last year, the oversight committee, seeing all of the contractors that overcharged and was paid by the Federal agencies and Homeland Security, you charge us, you sent us a bill, we will pay it, no accountability, no oversight. Those days are over. It is going to start here tomorrow here on this floor.

I urge all Members to vote for the legislation in the affirmative, and Mr. Speaker, maybe tomorrow when we come to the floor, the 30- something Working Group, maybe we will have a bipartisan vote on this legislation. It is kind of hard for anyone to go home and say I voted for the Accountability in Contracting Act. Just the word ``accountability'' I have been using that for the last 3, 4 weeks. We will see. I hope we have it.

Also, making sure that we close the revolving door and requiring that former Federal procurement officers wait 1 year before seeking employment at lobbying and contracting firms; require that the Federal procurement officer wait 1 year before involving themselves in contracts given by the former employer.

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, once again, we had just here on this floor, we have had Members that have anchored bills, led it through Congress and announced retirement, in past Congresses they have done this, announced retirement and go into the private sector and make millions, but that happens under the lights of this Chamber.

But in some of these Federal agencies, you have some folks that will start a project and then have an end date of when they are going to end their Federal employment to do what? To go out and manage the project. Again, I do not know an Independent, Republican or Democrat that would endorse that kind of activity.

Why will the Accountability in Contracting Act be on the floor to tomorrow? Because the Democratic leadership has the will and the desire to clean up the waste in Washington, D.C., not just talking about it, not just

having boards behind us saying we believe in accountability, we hate waste, but actually doing something about it.

This should be good for the private sector, too, of making sure that their employees and individuals that work with them and subcontractors that work with them on Federal contracts are accountable and that they make sure that they pay very close attention to what they are doing with the taxpayer dollars.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I look forward to coming to the floor tomorrow, talking about the victories of this week. I believe tomorrow will be our last day voting here this week, and I would like to just recap and also talk about what is coming up next week. The reason why we are going through this process is because not only has the leadership asked for inclusion of ideas, but to make sure that no one feels excluded of being a part of this process and having the opportunity to vote on legislation.

The bipartisan votes that I have mentioned earlier will continue to add on to that list, and soon I am pretty sure it will be in the high 30s and 40s because legislation that makes sense to the people back home are coming to the floor of the House of Representatives in a record number like it has never done before.

So I am happy that we are having these bipartisan votes. I am happy that we are working as though we were in the minority, hungry to provide leadership. I am glad that accountability is shining on to this floor and throughout the halls of Congress, and with that, Mr. Speaker, once again, it was an honor addressing the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come before the House once again. And as you know, the 30-Something Working Group, we come to the floor two, three, sometimes four times in a given week, in a legislative week, to share with the Members some of the issues that we are working on and some of the issues that we must tackle here in the 110th Congress.

As you know, the work of the 30-Something Working Group has been going on now for, going on close to 4 years of hard work and making sure that not only the will of the American people prevails in this House, the people's House, this U.S. House, but to make sure that we act, we legislate in an accountable way; also bring about the kind of oversight, and put us on the new direction that we need to be in several of the areas that we face now, such as Iraq, such as making sure that we have affordable health care, making sure that we have a clean environment, making sure that we take care of our veterans. And fiscal responsibility is the backdrop of the overall accountable flag that we stand under.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has happened in the last couple of weeks, and a lot has happened since the 110th Congress took control of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democratic control, and working in a bipartisan way.

I spent a lot of time on the floor in the past talking about the bipartisan votes that have taken place here on this floor because I think that it is something that we should all be proud of. I am not talking about proud Democrats. I am talking about Republicans, Independents that are paying attention to this process, Democrats, first time voters. Individuals that are thinking about voting should be encouraged about the spirit that we have here in the U.S. House of Representatives and making sure that we bring work products that a majority of the Members can vote for, and that means Democrats and Republicans.

These are a few of the votes that I just want to highlight here once again: implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, H.R. 1, which was the first bill, Mr. Speaker, we spoke of that we had the opportunity to lead. When I say ``we,'' I am saying the Democratic majority, to be able to bring to the floor, which was a bipartisan 9/11 Commission. And it was a book that many read, and one of the New York Times bestseller books. Passed 299-128, with 68 Republicans voting for it.

Raising the minimum wage, H.R. 2, which was the second bill in this 110th Congress, this Democratic Congress that came up. Again, we must be reminded that the vote was 315-116, with 82 Republicans voting with the Democrats on that particular measure.

Funding for enhancement of stem cell research, H.R. 3, again, bipartisan vote, 253-174.

Making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors, H.R. 4, 255- 170, which is a majority vote in a bipartisan manner.

Something that really means a lot to the 30-Something Working Group, reversing the increase of interest rates to students and also American families that are trying to educate themselves to take advantage of the high-tech jobs that we are trying to provide, and also the skilled labor jobs that we are trying to generate here in our economy, cutting student loans, interest rates in half, which was H.R. 5, which passed by 356 votes to 71.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to really make a case in point as it relates to that particular vote because young people are our future, and even working, some folks think that many of our students graduate from high school and they go right into college. We have many working Americans that have to work and go to school at the same time, or have to work and then go to school later. And they have to take out these student loans. And cutting that interest rate in half is going to mean so much to the forward progress of our young people and our middle-age population that is trying to educate themselves to compete, not only with the person that is standing next to them, but compete against other countries.

And so our education, the education of the people of the United States of America is paramount. And I am so happy to see, and this was one of the major objectives of the 30-Something Working Group, not to just represent those that are graduating from high school, but to also represent those parents that are trying to pay for higher education for their children.

The greatest goal, I think, for a grandparent or a parent is to make sure that their children and grandchildren have better opportunities than what they have had. And I am excited about that opportunity that so many are going to have. Now, we have moved here in the House to cut those interest rates in half.

Also, creating long-term energy initiatives, which was H.R. 6, which passed 264-168, bipartisan vote, something that was needed as it relates to using subsidies for alternative fuels. Making sure that we invest in the Midwest versus the Middle East is something that we have all embraced and something that we all feel very strongly about.

I am going to keep sharing that, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important. In the 109th Congress, I spent a lot of time here working with the 30-Something Working Group talking about the uncontrollable debt that the Republican Congress kept accruing on behalf of future generations. And I talked about that, and it was a chart, and I had a rubber stamp. But I am going to talk a little bit more about it as we start to look at this question of accountability, the question of oversight, the whole slogan of moving in a new direction, fiscal responsibility.

And I just want to make sure that I paint this picture, because what we are talking about now in the 30-Something Working Group, we used to talk about what we, if we had the opportunity to lead, what we will do. Now we are talking about what we are doing.

But to be able to really paint a good picture, Mr. Speaker, for not only the Members to understand, but also the American people to understand, this is where we are right now, and we didn't just get there last week.

As it relates to foreign debt held by foreign nations, this is as of December 2006. We updated this chart because we had numbers in place. As you know, we had the little Velcro numbers, which I understand that we are going to get that soon so that we can pull it off to really show what is happening here.

We have Japan, that owns a part of the American apple pie at $644.3 billion. And I think that it is important to understand that they buy our debt. That means they have a piece of the American pie because of a lack of fiscal responsibility, because the President has passed budgets down that has asked for tax cuts for the super-wealthy, that we spent out of control with a lack of accountability and oversight, with two wars that are going on, just continuing to borrow the money with very little oversight.

I am setting the stage for a little later on in our talk here today.

We have China. As of 11/05 it was $249.8 billion. And now, as of December 2006, China has moved up to $349.6 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important, and I want to ask staff if we can get that Bush chart with the Republican Congress if we have that because I want to just show how historical these numbers are, because one may say, well, you know, there are a couple of wars going on. We have had 9/11. We have had a number of issues.

I have a chart that is really going to show that that is contrary, that logic is contrary to the obvious of what has happened.

It is because the administration has decided to borrow from future generations and the present generation where the economic outlook for our children and grandchildren would not be what it should be because of our lack of responsibility. Thank God that we have a Congress in place right now that is going to put accountability first. Fiscal responsibility we have already adopted in our rules and continue to live under that flag of oversight and a new direction: $349.6 billion; the U.K., $239.1 billion; the Caribbean, $68 billion; Taiwan $63.1 billion. OPEC nations, again, these are oil-producing nations in the Middle East, Mr. Speaker. Many of these nations the United States have bilateral talks and agreements with, but many of them are in question as it relates to the present situation in the Middle East. But guess what? They own a piece of the American apple pie. I don't even want to start to talk about gas prices and what is happening as it relates to OPEC nations. You have $67.8 billion as of 11/2005. And now, Mr. Speaker, December of 2006, OPEC nations, they have gone up in owning more of the American apple pie due to a lack of fiscal responsibility on behalf of the Bush administration and the past Republican Congress. Of the budgets that they have passed, they now own $100.9 billion of the American apple pie.

Korea, $70 billion; Hong Kong, $53.9 billion; Germany, $52.5 billion.

I think it is important that we pay very close attention to those numbers, and that is something that we should be very concerned about and continue to keep our eye on the prize so that we spend in a fiscally responsible way and that we make sure that we are accountable to the American people. And I feel good about the fact that we have a majority that is willing to fight on behalf of the greater good to make sure that we work on behalf of all of the American people.

Now, this chart is a little old, Mr. Speaker, because these actually have the 2005 numbers, and we are updating it. This is something I feel very fond of because I always said that this chart is going to end up being a part of the national archives one day because it really shows a story, and it is factual.

President Bush in 4 years, in 4 years, has managed to borrow more from foreign nations than 42 Presidents in 224 years of history. Now, these are 2005 numbers. I mean, I just want to make sure that we understand that these are 2005 numbers. So the numbers are higher now. Forty-two Presidents, look at them. All the way from George Washington, they were only able to borrow $1.01 trillion. President Bush and the Republican Congress, the 108th Congress and 109th Congress, borrowed $1.05 trillion in just 4 years.

Now, one would say, how can that happen, Mr. Speaker? How do these countries, China of all countries, Red China, own so much of the American apple pie?

Well, I can tell you how it happens. It has happened because the past Republican Congress rubber stamped everything that the Bush administration sent to this floor at the objection of so many Members of the House.

But now the proper leadership has stepped forward and said that we are going to pay as we go. So that means that this budget process will be more controlled than it has ever been in recent history of saying that, if you are going to spend, you are going to show how you are going to pay for it. Not where you are going to get it from because we know where they got it from. They borrowed it. It is like taking out a high-interest credit card and saying, I am knowingly and willingly using this high-interest credit card to carry out spending that I know I can't afford to spend. I know this. I mean, it is not

that it is an emergency. In the budget that the President has sent to this U.S. House of Representatives, the Bush administration budget, it is saying, let us make the tax cuts permanent for the super wealthy. Meanwhile, these countries that I outlined are paying for that tax cut. And I think it is important that we look at that. That is the fiscal responsibility end of the talk here today.

I think it is also important for us to realize the discussion that we are having now on Iraq, Mr. Speaker. We talked about oversight. We talked about accountability. But to date, as of last week, last Friday, there have been 81 hearings on the issue of oversight and accountability on Iraq, across the committees in the House. And I think it is important that the Members pay very close attention to this because, as these hearings continue to happen, we have learned more about what is happening in Iraq, what is happening in Afghanistan, what is happening with our troops here and our veterans here on the ground; hearings were not happening at this rate in the past.

Again, one of the obligations of the 30-Something Working Group is to make sure that everyone and every Member of the House understands that we are here to work, that we are here to make sure that accountability blows through the air conditioning ducts here in the hospital House.

Why are we spending so much time talking about Iraq? Next week there will be a supplemental that will be in committee, and it will be marked up. What we call a markup, that means that there will be a discussion about what goes into that supplemental bill. There will be appropriations, some $100 billion-plus, that will be in this bill, from what I understand. Why are we spending so much time having so many conversations about what should be in that bill?

This is why, Mr. Speaker: On March 8, as of 10 a.m., 3,178 U.S. troops died; dead, period. As of March 9, which is today, Mr. Speaker, 10 a.m., we have 3,186 troops that are dead. Now, I said, 3,178, as of yesterday, 10 a.m. Today, as of 10 a.m., 3,186. That is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, so many Members are spending time focusing on this issue of Iraq accountability and benchmarks on behalf of the American people and those that are in harm's way. That is not a Democratic issue. That is not a Republican issue. That is not an Independent issue. That is an issue that should be dealt with at the U.S. Congress, and it is going to take courage and leadership and commitment and some tenacity to bring about the kind of change that needs to happen to make sure that those individuals that have died in the line of duty, that their memory is not in vain, and that we accomplish and we have benchmarks and we take the training wheels off the Iraqi government, period, dot. I can't sugarcoat it. It is what it is, and it has to be laid out that way for folks to understand, for the Members to understand, I must add, that it is very important. This conversation and this debate and the discourse that is taking place in committee, it is very serious, and it should be above politics.

The American people sent a very strong message in November. Democrats and Republicans, I am just going to say, the American people, period, sent a very strong message in November that they wanted to move in a new direction. They want more accountability. They want more oversight out of this U.S. House of Representatives. And they understand what is going on in the White House. There are places where Republicans won elections by landslides in the past. And guess what? In the November election, you couldn't elect a Republican as far as the eye can see or within eight or nine area codes because of the lack of oversight and accountability that was not carried out here in this House in the last couple of sessions of Congress versus this session.

Why is this issue important? As of 10 o'clock today, 23,924 wounded and 10,627 of those cannot return to battle or to duty.

What is in this so-called Defense supplemental bill? Some may talk about benchmarks. I want to talk a little bit about what is in the bill or what is going to be in the bill as the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee starts to what we call mark up and create this bill. The Speaker has said that U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act will provide our troops with equipment they need and require Iraqis to take control of their own country, help fight the war on terror and establish a date of withdrawal from Iraq.

Well, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with making sure our troops have what they need when they go to war? Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor 2 weeks ago because I happened to pick up the paper, and I saw some Members were complaining about the fact that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was looking to put language in the bill that said, if you are going to deploy a troop into harm's way that that soldier or that troop, that Marine or that sailor or that airman or that Coast Guard person, National Guard, Reserves, you name it, that they have to have the equipment they need to carry out the mission. What is wrong with that? That is almost like sending a football player out in the field without a helmet and shoulder pads and saying, go play. This is serious business. And I named the number of those that are wounded and have died, and I can guarantee you, if we had had some of the language that we are talking about in place, maybe, just maybe, a number of those individuals would be living today. It is important. We are not four-star generals. We are Members of Congress. And we have been sent here to make sure that we are accountable to those that have signed up in a volunteer Army and a volunteer Marine Corps and a volunteer Navy and a volunteer Air Force to go defend this country and that have allowed us to salute one flag. It is our responsibility and our duty. And while we carry out that responsibility and duty, one may be misunderstood every now and then. And if it is about being misunderstood, then that means that you are not leading.

My mother served in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, prior to my arrival here, and she said, ``Son, if you are not misunderstood from time to time, you are not leading.''

I am glad to pick up periodicals, and I am glad to see the kind of discourse that is taking place on television, folks talking about what the Congress is doing, because you know something? At least we are doing something about the status quo. No longer will this House stand by, Mr. Speaker, and watch those that are unelected carry out the duties that the Congress should be carrying out.

I have been on the Armed Services Committee now three Congresses, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you many times I sit there and I watch individuals that are on the panel before us, and I kind of want to ask the question, but I don't want to be sarcastic by saying, I hope you are not filling me with confidence that the troops have everything they need.

When I came to Congress, we went into Iraq. I wasn't here for the vote to go or to give the President authority or what have you, but I was here, and I remember asking the question, are we ready for this guerrilla warfare once we reach Baghdad? That answer was, ``yes.'' Do we have the equipment in place? That answer was, ``yes.'' Do we have up-armored vehicles in place? That answer was, ``yes.''

News report after news report, document after document this big, Mr. Speaker, says the contrary. Two trips to Iraq represents something different from what I heard here in a committee room in the Rayburn Building that the troops have what they need. Well, guess what? We no longer want to go off of what someone tells us in Washington, D.C., that is happening or not. We want the President to have to be able to confirm that there is a need for additional troops or to send additional troops to Iraq. We want to make sure that the troops know that there is a Congress here that is going to put that language in place to make sure they have what they need.

I can't tell you how many marines and how many soldiers told me, sir, with all due respect, sir, I will be here as long as you want me here, but I went on a patrol the other night, and I didn't have the proper equipment. I didn't have the up-armored vehicles. And it takes a Member of Congress to go to someone and say, I heard a patrol went out last night and didn't have what they needed.

We are not trying to make command decisions on the ground. We are just trying to make sure the men and women have what they need.

Also within this supplemental that we are looking at is legislation that prohibits the deployment of troops that are not fully mission capable as defined by the Department of Defense. In other words, troops who are not fully trained, equipped and protected by the standards of the Department of Defense will not go.

Now, this is what the Department of Defense has asked for. Why can't the Congress then back up the Department of Defense and say we agree with you, even though we know you have not been practicing some of the things that you have adopted as policy?

The President can only deploy unprepared troops if he certifies in writing to Congress that the deployment of those troops are in the national interest. That means it is imperative that we send troops that are untrained and unprepared into harm's way. The President has to confirm that it is within the national interest that that should happen. That is not taking his powers away as Commander in Chief, it is just putting in another level of accountability, making sure that the President knows that there is a Congress here that is willing to carry out the accountability and the oversight that is needed.

It also provides that the Veterans Administration has to meet the obligations of the new generation of veterans that will be coming out of two of these wars.

There are two wars going on, Mr. Speaker. A lot of folks forget. Iraq? Okay. Afghanistan. But guess what? There are two different wars going on. Because of the lack of planning in the Iraq war, troops were sent to Iraq from Afghanistan, and guess what? The Taliban is back and strong in Afghanistan. Now we need more troops, more coalition troops, because of the decisions that were made in a Congress that did not provide the oversight that it should have provided to make sure that we brought about ultimate accountability. I think it is important that we endorse the philosophy that we are going to prepare for what is to come.

It is time for the Iraqis to take control of Iraq. We say it all the time. In this bill, the bill will require that the Iraqi government has to meet key security, political and economic benchmarks that were established, Mr. Speaker, by the President of these United States on January 10 when he addressed this Congress. What is wrong with that? The President said if it doesn't happen, then they will see a withdrawal and we will not be there forever. I am paraphrasing. This is what the President said.

Now, being a Member of Congress, now going on my third term, I think it is very important for us to understand, there are some things that the President has said during the State of the Union that ended up being reality, or becoming reality, and there are a lot of things that he said that did not.

I trust the fact that the Commander in Chief and Members of Congress will not send someone into war unprepared. I will trust that. I would want to believe that. But we know that it has happened, where we failed our troops as it relates to getting them what they need.

But I think it is important for us to understand, Mr. Speaker and Members, it is very, very important that we put in the language of this supplemental, which I must add, let me break this down more, when I say defense supplemental bill, that means this is an appropriations bill that is going to be $100 billion that will go towards operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other parts of the world as it relates to this issue of fighting terrorism. But it should not be a blank check. It should not be a one line bill.

Some would like to leave it up to the Pentagon. Leave it up to folks who we don't have any idea, the public, who they are. Unelected individuals. Leave it up to them. They know what is best. They are the professionals.

Well, I believe in professionalism too. But when I go down to the Seventeenth Congressional District of Florida and my constituents ask me, Congressman, what did you do to make sure that my tax dollar is being spent appropriately? ``Well, they just said send the money. I thought it was important. We just voted and let them deal with it.''

It is not an us and them. It is a we. And when money is spent in an inappropriate way, when you have companies like Halliburton and other contractors that are under investigation, I must add, that are still receiving contracts, U.S. Federal contracts, the taxpayer dollar, then we have to have accountability.

Now, I don't know anyone that really has a problem with that. I can go to a rally of conservative to the right of the right of the right Republicans and ask them, do you want accountability measures in a $100 billion-plus supplemental bill, or do you just want us to pass it and say leave it up to whoever is making the decisions in whatever department they are in with no-bid contracts and allow some of the things that happened in Iraq, when companies get a flat tire and then they torch the truck and we buy a brand new tractor-trailer because it was better for the company if they just replace the truck. Which one do you want? Do you want accountability measures in it? Do you want benchmarks in it? Do you want to have hearings?

Do you see the number? Oh, goodness, I am glad the staff changed this for me, Mr. Speaker. It is that quick. I started talking about last week's numbers. I get new numbers. Ninety-seven hearings held on Iraq oversight. Do you want this? Or do you want seven hearings? Which one do you want? Do you want 96 hearings, or do you want seven?

We have Members around here complaining saying, oh, well, you know, I don't necessarily like all this, you know, what is going on.

Well, it is our job. When we have two wars going on and we have the kind of lack of fiscal responsibility that has not been taking place here in this House prior to the arrival of the Democratic controlled Congress, you have to sleep in shifts. You have to make sure you do what your obligation is, to have oversight.

I think it is important to be able to make sure if the Iraqis fail to meet the benchmarks, that it will mean the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal and that it will also restrict economic aid to the Iraqis.

The bottom line is, you cannot reward bad behavior or lack of good behavior. You can't reward that. You can't say, well, no, that is okay, that is fine. Take your time, whatever the case may be. Don't worry about it.

I'll tell you, there are some Iraqi forces that are fighting. There are some Iraqi forces that are doing some good things. But there are some folks within the Iraqi government that do not understand the urgency we have here.

The longer we are in Iraq, the more I have to tell my U.S. mayors, my Governors, my school board members, my constituents, no, I cannot help you with your project. No, I cannot help you, Governor, as it relates to the transportation dollars to help Florida become even a stronger State in the United States of America. Mr. Mayor, I know it is important that we have security in our community. Mr. Sheriff, I know it is important that you want that COPS Program back. But guess what? We have two wars going on. We got a tax cut for the super-wealthy that the President of the United States wants, and we are too busy fighting them on that. And meanwhile, we got folks foot dragging over in Iraq about accountability. They don't have any urgency. Some folks don't even have the urgency we have here in the United States.

This is snatching bread and butter out of the mouths of U.S. taxpayers and their children. Do you know why the interest rates went up on the student loans? To be able to pay for tax cuts for the super- wealthy, and to also continue the business of saying let's just rubber stamp supplementals and send it to the President of the United States and the Bush administration and the Department of Defense. And it took an election to bring about the kind of paradigm shift and the thinking that we should have done on our own as responsible adults and elected to U.S. Congress. It took an election to do that.

Thank God for democracy. Thank God for level-minded Americans saying I am going to put my party aside for a

moment. I have to stand up on behalf of my children, because this is now becoming personal. You have veterans that have served and that have fought and that have allowed us to salute one flag who are just turned, totally, politically about who they sent to Congress, and they made a change. And we are not going to sit there and allow their vote and their prayer and their hope that there will be change here in Washington, D.C., and just sit by and say we want to go along to get along.

Someone says something about maybe I am doing the wrong thing, and who am I to try to govern a war from Washington, D.C.? It is not governing a war. It is bringing about the kind of accountability that the American people have cried and have asked for.

The Bush administration and the Republican majority in the past are far, far behind where the American people are. And if we have to drag, pull, through this House and push legislation through to bring us up- to-date to where the American people are, that is what we were sent here to do. And Members who don't want to be a part of that experience, they have to go home and they have to face their constituents.

Believe what I am telling you right now. It is not just individuals that are walking around with flowers and saying ``I don't believe in war'' that are saying that we have to bring some accountability to what we are doing. There are individuals that work hard, individuals that have retired, individuals that are looking for a better future for their family. You have local government officials that don't even know how they are going to survive from this point on because we are sitting around here cutting taxes for individuals who are not even asking for tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this: Super-wealthy billionaires that are not even marching the halls of Congress and saying please give me a tax cut, they are not asking for it. The Republican Congress just gave it to them.

So this paradigm shift, I want to prepare the Members, Mr. Speaker, that it is going to take some courage, and it is going to take some leadership, and we are going to be misunderstood. But you know something? Time after time again, history has reflected on leadership in a good way.

I can tell you right now, a perfect example, Mr. Speaker, and then I am going to move to the next point, when the Walter Reed story broke about what was going on at Walter Reed, and the Newsweek cover of this specialist here, this amputee that served and the kind of treatment that our soldiers were receiving at Walter Reed, the vindication for the Democratic majority was the fact that before this article came out, before we even knew of a Washington Post story, or probably even before the reporter started working on the story, we had an appropriation continuing resolution that we had to pass because the Republican Congress did not do their job and pass their appropriations bill, and we put $3.6 billion towards veteran healthcare because it was the right thing to do.

And the good thing about it is that I could stand here on this floor without any Member being able to march down here and say otherwise, that we did what we had to do because we had the opportunity to do it. And that is what is so good about good leadership.

I am glad Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and if there are some Members that have a problem with that, then they have a problem with leadership, because this could have happened last year, it could have happened the year before last.

The Bush administration has passed time after time again budgets that have cut veterans healthcare. Again, Bush Republicans, see this, Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you right now, I can't think of anything else I could be doing outside of making this point right now. This is very, very important. And I want my Republican colleagues to be with us on this change that we are working on. I want our new Members in Congress to understand their responsibility as it relates to the American people and what they sent us here for.

We have to have resolve, just like the men and women on the front line have resolve. We have to have resolve, just like the veterans who went out there and laid their lives down and watched their friends pay the ultimate sacrifice. We have to have that same resolve. We have to have that political courage, like they have to have the courage to go outside the gates of Camp Victory in Iraq.

We have to have that same resolve here in this House. We cannot allow someone just because they say something about you or they think something about you when you are right, that you are going to turn around, just because someone on the minority side, on the Republican side, is saying well, look what they are trying to do.

Well, you know something? I say to my Republican colleagues, in all due respect, and many of them are my friends, especially the leadership, the bottom line is when you are pointing your finger and saying look at what they are doing, you need to be looking in the mirror and saying you had the opportunity to do it and you didn't do it, and we are not getting back in the same boat that you just got out of. We are going to do it. We are going to grab a paddle and we are going to go down the stream.

Summer of 2005, at the Democrats' pressure, the Bush administration finally acknowledged that FY 2006 shortfall in veteran healthcare was totaling $2.7 billion and Democrats fought all summer to get it.

March 2006, President Bush budget cut veteran funding by $6 billion over 5 years. Passed by the Republican-controlled Congress.

January 31, 2007, Democrats increase VA health care budget by $3.6 billion in a joint resolution funding.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues who are against that kind of action to go home and tell your constituents that you are against that. I welcome you to do it because you won't be a Member of Congress anymore. I am so glad I was on the prevailing side of $3.6 billion going into veterans' health care.

I say all of that because we use key words like accountability, oversight. We talk about a new direction and fiscal responsibility. I can tell you, there are many times here on this House floor that Members are going to have to go see the wizard and get some courage. That courage is very easy because the American people are egging on this kind of spirit that is in Washington, D.C., right now.

I think it is important that, even after all of the articles and even after all of the talk about what went on at Walter Reed dealing with our veterans, that the Democratic-controlled Congress sprung into action, not weeks, not months down the road, not years down the road, sprung into action. Articles came out in the Washington Post. I have it right here. We don't come to the floor to play around or waste Members' time or staff time. I think it is important to talk about the fact that articles came out on the 24th. There was a review panel. We looked at the Army Times article that came out in September 2006, but when articles started rolling out on the 19th and after that on the 26th, and then on March 2nd because we were on President's break, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed one of the major generals who was fired, who was head of Walter Reed after Army officials refused to allow him to testify before the committee.

Mr. Speaker, that is what oversight is about. It was not firing a general. It is about getting down to the truth. And, of course, the administration took the position to ask him to step down.

March 5 of this year, this is all recent, oversight in Committee on Government Reform began holding investigation hearings into the Walter Reed scandal.

March 6 and 7, House Veterans' Affairs Committee holds hearings on Walter Reed scandal.

The same day, March 7, House Armed Services Committee holds Walter Reed scandal hearing. I was there.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to all members in the Army and those who came, and Secretary Chao and all of the folks over at the Pentagon, they did apologize. They did say they were sorry. I can give them credit for that. But I am thinking about the men and women, as we continue to peel back what has been happening at Walter Reed, and as we continue to learn about other DOD medical facilities and

the service that they are not providing, as we learn these things, we have to go about correcting them.

I would much rather appropriate dollars to make sure that someone's uncle, someone's mother, someone's daughter, someone's nephew who laid it down on behalf of this country gets what we said we would give them. That is quality health care, accountability and oversight.

If any Member has a problem with that, they need to evaluate themselves or their purpose here in Congress. I am glad to hear many Members saying to the Army: Tell us what you need. Now there will be strings attached, and there will be language to bring about oversight. And there will be individuals who will be paying attention to what you are doing. The old days of giving you the money and you just doing what you want to do are over. Accountability measures will be in place.

As we start to look at next week and as we start to move into next week, I think it is important that folks understand that this is going to be an open House, and we are going to promote government and crack down on waste. That is what next week is going to be all about. Next week is going to be about trying to crack down on waste and for us to start turning this around and balancing the budget. And of course, only Democrats can say we have actually balanced the budget because we have. Republicans had 12 years of control and did not balance the budget. They talked about it but did not do it. We did it.

To be able to say that, again, we need to crack down and highlight and investigate waste. We are here representing the American people. We are not just here representing ourselves. No, I am not here to represent Kendrick Meek. I am here to represent those who have sent me here and those that are counting on us to do the things that we have to do.

The Democrats have pledged to end the culture of corruption in Washington, making the Congress accountable to the people by sheer good government. What is wrong with that?

Next week the House will consider measures to ensure that the Federal Government is open and accountable to the American people. The legislation that is going to be brought up next week is going to be the whistleblower reforms, strengthening protections for Federal whistleblowers to prevent abuse, a lack of accountability. We want to empower those who want to step forward and say, there is corruption and waste over there. We want to insulate those individuals. They are our heroes and the heroes within the Federal Government and contracting world pointing out waste.

When we have countries like OPEC and China owning so much of the American pie, in the billions, that is a national security issue. So we need to treat these individuals accordingly.

Also next week, Presidential record disclosure, which nullifies the 2001 Presidential executive order and restores public access to Presidential records. That is important. Of course, there will be language as relates to super national security issues. They won't be able to touch those.

Presidential library donations, require the disclosure of donors to Presidential libraries. We have a lot of that going on. Additional material will be shared next week as it relates to the bills that will be coming to the floor, but I think it is important that we have the kind of flow to the House floor that we need to have to be able to prepare ourselves to govern for the rest of the 110th Congress.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as we continue in the 30-Something Working Group to look at issues that we travel the country to hear Americans and those that have come to Washington, D.C., looking for accountability; as we carry their prayer and their hope, and again I am not talking about proud Democrats, I am talking about all Americans, it is our obligation and responsibility to make sure that they get the best representation possible. And it should not be in the back halls of Congress, a deep secret in the corner or some sort of special meeting in the corner over here. It should be under the lights of this Chamber and to make sure that every Member understands.

One of the other principles of the 30-Something Working Group, on this side of the aisle and the Democratic Caucus, we want to make sure that every Member knows exactly what he or she is doing and has the information that they need, so they know what is coming up, they know what we have done, they know the responsibility that we have to carry out as Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, because we don't want the American people to be cheated in anyway by saying, you know, when I voted on that, I didn't quite know what was going on. I'm sorry I voted against that, veteran.

If you voted against the continuing resolution, then you voted against $3.6 billion on behalf of veterans' health care.

Now for you to be a Member of Congress and not to know that, something is wrong, because that is the number one group that is counting on you to do the right thing on their behalf. They have families, too.

They are elderly, too. They allow us to be able to salute one flag. I say that time and time again. I get chills, bumps every time I say it, because it is important.

My children have a better value for the service that our men and women carry out because they hear me talk about it constantly. We travel and we talk and read about foreign countries and what is happening there. America is the best and the most free country on the face of the earth, and we want to keep it that way. Whatever we have to do to keep it that way, we are willing to do it. But we are going to do it in a coordinated fashion. We are not just going to do it entrusting others somewhere in some building in Virginia, Maryland, or Washington, D.C., that are not empowered and validated by the people of the United States of America and sent here to watch out for their best interest.

There are parents right now, when I go grocery shopping in my district, Mr. Speaker, I have parents walk up to me and say, Congressman, my son is 16, how long is this Iraq thing going to be going on?

I have to be brutally honest with them. I say, listen, as we talk about redeployment of troops, we have to understand, we are still in Korea and we are still in Germany. But the real issue is, we have to bring about the kind of coordination that is needed on the accountability end. We don't want to be putting brigades and platoons and saying, you run over here. That is the generals' job. That is not what we are doing.

We are making sure that the troops have what they need so when a general says, go over here or send three brigades over there, they have all of the equipment and logistical support that they need, and they have their mission and they have the things that they need to carry out that mission. That is what we are calling for.

We are also calling for the Iraqi government to stop playing with the United States Government. It will not be allowed. So give us more time, give us another chance, don't worry about it, as long as the U.S. troops are there, and other countries have already announced redeployment of their troops. We are sending more troops. You heard the number, and I will close with this, a number that I shared with you at the beginning, March 8, 10 a.m., 3,178 troops gone.

The next day, the next day, 10 a.m., March 9, 3,186 troops gone. That is the next day.

So this is beyond serious. These are families. And there are individuals that are counting on us to lead, and as long as you have a Democratic majority in this House, they will get that leadership because the will and the desire is there. The political courage is there to do it, and the American people are 110 percent behind accountability, fiscal responsibility, moving in a new direction. They are in that circle with the leadership of this House right now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker and the Democratic leadership for allowing the 30-Something Working Group to have an hour two nights ago and tonight to share the message with the Members of the House. It was an honor addressing the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, March 12, 2007, at 12:30 p.m., for morning hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the House once again.

As you know, the 30-Something Working Group, we come to the floor with great pride and information to not only share with the Members, but also the American people, and make sure that we, the 110th Congress, the people's House, carry out the wills and the desires of Americans as it relates to making sure that they are represented in a fair and equal way, and also in a bipartisan way. And that is something I take great pride in because I believe that, as the Congressional Record will reflect or has reflected in the major votes that have taken place on this floor, had a lot to do with the American people and the way they live, and the way students were paying high interest rates. And we know it is still going through the legislative process, but it has now passed off the floor of the House of Representatives. And also as it relates to the minimum wage and small business tax cuts. It has all moved through in the 110th Congress under the Democratic leadership, and in a bipartisan way, with a number of Republicans voting for those measures.

We know the will and the desire was there to do so in the past, but the leadership was not there. So what we want to do, when I say ``we,'' Democratic majority, we want to make sure that we keep that even keel that we are on now, to encourage more bipartisanship, and to also encourage and push more leadership out of this House of Representatives. And I want to commend the Speaker and our Democratic leadership for allowing that to happen in the way that it has.

Saying that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to continue to talk about what we were touching on just the other day. The 30-something Working Group has been on the floor all of this week. This will make the final evening that we will be addressing the Members, on not only Iraq, but also how our veterans are being handled by, need it be the Department of Veterans Affairs, need it be the Congress or the administration. And I read off last time, which I will do before this hour is over, about the lack of funding and the cuts that have been made from the Bush administration in the past. And I think it is important for us to reflect on that.

I think it is also important for us to talk about, in the supplemental that passed this floor, how we put in billions

of dollars to make sure that we are able to take up the slack. Case in point, Mr. Speaker, this is the most recent Newsweek that has been published, Newsweek magazine. It is dated March 5, 2007. I have a copy of it. It actually came to my office. I took the opportunity to read this article.

You have Specialist Strock, who is on the front, Marissa. She is age 21. As you can see, she lost both of her legs from the knee down in Iraq. And it is entitled, ``Failing Our Wounded.'' As you know it is a special investigation report, and I think it is important that Members pay very close attention to what Mr. Ryan and other Members who will be joining me shortly have to share with you on this issue on making sure that our veterans are taken care of.

Now I know, as a Member of Congress, Mr. Speaker, and I also know just as someone who has been paying attention to the lack of dollars, especially as it relates to outpatient care of veterans, I think for Members like myself who have been in field hospitals in Iraq, that have gone to Germany and have visited the troops on more than two occasions, seeing the kind of care they get there. I have been to Walter Reed, I have been to Bethesda Hospital, but once you start getting out away from the general hospital treatment that our veterans are getting when they first are returning back to the United States, when you start getting into outpatient, even at Walter Reed, which a lot of this is being addressed, a lot of the bad stories are being addressed here in this Newsweek article, when you start getting out in the Midwest, when you start getting even down in my area in south Florida and you start getting a little up from Washington, D.C. into New York and out west, away from the eye of the four-star brass and all the folks that have an opportunity to go to Walter Reed and other places, you start really getting down to the nitty-gritty of what has been wrong with the planning, not only of the war, but the care of the men and women.

Now, you have heard me time after time again, Mr. Speaker, and Members, talk about how Members of Congress come to the floor and chest-beat about how they support the troops. Sometimes the debate really goes beyond the reason for a Member to come to the floor. I mean, I have been in my office and watched Members talk and they say, well, I support troops 110 percent. And then you have another Member say, well, I support the troops more than you do. As a matter of fact, I have a tattoo on my arm saying that I support the troops. I am saying that just to say that we have to go beyond our words and we have to act as though we support the troops, the full troops.

We have troops that have served, soldiers that have served, sailors that have served, airmen and -women that have served, Coast Guard members that have served, and on and on and on in World War II, I, you name it, Korea. You have Afghanistan; you have even some folks from there. You have folks from the first gulf war. You have Vietnam. All of these men and women that have allowed us to salute one flag, they are getting the real deal. They have been on a waiting list. And now we have put a mountain of new issues on the Department of Veteran Services, or some may call it the Veterans Administration. And I think that it is important for us to realize what is happening and what is happening in the real world.

Members of Congress and others, people of influence can go to a local hospital and Congressman, oh, you are here? Don't wait in that waiting room, we will take care of you. Oh, you have a family member that is sick? Don't worry about it, the hospital administrator will meet you at the front door. But to the person that volunteered to defend this country, they don't have that prerogative. They don't have a Member of Congress to show up with them and they can get to the VA.

A former friend of mine, still a friend, but he has moved on to a greater place now, Orange Hayes called me one day on my cell phone in Miami, he was at the Miami VA Hospital and he said, Kendrick, I'm not getting the kind of service that one deserves here in the VA. I am not highlighting my hospital, but one thing that I can say that he knew me, he knew my cell number, he knew he could call me. And what did I do? Of course I was there in a matter of two hours. And who was there? Well, let's put it this way: the head of the department dealing with his illness was there, the assistant administrator of the hospital was there, and the director of the nurses, RNs there at that hospital. He got what he needed. And he said, you know, in the best way he could, sat up in his bed and said, I'm so glad that you are my friend because now I have been able to get the kind of service that I need.

Well, that should have happened anyway. And I think we have good people in the VA. I know we have good workers there; they are committed. We have good docs there; they are committed. But as it relates to the resources and the priorities in this Congress, the question is, are we committed?

Now, this Congress is committed because we already talked about what we did in the supplemental budget. That is a budget that Members didn't even have an opportunity to work through the legislative process. That was left over from the 109th Congress Republican Congress that we decided to do the right thing and cut some projects that were nonpriorities and put over $3 billion in there to be able to assist in providing the kind of care for veterans. And we haven't even gotten started yet.

Now, let's just talk about getting started. And we want to thank The Washington Post for what they have done in highlighting the issues at Walter Reed outpatient. I have been there before. I didn't see some of the things that they saw; but luckily we had some men and women that stood up and said, you know, things are not what they should be there. And I understand, Mr. Speaker, you know, a two-star general stepped down today who was over the hospital. But you know something? I know within the coming days, Mr. Speaker, we are going to get down to the bottom of what it is all about for the veterans when they come back and when they go home.

When they come through Washington, D.C. and they land at Andrews Air Force base from Germany? When they land there, they are getting the care and all of the attention. But what happens when they go back to Sioux City, Iowa? What happens when they go back to Jacksonville, Florida? What happens when they show up at an airport in Wisconsin, are they still prioritized? Do they feel that we have their back because they had ours? And that is the resounding question.

Now, I am excited because, unlike the 109th Congress, the 30- Somethings would give our presentation and meet and talk about what should be happening. And if we had had an opportunity to lead, Mr. Speaker, and Members, and I know that Members who served in the 109th Congress and 108th Congress knew the 30-Something Working Group, if we were given the opportunity, if we asked the American people to have an opportunity to lead, things would be different. I am going to tell you the reason why it is different right now.

I am happy that the Budget Committee had hearings on this in the House, not several weeks from now, but have already had hearings. Chairman John Murtha of the Defense Appropriation Committee has scheduled a hearing on Friday, which is tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. I want our veterans to know that this Democratic House of Representatives has been on the side of making sure that our veterans get what they need, even when they leave the battlefield, even when they go back home; and that we do have Members on the other side of the aisle that feel the same way. But we are willing to provide the leadership of making sure that your issues are heard and that they are resolved, not just heard.

Having a town hall meeting talking about what can we do to make things better and not come into Washington and do something about it is not even worth anyone showing up at the town hall meeting or reading a letter and responding to it, though we are trying to do the best we can. This is actually taking place.

This is the action that is taking place. We also have oversight committee on government reform subcommittee chairmen will conduct a field hearing at Walter Reed on Monday, this Monday, not next Monday,

not some Monday in the future maybe we will get around to it. The Senate Armed Services Committee has planned a hearing for Tuesday. This is right now. This is right here right now in the moment, and again, I am so happy that these hearings are taking place.

The House Armed Services Committee on planning and oversight is also planning a hearing, and I am pretty sure that is days, not weeks.

So as we start to respond to what is already a major issue in our country, and we have outlined it as a major issue, we know that within the budget that there has been a number of veterans affairs programs that have been cut, health care programs. We have had fist fights mentally, I do not want to say literally, mentally and through dialogue with colleagues on the other side of the aisle about making sure that we do what we are supposed to do for veterans.

It is easy for someone to sit here in an air conditioned Chamber and pull out their voting card and say let us go to war, no problem; I am tough, I voted for it; you did not vote for it. Well, I am tougher than you. That is fine and that is good for Hollywood, but here in Washington D.C., it is important that we plan and that we make sure that the troops and the soldiers and the airmen and the sailors, we make sure they get what they need all the way around 360. You just cannot go a 180 and stop say, well, the veterans, the care is the hard part. You cannot stop there because that is not the responsible thing to do.

I think it is important to point out for every one soldier that dies in Iraq, 16 are injured. We talk about the fallen, rightfully so, and we should. We should highlight that, but we have to look at the injured. Sixteen, so think about it when you are watching television and when you pick up the newspaper and you see 3,158 of our men and women that have paid the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, think about the 16 on top of every one that has been injured, and it is very, very important.

The veterans deserve a lifetime guarantee from the American people, a promise of proper medical care and treatment forever. That is what we have to back up here in this Congress, and I know that the will and the desire is here on this side of the aisle to make sure that that happens.

I think it is also important that we send legislation to the White House after we have these hearings to make sure that veterans know in the field that we have their back, that the men and women know that we have those individuals and also those individuals that are veterans who--already standing in line--that they get what they need.

Many of our veterans hospitals, Mr. Speaker, and outpatient centers, in some parts of rural America you have these clinics that are only open twice a month, and because of cuts, you have some clinics that are open even half a day on that twice a month. We have buildings that are crumbling, and we have VA hospitals that are still in the World War II era. I mean, they have not received the kind of renovation that they need.

There is a superinflux of veterans that are coming back from two wars that are ongoing now. Some people may not know it, but there are two different wars that are going on as I speak here on the House floor. We have to make sure that we are prepared to deal with those issues when they return back.

Now, I know the Secretary of Defense has already been to Walter Reed, but I can only imagine what we are going to find out in the coming days. I know that a number of other committees will continue to start to look at the issue of how the men and women are served.

Mr. Speaker, we spoke time after time again here on this floor, members of the 30-something Working Group, on the responsibility of oversight. I would be worried if we were on President's break last week, this week staff visited Walter Reed Hospital, and our staff from the House of Representatives continued to be deployed throughout the country of getting down to the nitty gritty on what is actually happening in our VA hospitals, what has been the result of cuts year after year. Meanwhile, we have in the President's budget here to make tax cuts permanent, Mr. Speaker, not sunsetting in 2010, but permanent for the super wealthy in this country.

Meanwhile, we have veterans that are waiting to see the ophthalmologist or a cardiologist for weeks, some cases months, depends on where they are in the country.

So I think it is important, especially as we start to go through the hearings for the 2008 Appropriations Act, I think it is important as we lead into the emergency supplemental, the 99-plus billion dollar supplemental for the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas, that we think about what I am talking about right now.

We have some men and women that are on their third, some fourth, deployment. We have hearings now in the House Armed Services Committee about increasing the size of the Army and the Marines. Right now, there is a request for three new Marine brigades. This is 9,000 more troops and to grow it into 20,000. The Army will take some of those soldiers, but as we continue to make our military bigger, to be ready to carry on future conflicts, because of the lack of planning in Iraq, we are in this situation.

As we see other countries pull back their troops and start talking about deployment, the administration is saying that we need an escalation in troops.

I think it is important for us to realize, especially when you have future generations reading the Congressional Record, wondering what went wrong and who were the leaders, to make sure we got back on track.

Now, in November, the American people voted for a new direction. I am 110 percent in the front seat of that new direction, Mr. Speaker. They did not want what they had in the last Congress, a rubber-stamp Congress, and you have not seen the rubber stamp here that we used to have sitting right here, Mr. Speaker.

I mean, it was almost like a passenger in the left side of the car, steering wheel here, but it sat right here, to talk about the rubber stamp Republican Congress. I think the American people, and I am not talking about proud Democrats. I am talking about Independents, I am talking about Republicans, I am talking about folks who never voted before in their lives voted this time because they wanted a new direction.

In this new direction comes a great deal of responsibility, and in that responsibility, you have to have courage and you have to be willing to lead. I say to my Republican colleagues on the other side, many of whom are my good friends, my very good friends, that when it comes down to leadership, you have to be alone sometimes. You have to be one of the five, you have to be one of the 17, you have to be one of the 25 that are saying I am voting on behalf of my constituents, in this case that I am talking about here, my veterans, and making sure that our men and women have what they need.

There are a number of other issues that we can get into, but I think that it is important that we highlight the leadership when it is happening, not, oh, you know something, when you go home. Member, I want to make sure you go home and you tell your constituents there are hearings that are taking place. And you know who can take pride in that, Mr. Speaker? Not just on the majority side, Democrats say we are having hearings. Republicans can go back to their district and say we are having hearings. You know why we are having hearings? Because the leadership demands it here in this House. The Democratic leadership demands hearings on this issue to make sure that veterans know that we are not leaving them behind.

I think what is also important here, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that in the last Congress, we had the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee who said, you know something, I am going to do what the veterans want me to do; I am not going to do what the Republican leadership wants me to do; I am going to do what is right. And guess what, he was stripped of his chairmanship. Not only stripped of his chairmanship, thrown off the committee. This is a man who went through whole process, whole seniority, serving on the committee and was thrown off the committee because he did the right thing on behalf of the men and women that wore the uniform. Not in this Congress.

In this House of Representatives, in this Democratic House of Representatives, we look forward to leadership opportunities. This is an opportunity.

In the supplemental budget, over $3 billion were given to veterans health care because we took the leadership opportunity to carry it out. We said we had the will and the desire. We have it. So I think it is important to speak in a bipartisan way, to be able to allow Members to go back to their districts, need it be Democrats and Republicans, and say we are having hearings. Matter of fact, the hearings that took place this week, there will be hearings tomorrow, there will be hearings on Monday, there will be hearings, I guarantee you, on a couple of days next week, and out of those hearings, action will take place. Not just hearings, say okay, let us just show, but action will take place. And as we figure out what is going on in other parts of the country, it is important.

What I want to make sure I do is I have the Web site because I want Members and I want to make sure veterans know and report where these issues fall short. I want to make sure the Members have it so this is the [email protected], [email protected]. We also ask you to visit, which we will give you more information about what is happening here as it relates to hearings, and go to www.speaker.gov/30something/index.html. That is a lot there but on the top here, [email protected].

We want to hear it, Mr. Speaker. We want to do something about it, and I think it is important that we have the opportunity to do that.

One thing I want to also point out here, Mr. Speaker, and I would encourage the Members once again, is if you have it, it should be in all the Members' offices, the latest Newsweek article or Newsweek magazine which is March 5, 2007. It came to my office. I know it went to a number of other offices. This is compliments of Newsweek. I get one at home, too. ``Failing Our Wounded,'' a special investigation. In this publication here you will hear a lot and see a lot. Also, you can go on washingtonpost.com, and in case you missed it, there is an area there where you can read about some of the failures of not only Walter Reed, but veterans services that are in so bad a condition right now because of the lack of funding and because of the lack of leadership from Washington, D.C., in prioritizing the needs of our veterans.

In the article, you have a number of hospital officials that knew of the neglect and also complained about it and voiced their opinion for years but have not been heard, and we know that we have a number of veteran organizations that have come to Washington, D.C., looking for justice. But guess what, I think they are coming this time knowing that they will have an opportunity to sit before a committee. I think they will come knowing that they will have a chance to see something happen this year and in the future budgets as long as you have Democratic control here in this House, and I think it is important and also with some of my friends on the other side joining us.

We talked about oversight. We talked about accountability, but I also want to say, as of a week ago, 52 hearings as it relates to oversight of the Iraq War have taken place.

Unlike the 109th Congress, the 108th Congress, and Congresses before that one, there have been a number of hearings that have taken place under the Capitol dome.

Why are these hearings important? Members are being educated on the issues. Why is education important? We can govern better. We can govern better on behalf of who? The American people.

That did not happen at the beginning of this war. That did not happen when we had bills sweep through this House of Representatives, and Members were challenged: if you didn't vote for it, you with not for the troops.

Well, the bottom line is that I think we are all, I haven't run into a Member of Congress who says I am against the troops, or an American who has said that I am against the troops, we are all for the troops. The real issue is, do we have enough leadership, or have we had leadership in the past to be able to make sure that we have our troops' backs like they have ours, in the care that they deserve for the rest of their lives?

And when we talk about that, we have to talk about individuals going back to their families, Mr. Ryan, who have real issues. Some of those issues can be between the years of being in warfare for 3 years, 4 years, and being asked to go back. We are talking about families, we are talking about communities, we are talking about something that needs special care and needs counseling and treatment. And so when we talk about those things, we have to do something about them.

So that is why I am very, very pleased that these hearings are taking place, Mr. Speaker, because the leadership is there to make those hearings happen. There will be Democrats and Republicans a part of it. I am glad that staff was deployed from the Democratic Congress to Walter Reed Hospital and other hospitals here in the Washington area, outpatient centers, to make sure that we can get to the bottom of the problem and make sure that we start working towards a solution.

And I want to say, Mr. Ryan, before I yield to you, that I commend the individuals that work in our veterans hospitals for blowing the whistle and talking to the press and talking to the staff about some of the issues that veterans had to face. I want to commend those veterans or those active duty and those individuals that are no longer on active duty, also our National Guardsmen and our Reservists that have been activated for sharing information. And we encourage you to continue to share information so that we can do better, because the willingness and the desire here is in this Democratic Congress to make sure that you get what you need and what you have coming to you.

Mr. Ryan, I appreciate you coming down, sir. You are one of the most dedicated members of the 30-something Working Group. And I know now that you are an appropriator that you have many more responsibilities. And I want you to continue to do those great things that you do on the Appropriations Committee, and I want to thank you for your service on the Armed Services Committee in the last two Congresses. But this is a very, very serious issue, Members; and I am glad that you did find time enough to come down here.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we look at some of the issues that we are facing here, not only on this article, or articles, out of The Washington Post, not only what Americans are going to be reading in Newsweek and other publications that are going to uncover or shed light on the obvious that so many veterans have been talking about for so many years. One thing for myself, being in the political minority in the last two Congresses and the frustration of not having the opportunity to schedule a hearing, Mr. Ryan said something and I want to just be able to shed light on it, because we have a lot of new Members and I want to make sure they understand.

Of course, when you are in the minority you can't call the hearing. It is what it is, like so many people say on the street. You are in the minority, that is it. You can try to do what you can do, but you are not going to call a hearing. And the fact that we have hearings that have been called and hearings that have already taken place and staff that has been deployed to tackle this issue already allows the American people to witness change, to witness a new direction. If I said it three times in my talk here this evening, I will say it again. In politics and what gives people the will and the desire to go vote in the first place is to witness change when they feel that it needs to happen.

We talked about a new direction, Democrats did, in the last election. And to actually talk about it and then do it is extraordinary, especially here in Washington, D.C. to be able to go back to your district and say we are going to do something about this lack of service, outpatient service, lack of priority, cut in funding.

I spoke earlier, and I am going to highlight what has happened and then I am going to say what we have done in the first action of being able to direct appropriations in the area that it should go in versus special interest giveaways, versus you have to be plugged in or connected to get certain things out of this Congress just on behalf of those that have served.

I just want to run down this line here, and I have a chart here. As you know, we have a lot of charts in the 30-something Working Group because we want to make sure that Members know exactly what they need to know, when they need to know it, so that their constituents and my constituents, I can't go home and say, I didn't know that, no one said anything about it. These bills are moving around, some of them are 500 pages. I didn't know what was there. So as we look at what is happening or what has happened, we have to reflect on the past to have a better future. And that is the good thing about what we are doing here.

Bush and Republican budget funding for veterans: January 2003, the Bush administration cuts off veterans health care for 164,000 veterans, 68 Federal Reg 2670, 2671, January 17 of 2003.

The reason why I read that probably means nothing to the lay person, but for those of you that know where to find this information, it is gold. As a matter of fact, it is platinum. Third-party validators is what we do here on the 30-something Working Group. And on the Democratic side, we believe in third-party validators. The Washington Post is a third-party validator of what we have been talking about in the minority. Now we are glad we are in the majority to do something about it.

Third-party validator is a Newsweek cover: ``Special Investigation on Failing Our Wounded,'' that we have been talking about and 12 years in being in the minority. Now we are in the majority, we are doing something about it, what I talked about and what am going to highlight again.

March 2003, Republican budget cuts off $14 billion from veterans health care. It passed the Congress with 199 Democrats voting against it. 199 Democrats. That is House Concurrent Resolution 95, vote number 82, and that took place on March 21 of 2003.

I think it is important also, on March 2004, Republican budget that short-changed veterans health care cut by $1.5 billion.

I think you are getting the message here, Members, of what we are talking about here. And I can go on and on and on about what has not happened and what we have fought for; but I want you to look right down here at the bottom, because this is proof in the pudding and this is the new direction, Mr. Speaker and Members, that we speak so much about here on this floor, and it gives me great pride. I mean, I feel almost fulfilled spiritually, leave alone professionally as a Member of Congress, to be a member of a majority that is about action and about a new direction.

When you look at this, January 31, 2007, that was just a month ago, we had to pass a concurrent resolution or a continuing resolution because the work was not done from the 109th Congress that should have been done prior to this time. We had to come in and clean it up. But guess what, in the cleanup we found some waste and special interest, giveaways, and we came up with $3.6 billion in health care funding to replace some of the cuts that the Republican majority made in the last Congress. I almost feel like an attorney in a closing argument. I can rest my case on that.

Now, Members can come down here and spend hours upon hours upon hours talking about I love the veterans, oh, I love the troops, oh, my goodness, I get teary-eyed every time I see a veteran or pass a post. But $3.6 billion is action, and I want to make sure the Members who voted against that continuing resolution know that you missed out on an opportunity to do something great, $3.6 billion for veterans health care.

Now, guess what, Member, if we didn't put that $3.6 billion and had an opportunity to do something about what did not happen in the past on behalf of veterans, could I speak here on the floor of the House of Representatives representing to the Members of this House of Representatives that we did the right thing back on January 31 of this year?

Sometimes we know of the glory but we have to tell the story, and the story is having the will and having courage, willing to do something on behalf of those who have sent us here, in this case, since we are talking about the veterans tonight, those that have allowed us to be in the Capitol, saluting one flag and secure, those that allow my children to live in a free society, those that have had friends that have paid the ultimate sacrifice, those that it takes longer than 2 hours in the morning for them to get out the door because of the price they paid.

Members, this has to be bipartisan, and so when we look at what has happened under a partisan venue, we have to be excited about $3.6 billion and counting in the future. We have to be excited about the oversight hearings that I have talked about that Mr. Murtha is going to have as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on Appropriations. We talked about the Armed Services Committee, oversight committee, going and having hearings.

We talked about the Budget Committee that has already had a hearing. We are talking about the Senate doing the same thing on that side. We are talking about deployment of staff into veterans hospitals finding out the damage, what has happened because of the lack of funding that has been cut off over the years. That is substantial; that is substantial.

I would urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to go home and tell your constituents that we are on the job, that we are going to make it happen on behalf of their uncle, on behalf of their aunt, on behalf of their mother that may be deployed right now. But when she gets back, we are going to have her back. That is what is important, not lip service, but action.

Now, as a Member of Congress it gives me no pride to talk about the failures of the Bush administration or the past Congress, or even this Congress. We are not even 3 months into a new Congress. We have had 52 hearings dealing with Iraq plus, and I have to make sure that staff gives me the new numbers when we get back here next week, and counting, to give the American people the accountability that they deserve, those that are in harm's way, that they deserve.

You let some tell you here in the House of Representatives, oh, Democrats are weak on defense. We are for the veterans, don't you know?

Well, you know something, the thing about the story is the fact that it has bumps in it. The thing about the Congressional Record is the fact that it tells the truth, and the truth will set you free like we have heard so many times in places of worship. But it will set you free when it comes down to the track record.

We have the Republican side that says the tax-and-spend Democrats. Okay, what does the record reflect? The record reflects great accountability.

Guess what, the only party in the history of this country that has ever balanced the budget was the Democratic Congress without one Republican vote, the only party.

They talk about budget reduction and all that, but the bottom line is you can't hold, you can't have one arm on special interest and another arm on responsibility and make sure it all gets out because you know what, in past Congresses, special interest has always won. So as we start to look at this issue, we learn more about what is going on in our outpatient services, and we learn more about the lack of service that our veterans are receiving, not just the new ones, but the ones that have been there and suffered for years, and have suffered even more of the cuts of the Republican leadership in the White House and here in Congress.

The story, goodness, a Republican chairman of a committee of the Veterans' Affairs Committee did the right thing at one point and said, I am going to do this on behalf of veterans here in the United States of America; and those that are abroad at foreign bases and their families, we are going to do the right thing for him, and he was stripped of his chairmanship. I challenge any Member to come down here and challenge me on that fact. They won't, because it actually happened.

I guarantee you, the present chairman of our Veterans' Affairs right now will not be stripped for working on behalf of veterans. That will not happen. I say that with great confidence.

So I am excited. I mean, we just broke for the week. I am just glad to be here tonight to just witness, like we say in the Baptist Church, a change in a new direction.

I am so glad that the Record will reflect, not just American people but Democrats, that when the American people voted for a new direction, it actually happened. We are moving in a new direction.

Every time I see the votes on the board right above our heads here, we have bipartisan votes, it makes me feel even better about what we are doing, because that means that you are doing the right thing. This is a partisan arena here in Washington D.C. By the rules it is partisan. By the fact that you cannot even call a committee hearing, it is partisan. It has been that way for a very, very long time.

When you start to see Members breaking ranks with partisanship to say, I need to vote for this very good thing for my constituents, that is powerful, because it hasn't happened before; and I am not talking about procedural votes to the Members. We know Members are going to vote on the issues.

As we start to do good things on behalf of our veterans, we look forward to that bipartisan spirit. We look forward to it, and we know that there will be votes that we have to be bipartisan on. But I can tell you one thing: when it comes down to our veterans, we have to be together on this. National security, we have to be together on this. We have to be together on a number of issues, health care, what have you, because the country is looking for us to be leaders.

I am so glad that we have a Speaker that is a leader. I am so glad that we have Members that are serving in leadership positions on oversight committees that are leaders and really don't mind being talked about and misunderstood from time to time, because the outcome measures will reflect, out of the appropriations committees, Ways and Means, you name it, the Budget Committee, the priority of American people.

They are not just Democratic ideas. These are ideas that are American and that are right. We can't point at another country and say, look, wow, they don't even have good uniforms, when we are not following, we are not doing, we are not leading by example, just put it that way.

So I wanted to point this out, and I am glad that I had this information handy here to be able to share with the Members and allow them to have a chance to reflect on some of the issues of the week and also issues that will be coming up next week.

The last point, and I think this is very, very important, at Walter Reed today a major general stepped down. But you know something, it goes higher than that; it goes higher than that. A two-star general stepped down today from Walter Reed, stepped down, resigned. It goes higher than that. This reminds me of other issues that because of a lack of oversight have taken place in our Federal Government, and the first person to go is the person almost to the bottom of the totem pole. This goes higher than that.

I am excited that the Secretary of Defense did go out there, but I am going to tell you something. As we start to peel back the issues on this issue of failing our wounded, because of a lack of funding, more and more individuals, more and more e-mails that will be uncovered of who knew what when, who did not act, and it may lead very well back to the White House, may very well lead back to the past Congress, it may very well lead back to a high-level bureaucrat that looked the other way, because it was okay to look the other way.

This is not a witch hunt; this is about making sure that our veterans understand that we are moving in a new direction. If the administration is not willing to be a part of that new direction and wants to hold on to their original thoughts, then we are just going to have to show them that direction; and that is going to take courage, it is going to take leadership, and I know that the majority Members of this House have that courage and leadership.

Again, before I close, I want to commend the workers at Walter Reed.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the House.

And to my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, it sounds like our past colleague Mr. Snyder and his family served our country well, and we appreciate his contributions to our country in serving in public service.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is the first night of business, returning back from the Presidents Day break. Before we left we had a week-long debate on the question of Iraq, a nonbinding resolution opposing the troop escalation that the President has put forth at this time.

And the discussion continues, Mr. Speaker, as we start, Democrats and Republicans, molding out the direction that we have to head in in this country. The American people, Mr. Speaker, voted for change and a new direction. And to bring about that kind of change and new direction, there are going to have to be some votes here on this floor that are going to speak volumes back home of how we are going to proceed from this point on and how we are going to assist our men and women in harm's way and how we are going to deal with this issue in Iraq and in Afghanistan and other domestic issues that we have here.

I am very pleased to not only share with the Members, Mr. Speaker, but also with the American people the fact that 246 Members of the House voted in the affirmative to disagree with the President as it relates to the recent troop escalation of some 20,000 combat troops and anywhere from 3,000 to 4,000 support personnel being sent to Iraq, which was announced by the President on January 10 of this year.

I think it is very, very important to note that that was a nonbinding resolution. Even though it was nonbinding, it really set the course for the Congress to play a role.

I think the reason why we are in the majority, and when I say ``we,'' the Democrats are in the majority right now, Mr. Speaker, is not the fact that our message was better than the Republican message in the last election. I think the American people were counting on change and heading in a new direction.

So it is important, and I am encouraging the Members in a bipartisan way, that we work very hard to give the American people what they want and to give the men and women in uniform what they need. I think that is a Congress having oversight hearings; a Congress debating the issues as it relates to troop readiness; a Congress that is willing to take the tough votes when they need to be taken; to be able to provide the kind of leadership from the congressional oversight end.

The President is the commander-in-chief. That is outlined in the Constitution. No one is really trying to bother that or hinder that. We just want to make sure that the troops have what they need when they go into harm's way, need it be Iraq or Afghanistan.

I mentioned a little earlier in my talk about readiness. I think it is important that we identify this, because it is used a lot here on the floor. Being a member of the Armed Services Committee and having had an opportunity to travel to Iraq twice, and looking forward to going back soon and going to Afghanistan and other areas where we have a military presence, readiness is very, very important.

Readiness is almost like if you have an illness and you are going in for a major operation, you want to make sure that that doctor has what he or she needs to be able to carry out your procedure.

I think it is important as we look at our National Guard and we look at our Reservists and we look at our active duty that they have what they need to carry out the mission if they are sent to Iraq. You can't go unless you have up-armored Humvees that are going to match the mission. You should not go and we should not send them if they don't have the Kevlar vests that they need. They should not go and we should not send them if they don't have the kind of backing that they need from a support standpoint that is trained and ready for the mission in Baghdad, need it be door-to-door searches, need it be guerilla warfare, need it be the general equipment one may need to carry out that mission.

There is nothing wrong with the word ``readiness.'' I put it in the category, Mr. Speaker, of responsibility. I think it is important. I think it is irresponsible for us to send men and women into harm's way without the necessary tools that they need.

Now, there are some Members that are saying, well, why do you have Members concerned? A colonel told us or the President told us or I read somewhere in a news release or I saw on the news that they have everything they need, and why would we send them over there in the first place? We all have their best interests at heart.

I am going to share with Members, Mr. Speaker, that being a member of the Armed Services Committee in the last two Congresses and this Congress too, I have seen the Secretary of Defense say they have what they need. ``Anything the troops need, we will give it to them.'' And later I will pick up a news account that they don't have what they need, or go to Walter Reed and talk to a soldier that ended up being blown up in a Humvee because of an improvised explosive device, because that Humvee did not have the up-armor that it needed. It is the total opposite of what I hear here on Capitol Hill and what I have seen at Walter Reed.

Let's take Walter Reed out. I have gone to Germany, Mr. Speaker. I have seen service men and women without legs. They didn't have what they needed. We were told they had what they needed, but they didn't have it.

Just 2 weeks ago, last week during the debate, I think it was on Tuesday or Wednesday, I was at the White House for a meeting and we had an opportunity to ask the President questions and I had an opportunity to ask the President a question. And I shared with the President, we talked the nonbinding resolution. The President agreed he thought that it would pass here on the floor because the votes were there. He has people that are counting these votes.

I said, ``Mr. President, I think it is important as we look at this as being a nonbinding resolution, there will be a binding resolution or a binding supplemental, emergency supplemental for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there will be language in there, and you shouldn't have a problem with it, to say that we should not send the troops unless they are ready. I am not talking about mentally, I am talking about having the equipment they need to carry out the mission and not find themselves in harm's way without having the kind of backing that they need to be able to carry out the mission once again.''

Of course, the President came back in a very roaring voice saying, ``Kendrick, do you believe that I would send men and women into harm's way? I hear about the funerals. I write the letters and I call the families. You believe that I would do that?''

I don't believe that the President would do that. But let me just share this with you: It has happened, and I think it is important that we realize that it is happening.

Yes, if I am talking to a friend of mine and they are saying, well, you know, I know there have been reports of the new car that I bought, that it has some sort of problem with the engine that has come out in the auto report or what have you, but I am going to be okay regardless.

Maybe it is not the best analogy that I can come up with at this point, but we have been told that the troops have what they need, we have been told they are ready for the mission that they are being sent to, and we found out otherwise later.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure, and Members, it gives me no pleasure, we are at 3,154 men and women in uniform that are dead now. We appreciate their contributions to our country and we appreciate the way that they have applied themselves on behalf of what we sent them over to do. But I will tell you standing here as a Member of Congress, that some of these deaths could have been prevented if they had what they needed.

Now, Members can go back and forth on how you feel about leadering up, manning up and womaning up to be able to do what you need to do as a Member of Congress to fight on behalf of these individuals. I am not questioning anyone's patriotism. I am not questioning anyone's integrity. I am not even questioning any Member of Congress' will or desire to make sure that we give the troops what they need.

I believe we all are well-intended. But we have to make sure that when that man or woman leaves their family on a tarmac, need it be at an active duty military camp or at a commercial airport where you have Reserve and

National Guard individuals that are leaving to go into harm's way, it is our duty and our responsibility as Members of Congress that have oversight of the taxpayer dollars to make sure, even though someone has said it is going to be okay, but to make sure that they have what they need. It is that simple.

So, I was not shocked, Mr. Speaker, by seeing the bipartisan vote before we left on President's break. I am definitely not a prophet and I am not a psychic, but I knew, based on the message from the American people, Democrats and Republicans, I am not just talking about proud Democrats kind of got together and said hey, let's do this. We don't have 246 Members here in this House on the majority right now, so it took 17 Republicans to come along with Democrats or to be with Democrats or to be with individuals that understood that message last November from the American people.

As far as I am concerned, in the 30-something Working Group, we don't focus on issues, ``let's go to the floor and make sure we gain a greater majority.'' Not when it comes to national security. Not when it comes to the very heartbeats and the way of life of those individuals that put their lives on the line and those that have put their lives on the line in the past, and I am going to talk about them a little later, Mr. Speaker.

You don't play politics with that. That is national security. That is someone's daddy, that is someone's mother, that is someone's son, that is someone's daughter that may not come home because someone told someone else in Washington, D.C. that it was going to be okay.

Now, there are a lot of folks around here editorializing on what Mr. Murtha is talking about from Pennsylvania, who is an outstanding Member of the Congress and also happens to be the chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee.

I think it is important that we look at someone who is a decorated Marine, that has fought for us to salute one flag, who served in Congress double digit years, that still is willing to serve this country. We have someone that is willing to say I voted for the war, as Mr. Murtha did, and to say that I have been to Iraq, I have had oversight hearings, and I must add that he has had more oversight hearings since this Congress has been active in the last 2 months than they had in the entire 109th Congress with 2 years combined and then some.

And that the committee is hard at work to make sure that when those family members look at those men and women that are going into harm's way, that they know, not maybe, not, well, you know, I am trying to get there.

I heard what the President said. I heard what the Secretary of Defense said. I even heard a member of the brass say it. When they go out on patrol, and I am not a military person and I am not going to represent myself as someone who has served in uniform. I have just been a State trooper and I have been an elected official for 13 years, and I have served here in this Congress for the last 4 years and a couple of months. And I have been federalized by the people that elected me from the Seventeenth Congressional District.

I will tell you this: I know what my job is, and I know what Mr. Murtha's job is, and I know what the job of all of the Members of Congress, including the Members of the Senate and the President of the United States and the people that he appoints, that we need to make sure, we need to make sure beyond 100 percent, we need to make sure 160 percent, if we can, 200 percent, that those men and women that go into war, that their chance to come back to this country the way they left is our paramount duty.

So, I am not really tied up in a debate, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think here on this side of the aisle and even some of the Members on the other side of the aisle are tied up in the debate about the details of the obvious.

The obvious is, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the troops should have what they need when they go into harm's way. Why are we even talking about that? Why are some Members objecting to that being in the emergency supplemental, to say that they should have what they need to go into war? If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny. So I think the Members, we need to kind of put that to the side and say that there are other issues that we have to deal with.

Profiteering of the war, reams and reams of paper, Inspector General reports of how U.S. contractors have been fleecing of the U.S. taxpayer dollar. Our paramount, one of our fiscal paramount responsibilities is to make sure that the Federal tax dollar is not only appropriated, but disseminated in the right way to make sure that ultimate accountability is paramount once again.

So I am excited about what is happening here, Mr. Speaker, I am excited about the debate that is taking place, and I am excited about the forward progress that we are making in that area.

I just want to address one more thing before I turn it over to my colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. Speaker, I was very disturbed last week and have been disturbed, and here in the 30-Something Working Group, we have been talking quite a bit about our veterans. Now, I mentioned that a little earlier because the veterans, we say we are the 30-something Working Group. A lot of those veterans are 30-something now. Many of them are even 20- something, because of their service. Some of them are 40 and 50- something. And they are coming back.

In the last Congress, in the 109th and 108th, those were the only two Congresses I can account for, because beyond that it was my mother serving here, and I am pretty sure that I can get a good account from her about what happened or I can research in the Congressional Record, we have Members coming to the floor chest-beating, ``Oh, I support the men and women in uniform and our veterans, and I am going to be in the veterans parade and I am going to wave and carry on and I am going to let them know that I love them.''

Well, let me just say this: In the 108th and the 109th Congresses, veteran benefits were cut, period. They were cut. And as we continue to talk about it, as we continue to dissect the President's budget, this document here, as we continue to dissect this budget here, find out what is in it and what is not in it, what is going to be given to the American people and what is going to be taken away, we are going to find out where this administration falls and the old majority in this House falls on the issue of veterans.

Now, I can speak, and I know we can speak, in a very bold voice when we talk about our commitment to veterans. I have a veterans hospital in my district. I have actually two. When I go and visit, I look at those men and women. They could have served back in Korea, World War II. I even met a gentleman who served in Grenada, Haiti, 82nd Airborne. You have these individuals that are there. Vietnam, that are there. Some folks may not know that they served, but we know they served.

Our responsibility in Congress is not to just carry on and talk about how we support the men and women in uniform and those who have served, and we honor them and we appreciate them; but I think it is important that we speak with our dollars and our commitment here as Members of Congress.

In January of 2003, the Bush administration cuts off veterans health care for 164,000 veterans. That is on our Web site.

March 2003, the Republican budget cuts $14 billion from veterans health care. That was passed by Congress with 199 Democrats voting against that measure of cutting the $14 billion.

In March 2004, the Republican budget shortchanged veterans health care again by $1.5 billion. That was passed by the Congress, 201 Democrats voting against that measure.

March 2005, President Bush's budget shortchanges veterans health care again by more than $2 billion. Again, 201 Democrats voted against that. This was House Resolution 95. The vote number was 98.

In the 30-Something Working Group, we actually pull information from the Congressional Record. I think it is important that Members and the American people realize that.

Again, November 2005, the Bush administration as it relates to the shortfall, Democrats fought that summer to be able to get back the $2.7 billion that was taken out. And we have a member

of the Appropriations Committee here, but in the last continuing resolution because the Republicans did not do their job, Mr. Speaker, in making sure that the work was done when the Democratic Congress took over, they couldn't get all of the bills passed. They just kept punting down the street. In our continuing resolution, we retooled Members' projects and other nonissues that weren't a priority because of the thirst that veterans have and the Department of Veterans has to provide the services for our men and women that serve. The Democrats increased the VA health care budget by $3.6 billion in a joint funding resolution. I say all of that to indicate it is important that we do this.

One last point. While we were on break, The Washington Post: ``Soldiers face neglect and frustration at Army top medical facility'' here in Washington, D.C., Walter Reed Hospital. This is a Washington Post article, Sunday, February 18, 2007. It was dropped here on my doorstep in Washington, D.C. I read this, and it was a follow-up article. I think it is important that the American people and Members of Congress pay close attention to what is happening.

You have patients and outpatients that are saying that Walter Reed, they are encountering a messy bureaucratic battlefield that reminds them of the real one that they faced overseas.

It also talks in this article about rats and mice and dead insects in this hospital. Smells and carpet stains.

Again, Mr. Speaker, our job, yes, we say we support the troops. Yes, we say we support veterans. We are supposed to say that. But when we come here and we take our voting card out and we go to these committees, we have to make sure that we follow through on what we say.

So I am excited by the fact that by reading everything that I have read about what has happened in the last two Congresses and beyond, that we have already put $3.6 billion, and we haven't had a full cycle to be able to even dissect the budget and to appropriate. So saying that, I want to pass it over to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a good friend of mine. I am glad she is here to shed light on our message here tonight.

I thank you so very much for yielding. I think it is important for us to also realize that the next action that we will probably, no probably, we will have on Iraq, Mr. Speaker and Members, will be the $99.6 billion emergency supplemental to the war. And I think it is important that we pay very close attention to this vote that is coming up and what leads up to that vote.

I spoke earlier about making sure that troop readiness, that troops have what they need when they go. I spoke of going to get a procedure done. You have a medical procedure that needs to be done, the first thing you want to check and make sure is the doctor has what he or she needs to be able to complete the procedure, because you do want to get up from that table one day.

This is very, very important. And I think that as we continue to talk about this issue of Iraq, it is our responsibility; we cannot critique the present administration or the past majority in this House if we do the same thing they did and expect different results. That is just not going to happen. We know that those that have come before us, whatever authority they might have been from the executive branch, and said they have what they need, we have the up-armored Humvees, we have all the things that they need when they get there. We were told that. And, better yet, we still have men and women at Walter Reed and other veterans hospitals, military hospitals throughout this country and even in Germany, and I visited twice, that are without legs because they didn't have the up-armored Humvees that they needed.

So saying all of that, the debate is going to be: Are we going to do the same thing that the Republican majority did, saying that we talk a good game about standing up on behalf of the troops and we disagree with the President on certain issues as it relates to Iraq? But if we do what they did, which was very little, then what happened in November will not reach its full potential in making sure that we head in a new direction.

So I think it is important that we take this in a very strong way, and I am glad that we had 17 Republicans join us on a nonbinding resolution before we left here, the last big action that we took before we left on Presidents' break. And I encourage more of my Republican colleagues to be a part of this movement in the new direction. I think it is very, very important. I think there have been a lot of things that have been highlighted. I know that the whole coalition of the willing will soon be the coalition of one, because we are going to be the only country that is left. There is a lot of rhetoric going on, we have to be there because we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. I don't hear Great Britain saying that. I don't hear some of the other countries that have announced their departure and those that have left Iraq.

I am one to believe, just as a single Member, that there will be a U.S. presence for some time in the region. But at the levels that we are now, over 143,000 troops and counting, it is going to be very difficult for us to continue to sell to the American people that there is a great need to keep those kinds of levels there. And as you spoke earlier about the readiness issue, this is very, very important. This is very, very important. I mean, we wouldn't want to get the word out to the undesirables here in the United States of America to say that law enforcement here is not ready to deal with major crimes here in the United States of America. We definitely don't want to get the word out to the rest of the world that we are not prepared to defend ourselves in a way that we should and need to be prepared to be able to defend ourselves or help our allies in the future.

So I think that is important. It is something not to take lightly. A lot of work has to be done here. A lot of tough votes have to be taken. And we have to communicate with the Members and the American people to not let them fall behind as we go through reforming this House and reforming the legislative presence in this whole debate on Iraq.

Thank you so very much, Mr. Murphy. And I want to thank Mr. Altmire for joining us and also Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I want to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have one more 30-something Working Group hour.

With that, Mr. Speaker, it was an honor addressing the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in sadness over the demise of the late Thirlee Smith, Jr. the first Black reporter at The Miami Herald. His role in the education of the children of Miami-Dade County is foremost in his achievements, having focused his attention on African-American history that it became an important part of the school system's curriculum. I join my fellow citizens in mourning the passing of this great leader, whose ``going home'' services will be celebrated this Thursday, February 15, 2007 at Miami's St. Agnes Episcopal Church.

Mr. Smith was the quintessential community leader. Not only did he write about the struggles and challenges impacting Blacks in Southern Florida, but he also symbolized tremendous hope for the youth to whom he bequeathed his unique brand of adventure that shed light on the mastery of basic skills and scholastic achievement. He has had to make sense of the malicious intent of segregation in his writing at The Miami Herald, but the lessons he learned from his parents, Thirlee Smith, Sr. and Beulah, epitomized his unshakable faith in the majesty of a loving God.

Having attended Liberty City Elementary School, he would soon represent the first graduating class of Miami Northwestern Senior High School in 1956. He went on to earn a bachelor's degree in history and Master's degree in Education at Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee. He applied for a writer's job at The Miami Herald, but was unceremoniously told that the community was ``not ready'' for a Black reporter. Despite this rebuff, he was featured in 1960 in Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities.

He paved his way for a teaching career in the District of Columbia's public school system in 1961. In 1967 he returned home to teach in the Miami-Dade County Schools, and was simultaneously chosen as the first Black writer for the Miami Herald. After a post-graduate 4-year stint at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., he was promoted in 1997 as District Coordinator for African American History.

When I reminisce about the role that this great writer and educator played in fashioning

the future of our community, it is clear that it parallels much of our state's history as it struggled through the agonies of racial equality and educational opportunity under the aegis of simple justice for all Americans. All throughout the segregation era, this young visionary gave us hope and courage through his writings, engaging our parents and their children to keep faith toward helping them achieve basic skills mastery and academic excellence.

Blessed with a lucid common sense and quick grasp of the simmering issues at hand, Mr. Smith, Jr. was also imbued with the rare wisdom of recognizing both the strength and the promise of a good education. The acumen of his intelligence and the timeliness of his vision were felt at a time when our community needed someone to put in perspectives the agony of disenfranchised Blacks and other minorities yearning to belong.

Indeed, he exemplified a clam but reasoned leadership whose courage and wisdom appealed to our noblest character as a nation. this is the magnificent legacy by which we will honor his memory.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited about being here. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. But I am going to put my prepared notes to the side here, because I don't think that is needed at this point, because we are well into debate now, Mr. Speaker, on this very issue of Iraq.

I would like to disclose to the House that I am not a member of the armed services. I have never served in a forward area. I wasn't even a member of the ROTC. But I am a Member of the U.S. Congress, and I have been federalized to come here to represent my constituents and the people of this great country.

I know sometimes we say some things on the floor that we don't really mean, and then there are some things we do really mean.

I had the opportunity to go to the White House today to speak to the President on this very issue, and I shared with him, delivered the message from the majority of the Members of this House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats that have come to this floor and said they are going to vote in the affirmative on this resolution because they don't believe in the escalation of troops.

A supermajority of the Members of the House have not served in the military. Now, do we respect and honor those that allow us still to salute one flag? You are 110 percent right as it relates to my feelings towards that. And I respect those Members who have been in the ROTC and came up through college and what have you and joined the Reserves and active duty. I trust their judgment. They have the right to say what they want to say when they want to say it.

But I shared with the President that this will pass. And he shook his head and said, ``I believe it will pass too, Kendrick.''

I said, ``Mr. President, here is something else that we have to be together on, and there has to be some level of compromise.''

Yes, this is a nonbinding resolution, but this is the first time that the President has ever had any, any, any pressure from the Congress on his original thoughts and what he says military commanders call for.

Now, since folks have been talking about who they are here on this floor and what they have done and chest beating and all, I have been a member of the Armed Services Committee. I am a member of the Ways and Means Committee now and still on Armed Services on a waiver.

I said I wanted to go back to Armed Services because we are at war and we have to make sense here in this House. We just can't say we are there and we got to stay there as long as we got to stay there, until the last insurgent says that they give up. Well, guess what? They are not going to give up. They are not going to give up, and they are not going to say, well, we are leaving. They are not going to say that.

So if our mission is to stay there as long as the last insurgent is there, so someone would not be looking at troops leaving on the plane saying we won, if that is the issue, then we have to readjust our thinking here.

Let me just share something with you. I said to the President, ``Yes, this is nonbinding, but it means a lot. It sends a message to the country that we heard them last November.''

You know the reason why this House is in the majority for the Democrats this time? You know why? Because the rubber stamp Republican Congress rubber stamped everything that the President sent to this House and to the Senate. And if this was about politics, I would just go home and sit and watch this debate on television and talk to my wife and tell my wife, guess what, sweetheart? The Democrats are about to gain a greater majority, because the American people are going to continue on a bipartisan way, not just Democrats, Republicans, independents, those that never voted before, will start voting because they think that we are not listening.

Now, I am going to share this also with you, what is very, very important. I said, ``Mr. President, it is nonbinding, but you are going to have a supplemental that is going to come through, and there has to be language in there that speaks to the point of readiness, speaks to the point of the fact that if you say we are going to send 20,000 combat troops and 3,000 support personnel, that they have what they need to carry out the mission.''

The President heard what I had to say and came right back and said, ``Kendrick, do you believe for a minute that I would put troops in harm's way if the military commanders did not tell us what we had?''

Respectfully I told the President, ``It has happened before.'' I have sat next to Mr. Ryan in the Armed Services Committee and watched four star generals answer the question, ``Do you have what you need?'' ``Yes, we have it.''

Then we went to Iraq twice. Not once. Not when somebody told me that got off the plane that came back from Iraq and said, ``Kendrick, guess what.'' In Mosul, in Baghdad, folks getting ready to go out on patrol did not have up-armored vehicles. And I am a Member of Congress. You would think someone would bring up-armored vehicles out because they have Members of Congress there. And people are there saying, and the troops are there saying, soldiers, in the field, 18 months on the second deployment, saying, ``Congressman, I know what you think, but let me tell you something: We don't have what we need.''

They still do not have what they need. So I come to this floor, yes, with great passion. I was not a member of the military, but doggone it, I am a Member of Congress. I am not going to let any Member of Congress make me believe or any other Member believe that they are less of a Member because they do not have the credentials that the next person has.

What I do know is that someone woke up early Tuesday morning at 7:00 a.m. to vote for representation in this U.S. House of Representatives, and doggone it, they are going to get, and those troops are going to get it.

So tomorrow it is going to be judgment time. Either you are with going in the old direction or in the new direction.

And the only reason that I have comfort, Mr. Speaker, tonight is the fact that I know that there is going to be a bipartisan vote on that board, just like it was on the minimum wage, just like it was as it relates to prescription drugs, just like it was in cutting back interest rates on student loans. All these bipartisan votes, and this is going to follow the number of those bipartisan votes. I know that we are going to start having the kind of oversight we have to have on this war.

I do not believe that it would be a full pull out of troops, and I am not even looking for that, but I am looking for management of this war in Iraq, and I am glad that we are having this debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and pay tribute to all victims of the Holocaust and to congratulate South Florida's Holocaust Documentation and Education Center, its founders and museum curators for their fine work in educating and reminding the public about the Holocaust and remembering and honoring its victims.

An important part of the Center's permanent exhibits is one of only eight authentic World War II railcars that transported Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto to the Nazi death camps.

An estimated 3 million Jews were packed into the cars like the one on display in Hollywood, FL, which has a faded swastika still painted on the side. The persecuted Jews were often kept inside for days without food or water before being murdered. This railcar was used during the world's darkest time when over 6 million Jews were murdered along with approximately 3 million more victims of Nazi aggression, including; Christian Poles, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexual men, and people with disabilities.

This railcar will be placed on an unused track near the Holocaust Museum, which is located in my district at 2031 Harrison Street in Hollywood, FL, the center of the second-largest population of Holocaust survivors in the Nation.

To the residents of South Florida, the students enrolled in area schools, and to the millions of visitors to the region, I encourage you to visit the Holocaust Documentation and Education Center to study, understand and contemplate the consequences of man's inhumanity to man which occurred in Europe prior to and during World War II.

That the Holocaust Documentation and Education Center is one of four Holocaust museums in the country where these railcars are on display demonstrates that the Jewish community in South Florida is among the strongest in the Nation, forever committed to preserving the memory of the 6 million Jews who tragically were killed during the Shoah.

This railcar will undoubtedly serve as a reminder for eternity that the poignant expression ``Never Again'' will never ring hollow again.

I congratulate the Holocaust Documentation and Education Center for attaining and displaying this railcar, and for helping to teach the entire South Florida community lessons of tolerance and understanding.