Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today to honor my friend, Marin County Supervisor Charles McGlashan, who passed away suddenly on March 27 at the

age of only 49. Charles was a good man and a dedicated public servant who represented his community with uncommon diligence and decency.

Charles was passionate and relentless in pursuit of important causes, exercising strong leadership to champion the SMART (Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit) train, the Marin Energy Authority, the Marin Economic Forum, a ban on plastic shopping bags, and even a resolution urging the U.S. to withdraw from the Iraq war. He cared about people; he cared about the environment; and he cared about a just and peaceful world.

Born July 15, 1961 in Hillsborough, California, Charles attended Yale and Stanford Universities before settling in Marin County in 1991. As a business consultant, his focus was on environmental issues and he quickly became a leader in local groups like the Mann Conservation League and the Environmental Education Council of Marin.

His green activism helped him earn an appointment to a vacancy on the Marin Municipal Water District Board in 2003. A year later he won election to the Board of Supervisors, where he was in the middle of his second term at the time of his death.

During his tenure in public service, Charles demonstrated a grasp of complex issues and an eloquent speaking style. Whatever his fervor, he always listened to other viewpoints. He was both a principled advocate and a pragmatic consensus-builder. I knew I could count on him as a true partner on issues important to the 6th Congressional District.

Charles is survived by his wife, Carol Misseldine, whom he met when both worked for Natural Strategies, a sustainability organization, as well as two brothers.

Mr. Speaker, Charles McGlashan brought to the Board of Supervisors a visionary's commitment to the environment and an acute sense of right and wrong. He embodied the very best of Marin County's spirit of progressive activism. Like so many in the community, I will miss his big smile, his good heart and his infectious personality. He leaves behind a legacy of important work. His memory must inspire us to continue that work in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the sesquicentennial of the newspaper now known as the Marin Independent Journal. The publication's predecessor was first published on March 23, 1861, as a weekly chronicle of life in our unique corner of California. Marin County has changed a great deal in the 150 years since, but the enterprising and independent spirit of our people remains, and we are privileged that the IJ has been with us to capture it.

The IJ traces its roots back to our first local newspaper, the Marin County Journal, which in 1861 served a population of only a few thousand residents. It was a time when bears and mountain lions were still hunted in Marin hills, when the recipients of Mexican land grants still ran their own properties, and when the United States was just beginning its Civil War. The local paper covered it all with a particular taste for local news, culture, and opinion. In our sparse and isolated county, the newspaper was the voice for a community. In 1948, the Marin County Journal merged with the San Rafael Independent to form the Marin County Independent Journal, the county's premier daily ever since.

The story of the IJ is in many ways the story of Marin itself. The newspaper was there to report on Marin's iconic landmarks as they were first being built, from the celebrated Point Reyes and Point Bonita Lighthouses in the 1870s to Sausalito's Casa Madrona in the 1880s, the Golden Gate Bridge in the 1930s, and Frank Lloyd Wright's Civic Center building in the 1960s. The newspaper was there to capture local reactions to the crises our county has weathered, from the great earthquake of 1906 to the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, from the Mt. Tamalpais fires of 1913 and 1929 to the New Year's floods of 2005.

The IJ also reminds us of how little has changed over the decades. A community defined by its independent farmers and ranchers in the 19th century has been largely urbanized, but its soul still resides in the small-scale, environmentally conscious family farming that Marin County champions today. A community that was once literally cut off from the rest of the world has become one that is now passionately engaged, but with a perspective that remains fiercely independent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Marin Independent Journal. It is an advocate for our county, a forum for our people, and a reflection of everything that has made Marin the place we treasure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern about the military campaign in Libya, one that has been underway the last week and a half.

First off, it's distressing to once again see that Congress's power has been so casually disregarded in our role and responsibility regarding war. There should have been a robust debate in this Chamber about the proper course of action in Libya. The American people deserve it. The Constitution mandates it.

The President gave a fine speech Monday night, as he certainly does, but I found him more eloquent than persuasive. I'm not satisfied that he has made a thorough case for military action against Libya. There are still too many unanswered questions.

What is our responsibility now?

Where does our commitment end?

Does the Pottery Barn rule apply in Libya? If we break it do we own it?

I'm not comforted by the fact that NATO is now in charge of this mission because the fact is, the United States is the dominant force within NATO. Any NATO-led operation is one in which we still bear an enormous responsibility.

And then there's the cost. The Pentagon has acknowledged that it's already spent $550 million on the Libya operation. That's after 1\1/2\ weeks, Mr. Speaker. The bill to the taxpayer could easily climb over $1 billion. And, Mr. Speaker, at a time when we're already spending close to $7 billion a month on a failed military occupation in Afghanistan; this, at a time when my friends in the majority want to snap the purse shut on so many important programs the American people need.

There is unquestionably, unquestionably a humanitarian crisis in Libya. I'm appalled, as we all are, about Qadhafi's brutality against his own people. But I fear that that operation will set a dangerous precedent and send us sliding down a slippery slope.

We can't afford to head down a path of perpetual U.S. military engagement around the world. With developing situations in Syria, the Ivory Coast, Congo, Yemen, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, we can't give up on diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in favor of guns and bombs everywhere there's violence and unrest.

We're already fighting two wars in the Middle East. Is that not enough? Have we learned nothing over the last decade? Have we learned nothing about the danger of open-ended military conflicts where the exit strategy is unclear and victory is ill-defined?

The war in Afghanistan is sapping America of its strength in so many ways. It has cost us in precious taxpayer dollars and has cost us more than 1,500 of our bravest people. And it is costing us credibility and moral authority in ways that can't even be measured yet or quantified every single day.

The time is now, Mr. Speaker, for less war, not more. Let's stop, let's turn, and let's insist that we don't turn Libya into another black hole. Let's bring our troops home from Afghanistan, and let's give our children a future of peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in absolute support of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio.

The war in Afghanistan, almost 10 years old, has been an utter failure in every possible way. It hasn't eliminated the terrorist threat. It hasn't destroyed the Taliban. It hasn't advanced national security objectives. It hasn't promoted a vibrant democracy in Afghanistan. It hasn't done any of the things it was supposed to do.

And General Petraeus' testimony this week didn't inspire much confidence either. He continues to offer the same vague reassurances about progress we've supposedly made, while being sure to say that challenges remain so he can continue justifying a substantial troop presence in Afghanistan. But I'm not reassured in the least. And much more importantly, the American people aren't reassured.

After 9\1/2\ years, after seeing 1,500 of their fellow citizens killed, after writing a check to the tune of $386 billion, they've had enough. They are angry, they are frustrated, as well they should be.

A new poll shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans, 64 percent, think the war isn't worth fighting. This is one of the least popular things our government is doing, and yet it's just about the only one Republicans don't want to cut.

I think it's about time the people's House listened to the people on the issue of war and peace and life and death. We need to negotiate, and we need to sign the Status of Forces Agreement, SOFA, with Afghanistan.

We need to move quickly toward the massive redeployment in July, as the President promised more than a year ago. In the name of moral decency, fiscal sanity and constitutional integrity, it's time to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, when is the majority going to try to solve a real problem? The reaction to unemployment is ``so be it.'' The reaction to an immoral Afghanistan policy is a big shrug. But a modest investment in educational, commercial-free programming, now, that is a national crisis. I guess they figure if they can't catch bin Laden, they might as well go after ``A Prairie Home Companion.''

Public broadcasting, Mr. Speaker, performs a vital function in a democracy. It is also twice as popular as the Afghanistan war, and it supports 21,000 jobs. That is 21,000 jobs more than the Republican agenda would create.

Vote against H.R. 1076.

Madam Speaker, the American people are rapidly losing confidence in the Nation's Afghanistan policy. Public opposition has reached an all-time high. According to the new ABC News/Washington Post poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans, or 64 percent, say this war isn't worth fighting. I wonder if any of the programs that my Republican colleagues want to cut have sunk to that level of nonsupport. And yet this charade goes on.

The July drawdown, the date we should be leaving Afghanistan, is rapidly approaching; and there are precious few signs of preparations for a massive military redeployment. In fact, top officials have been ``walking back'' the July 2011 commitment from almost the moment the President made it.

General Petraeus has returned to Capitol Hill this week to pat us on the head and tell us the same things he's told us before. During testimony he gave last year, he offered up this--I call it a doozy-- describing the July deadline as ``the point at which a process begins to transition security tasks to Afghan forces at a rate to be determined by conditions at the time.'' With all due respect to the general, Madam Speaker, that's an awful lot of weasel words.

His testimony in the Senate yesterday didn't inspire much confidence either. He continues to offer the same bland and tone-deaf talking points--a lot of vague reassurances about progress we've supposedly made, while being sure to say that challenges remain so he can continue justifying a substantial troop presence. He's over here on the House side today. I hope my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee will hold his feet to the fire, demanding the clarity and candor that the American people deserve.

With everyone hanging on General Petraeus' every word, even though he is the symbol of a discredited and unpopular policy, I thought some of us should speak for the overwhelming majority opinion--for that 64 percent. So yesterday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Task Force held a briefing with a fascinating group of panelists. We heard from Robert Pape, the suicide terrorism scholar, who posed an interesting analogy--if suicide bombings are the lung cancer of terrorism, then foreign occupation is the smoking habit, the lethal but preventable addiction that's feeding the illness.

Matthew Hoh, the former marine captain and State Department official, noted that we're laying off police officers here at home while building up a corrupt and ineffective police force in Afghanistan. And Rolling Stone contributing editor Michael Hastings, who recently broke the story about the Army using psyops propaganda on U.S. Senators, was also there; and he made this observation. He said General Petraeus is giving us ``the Charlie Sheen counterinsurgency strategy, which is to give exclusive interviews to every major network and keep saying you're winning and hope the public actually agrees with you.''

Madam Speaker, it was a compelling briefing. I hope all of us in the 112th Congress will listen to people like Professor Pape, Mr. Hoh, and Mr. Hastings. But, most of all, I hope we'll listen to the American people, who are angry,

disillusioned, and pleading with us to bring our troops home. They want us to do that so there will be no more deaths like Staff Sergeant Mark Wells, the young man from Congressman Poe's district.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my honor to introduce and shepherd to the floor H.R. 793, a bill paying tribute to an American hero in my home district.

On May 2, 2009, Army Specialist Jake Robert Velloza of Inverness, California, was shot and killed during an attack by Iraqi soldiers near the city of Mosul. He was 22 years old and on his second tour in Iraq. He was the only child of Bob and Susan Velloza. He was engaged to be married to Danielle Erwin, proposing to her on the Golden Gate Bridge, between deployments, 6 months before his death.

Jake was a stand-out athlete at Tomales High School like his father before him. He attended the College of Marin, and following in his grandfather's footsteps, worked at the North Marin Water District. Yet he knew from the time he was in his teens that he wanted to serve, and he joined the Army in 2006. Jake knew that he might not make it back home.

He left behind a moving poem, full of courage and grace, that was read at his funeral. In it, he comforted his family and his friends by saying: ``Don't grieve for me now for I am free. Be not burdened with times of sorrow. I wish you the sunshine of tomorrow.''

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone knows my strong feelings about our Nation's policies toward Afghanistan and Iraq, but my opposition to these wars is matched in intensity only by my admiration and support for the men and women risking their lives to fight them. And that's why, when members of Jake's church and others in the community approached my office about honoring his memory, we went right to work.

I was proud to introduce legislation last month to name the post office at 12781 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Inverness, California, the ``Specialist Jake Robert Velloza Post Office.'' I am grateful to all my colleagues in the California delegation for cosponsoring and to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, especially Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and Member Lynch, for approving the bill last week.

I urge all my House colleagues to approve this designation with the hope that the Senate will soon follow to make sure this proud soldier's service and sacrifice are never forgotten. Please pass H.R. 793.

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

Mr. Speaker, Gerald R. Ford, Republican of Michigan, served as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1949 to 1973 and also served as House minority leader from 1965 until he was nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress to serve as President Richard Nixon's Vice President. Representative Ford was a highly respected Member who was well-liked by his colleagues. He was the first person actually selected to fill a vacancy in the Vice Presidency under provisions of the 25th Amendment.

Upon President Nixon's resignation in 1974, Mr. Ford assumed the Presidency and served until January 20, 1977. He is the only person to have served as President without first having won a national election.

Mr. Speaker, Title 2 of the United States Code allows each State to have no more than two statues of their choosing to represent their State in the national Statuary Hall collection in the U.S. Capitol. The Ford statue, like that of other former U.S. Presidents, will be displayed in the Capitol Rotunda following the presentation ceremony on May 3, 2011.

H. Con. Res. 27 follows the customary practice of accepting the statue into the collection and setting the date for use of the Rotunda for the ceremony. I urge all Members to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to yield such time as he may consume to the dean of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Representative Fortney Pete Stark, to honor the memory of a man who gave his life serving the people of the San Francisco Bay Area. Alameda Fire Captain Scott Carnevale, a resident of Mill Valley, California, died at the age of 42 on January 3, 2011, of occupational cancer.

Cpt. Carnevale was a proud Mill Valley native. He attended Mill Valley Middle School and Tamalpais High School, and it was at Tam High that he first met his future wife, Elizabeth. Mill Valley is also where Cpt. Carnevale took an early interest in firefighting, volunteering with the Mill Valley Fire Department in 1992. Cpt. Carnevale then attended the fire academy in Santa Rosa and graduated the following year.

Early in his career, Cpt. Carnevale served as a seasonal firefighter in Marin and worked for the Tamalpais Fire District before finally joining the Alameda Air Station as a full-time firefighter. When the airbase closed in 1997, Cpt. Carnevale was hired by the city of Alameda, where he was promoted to Apparatus Operator in 2001 and Captain of Station Two in 2007.

Cpt. Carnevale was also dedicated to his fellow firefighters. He served as an Executive Board Trustee and Shift Vice President for the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 689. He was also an active member of the Fire Labor Management Team, and he organized Alameda Fire Department's participation in the California Professional Firefighters Exposure Reporting Program.

Cpt. Carnevale had many outside passions and skills, including craftsmanship and the outdoors. He helped design and build his family's home in Mill Valley. He also helped to restore the fire department's two antique fire rigs, and he took it on himself to repaint the insignia at the front door of Station Three. Even a diagnosis of cancer could not slow him down, as he continued to enjoy spending time with his family, traveling, and kayaking.

Cpt. Carnevale is survived by his wife Elizabeth Carnevale and his eight-year-old son.

Mister Speaker, it is with a profound sense of loss that we ask you to join us in honoring the life of Cpt. Scott Carnevale. Family and friends remember Cpt. Carnevale as an adventurer who was loved and respected for his integrity, selflessness, and dependability. The people of the Bay Area remember him as a true hero.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Daymon Doss and recognize his contribution to health care in Sonoma County California. Mr. Doss is retiring after forty-five years of leadership and collaboration in building a healthy community.

Daymon received his education in Sonoma County, attending middle school, high school, Santa Rosa Junior College and Sonoma State University. His work as a registered nurse and respiratory therapist greatly informed his career path and decisionmaking; he is known as an administrator who understands the needs of clinicians.

My hometown of Petaluma would be a very different place, were it not for Daymon's vision and sense of social justice years ago. He saw that people without health insurance were using the hospital Emergency Room as their means of obtaining health care. He knew they needed a medical home that offered a full range of care, and used his collaborative skills to establish the Petaluma Health Center. When Petaluma Valley Hospital was facing financial challenges, Daymon negotiated a contract with the St. Joseph Health System to run the hospital. When St. Joseph's threatened to close the OB section of the hospital, Daymon was instrumental in saving the department by bringing all stakeholders to the table to find a solution that worked.

You see Mr. Speaker, that is what Daymon Doss does best; he is a consensus builder, a facilitator, a communicator, an inspiration. Daymon knows and holds the respect of our community so that a call from him brings people to the table to find common goals and build workable solutions. An active member of the community, he has served on multiple boards, including Community Health Foundations, COTS, Healthy Community consortium, Sunrise Rotary of Petaluma, Housing Land Trust Sonoma County, and Partnership Health Plan. He has served in a variety of management positions at the Petaluma Health Care District and currently as the CEO.

Mr. Speaker, I have turned to Mr. Doss myself, for factual updates of events that unfold while I am working in Washington, DC. He does not color his words with his own opinion, but he does color them with optimism and a strong belief that there is a solution that will benefit everyone. It is appropriate at this time that we thank Mr. Daymon Doss for his many years of service on behalf of the people of Sonoma County. He has worked tirelessly to promote the health of our community; for this, he deserves our appreciation.

In a speech this past weekend to our religious broadcasters, the Speaker of the House called the Federal debt ``a moral threat'' to our Nation. It's an interesting choice of words from the leader of the House majority, who has been a cheerleader for the Nation's most morally objectionable policy of all--the disastrous, despicable war in Afghanistan.

For some reason, their moral sensibilities are not offended by a military conflict that has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and 1,500 of our bravest, bravest people without advancing national security objectives or truly diminishing the terrorist threat at the same time.

So how are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle resolving their moral dilemma? By asking corporate special interests to give up handouts and tax breaks? By asking the wealthiest Americans to give back more to the Nation that has given them so much opportunity?

Nope. By their moral calculations, the answer is to demand sacrifice from the very Americans who are bearing the brunt of this recession-- from the people and communities who depend upon public investment. Their moral compass tells them to cut vital programs to the bone or eliminate them altogether: food safety, family planning, health research, public housing, transportation infrastructure, college aid, and on and on.

There was an article in my home newspaper over the weekend about how local health clinics could be devastated by these cuts. California alone stands to lose nearly $13 million in homeland security grants needed to train and equip first responders. The Republican budget cuts also, according to one study, would destroy 700,000 jobs--but that's not keeping the Speaker up at night. He sees Americans out of work, and instead of saying this is a moral threat, he says, ``So be it.''

In what moral universe, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does it make sense to destroy jobs at home but send more Americans to die in a senseless war abroad?

Programs like COPS and Head Start, which the majority wants slashed, save lives. The war in Afghanistan, which isn't even on the table in this budget debate, has ended nearly 1,500 American lives. Our surviving servicemen and -women are coming home with devastating physical and psychological wounds. Yet the majority party, so enthusiastic in its support for Afghanistan spending, wants to eliminate a homeless veterans initiative.

That's their version of morality: Send young Americans halfway around the world to be chewed up and traumatized. Then pull the plug on the support they need when they get home. That's what they call supporting the troops.

The majority could kill the proverbial two birds with one stone if they wanted. They could just about solve their debt crisis by bringing our troops home and ending the moral stain on our Nation--that is the Afghanistan war.

Somehow, I'm not holding my breath. Until the Speaker and my Republican colleagues are prepared to show moral courage on Afghanistan, I refuse to take their moral outrage about the deficit seriously.

Mr. Speaker, on February 18, 2011, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 94. Had I been present I would have voted:

Rollcall No. 94: no--Young of Alaska Amendment No. 533.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment and the underlying bill go in precisely the wrong direction.

We should be talking about strengthening the historic reform that we passed last year. We should not be tearing it apart, because we all know that its repeal will leave millions out in the cold, stripping them of access to affordable health care; and it will cost small businesses the incentives and the tax breaks that they would get. It all goes in the wrong direction.

The majority claims to believe in cutting government spending above all else; yet the CBO has concluded that, over a 10-year period, up to 2021, their bill would add $230 billion to the national debt. Now, if you're really serious about reducing our debt, you should have a robust public option. That would save $68 billion.

Mr. Chairman, I have to express my absolute bafflement at the debate we've been having all week in this Chamber.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle wax on and on about how we have to restore fiscal discipline and cut all kinds of very necessary programs to the bone. Yet they won't even bring to our debate one of the most costly expenses we have in this country, and that's Afghanistan. This war in Afghanistan has cost us nearly 1,500 American lives and the taxpayers a staggering $379 billion and counting.

Yet during this debate, the majority, which is enthusiastic in its support for more and more Afghanistan war spending, wants to eliminate a homeless veterans initiative. That's their approach. Send our brave men and women halfway around the world to be chewed up and traumatized, then pull the plug on the support they need when they get home. That's what they call supporting the troops.

We need to cut that expense.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate the V-22 Osprey aircraft and the expeditionary fighting vehicle. For years, the Pentagon has been throwing billions at weapons systems that don't work and don't keep us safe; weapons systems that are obsolete in the post- Cold War era; weapons systems that are not giving us bang for the buck.

The V-22 Osprey is essentially a lemon. It makes defense contractors rich but doesn't make our military strong. It has a notoriously bad safety record, having killed 30 of our own people in training exercises, and a deadly V-22 crash in Afghanistan last year was claimed as a victory by the Taliban. Billions over budget for a weapons system that's killing our own people--not a good deal for the taxpayer, to say the least.

The GAO has noted that this plane has trouble flying over 8,000 feet or in extreme heat. It also has problems carrying troops, transporting cargo, and operating in high-threat environments.

A combat plane that can't operate in high-threat environments? Is there anything the Osprey can do? Actually, can it deliver mail? The President's deficit commission recently recommended we stop writing blank checks for the Osprey. So did another top official who more than 20 years ago said: ``Given the risk we face from a military standpoint, the V-22 is at the bottom of the list, and for that reason, I decided to terminate it.''

That's not a prominent Democrat speaking, Mr. Chairman; that's a former Secretary of Defense named Dick Cheney.

The Marine Corps' expeditionary fighting vehicle would provide almost as much savings, between $8 and $9 billion over the next decade. The President's proposed budget pulls the plug on this system, which is more than 14 years behind schedule and has also experienced major cost overruns.

According to the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget, the EFV breaks down on average every 8 hours and has trouble steering in water. Shouldn't we be worried about an amphibious vehicle that doesn't steer well in water? Would you spend billions of dollars on a family car that breaks down every 8 hours and doesn't steer well?

And besides, even if the EFV ran like a dream, when was the last time we needed to launch an attack by sea? Once again, we're developing weapons for enemies that no longer exist.

With spending cut fever having hit Capitol Hill, you would think these wasteful systems would be among the very first on the chopping block. But naturally my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather scale back the very things keeping people safe and strong-- police on the streets, investments in innovation and infrastructure, NIH research, education assistance from Head Start to Pell Grants, and much, much more.

I say we go in a different direction. If we're serious about restoring fiscal discipline, both the V-22 Osprey and the EFV must go.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, amendment 413 states that none of the funds made available by this act may be used in Department of Defense overseas contingency operations budget for military operations in Afghanistan until the President seeks to negotiate and enter into a bilateral status of forces agreement with Afghanistan.

Mr. Chairman, we've had troops deployed in Afghanistan for nearly a decade now, making this the longest war in our Nation's history, costing more than $378 billion, with no real end in sight. Close to 1,500 brave Americans have been killed, and they've been killed in the line of duty there. Roughly 10,000 have been wounded, and yet the United States does not have a status of forces agreement, or SOFA, with Afghanistan.

The SOFA is a very basic tool which spells out the terms of U.S. military operations in a given country. The United States is party to more than 100 such agreements, for engagements great and engagements small, including Mali, Montenegro, and Micronesia.

We have a SOFA with Iraq, signed in the year 2008, which sets out a deadline for complete withdrawal of troops by the end of the year.

SOFA agreements determine how the laws of the foreign jurisdiction should be applied to U.S. personnel while in that country. They lay the foundation in a number of areas, including economic, cultural, and law enforcement matters.

So it's beyond irresponsible, Mr. Chairman, that in Afghanistan, the country where we are currently waging our longest and most expensive war, we have no such agreement. There is no formal structure to provide rules governing the presence of hundreds of thousands of Americans in that sovereign nation. This must end. It's both morally and fiscally irresponsible. And that's why I have submitted this amendment. It requires the President to negotiate and enter into a bilateral SOFA with the Government of Afghanistan.

A SOFA would establish that the temporary presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is at the request and invitation of the host government. It would prohibit permanent military bases in Afghanistan, and it would provide a date no later than 1 year after the signing of the agreement for complete, safe, and orderly redeployment. That includes Armed Forces, civilian DOD employees, and military contractors.

Without a SOFA with Afghanistan, Mr. Chairman, our leaders can continue to extend our occupation indefinitely while the cost surges, our deficit rises, and our economy falters. That is poor military strategy and poor fiscal planning.

A SOFA provides certainty and clarity about what we're doing in Afghanistan and how much longer we need to be there. It would provide the framework and momentum for redeployment consistent with the terms of the Iraq SOFA.

My amendment would move us a critical step closer to an end to this disastrous war, the safe return of our troops back home, and taxpayers' dollars invested in domestic needs right here in the United States.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order