Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today it is an honor for me to congratulate the longest married couple in the United States, married for 82\1/2\ incredible years. They live in my district, Clarence and Mayme Vail of Hugo, Minnesota. They have six wonderful children, 39 grandchildren, 101 great-grandchildren, and 40 great-great- grandchildren. It is almost beyond belief.

At 101 and 99 years of age, what is the Vails' secret to success? Clarence says ``Avoid debt, strive for simple, clean living, no public arguments, feed your faith, and accept your spouse as is.'' Then Clarence went on to say, ``Pick a good woman and let her lead the way.'' That is good advice from a humble Minnesotan.

Congratulations, Clarence and Mayme Vail of Hugo, Minnesota, on 82\1/ 2\ years of marriage; the longest married couple in the United States. Congratulations, lovebirds.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, the proposed amendment that I'm bringing before the body today removes $106 million from Amtrak funding, restoring it back to the fiscal year 2007 level, and it adds that amount to the Homeless Assistance Grants.

Madam Chairman, Amtrak has run a deficit for over $1 billion every year. It is now funded at $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2008 in the Democrats' THUD bill, an increase of $106 million over the fiscal year 2007 levels. It's $600 million over the President's request.

Much of this deficit stems from Amtrak's long-distance routes, which carry only 15 percent of Amtrak's passengers, but that creates 80 percent of its cash operating losses.

Although Congress has made several attempts at getting Amtrak to reform itself, these attempts have resulted in very little improvement, I'm afraid, and tax dollars are continuing to be wasted on a service that is used by only a very small fraction of our American population.

It just seems to me that rather than pouring money into this colossally losing investment, we should stop pouring good money after bad, and Congress ought to be funding programs that are proven to help people that are in need and deliver results. We need to help poor people. We shouldn't help poor programs. I think we should be saying no, Madam Chairman, to poor programs because we should not be saying no to poor, homeless people just to continue to prop up a bloated government bureaucracy.

One such program is the Homeless Assistance Grants program. It has been awarding competitive grants to cities, to counties, to nonprofits, to housing authorities to provide transitional and permanent housing for the homeless.

In Minnesota, we have some great programs. Grants have gone to Lutheran Social Services in Minnesota, the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, the Tubman Family Alliance, great groups. These have proven themselves to be very successful in housing programs in Minnesota.

The problem with Amtrak is not that rail is bad, but this program again has been running in the red. It's been bleeding, it's been hemorrhaging, and it needs transfusion, a big transfusion of over $1 billion in tax money every year. It's running in the red. We do not want to be owners of a loser of a program. It requires Federal assistance to cover these losses and the losses from their capital investment. Clearly, for all the years it's been in existence, Amtrak would not survive without this Federal funding.

In Minnesota, we have an old Lakota Indian proverb, and it says, if your horse is dead, get off. And the wisdom of our Native American is pretty clear, and I think that we should follow our Lakota elders when they have enough sense to dismount.

This bill would fund Amtrak again at $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2008. That's $106 million more than the 2007 level, $600 million over the President's request. $1 billion is worth a lot. If you fraction it out, it it's $1,000 a day every day, including Sundays, for 2,440 years. Even for government, that's a lot of money, and still after 35 years, Amtrak hasn't been able to get it right, Madam Chairman.

The Federal Government has provided $30 billion to Amtrak. On average, that's a Federal subsidy of over $210 per passenger per thousand miles that are traveled. It seems that the Federal Government can't even get people to ride Amtrak, so we almost pay them to ride the line. In fact, in 2005, the Sunset Limited route connected L.A. with Orlando. That route required a subsidy of $433 per passenger each way. That's on top of the round-trip fare of about $950 that each passenger paid. That's more than enough to buy a plane ticket for each passenger and save them a trip lasting 68 hours, but that's only if the trains run on time, and only 41 percent of the time do the trains run on time.

It gets worse, though, Madam Chairman. The passengers on sleeper cars are the most heavily subsidized. The average passenger in a sleeper car gets an additional $206 subsidy. That reaches an extra $358 per passenger depending on the route. So that means that the highest government subsidies go to passengers sitting in first class. We could be giving this money to homeless people, and that's our priority.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Minnesota Red Bulls are not an energy drink, but let me tell you about what an amazing energy force they have been for our freedom in the United States.

They are now returning home from the longest continuous deployment of any U.S. military unit during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The Red Bulls hail from the 1st Brigade, 34th Infantry Division of the Minnesota National Guard based in Bloomington, Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, these men and women are true citizen soldiers. They have put service to their country ahead of their family, of their friends, and their careers since September of 2005.

During their deployment, let me tell you what the Red Bulls have done for our country, Mr. Speaker. They completed 5,200 combat logistical patrols. They secured 2.4 million convoy miles, and they discovered 462 improvised explosive devices prior to detonation. In addition, they completed 137 reconstruction projects and helped start two Iraqi newspapers for the local population that covered stories on these reconstruction projects.

On behalf of a grateful Nation and a free world, we welcome back the Minnesota Red Bulls and we thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding, and I honor and commend both the gentleman from Illinois and his counterpart for this important legislation.

And the gentleman is correct. My husband and I were privileged to be involved with raising 23 foster children. I am happy to report that each of them graduated from high school. They are launched into the world, and they are leading their lives. And, again, it was a privilege for me and my husband and also for our five biological children to be a part of their success story.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I rise today in support of this very important bill because it recognizes the month of November as ``National Homeless Youth Awareness Month.'' The problem of homelessness here in this country is a tragic one and we hope a preventable one, but the issue of homeless youth is especially devastating.

More than 2 million children and youth, Mr. Speaker, in our country are homeless for at least one night every year. It is almost impossible for many, not only just Minnesotans but for many Americans, to get their arms around that figure.

Many of these children have suffered various forms of abuse, which is also difficult to understand, or maybe were just thrown out on the street by their families. While others have spent years moving from home to home to home in various foster care systems.

In our own personal situation, we took in teenagers. We didn't take babies. And we were the last stop in a kid's life. Once they were placed in our home, that was it. We were their last stop. And it was our joy to be able to then launch them off into the world. I have a special interest in these latter cases because of our experience and because of the joys that we had in learning from these wonderful human beings.

These children often came from unstable families. And once they are placed, unfortunately, we saw firsthand they tend to get lost in the shuffle of a new home. It is difficult when you are a foster child and you are placed in a new home. You are not sure what your place is. You are not sure how you belong. And especially when you are in a new school, you kind of sometimes feel like you are second class even if your foster parents love you and don't want you to feel that way.

Students often begin to feel as though no one really cares about them. And you know, Mr. Speaker, that's one thing my husband always said; we have to show these children that there is at least one adult in their life that's crazy about them. And if we can offer them that much, maybe that can be our part in their world.

In some of the worst cases, these children may even experience more abuse in what should be a safe place in foster homes. Not all foster homes are perfect, unfortunately. And even in the best cases, once a foster child turns 18, which is true for all of our children, except one, they're removed from the system, removed from the foster home, and they are made to live on their own, even though many of them aren't ready. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, many children, I would say just from an anecdotal point of view, are less prepared than children who come from a biological home to be able to make it on their own when they're age 18.

And so unfortunately, as a result, 25 percent of foster children leaving care experience homelessness within 4 years of leaving their foster home. Just think, 25 percent, one-fourth of all foster children, when they leave that foster home, become homeless. Regardless of their backgrounds, once they become homeless, many youth find then that they are unable to lift themselves out of that situation.

While we can all kind of vaguely imagine what homelessness is like, I recently had the opportunity to hear the testimonies of two people who experienced homelessness, including a very courageous statement by the singer Jewel, absolutely lovely young woman, and her story was heartwrenching. She described how she had to wash her hair in a fast- food bathroom and what it was like for her to watch people as they looked down on her as a homeless teenager. She described her inability to find adequate shelter or food, as well as the feeling of hopelessness that she felt while fending for herself on the streets.

Despite these foster children's best efforts, continuing to go to school or finding a way to be able to hold a job becomes near close to impossible because they face a constant threat of illness, of violence, even worse things.

What struck me the most about children who experience homelessness is that through everything they experienced, all they wanted is to just not be written off by people who saw them only as homeless kids and not as the people, the human beings that they really are and the potential that they had. They're good kids, Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure you would agree; they just have been dealt a bad hand.

A child never deserves to be left in the street. Congress has to ensure that those who have been cast out will be cared for and will be given the chance to grow into successful adults. It's time that we shed light on the problem of homeless youth and children.

This is an important bill. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

I want to thank the gentlelady from Colorado for yielding to me and for bringing this important measure forward.

I want to thank Ranking Member Regula for the hard work that he has done on this bill, and also to the chairman for the work that he has done as well.

I have to say that I hope that my ears deceive me in the remarks that I just heard from the chairman. It almost sounded as though the chairman was calling the President of the United States a liar in his remarks. I certainly hope that that wasn't true. If so, I would call on him to take down his remarks, and I trust that that is not the intention of the chairman in his previous remarks.

Mr. Chairman, what I would like to say in the course of my moments before this body is that I believe that all of us are trying to do the best that we can for regular Americans. What the gentlelady from Colorado is trying to do is exceptional.

We had an amendment that was offered previously by Mr. Jordan of Ohio, an excellent amendment that called to have spending at 2007 levels. That makes perfect sense for most of the people in this country, because many people, many businesses, don't have that opportunity to be able to increase their budget at all, let alone to this level of 9.9 percent.

In fact, I will tell you, just in my home State of Minnesota, we have Northwest Airlines, a wonderful, marvelous employer that's had to deal with unbelievable problems since 9/11.

With all of the events that have occurred, that have happened to airlines, their employees have had to endure incredible cuts in their salary. The pilots union, the mechanics union, the stewardesses union, all of them have had to endure cuts. They haven't even been able to stay the same at previous years' levels on their wages, much less increase by 9.9 percent their wages, or, as our colleague, Dr. Price, wanted to cut that increase by 1 percent, 9.9, back to 8.9. Now the gentlelady from Colorado wants to back it off just one-half a percent.

Surely this body should see the wisdom in the gentlelady's amendment. All she wants to do is just have a modicum of economy in her amendment. Surely we should be able to see the wisdom in that.

I have a businessman who has a legacy industry that feeds into the auto industry. He has a business in Minnesota, and he has had to cut costs so dramatically that their business will literally almost go by the wayside if they can't turn things around.

Again, what we are seeing, with businesses, with family, especially in my home State of Minnesota, businesses not only can't increase their expenses by 9.9 percent. They can't increase it by 9.5, 8.9 percent, they can't increase at all. They have to cut back. That's called productivity. That's what America is about. That's one thing Americans do so well. They find more economical ways to produce more with less.

Usually in the course of that, when businessmen are involved in that sort of an adventure, they are somehow able to pay their employees a little bit more by being more productive. They can't always do that, but sometimes that can occur.

Here in this situation, the gentlelady from Colorado just has a very simple goal, and that is just to decrease by 0.5 percent the amount that's being proposed.

The budget is all about people. At the end of the day, it's the people in my district and your district that are paying this big spending spree, almost 10 percent increase in spending over the last year. It's almost as though the people in Congress believe that if at the end of your name you have a comma, and the letters I-n-c period, that this body believes that there is an unending checkbook that this body can dive into and pull a wallet out of a business and say, you've got more.

So we year after year after year go back to the same well. We go back to the American taxpayer. We go back to American business, and we continue to put burdens on them such that we dig into their wallet and think there is more where that came from.

There is not more where that came from. We looked at the budget battle earlier in this year. In the budget that the majority proposed, there wasn't one attempt to address the problem that we have with unfunded net liabilities that are coming across this Congress in future years, unfunded net liabilities with Social Security, unfunded net liabilities with Medicare. These are very real costs that we are going to have to deal with. This majority in Congress didn't look at that in its bill.

So it's almost as though this Congress is saying we are going to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. We are making a conscious decision, it seems, to just ignore the very real threat of economic, unfunded net liabilities that are facing this Congress.

I submit again to this body that what the gentlelady is trying to do in her very forward-looking amendment is wise. She is saying let's just pull back a little bit on this grand spending spree and be kind to Americans. Let's be kind to American industry, kind to the American taxpayer and say we understand your plight. We understand that you do more with less, and we are going to do the same.

I would say let's not have the largest tax increase in American history that our friends across the aisle are proposing. Let's not have the largest spending increase in American history. Let's do what Americans do so beautifully, and that's let's be productive. Let's increase productivity, not by government spending more, but by making sure that we return more money to the American taxpayer and say, you know what? We can do what New Zealand did just very recently.

We can take reform. We can actually do something completely revolutionary, and it would be that we would look at every government program and say, justify what you're doing is right. Justify that what you're doing is helping the American consumer; you're achieving objectives. Instead of the other way around, which is continuing to add more money, in this case, 10 percent, almost 10 percent more increase in a program, without first causing those programs to justify that they're helping the American people.

And that's why I'm so proud of the gentlelady from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave). She's just trying to bring a very commonsense rationalization to the spending that's being proposed by this body.

If we can't do what Mr. Jordan suggested which, in itself, was very wise, go with 2007 level of spending, which for a lot of American companies, they'd love to be able to have 2007 level of spending. They can't do that. They've got to cut back even more just to stay afloat.

Or do what was proposed by Dr. Price, which is cut back 1 percent of spending. We can't even cut back, as the gentlelady from Colorado proposes, by one-half a percent?

We can do better than that. In my short time here in Congress, one thing I've seen is that, no matter if it's on the Republican side of the aisle or the Democrat side of the aisle, there's a lot of really smart people in this chamber. And I believe that we can do better, Mr. Chairman. And I believe that the gentlelady has a very wise, very commonsense approach, and I would think that the majority body could certainly accede to the fact that we can cut back by one-half a percent, so that we're now going to be spending, then, about 9.4 percent increase.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many great Americans in this country, especially unsung heroes and Americans who rise up to be a part of the solution of the greatness of this country. In Minnesota, we have so many people like that, and it is such an honor, Mr. Speaker, to be able to talk about one unsung hero. He is a wonderful man from the center part of the Sixth District of Minnesota. His name is Mr. Floyd Olesen, from an unassuming town named Elk River, Minnesota.

Floyd and his wife, Dilly, have done so much for the people of our Nation and for the people of our State. They started a program called ``Operation Minnesota Nice,'' Mr. Speaker, where they send care packages to area troops from Minnesota who are currently serving both in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Recently Floyd stepped down from that position so that he and Dilly could focus on a few other service-related activities. One is ``Operation Help Support Our Troops & Families.'' Another is ``Operation Military Kids.'' This provides educational opportunities for the children of active service personnel.

Recently Mr. Olesen received the American Legion 6th District Service Officer of the Year award. He is a wonderful American.

And, Mr. Speaker, it is so important that we encourage all Americans to do what they can, where they can, when they can, while they can to serve their fellow man. Mr. Olesen has done that and more.

Thank you, Floyd Olesen and Dilly, for what you do for American servicemen and women.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for a happy occasion to congratulate the St. Cloud Cathedral High School Crusaders for winning the Class 2A High School Baseball Tournament Championship in Minnesota.

This was a thrill, Mr. Speaker, when the Crusaders came from behind in the final inning, in a most dramatic 7-6 victory over the great students from Glencoe-Silver Lake. It doesn't get much better than this in Minnesota, Mr. Speaker.

The championship is a long tradition of success for the Cathedral students. And over the course of 13 State appearances, the Crusaders have come a way with six State titles.

This continued success of the program for the Cathedral Crusaders is no doubt due to the steady leadership of the head coach, Mr. Bob Karn who, in his 37 seasons of coaching the Crusaders, brought his team once more to a great victory.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this body would join me in congratulating Coach Karn and the Cathedral Crusaders on their Class 2A State Baseball Championship.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her wonderful amendment this evening.

Mr. Chairman, I am new to this body, and one thing I found is that in Minnesota, we have a little bit different definition of ``transparency.''

``Transparency'' in Minnesota means an individual stands on one side of a divide, and they can look through to see something on the other. Here in the case of this bill, you have the taxpayer and you have Members of Congress trying to look through a divide, and what they see on the other side is a very interesting definition of ``transparency.''

Mr. Chairman, the first thing that they see is a slush fund for earmarks. And this is something I don't quite understand; the Democrat majority, they are leaving lump sums of money without a specified purpose in legislation being considered by this House and then later authorizing those funds for earmarks in a closed-door conference committee. It is just a real interesting definition of transparency, because the Democrats have created now, Mr. Chairman, a slush fund for earmarks which will be funded by the largest tax increase in American history. This is just so interesting to me, this new definition of ``transparency.''

Also a part of this definition is that earmarks will no longer be allowed to be challenged here on this House floor because under the Democrats' rules, Members will be prohibited from challenging individual earmarks in bills on the floor or debating their merit as long as there is a list of earmarks in the bill.

But what is interesting, Mr. Chairman, is that it won't matter if this list is flat-out wrong, if it is incomplete, or whether the earmark which is one that a Member would like to debate is missing from the list. It is just a real interesting definition of ``transparency.''

The ``truth in labeling'' that we are seeing in this bill is also interesting, Mr. Chairman, because earmark-laden bills can now be certified as earmark-free. Real interesting. I guess it depends on what the meaning of ``free'' is.

Democrats will be allowing their bills to be certified by the majority as earmark-free even if they contain earmarks. So as long as you take a magic wand, Mr. Chairman, and wave it over the bill, you can just say, ``Voila, it is now earmark-free.'' It is kind of like having fat-free french fries. It is something we would all love to have, but it just isn't possible. As long as any bill is certified by Chairman Obey as earmark-free, then, under the House rules, it is earmark-free.

This rule was exploited earlier in February, Mr. Chairman, by the House Democrats when they passed their continuing resolution that contained hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded, hidden earmarks, kind of like those fat-free french fries.

The largest tax increase in history, Mr. Chairman, is in the budget that was passed by the House Democrats, and that will likely be the story. Even though the majority likes to claim otherwise, they will raise taxes by at least $217 billion, Mr. Chairman, in all likelihood most likely $392 billion, and will raise marginal rates, except for the 10 percent rate, and capital gains rates and dividend rates and prevent a full repeal of the death tax, items the American public have indicated they are not for.

Speaker of the House Pelosi had said earlier that the budget should be ``a statement of our National values.'' Well, not only is this budget, Mr. Chairman, the largest in American history, it will sanction the largest tax increase in history upon more American families, because people in Minnesota, Mr. Chairman, my home State, will be paying an average of more than $3,000 a year more to this town, Washington, D.C. Again, a very interesting definition of ``transparency.''

The budget is going to trigger more tax hikes, and it will greatly increase domestic spending. It will increase nondefense appropriations by $23 billion above what we spent in 2007. That is in addition, Mr. Chairman, to the $6 billion that the Democrats have already added to the omnibus bill and more than $20 billion in the war supplemental.

The American people, Mr. Chairman, are very concerned as well about the unlimited emergency spending, because the Democrat budget is going to abandon the emergency set-aside that was established in last year's budget resolution and change what Congress can call an emergency, unlimited exemption, exempting the Senate spending bill from any limits.

This is really, Mr. Chairman, putting the next election above the next generation, something that none of us should want to do. The Democrats in this bill, unfortunately, have ignored the warnings of the entitlement crisis. Let's not forget, we have heard from the Comptroller General David Walker.

Mr. Chairman, the Democrat majority has once again ignored the dozens of experts, including Chairman Greenspan, including the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and also the Comptroller David Walker, who have pleaded with us, pleaded, Mr. Chairman, with the Congress and given us repeated warnings about the unsustainable rate of entitlement spending.

This is our upcoming economic tsunami, Mr. Chairman. Their budget has turned a blind eye to the impending crisis that is coming upon this next generation. Who among us can look in the eyes of the next generation, knowing what we know of the bill that will be handed to them for the party that we are all having today? Unfunded net liabilities. And yet we can stand here and do nothing to address the concerns and put off any major reform for at least 5 years?

Now is the time, Mr. Chairman, to have true transparency, and I am sad to say that this bill does none of that.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Minna Zhou of Woodbury, Minnesota, who was recently chosen as a 2007 Young Woman of Distinction by the Girl Scouts of the United States of America.

Minna has proven herself to be an outstanding young woman through her involvement in Girl Scouts, for which she has received their highest honor, the Gold Award.

She has also become involved. in her community by developing and teaching biweekly classes to adopted Chinese children focusing on Chinese language, culture, holidays, music and dance.

At the same time, Minna has published a newsletter sharing this information with her students' parents, to create a mutual understanding and appreciation of their children's background, and helped her students organize a recital showcasing their knowledge.

Madam Speaker, I applaud the important goals of Minna's classes, and I am extremely proud of Minna's dedication to volunteerism in her community. She is a remarkable young leader, and I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing her accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, today, June 6, marks the anniversary of D-day, the invasion of Normandy. It marks one of the most selfless acts of humanitarian love known in the history of mankind. It exemplifies a Nation's willingness to lay down our lives and to expend our treasure to free a people from brutal oppressors.

Today, Mr. Speaker, America remains the greatest Nation on earth, and we have our American soldiers to thank for securing our safety, for securing our freedom.

To those who marched to a near certain death that morning on a French sandy shoreline, we pay you tribute. We can never repay the price that you paid for our freedom, but we will never forget that cost that you paid.

There is no greater love than this but that we lay down our lives for our friends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great American and a woman from my district, Mrs. Vera Werner, on the occasion of her 105th birthday. It is a goal to which we all aspire but very few of us ever achieve.

Vera was born in 1902 in Melrose, Minnesota, on May 31, a great day. She is an unassuming Minnesotan, Mr. Speaker. She married, and 2 years later she moved to the big city of St. Cloud, Minnesota. During her time there, she touched many people's lives. Like so many Americans, she had numerous friends. She was on a bowling league for 40 years and she worked in the local department store.

But, Mr. Speaker, Vera Werner accomplished the most important work of any American: She was a mother to four children, she was a grandmother to 21, a great-grandmother to more than 40, and she has so many great- great-grandchildren that people can't keep count. There is no more important function as an American, Mr. Speaker, than to be a good mother or a good father.

Today, Vera, our Nation salutes you, and we wish you happy 105th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time for our side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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

Madam Speaker, promoting homeownership, especially homeownership for low and moderate income families, is a high priority for Republicans in this United States Congress. The GSEs, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have played a very important part in that goal. We ought to preserve that system, Madam Speaker, we ought to protect that system. However, Congress also has a responsibility to limit the risks that the GSEs pose to the United States taxpayers and their burden to that market.

Many of my colleagues have been working for years to enact meaningful reform of the GSEs and their regulator. That's a good thing. But this year's bill goes far beyond improving the safety and the soundness of the GSEs by now taxing those portfolios to create an affordable housing fund.

I agree with the Congressional Budget Office, Madam Speaker. This new assessment on the GSEs will be passed along to customers in the form of higher fees. It will raise the cost of purchasing a home or refinancing a mortgage. That is exactly the opposite direction that we want to go.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this fund.

Mr. Speaker, last night the President did what he said he was going to do for weeks now. He vetoed the Democrat supplemental that was loaded with pork, tied the hands of our generals on the ground and provided the enemy with an ill-conceived exit strategy.

As the President said last night, Mr. Speaker, ``Congress passed a bill that substitutes the judgment of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders.'' I couldn't agree with him more, and that's why I opposed this supplemental, and that's exactly why he vetoed it.

We must not, as a nation, be invested in defeat. Again, I repeat, we must not, as a nation, be invested in defeat. Unilateral surrender may be the Democrats' plan, but it will not lead to a safer America.

Now that the veto has taken place, it is simply unacceptable for the Democrat leaders to delay any further the funding that our American troops deserve. Let's pass a clean Iraq supplemental.

Madam Speaker, my message this morning is very simple, and it is this. Our troops in combat deserve to be sent the resources and the reinforcements that they deserve to succeed in their mission in Iraq without strings and without delay.

Putting in place a time line that allows for no flexibility and that culminates with a date certain for withdrawal just simply micromanages our commanders in the field and, unfortunately, will undermine the effort of our troops on the ground.

Today, General Petraeus has offered to meet with Members of Congress concerning the war effort, and I look forward to meeting with the general. I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be there as well.

Can we remember that this war is truly about defeating terrorists, and that it is our effort to come together now, as Americans, to fight for freedom that will ultimately lead to our peace.