Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, setting new records in the United States is generally associated with achievements and innovation.

Unfortunately, this week our Nation hit a new record that most consumers are not celebrating. Gasoline prices were reported to reach nationwide averages of $3.20 or higher.

It is not hard to understand these prices if you look at the Republican-controlled Congress' Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provided billions of dollars to the oil and gas companies while spending only pennies on renewable efforts for fuel that would allow us to get ourselves off the dependency on foreign oil.

As Americans, we do not have a history of shying away from a challenge, and there is no reason to step down from the challenge that is ahead of us because of these Republicans. I think we can do better, and our history as Americans show that we will do better if we have the right leadership.

I urge my colleagues to support the Federal Price Gouging Protection Act because it fulfills America's promise to do what Americans can do if they put their mind to it, and that is to do better and get off this dependency on foreign oil.

If the gentleman would yield and answer how it would raise the cost to veterans and explain how it would, that would be helpful.

According to whom?

Well, I am sure the pharmaceutical industry would tell you that because they have a lot to lose by expanding it.

Madam Chair, I want to acknowledge Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their good work on this bill.

This authorization has very strong provisions on mental health, a number of them addressing the stigma issues regarding mental health, identifying the reintegration needs of our Reservists. Our Reservists make up nearly half of those fighting on behalf of the war on terror.

Mental health nurse practitioners: It establishes a nurse practitioner graduate education program in the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences program that includes psychiatric mental health practices.

It has mental health counselors who can now be reimbursed by TRICARE for services provided to our troops and their families. These counselors are cost-effective and ready to serve the families of our servicemembers as well as our servicemembers themselves.

Also, we have the Mental Health Initiative that will coordinate the Department of Defense's research and development programs and provide opportunities for researchers to better improve identification and diagnosis of mental health problems.

Finally, we have the Psychological Kevlar, which will help us begin to prevent the post-traumatic stress disorder problems that we are seeing many of our soldiers come back from Iraq suffering from. It is important that we include in our basic training, before our soldiers go abroad, not only physical resiliency and training but mental resiliency and training, so that they are as prepared to defend themselves mentally as they are physically before it is too late, before they suffer the terrible psychological wounds that yield them so disabled in many respects after the war, when it is too late.

Finally, Madam Chairman, this bill includes provisions that will take account of measuring the quality and satisfaction of our military men and women in our military hospitals. We cannot wait for more of the kinds of Walter Reed anecdotal stories to rise to the surface before we begin to measure the quality and satisfaction in our military hospitals, and I am pleased to see this amendment adopted in the bill.

The authorization has very strong mental health provisions that will help address the stigma our troops confront in seeking mental health care, increase the number of mental health professionals to serve the mental health needs of our troops and their families, and advance research developed from the nation's academic and medical base to better improve DoD's mental health research and treatment programs.

Addressing stigma issues among reservists: The Secretary of Defense will establish a working group to identify the reintegration needs of our reservists. The working group will examine different programs operated by different services, States, and commands to help reservists. From there, it can identify best practices and develop plans to incorporate these practices across the military.

Mental health nurse practitioners: The establishment of a nurse practitioner graduate education program at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences. The program's specialties would include psychiatric mental health practice.

Mental health counselors: Mental health counselors can now be reimbursed by TRICARE for services provided to our troops and their families. The counselors are a cost-effective force ready to serve and help our service-members and their families.

Military mental health initiative: This initiative would coordinate the Department of Defense's mental health research and development programs and provide an opportunity for researchers to better improve the identification diagnosis, and treatment of mental health issues.

This plan will help incorporate evidence-based preventive and early intervention strategies into pre-deployment training, combat theater operations, and post-deployment service to strengthen our warfighters' psychological resiliency.

Introducing our soldiers to mental health care only after they have been exposed to combat is far too late. We need to familiarize our soldiers and their families with how to recognize and deal with the symptoms of combat stress and trauma--and the benefits of mental health care--from early on in their military career.

Our soldiers are trained from the moment they enter basic training or boot camp on how to physically protect themselves from harm.

We need to ensure that they are just as well trained in protecting themselves psychologically as well.

Madam Chair, when speaking about mental health, we should be speaking about it in terms of a positive. That is what makes us stronger. I think when the gentleman says that when we speak about mental health, we want to be careful so as not to make people feel like they are victims, looks at it in a negative way.

Frankly, I am proud that at John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg the Green Berets have insisted that they have psychiatrists on call 24 hours, 7 days a week, not because they are the weakest branch of the military, but because they are the strongest and they want to remain the strongest. And they know that if they are to remain the strongest, they don't want to be thinking about anything else in their mind when they use their sharpshooter and they are called to duty for this country, where they are going to parachute in and use their technical expertise they have been trained to do. They know that they want to be able to do that job sufficiently, and that is why they have had this important mental health allowed for them, and that is why I think it is so important to have these facilities available for them.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from California.

My amendment simply requires the Department of Defense to examine a process by which they would further add for the collection of data by which our servicemembers could rely on an apples-to-apples comparison of our military health care system, so that they could get a proper evaluation of the status of our health care system, so that we could avoid the kinds of anecdotal stories that we found out through the Walter Reed scandal.

We shouldn't be finding this out through stories. We ought to be able to find this out through the garnering of data. And this is one of the ways that we seek to do so. By garnering this information just like we would through our regular health care system, we should do so through our military health care system, and that is what this amendment would do.

I support the gentleman's amendment, and I would just point out if this country has learned anything from the last 6 years, it has learned that there must be checks and balances in our government.

We have a war that has been proclaimed based upon lies. We have had a war that has been proclaimed based upon faulty intelligence. And we have had a war that has been proclaimed upon intelligence that has been manufactured. Now we have a public that has repeatedly felt that it has been lied to, and that they want to be heard by their Congress. All we are asking in this amendment is that their Congress have a chance to voice their own through the Representative's opinion before a Commander in Chief throws this country back into another war headlong without the American people having a voice in it.

Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment ought to be called the ``George W. Bush Amendment,'' because if it were any other President, I don't think we would have to worry about this. But this President has so undermined the confidence of the institution of the Presidency, it has brought this amendment to the floor; because I think this President has so jeopardized the confidence in the Presidency of the United States that the people, after the experience of this President, have become so distrustful that this President is going to drag them into another war under unwarranted circumstances that they would support an amendment like the one of the gentleman from New Jersey. And that is why I would call it the ``George W. Bush Amendment,'' for no other reason than it is because of George W. Bush that this amendment seems to be necessary.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, mothers from across the Nation were besieged with flowers, candy, homemade cards, and gifts in celebration of Mother's Day. As we all take a moment to honor the women in our lives, it is important for Congress to do the same. For the past several years, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act has been stalled in the Congress. This critical legislation would authorize a research program at the National Institutes of Health to study the potential links between breast cancer and the environment. It would also include consumer advocates in the peer review and programmatic review process. While it is generally believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, the extent of that role remains a mystery. Less than 30 percent of breast cancers are explained by known risk factors, which means that up to 70 percent of those who suffer are still searching for answers.

As with other cancers, if we know what causes it, we can do so much more to prevent it from ever occurring. On this Mother's Day, let's pass the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act for our moms, for our daughters and future moms-to-be, and for everyone who has ever been touched by a loved one with breast cancer. It is time to celebrate the women in our lives with more than pink flowers and pajamas; it is time to celebrate them with the honor and commitment to medical research that will soon save their lives.

Madam Speaker, on the evening of May 2, 2007 I missed nine Rollcall votes. I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position on these Rollcall votes.

It was my intention to vote:

No on recorded vote 287 Sullivan Amendment to the Honda Amendment.

Yes on recorded vote 288 Honda Amendment.

No on recorded vote 289 Campbell Amendment number 5.

No on recorded vote 290 Campbell Amendment number 4.

No on recorded vote 291 Garrett Amendment number 11.

No on recorded vote 292 Flake Amendment.

Yes on recorded vote 293 Matsui Amendment.

No on recorded vote 294 Price Amendment.

Yes on recorded vote 295 Final Passage of H.R. 1867.

Mr. Speaker, the President is making a terrible and costly mistake by vetoing the war funding bill and rejecting the clear desire of Congress and the country for a swift redeployment of U.S. ground forces from Iraq.

The veto and the insistence on staying the course is not a mistake simply because it ignores public opinion; we wouldn't want a Commander- in-Chief to be simply a weather vane.

And it is not a mistake just because our courageous troops and military families are exhausted from bearing the full weight of sacrifice themselves. We know they are prepared to pay any price for American security, which is why we owe them such a debt of gratitude.

No, the President's veto is a grave mistake because refusing to change course in Iraq is compromising U.S. security.

Administration rhetoric notwithstanding, policing the civil war in Iraq does not bring us closer to defeating the global network of extremists who wish to harm us. To the contrary, in order to improve national security and best address our other strategic interests around the world and here at home, we must dramatically change our current direction in Iraq.

Our men and women in uniform have always served our country courageously and performed brilliantly. But asking them to stand between warring factions is not only unfair, it is counterproductive.

Redeployment from Iraq will enhance our security by allowing us to properly address other potential challenges around the world from Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran to Latin America, the Horn of Africa, and the greater Middle East. In particular, it will allow us to put our attention back on Afghanistan and the fight against a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban, the enemies who actually did engineer 9/11.

Bringing troops home also allows us to resolve the concerns about the readiness of our Armed Forces, which have been strained to the breaking point because of this Administration's careless management of the war in Iraq.

Only by extricating ourselves from the mess of Iraq can we begin moving our country back to a common-sense policy of strength through leadership. Every day our military is in Iraq our standing in the international community erodes further.

Already we've seen respect for the United States plunge from record highs after 9/11 to record lows now. This loss of moral authority compromises our ability to lead multinational efforts to fight national security threats from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to global warming and drug trafficking.

Our continuing military involvement in Iraq carries these steep costs with little prospect of benefit. Only the Iraqis can bring about the needed reconciliation in their country. Their political leaders must take the difficult political steps needed to cease the violence in their country, by building coalitions among competing sects, ensuring minority rights, balancing power between provincial and central governments, and sharing oil revenues among all regions in Iraq. We simply cannot do this work for them.

By setting a deliberate timetable for redeployment, we force the Iraqi political leaders to acknowledge and accept that they are the ones who must take steps to bring about an end of the sectarian violence.

Bad things may happen when our Armed Forces leave Iraq if the Iraqis cannot or will not choose reconciliation over conflict. But that will be true if we leave at the end of this year, the end of next year, or in 2015. Delaying redeployment simply delays the Iraqis' moment of responsibility.

Our strong leaders of the last century, like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, recognized that while American military might was important, American values were our greatest strength.

Just as we rallied the world in the Second World War and defeated the Soviets in the Cold War on the strength of our Nation's democratic ideals, ultimate victory against this generation of enemies will similarly be won in the minds of millions around the world, not on the battlefield in Iraq or anywhere else. Indeed, that long-term victory is impossible while we are in the middle of Iraq's civil war.

There is no easy solution to the problems in Iraq, but it would be irresponsible to push a difficult decision off to another day, another Congress, or another President. We must stand firm and hold the Iraqi leaders responsible for their country. It is time for the United States to turn its attention to its broader global security and redeploy from Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'd first like to thank my colleague, John Hall, for his work on this amendment. He was president of his local board of education and knows this issue inside and out from the local perspective. And his work on this has been absolutely instrumental in its preparation.

I also want to thank Chairman Miller and Chairman Kildee, without whom the work of those for whom this amendment is designed to help, the disability community, those children with disabilities, this amendment is designed to supplement.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is really an attempt to just support what is already in this bill in the way of support of inclusive education. What this amendment seeks to do is use those dollars in this bill for teacher education and research, to support the notion that we ought to include children in the classrooms with disabilities

so that we can both better educate those teachers teaching those children with disabilities in how to teach both children with disabilities in integrated classrooms, in inclusive classrooms, as well as learn from their experiences in doing so, both to the benefit of both children in those inclusive classrooms; and use evidence-based research that we know is constantly coming towards us in terms of how to identify children with autism, how to identify children with learning disabilities and use those new findings and be able to employ them to the benefit of these children's growth and their development.

Mr. Chairman, that is why we've introduced this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'd yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague from New York, John Hall.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, I offer this amendment in honor of my aunt, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who started the Special Olympics, who has inspired me in this work; and my uncle, Sarge Shriver, who was the first and founding director of Head Start, both individuals who are inspirations to me and to millions in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 270, H. Res. 334, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 362, the ``10,000 Teachers, Ten Million Minds'' Science and Math Scholarship Act, and H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act.

For the past century or more, the United States has been the undisputed leader of the global economy. The reasons for this success are many and diverse, but they are united by the principle of innovation that has guided our economy for decades. The United States is the birthplace of aviation and the automobile. We have led the information technology revolution and created the internet. The names of American pioneers are as familiar to us as those of our greatest Presidents: Henry Ford, Robert Oppenheimer, Bill Gates.

But today, the supremacy of the United States in international innovation is at risk. In 2005, the National Academies convened a panel, known as the Augustine Commission, made up of some of the most distinguished national leaders in academia, industry and government. Their report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, was startling. It expressed serious concern that ``the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength.'' In order to prevent this erosion and maintain the United States' place at the forefront of the global economy, the Commission proposed several concrete actions.

The ``10,000 Teacher, Ten Million Minds'' Science and Math Scholarship Act is the direct result of the Augustine Commission's first recommendation. In 2000, more than 85 percent of students in grades 5-9 were taught physical science by a teacher lacking a major or certification in the physical sciences. In 1999, 68 percent of U.S. 8th grade students received instruction from a mathematics teacher who did not hold a degree or certification in mathematics. This legislation will create thousands of new math and science teachers, each with expertise in their specific area of teaching, and will create centers for improvement of undergraduate education in science and mathematics.

The ``Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act'' derives from the Augustine Commission's second recommendation. This legislation will improve innovation efforts at the National Science Foundation. It will especially focus on outstanding researchers in the early stages of their careers. These are the researchers who are most likely to break existing paradigms and realize that singular achievement that will keep the United States at the cutting edge of global innovation.

These bills are only the first step. In the weeks and months to come, the House will consider several bills that will encourage technological progress and innovation. I commend Speaker Pelosi for her initiative and commitment to the innovation agenda, and I urge passage of these bills.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget resolution.

I rise in support of this budget because I believe that it truly addresses the needs of all Americans, while restoring fiscal responsibility and accountability. Last year, Democrats pledged to move the country in a new direction and this budget is one more step in fulfilling that commitment. Republicans' irresponsible economic policies of the past six years have left a debt burden of $29,099 for a typical middle-income family of four in Rhode Island. This budget begins to reverse harmful cuts, restores critical domestic programs, and better reflects the priorities of all Americans by strengthening our national defense and investing in future generations.

This budget provides for the largest veterans' budget increase in American history, which will directly bolster healthcare services for 91,160 veterans in Rhode Island. It is also critical for the 4,082 brave Rhode Islanders, who have served their country in Afghanistan and Iraq since September 2001, many of whom will need VA health care services.

In 2004, 13,000 Rhode Island families were subject to the alternative minimum tax--and if nothing is done to fix the system, an estimated 98,000 families here in Rhode Island will be subject to the AMT in 2007. This budget supports middle-class tax cuts and protects middle- income families from a tax increase by setting up a reserve fund for a long-term fix for the alternative minimum tax.

In Rhode Island, there are 100,000 small businesses that serve as the engine of the economy. This budget rejects the President's proposal to cut the Small Business Administration by 26 percent from last year's request and 56 percent from 2001. It also rejects the President's cuts that eliminate $11,429,000 in funding for job training and employment services in Rhode Island. These investments to a growing economy for America's families are needed as family income in Rhode Island has only increased $574 since 2000 and health care and energy prices continue to climb.

In Rhode Island, 20,260 of our children do not have health insurance. This budget helps these children by increasing funding for State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--reducing the number of uninsured kids across America by millions. This budget also rejects the Administration's proposal to cut Medicare funding by $170,154,922 for Rhode Island hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health care providers--because those proposals would make health care less accessible and less affordable for many Rhode Islanders.

The House budget provides substantially more funding for Rhode Island's 159,600 children enrolled in public elementary, middle and high schools--providing nearly $8 billion more in 2008 and 11 percent more over the next five years for education and training programs than requested by the President. This will increase resources for No Child Left Behind, special education and Head Start--rejecting harsh cuts and under funding for these critical education programs included in the President's budget.

Gas prices have increased by $1.11 in Rhode Island since January 2001, an increase of approximately 73 percent. The Democratic House budget invests in renewable energy and energy efficiency to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming, and promote new technologies that can create American jobs. It will also restore funding for Rhode Island environmental programs cut by the President's budget--including $2,654,000 in Clean Water revolving loan funds that help Rhode Island improve wastewater treatment. Mr. Chairman, this budget is a critical step in a new direction. Today, for the first time in many years, this House will pass a budget that truly represents the priorities of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment with my colleague Mr. Sestak.

This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would amend the definition of medical care under the legislation to include mental health care. Under this definition, we measure the quality of health care in our military hospitals in order to determine that we ensure that our military personnel receive the best possible quality health care in the military that they ought to be entitled to. In doing so we ought to make sure that mental health care is part of that quality review process. And as we know full well, in the wake of this war, too many of our veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan have been suffering tremendously from wounds that may not be visible from the outside but are wounds nonetheless that are equally harmful. They are psychological wounds, Mr. Chairman. They are mental health wounds, and they are wounds, nonetheless, that need to be treated.

That is why we need to have the best quality mental health care that our military can offer, and that is why we want to make sure that when it comes to measuring quality health care in this legislation that mental health care is also measured as a quality indicator to ensure that our military personnel receive the best quality health care that they can receive.

On behalf of Mr. Sestak and myself, I move this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I only asked for the opportunity to speak in opposition just to claim the time in opposition. This is my amendment, so I won't be speaking in opposition to it.

Of course, I do want to speak in favor of this, because clearly this is the leading cause of disability, I believe, and will be the leading cause of disability for this war. As we have seen our soldiers come back, more and more of them are reporting mental health as the leading cause of disability; and, of course, this has been underreported in so many instances.

Why? It has been underreported because of the stigma, Mr. Chairman. Continued in this country is the fact that our society continues to stigmatize the treatment of mental illness. So even our soldiers who have every right to feel that they have been stressed by the experience of having suffered through the trauma of war, even those that have been through this experience and have every right to seek mental health treatment, even they feel stigmatized by having to need mental health treatment, and that is the reason why so many of them don't actually go and seek mental health treatment.

But in spite of the stigma, we still find that 35 percent of those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have sought treatment for mental health services. This is an enormous number, and I think it points very much to the fact that this is a very enormous challenge for our country.

Mr. Chairman, we need to deal with this problem before we even have these soldiers returning from Iraq, and that is why we are looking to have the psychological Kevlar act adopted in this legislation.

I want to identify Kristen Henderson, who is a spouse of a member of our military who came to my office and said, why is it that we are waiting until our soldiers get back from Iraq until we deal with their post-traumatic stress disorder? Why don't we start helping them become resilient, and how come we don't start preparing them for the trauma of war before they even get into the trauma of war? We do so much to put them into boot camps to train them physically for war. Why don't we do more to put them together and train them mentally for war?

This is what this amendment says. It puts the Department of Defense in the position where they have to put together a program where our military men and women are put into a curriculum where they are better prepared to deal with the conflicts and the stresses of war before they actually see the trauma of combat.

Mr. Chairman, I think that this is something that we need to do, because we need to make sure that when our soldiers come back that they don't have that sense of stigma attached to seeking mental health services. And if they understand that in order for them to be good soldiers that they need to be of sound mind and sound body and that is part of their being part of a esprit de corps, then they will be more forthcoming in seeking help when they need it. That will mean they will be better soldiers in the long run.

Mr. Chairman, just a few years ago, I had the opportunity to go down to Fort Bragg and see our Green Berets. Mr. Chairman, they have psychiatrists available 24 hours, 7 days a week.

You might ask, why do the best and brightest in the military have that? The reason they do is because the military has figured out that if they have anything else on their mind bothering them, they can't do their job the way they are best trained to do their job. I think, Mr. Chairman, if it is good enough for the Green Berets, then why isn't it good enough for the rest of our Armed Forces?

That is what this psychological Kevlar bill puts in place. It says we need to protect the mind as well as the body of our soldiers before battle, and we need to make sure that they are prepared for every eventuality when it comes to wartime.

I ask my colleagues to vote for this and destigmatize mental health and help the Department of Defense lift the veil of the stigma of mental illness and vote for the psychological Kevlar bill. For that reason, I will ask for a recorded vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to request a recorded vote on amendment No. 7 at this point, notwithstanding the passage of time since its adoption by voice vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to voice my support for this supplemental, not because I agree with everything in it, but because I agree with the most important thing in it: a binding deadline to redeploy our troops from Iraq.

We need to redeploy our troops from Iraq, first and foremost, because it is in our national security interest.

As someone who voted for the original resolution, I am particularly pained by the suffering of the thousands of our servicemembers killed and tens of thousands wounded. I'm glad this bill begins to put the appropriate resources into caring for those coming home with traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder, and beginning to fix the problems at Walter Reed Medical Center and other facilities. It is outrageous that this Administration has allowed our uniformed men and women to be treated so shabbily.

I also have enormous sympathy for the families of servicemembers killed and injured in Iraq. I agonize about those on the home front who worry every day about getting that horrible visit, and who struggle to raise children, pay bills, and lead some semblance of normal life with family members in a combat zone. I want our troops to come home.

Yet the hardships they and their families endure are not the reason to bring our troops home. I know that the men and women in uniform, and the families behind them, are willing to make the sacrifices they do if that is what it takes to make America more secure.

But the truth is, this war is not making us more secure.

By manipulating the intelligence and rushing to war, ignoring our allies, grossly mismanaging the occupation, and basing this entire war on ideology and hope rather than expertise and pragmatism, the Administration has torn our national security fabric.

Staying in Iraq, policing their civil war, does not bring us closer to defeating the global network of extremists who wish to harm us. To the contrary, in order to improve national security and best address our other strategic interests around the world and here at home, we must dramatically change our current direction in Iraq.

Redeployment from Iraq will enhance our security by allowing us to properly address other potential challenges around the world, from Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran to the Western Pacific, the Horn of Africa, and the greater Middle East. In particular, it will allow us to put our attention back on Afghanistan and Pakistan and the fight against a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban, the enemies who actually engineered 9/11.

Bringing troops home also allows us to resolve the concerns about the readiness of our Armed Forces, which have been strained to the breaking point because of this Administration's careless management of the war in Iraq.

Perhaps most importantly, only by extricating ourselves from the mess of Iraq can we begin moving our country back to a common-sense policy of strength through leadership. Every day our military is in Iraq our standing in the international community erodes further.

Already we've seen respect for the United States plunge from record highs after 9/11 to record lows now. This loss of moral authority compromises our ability to lead multinational efforts to fight national security threats from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to global wanning and drug trafficking.

We cannot begin rebuilding our international credibility and leadership until we have redeployed from Iraq. We cannot restore the flexibility to meet the real, potentially existential threats of nuclear terrorism that were used to justify the invasion of Iraq until we exit Iraq.

We hear dire warnings about the awful results if we leave Iraq. It is true that bad things may happen when our Armed Forces leave if the Iraqis cannot or will not choose reconciliation over conflict. But that will be true if we leave at the end of this year, the end of next year, or in 2015. Delaying redeployment only delays the Iraqis' moment of responsibility.

The sooner we begin redeployment, the sooner we begin unraveling the tremendous damage that this war and its mismanagement have wrought on our national security. Given the Administration's history of manipulation and deceit, the interim deadlines of December 2007 and March 2008 may not prove binding, since the President can make certifications that waive those deadlines. I will support this supplemental, however, because it does set a binding deadline on withdrawal no later than August of next year. I would like the deadline to be sooner, but most important is that we bring finality to this war.

Our men and women in uniform have served our country courageously and performed brilliantly--just as they always do. But asking them to stand between warring factions is not only unfair, it's counterproductive.

I believe in a strong U.S. engagement around the world, including using military force when necessary. I also believe, as did Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, that America's greatest strength comes from its values and its ability to lead. We need to restore America's leadership. We need to strengthen America's security. We need to pass this supplemental and begin the redeployment from Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I want to voice my support for the supplemental, not because I agree with everything that is in it, but because I agree with one thing that is in it, and that is a binding deadline to end the war in Iraq and redeploy our troops to where they are truly needed, and that is to fight the real war on terror where the terrorists started to bomb our country and planned to bomb us on 9/11 and that is in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Why are we fighting a civil war in Iraq? Why are we fighting a civil war in Iraq when it is in Afghanistan where the war should be fought? Why are our Republican friends talking about protecting our national security in Iraq when in fact it is al Qaeda in Afghanistan that is posing the greatest threat to our national security?

It is this supplemental that talks about fighting the real national security threat to our Nation, and that is

why I support this important supplemental, because it truly supports our troops and it supports our veterans as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to voice my support for this supplemental, not because I agree with everything in it, but because I agree with the most important thing in it: a binding deadline to end the war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, we need to redeploy our troops from Iraq first and foremost because it is in our national security interest.

As someone who voted for the original resolution, I am particularly pained by the hardships and suffering our troops and their families endure. I want them to come home.

But I also know that the men and women in uniform, and the families behind them, are willing to make the sacrifices they do if that is what it takes to make America more secure.

The truth is policing a civil war in Iraq does not bring us closer to defeating the global network of extremists who wish to harm us.

But redeployment from Iraq will enhance our security by allowing us to properly address other challenges around the world, most importantly the fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan against a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban, the enemies who actually did engineer 9/11.

The moral authority we've lost in the eyes of the world compromises our ability to lead multinational efforts against national security threats ranging from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to global warming and drug trafficking.

The sooner we begin redeployment, the sooner we begin unraveling the tremendous damage that this war and its mismanagement have wrought on our national security.

We need to restore America's leadership. We need to strengthen America's security. We need to pass this supplemental and begin the redeployment from Iraq.

I believe in a strong U.S. engagement around the world, including using military force when necessary. I also believe, as did Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, that America's greatest strength comes from its values and its ability to lead.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 131, I was in a hearing during votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize National Eating Disorders Awareness Week. While we know that millions of people are affected by eating disorders, which include anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder, the exact number is unknown because there is no accurate data collection of these diseases. It is time to take action on eating disorders, a mental and physical health issue that has had little public support and is often misrepresented in popular media.

Each year, hundreds of Americans die as a direct result of an eating disorder, which has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. Several thousand more have eating disorder symptoms listed as contributing conditions to their deaths. For those who live with the condition, eating disorders frequently impair the sufferer's home, work, personal, and social life. Health consequences such as osteoporosis (brittle bones), gastrointestinal complications and dental problems are significant health and financial burdens throughout life. At any given time, 10 percent or more of late adolescent and adult women report symptoms of eating disorders.

Just last month, a nationally representative survey of the U.S. population, funded in part by the National Institute of Mental Health, reported that eating disorders often occur with other mental health disorders, yet eating disorders may go undiagnosed and untreated. The researchers, therapists, and families of the Eating Disorders Coalition are working to advance the Federal recognition of eating disorders as a public health priority. I applaud the efforts of the National Eating Disorders Association to call attention to these important issues during National Eating Disorders Awareness Week, February 25 to March 3, 2007.