Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 983 on H.R. 189, I am not recorded because I was absent due to flight delays returning to Washington. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 984 on H.R. 523, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall No. 985 on H. Res. 762, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I thank my leadership for allowing me to lead the time during this next hour. And my intention, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, is to talk about something that is hugely important in this town, in this body, and across this country, and, of course, that is the issue of earmarks.

But, Madam Speaker, before I get to that, I couldn't help but hear my colleagues on the other side, the freshmen Democrats, who just spoke about the SCHIP program. I will say this, Madam Speaker: they spoke well. They spoke in a very articulate manner. I commend them for their sense of presence in this body. They are all doing a great job.

But, Madam Speaker, talking about overstating and being over the top on some of the comments that were made that I just heard over this last hour listening to my colleagues, it's amazing.

The gentleman from Minnesota was critical of the President, overstating the issue of the SCHIP program in regard to covering children from families up to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. I don't necessarily argue with the gentleman over that point. But then the doctor from Wisconsin went on to make a comment, and I think I am accurate in quoting him. He suggested that the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, went to Iraq over lies. Then he went on to say that the country needs more than a President who refuses to obey the rule of law.

Now, you talk about overstatements and embellishing and really getting entirely off the subject. So I just want to remind my colleagues, let's do indeed stick to the facts.

The facts, Madam Speaker, in regard to the State of Wisconsin, my good friend, the good doctor, the allergist from Wisconsin, I would quickly point out to him that in his State, he showed that picture, that kind of heart-rendering, tugging-at-your-heart-strings picture of the mother and child, the mom, Wendy, and the child, Cassidy, and sort of making his point that we need to expand this SCHIP coverage by 140 percent to cover 6.4 million children that we are covering under the current program, but to increase that to over 10 million children.

Well, not only that, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, but the gentleman from Wisconsin, in his State 66 percent of the people that are covered under the SCHIP program are the Wendys, not the Cassidys. Mom and dad that have maybe one child that are in that income bracket, 100 to, I think, in Wisconsin it goes up to 180 percent of the Federal poverty level. Not only are the children covered but the parents are covered as well such that in that State, 66 percent of the total people covered are adults, not children at all. And Wisconsin is not the most egregious State, Madam Speaker. There are a number of others.

The State of Minnesota, the gentleman from Minnesota was leading the time. I think probably 70 percent in Minnesota are adults.

And if my colleagues want to come down, I will yield to them if they want to dispute those figures and we will talk about it. I would be proud to have them interrupt me and get in a colloquy, in fact, about this.

So I am here tonight during this Special Hour, Madam Speaker, to talk about earmark reform, and we will get to that. But I think this is just really

important because this is a historic vote tomorrow. This is a historic vote. And colleagues on both sides of the aisle will have an opportunity to say do we want to reauthorize a good program, you might say even a Republican program with Senators like Senator Hatch back in 1997 when this program was started. Not an entitlement program, Madam Speaker, no. Not an entitlement program. A block grant lasting 10 years, spending about $1 billion a year on the program to cover 6 million children. And, yes, we Republicans, we fiscal conservatives, and the President of the United States have a compassion, and we understand that Biblical phrase ``suffer the little children'' that the Speaker likes to use over and over again in trying to make her point.

But we want to make sure that we cover those children that have the greatest need, those children between 100 and 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. And there are almost 750,000 to 1 million of those kids, those children, in those families who have fallen through the cracks. The States have not done a good enough job of finding them.

Madam Speaker, I am very, very proud of my State of Georgia. I represent the northwest part of that State, District 11. We have lots of children in this program. In fact, in Georgia we are covering about 280,000 children. And we still are missing a few. But they are not children and families making 300 percent of the Federal poverty level. That's $63,000 a year. And if you allow that, as this new Democratic expansion does, as a matter of routine, and then you also say not only do the children, each child in that family, one, two, five, whatever, but their parents also get coverage, well, that's why I'm just trying to make this point.

I love my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. These four freshmen Democrats are outstanding Members, and they speak very well, as I said. They just speak facts that are not factual and they embellish their points, and I think that the truth needs to be told on this.

The truth is that we in the minority now, we want to expand this program. We voted for the continuing resolution so that it did not expire. We will vote to sustain the President's veto tomorrow because we don't need to raise the spending, Madam Speaker, on this bill 140 percent and cover 4 million additional children.

I think it was Mr. Walz from Minnesota who had this nice poster showing the amount of money that we spend every day, every month in Iraq trying to defeat this Islamic extremism, to fight this global war on terror, and saying that, well, you know, if we had 37 days' worth of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan that we could use on this SCHIP program, we could cover 10 million additional children, give them health care, dental care, Cadillac coverage. Well, he is right about that. There is no doubt we could. And what good would that health care coverage for those children do if some Osama bin Laden look-alike came into this country and blew them to smithereens?

So let's get our priorities straight here, my colleagues. Let's get our priorities straight. We need to protect the children. We need to protect the adults. We need to protect hardworking men and women in this country and not let 3,700 of them be slaughtered in a 20-minute period of time, in the blink of an eye, because we were not willing to defend this country against global terrorism and Islamofascism.

So this is not a matter of either/or here. And, again, numbers are great. You use your statistics and you make your points. But I hope, my colleagues and Madam Speaker, that I have made my point well in regard to priorities. So let's get this real. Let's sit down with the Democratic leadership. The President I know will do that after we sustain his veto.

Hopefully, there will be some Republicans, Madam Speaker, at the table. Our colleagues keep talking about the bipartisan bill and they keep saying Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch. Well, okay, Senators Grassley and Hatch. But we have got, I think, 47 other Republican Senators in the other body. And, yes, they may have a few Republicans on this side who they have scared into supporting this massive expansion.

But we don't need to do that. The President can sit down with, hopefully, our leadership, both Democratic and Republican. Minority rights here. Let Mr. Boehner in the room. Let Mr. Barton in. Let Mr. Deal in. Let our ranking members from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McCrery, let them in the room too and sit down with the President, with Democratic leadership, with the Senate, with the Republican Senators. I'm sure they will be there.

And say, look, we made a proposal. Initially, the President said we are going to expand this program 20 percent. You say it's not enough. All right. Well, let's get to the table. Let's leave our guns at the door, if you will, Madam Speaker. And maybe it does need to be a 35 percent increase, possibly even 40 percent. That would increase this program over a 5-year period of time by $10 billion. But not $35 billion when what you cover in those additional 4 million children are those whose families are making a pretty darn good income at $63,000 a year and they are already on a health insurance program, a private health insurance program. But, Madam Speaker, wouldn't you, if you got the opportunity to drop your private coverage for your kids and those monthly premiums, say, Manna from heaven, we're now going to get on the government public trough? Wonderful. Wonderful.

And I go back to that, talking a little bit in response to, again, my physician colleague, I think most of my colleagues know that that was my profession, too, before coming to this body. But the doctor from Wisconsin was showing those pictures, that picture, again, of Wendy and Cassidy. Well, Wendy, if she needs public coverage for her health care, should get it under the Medicaid program. But guess what? The State has to pay more under the Medicaid program, significantly more, probably, I would guess that that's absolutely true in Wisconsin, than on this SCHIP program. So it's a better deal, obviously, to cover her under SCHIP than under Medicaid if she had a waiver, if Wisconsin had a waiver, could cover her income level. You see my colleagues, you get it? This is simply a matter of fact, the truth. Maybe sometimes the truth hurts, but connect the dots here, connect the dots.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted to give the President a bill that he could sign because there's a lot of politics in all of this. And there is always, well, you know, ``these cruel Republicans.'' These cold-hearted, they don't care about the children. They don't care about the veterans. They don't care about the hardworking men and women of this country, so let's stick it to the rich.'' And of course the rich is anybody making more than $75,000 a year.

So, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't my intention to talk about this, but I think you can see, my colleagues, that the previous hour kind of stirred me up a little bit, and I wanted to get the facts out there. Because this is a historic vote tomorrow, and I plan to vote to sustain the President's veto.

Mr. Speaker, my main purpose tonight in this hour, and I think some of my colleagues will be joining me a little bit later in the hour, is to talk about something that I can talk about in a very, very bipartisan way, and that is, the need for earmark reform. This problem with earmarks, a lot of people say that's the reason, that's part of the reason. Maybe there are two or three things that you can point to, I won't spell them out. I think most people understand that we lost our majority. ``We,'' I'm talking about now the Republican Caucus. We had the majority in this House for 12 years, and in November of 2006, obviously, we lost it. And a lot of people would say, the political pundits and folks back in my district, the Republican base, you guys, why in the world did you not rein in spending? You know, you had an opportunity, you had a Republican President, you had control of both the House and the Senate. Of course, control of the Senate, I think the Democrats are finding out right now that control of the Senate by two votes doesn't get you very far, and of course that was certainly a problem for us in the majority. But it is without question, in my mind, that this prolific spending really caused us some serious problems at the ballot box. And some of it has to do with these so-called ``Member initiatives,'' earmarks, a lot of people just flat out call it ``pork.''

So, I think it's a problem. Clearly, it's a problem. The American public perceives it to be a problem; therefore, it is a problem. And if you ask people in red States or blue States, they'll tell you the same thing: It's not right.

Now, there are Members who will stand up here and very staunchly defend Member initiatives. They will make the argument that, well, each Member, 435 of us, 100 in the other body, knows our people, knows our State, knows our district, understands what the needs are. People come to us, whether it's a school or county or city government or an individual entrepreneur that's got a new product that can save the lives of our soldiers injured on the battlefield, and that's a good thing, that's an appropriate thing for us to point out. Maybe the departments that we fund in this $933 billion discretionary spending pot that we divide up among all these different agencies and departments of Federal Government, that they can't know, they can't get into each and every State, although they may have regional offices. So, it's good, it's good that Members, Mr. Speaker, are able to bring that to the attention of the appropriators and make a request and get what's called by the general public and by the watchdog groups ``earmarks'' or ``pork.'' We like to refer to them as ``Member-directed initiatives.''

And I'm a little bit torn about it. I do believe that Member initiatives can be a very good thing if Members do the right thing and there is no quid pro quo in regard to trying to grant a favor, if you will, for a constituent for a worthwhile, needy project that would ultimately help everybody, not just a very narrow group of people.

But this system, Mr. Speaker, has really gone amuck. Now, I've only been here 5 years; I'm in my third term. Have I asked for Member initiatives for the 11th District of Georgia? Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I have done that. I have learned how to do it, not nearly as successfully as some of my colleagues. Some people are absolute experts at it, but we all kind of learn the process. It's not part of our orientation, by the way. If it was such a good thing, it seems like they would include it in the orientation manual for new Members. But you just kind of learn this on the slide. You know, you talk to your senior colleagues who have been around here for a while and you find out how the system works. And so, you do. And I like to feel that I can shine the light of day, Mr. Speaker, on every single one of those Member initiatives that I've asked for; certainly not gotten them all. In fact, the ones that I have been granted, usually it's far less than the request. So, we've been doing this for a long time and we've talked about reforming it for a long time.

When we were in the majority, Mr. Speaker, and I say ``we.'' You and I are Members of this body proudly, but I'm talking about ``we'' the Republican Members. When we were in the majority, I think we finally recognized that something needed to be done and we tried to put some sunshine on the process. And we said, look, at the very least, let's make sure that when Members put these projects, these earmark projects in a bill, not just the appropriations bill, but also an authorizing bill, or maybe a narrowly drawn tax bill, all those tax bills, of course, originate in the House through the Ways and Means Committee, but if it's a tax advantage that affects just a handful of people, that's kind of a special deal, that's a special favor, and that has to be justified.

So, we recommended in our ethics reform package in the 109th Congress, let's make sure that all of those Member initiatives are written in the bill and in the bill's report. And it specifically says who the Member was making the request, from what State, what the project is, how much money is going to be spent. And that particular earmark could be challenged by another Member. Another Member, during an appropriations vote and discussion, a Member could stand up and say, ``I have an amendment to strike such and such an earmark.'' I would hope that Members would do that in a bipartisan way and that Democrats wouldn't just attack Republican earmarks and Republicans attack Democratic earmarks. If you're truly sincere about the process, you would look at it without any view of whether the earmark has an ``R'' or a ``D'' behind it, Mr. Speaker, and you would challenge it on its merits and then would have an up-or-down vote. That's good, that's a good thing.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, when the new majority took over, that language in earmark reform was changed such that it's not required that the light of day shine on earmarks and authorizing bills or tax bills, just in the appropriations process. But that's not enough, that's not enough.

In the next few minutes I want to talk about something that I have introduced, a bill that I think would take us a lot further down the road toward, if you will, Mr. Speaker, cleaning up this process.

Now, I'm going to ask our good, young page who is here tonight, as they always are, working hard for us late at night, to bring the easel up. I've got about three posters, and I want to share some quotes with you. But while he's doing that, Mr. Speaker, I see that one of my colleagues, my classmate from the great State of New Jersey, I believe that's the Garden State if I'm correct, is with us on the floor. And the gentleman I'm talking about, Representative Scott Garrett, is also my colleague on the Republican Study Committee, and I thank him for joining me tonight.

At this time, I would like to yield time to Mr. Garrett.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I hope he will be able to stay with us throughout the hour because I do want to segue back and forth with him as we delve more deeply into this issue. But at this point I want to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle tonight, focus on these three charts, posters, if you will, that I've got because I think this is so telling in regard to why I said, at the outset, when we started talking about this problem, that this is bipartisan. This is a bipartisan problem. It needs a bipartisan solution.

When we were in the majority, maybe doing the exact same thing, business as usual in regard to what the gentleman from New Jersey just pointed out, and in the way these earmarks are handed out with sort of, first, if you are one of the fortunate 65 that sit on the Appropriations Committee, whether you are in the minority or the majority, especially if you are in the majority, you get a much, much, much, much bigger bite at the apple, the earmark apple, than some rank- and-file Member on either side of the aisle that is part of the ``obscure caucus'' that sometimes we refer to. That is not right. That is absolutely not right.

Listen to what Ms. Pelosi, the minority leader in the 109th Congress, said, and I think she was absolutely dead on right when she said it. Here is the quote, Mr. Speaker, ``If you are going to have earmarks and you are going to have transparency, you have to do it in the appropriations bill and in the tax bill, and in the authorizing bill. I would put that in writing.'' That is a quote from the gentlewoman, the distinguished current Speaker, then minority leader from California, Speaker Pelosi, minority leader at that time. She made that statement in September of 2006, exactly September 7. I guess campaign season. That was a good thing to say.

I think the public paid attention to it. I think it might have helped the Democrats regain the majority as they now enjoy in the 110th. I don't know what has happened with the Speaker. Right now, the minority leader, John Boehner, the gentleman from Ohio who has been in this body since, well, I don't know when. He is still a young man. But he has never asked for an earmark. Do you think it is because Ohio or his district doesn't have the need? No. I think he thinks or he feels there's too much temptation for quid pro quo and corruption and he works very diligently to try to get through the regular process of applying for grants and helping his district know how to do that, that that is the better way.

Well, he has dropped a bill in this Congress, in the House, to do exactly what we tried to do under the Republican leadership, Mr. Speaker, in the 109th, do exactly what Madam Speaker Pelosi said on September 7, 2006. Do you know where that bill is? It is buried. It could have a hearing. It could be brought to this floor. Gosh, we could do it this Friday. That was another pledge that the Democrats made, Mr. Speaker, that we were going to work 5-day weeks and I bet you we will be leaving here on Thursday night. Heck, we could bring this bill up. The leadership just has to agree to do it, and we could be voting on this very issue on Friday. But, no, it is buried. It hasn't seen the light of day. So we Republicans, maybe hopefully some like-minded, good Democrats, maybe the Blue Dog Coalition, maybe the Congressional Black Caucus who is sick and tired of getting the short end of the stick in regard to this earmark process would sign that discharge petition and let us get 218 signatures so that we can immediately bring that bill that Ms. Pelosi recommended to the floor. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Let's do what she asked us to do.

Mr. Speaker, the next line is another quote from our now current Speaker, and she said this, if she were to become Speaker in the next Congress, Pelosi said she would press to severely reduce earmarks. And this is a quote. That was what the reporter wrote in the Wall Street Journal. But this is a quote that the current Speaker gave to him. ``Personally, myself, I would get rid of all of them,'' she says. ``None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has and the fiscal irresponsibility of it.'' That was in the Wall Street Journal.

Yet, Speaker Pelosi, she herself is on track to take home $100 million this year in the earmark member initiative category.

That just astounds me. That just astounds me. What she said here, my colleagues, is so true. ``None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism, the public has.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleagues to pay attention to an article that was written today, USA Today, quick read, easy read, Wednesday, October 17, front page, should have been above the fold, below the fold, but here is the byline on this article, my colleagues: Timing of Gifts Stirs Earmark Debate. And then the subtitle: Donations Made After Funding Added to the Bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to read the first paragraph. The article is short, but I am not going to read the entire article. But this is what it says in the first paragraph:

``Days after a Senate committee approved $1 million for a Woodstock, New York, concert museum, the project's Republican billionaire backer and his family contributed $29,200 to help the

Democrats who requested the money, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer.'' A $29,200 contribution from this billionaire and his family. Within the limits? Sure, within the legal limits. I am sure it probably was him, his wife and his kids, adult children who are permitted to make contributions. Maybe Senators Clinton and Schumer have leadership PACs and they can get $5,000 a chunk to those PACs.

Then the article goes on and says:

``It's neither illegal nor unusual for contributors to benefit from congressionally directed spending known as earmarks, but the timing of the June donations is grist for critics who see a link between legislative pet projects and campaign money.''

Now, I am going to tell you, I don't want to say that that is the proof of the pudding, but it is mighty suspicious. And I don't think it passes the smell test.

I am not being overly critical of these two Senators. The problem is on both sides of the aisle in both Chambers. What really called my attention to it, Mr. Speaker, was an article about a month ago in CQ Weekly in the title, the front page, Playing the Earmark Game and How It is Done, and how certain Members get, as I pointed out earlier, a much, much bigger bite at the apple. I will tell you, my colleagues, you know this. I hope the American public knows it. It is going to be members of the Appropriations Committee. It is going to be the party leaders, possibly on both sides of the aisle, or it is going to be Members who have had a tough election in a very competitive district, and we run it every 2 years and they are going to have a tough reelect, be they Republicans or Democrats, and, therefore, those Members are going to be granted a lot more. Mr. Garrett talked about the average of $8 million. Maybe those are the ones that get $25 million worth of a bite at the apple so they can appear to be doing more for their district. They are a great Member, so let's reelect them. They are bringing home the pork. They are bringing home the bacon.

But you know what happens with that process, Mr. Speaker, and there are several articles in this magazine. This one is titled, Gaps Along Racial Lines. What happens to Members of this body who may be from minority majority districts or Latino districts or inner city districts and they easily get elected. They are very popular in their district. So they don't need any shoring up to get reelected. So they get maybe $1 million instead of $8 million, and somebody else, some powerful Member gets $180 million for their district. That is flat wrong. Because, Mr. Speaker, those Members that I just described, whether they are members of the Congressional Black Caucus or the Latino caucus or they represent a rural district in Georgia, they have 670,000 people that they represent, and they have poor towns and poor counties and poor school systems that need the money, that need the project, and they don't get it. It goes to the fat cats. That is just flat wrong.

We are going to try to change that. Some Members think that the solution to this problem, Mr. Speaker, is a nuclear option, and that would be to totally eliminate all earmarks tomorrow. No more earmark Member initiatives and we stop all this temptation that any Member could fall prey to, any Member, including myself.

So I can concur and understand that feeling that we might need to completely, totally stop the earmark process. But then, again, many Members have pointed out to me that, you know, Congressman, we don't mind putting our earmarks out there for the light of day, we don't mind them being challenged, but don't take them away from us, because we are doing it right. Don't ruin a process that could be good because there are a few rotten eggs in the basket. I understand that argument as well.

My proposed legislation, and I appreciate Mr. Garrett from New Jersey still being with me because I want to yield some time to him and get into a colloquy about the bill, Mr. Speaker, but what it does is this. It says, look, in 2006, the high water mark of earmarks, when $29 billion worth of discretionary spending, about 3 percent of the overall discretionary spending was earmarked by House and Senate Members, well, let's do this in my bill. It says to cut that amount by 50 percent.

Mr. Speaker, that is also almost a Pelosi quote. What was called for by the Democrats when they were in the minority trying to seek the majority, let's cut these earmarks by 50 percent in one fell swoop. So that is what my bill does; it cuts that $29 billion to $14 billion. Then you do a little arithmetic, not calculus, but a little bit of arithmetic, and you divide 535 into that $14 billion number and you come up with a figure of $27 million. The bill says no Member, no Member from Pennsylvania, no Member from California, no powerful Democrat, no powerful ranking member, no appropriator, nobody who needs help propping up them for the next election, nobody can get more than $27 million worth of earmarks for their district.

Now that doesn't mean they have to take them. If Members like Mr. Garrett and Mr. Flake and Mr. Boehner and Mr. Hensarling and a total of 12 Republicans stand strong on principle and say that earmarking is wrong and I want to say that my $27 million should go back to the taxpayer and subtract that number from the 302(A) allocation, as we call it, that is some real money. The first thing you know, you might have 100 Members doing that, or 300 Members on both sides of the aisle saying ``I want to end this process.'' That opportunity is there. The money wouldn't be spent by somebody else.

Mr. Speaker, but, on the other hand, if a Member had something that they felt very strongly about, whether it was a road project or repairing a bridge infrastructure, obviously the State of Minnesota knows what I am talking about, or widening a port so that these large container ships can come in that are now going to be able to come in through the Panama Canal, there's merit. So a lot of Members would say, you know, I really need this. Maybe one year $15 million; possibly the next year, the max; maybe the next year nothing, in which case the taxpayer would benefit from that as well. That is what this bill is all about. It's about putting some fairness, restoring some integrity to the process, and also controlling spending.

Mr. Speaker, my thinking on this is really twofold, controlling spending, and also ending this climate, if you will, of corruption, where Members on both sides of the aisle, and I don't think there is a Member of this body that comes here without a great deal of integrity and honesty. I don't believe they could look people in the eye in their district and get elected. It is hard to get elected to the Congress, to the House or the Senate. I think people come here with good character. But I think, unfortunately, the process will adversely affect a few. We can name some bodies that are littered and strewn about this place, that actually some of them are now spending time in the Crossbar Hotel, as my dad used to say.

So this bill, I think, would help. It would be a great start; not just a little move, but a fairly draconian move. A lot of Members are not going to like it. I have already begun to accumulate cosponsors, and every day we get several more, and hopefully this is something that we can accomplish.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield back to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) at this time for further commentary.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, yes to the gentleman's question in regard to maybe this being a good first step, and almost a giant step, not a baby step.

And we should go further. But I would tell my colleague, Mr. Speaker, that in a way it is analogous, and forgive me for using medical analogies, but I spent 31 years of my adult life doing that, of trying to wean someone off heroin, a drug addict. Mr. Speaker, you can't do that cold turkey. It would kill the drug addict, so they go through a detoxification process, if you will, and that is not a pretty thing to see. Then they are gradually weaned off and switched over to a drug called methadone. It is a heroin-like substance, an analog. It can take sometimes a couple of years, even when a drug addict is cooperating and wants to be cured of their addiction.

I think I am not overstating it. I don't think I am embellishing here when I say this Member-initiative earmark process has become an addiction. I truly believe it has. And it is tough. So to cut it in half in one fell swoop and put caps on it, and, as Mr. Garrett, the gentleman from New Jersey pointed out, shine the light of day on it so that you can see it and you can find it, obey not only the letter of the law, but, for goodness' sake, obey the spirit of the law and not make it difficult for watchdog groups or other Members or John Q. Public to look in the Congressional Record or read these bills and find out what is in there.

So there is no question that Mr. Garrett is right, that after we get this done, go through the detoxification process, if you will, we will then try to wean this body off of this process, because I think we ultimately need to do that.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As we talked about earlier in the hour, as we are approaching the culmination of our time, this earmark that is described in the USA Today on the front page talks about $1 million for some Woodstock museum.

Some of us who grew up in the deep south who remember reading about Woodstock and seeing the video clips were somewhat appalled about what went on there, Mr. Speaker, so I am sure that that would be an earmark that Mr. Flake or Mr. Hensarling or Mr. Garrett or myself would like to stand up and say, I don't care if it is to some billionaire Republican making the request, and then the next day writing a check in the aggregate of $29,200 to the two Senators from New York. Maybe that is within the legal rights to do that, but it sure doesn't pass the smell test.

That is where we are. I have talked to my colleagues about, well, how could we possibly take this a step further, those colleagues who really agree with me that this process is totally out of hand, and maybe phase out earmarks over a 3- or 4-year period of time.

Obviously another way to approach it would be to say drop a bill that says we totally eliminate, or drop a bill that says we are going to have a 1- or 2-year moratorium. I could support either one of those.

But if Members still feel very strongly that a Member-directed initiative done correctly have merit and value, then the bill, I think, I am presenting will put some fairness into the process.

I yield to my friend.

The gentleman is exactly right. The Speaker could say forget about Minority Leader Boehner's discharge petition, we are going to bring it up under regular order. We are going to do the right thing. We are going to do what I, Madam Speaker, said she would do in September of 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for taking this hour and to say to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I think most of my colleagues would agree, even though I had to rebut the four outstanding freshmen Democrats that had the previous hour regarding the SCHIP program.

I think most of my colleagues would agree that I am not a real partisan Member, and I enjoy comity. That is the way I think it should be. But we have a problem here in River City, whether it is Republican leadership or Democratic leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that the party, if it becomes partisan, the party that will take hold of this idea and pledge to the American people that we are going to do something about it once and for all, and as Mr. Flake has said to me often, it is one thing to air out our laundry, but we need to clean it. We don't need to just air it, we need to clean it up. I agree with him completely. Again, I think the party that will adopt that or fight for it is the party that either deserves to keep their majority or regain their majority.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 949 on H. Res. 32, I am not recorded. I was absent, attending the funeral of Jack Sutton, a beloved member of my District staff in Georgia. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall No. 950 on H.R. 400, the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 50th Anniversary of Aquinas High School in Augusta, Georgia. For the last 50 years Aquinas High School has taught moral and ethical standards, skills for living and self esteem, and a Christian integration of spirit, mind, and body in each of its students. As a proud graduate of Aquinas I would like to I take this opportunity to congratulate the school on its 50th Anniversary and mention how this great institution has affected my life.

After graduating, I thought it would be Aquinas' strong academic curriculum that would be most beneficial towards my future aspirations. However, I must admit that I was wrong, While the strenuous academics at Aquinas laid the foundation that prepared me for success at Georgia Tech and The Medical College of Georgia, it was the faith and ethical standards taught at Aquinas that truly prepared me for life's struggles.

While opening and running my medical practice the respect for life taught at Aquinas led me to value and care for life at all stages, from conception on. Now that I have left my medcal career to serve as a Member of Congress I find my lessons from Aquinas more valuble than ever. On a daily basis I am confronted by difficult questions that affect millions of lives. If it were not for the moral standards and faith in God taught at Aquinas, I do not believe that I could fully represent the people of Georgia's 11th District.

Knowing the positive impact that Aquinas High School has had on my life as well as thousands of others, I stand today to thank Aquinas for its work over the last 50 years and wish it continued success in the next 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I'm proud to be on the floor this afternoon to talk about some issues that are very important to me and I think very important to most Members of this body and certainly to the American public.

Just a few minutes ago, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a very well, well respected, fine Member of this body, did a 5-minute talking about the problem with Presidential election financing. And I think her comments, Mr. Speaker, were so compelling that indeed people, our guests in the gallery, when she completed her remarks, broke out in spontaneous applause. Maybe they knew that they shouldn't, or maybe they didn't know, but, you know, they were responding to something that they heard that they liked. And certainly, I can understand that. Folks do that every now and then. I almost felt like applauding Ms. Kaptur as well because she was speaking the truth and bringing our attention to a real problem.

I used to enjoy so much going around the district, Mr. Speaker, and talking to school children, whether they were at the elementary, middle or high school level, and saying to them, of course, they'd always ask, Well, Congressman Gingrey, what's your favorite issue or what is your favorite thing that you do as a Member of Congress? And I would say to them, what I'm doing right now; what I'm doing right now, speaking to young people to try to inspire them. And heretofore I would say to them, the great, one of the great things about our country is anybody in America can grow up to be President. It doesn't matter who you are or what your background. Anybody in this great country of the United States of America can grow up to be President.

Sadly, today, that's probably not true, and I think that's what Ms. Kaptur was trying to point out. There's just something wrong in River City with all these hundreds of millions of dollars that have to be raised for a candidate of either party, the two major political parties, to have a chance to, yes, be grown up now and have an opportunity to become President. There are many people that are very qualified, I think, that would make a great President, man or woman, white or black, it doesn't matter where you come from, your meager beginnings possibly. But you don't have that chance because of what she was pointing out.

And by the way, Mr. Speaker, I want to digress just for a moment. Speaking of young people, I don't think we take enough time to thank our young men and women, our young students, our pages that work in this body and in the other body, in the House and the Senate, on behalf of Members of Congress. And usually the pages are here at the request of a Member. And this young man that's here on the floor tonight put these posters up for me and made sure that I've got a cup of water in case my mouth gets a little dry, as we continue to speak over these next 30 to 45 minutes. I think we just owe them a lot of thanks. What they do is much more, of course, than these tasks. And this young man, Edward White, Mr. Speaker, is from Atlanta, Georgia. I'm from the metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia area. I represent northwest Georgia. He's here through Congressman John Lewis, the dean of the Georgia delegation, his office. And I just want to take an opportunity to thank him and all the young men and women that help us so much and don't get as much credit as they should.

But my purpose of this hour was to bring to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, another issue which has gotten completely out of control. And, yes, it has to do with spending, kind of on the theme that Ms. Kaptur brought to us in regard to Presidential elections, and that is the issue of earmarks.

Now, the general public, I think, is fed up with so-called earmark abuse. Sometimes we euphemistically will refer to those as ``Member initiatives.'' Some people, of course, don't like that term and they will call it ``pork.'' But the situation is getting completely out of hand, and that's what I want to talk about primarily in the next 30 minutes or so, Mr. Speaker.

We can solve this problem. We have got a problem, and it is not unique to the Republican Party. It is not unique to the Democratic Party. I know some of my colleagues, hopefully, who are watching us during this time and maybe the general public is aware of an article just this past week. And I hold up the magazine, Mr. Speaker, it is known as ``CQ Weekly.'' This magazine comes out every week. I know that it's difficult for Members in the back rows of the Chamber to see the magazine that I'm holding up. Maybe the cameras can focus in on that. But basically the title of this article, and there are several articles written about the problem, is ``Playing the Earmark Game.'' ``Playing the Earmark Game.''

Let me reference here in just a second my first slide, this poster to my left, to show you what I'm talking about.

Now, what is an earmark? Well, an earmark is when a Member of a congressional district sees a need among those 670,000 people that he or she represents. Possibly a school system or a county commissioner or just an individual, or maybe it's a Head Start program, has brought an issue to that Member, Mr. Speaker, and says, We have a great need, Congressman or Congresswoman, in our district. You represent us. We voted for you. We have great confidence in you. But our community has a desperate need, and I want you to ask the Federal Government to try to help us in the funding process.

Well, when the Member looks at that and decides that that is a very worthwhile project and then sort of applies

to the appropriators, that's called an earmark. And it could be a very, very good, worthy project. It could be a sewer project, to help a community to redevelop to get themselves back on their feet, and that is an earmark, but that's not bad. And that is when I would say this is a Member initiative and it is an appropriate thing to do.

But, unfortunately, as this magazine so clearly points out, this process is ripe with the potential for abuse. Just like Ms. Kaptur was talking about in regard to the financing of Presidential elections and that money chase. It is absolutely ripe, this earmarking opportunity or Member initiative, it is so ripe for abuse.

And let me ask my colleagues to reflect on this first chart, this first slide, for just a minute. And this is from the Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group. Thank God for watchdog groups. Citizens Against Government Waste calls this slide pork barrel spending. Pork barrel spending or earmarks or Member initiatives, if you like. Pork barrel spending, 1995 to 2007, this year.

My colleagues and Mr. Speaker, this is the total amount for the House and the Senate, 535 Members. The total amount in 1995 was $10 billion. You can say that that is a very small percentage of the overall world of discretionary spending or the total budget, which includes, of course, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and all the entitlement spending, mandatory spending. But $10 billion out of the discretionary amount. Well, over these 12 years, Mr. Speaker, that amount has grown until the year 2006 to $29 billion. In 2007 it drops down a little bit, but that was an anomaly because we only passed four of the 12 spending bills, and the rest of them had no earmarks in them when they bundled. But this trend is a steep slope upward, and it is getting worse and worse, both in total amount and in the percentage of all the discretionary spending that Members of Congress have an opportunity to control.

So, Mr. Speaker, this chart points it out very clearly that this spending for earmarks is becoming what I would call runaway spending, totally out of control. And, again, the CQ Weekly does such a wonderful job of explaining why this process can be so bad. It can be good, and I think, and I will talk about that a little later in the hour, with meaningful legislation that, hopefully, Members on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, the majority party and the minority party, can look at this and say, you know, Congressman Gingrey, you are absolutely right. We're getting sick and tired of picking up the newspaper almost weekly and seeing yet another Member of this august body who has this tremendous privilege, Mr. Speaker, to represent 670,000 for the House Members and an entire State for the Senators. What a privilege. What an honor. But you pick up that newspaper, and the names are people where you say, That's one of our best Members. That is a guy or that is a lady that I have known for the last 5 or 6 years, and whether she be a Republican or a Democrat, and you think, I just can't believe this. I can't believe that that Member would be doing anything that potentially is dishonest.

Now, sometimes these newspaper articles are not a court of law and you have to take some of that with a grain of salt. But I am telling you, when you look into that, Mr. Speaker, and you read and you kind of connect the dots, and they are fairly easy to connect, you start thinking if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it may well be a duck. So we have got a problem. We have a problem that we can correct, and I think I have got a solution.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the solutions that Members have talked about, and the gentleman from Arizona in particular, Representative Jeff Flake, one of my colleagues, has talked about this, about why don't we just absolutely eliminate, totally eliminate, all earmarks? In fact, I have got another slide, and I think I will reference that in just a second because this is certainly the appropriate time. Another Member on the majority side of the aisle has virtually said the same thing. Let me show you a quote, as we put up that second slide.

Colleagues, I want you to look at this poster, this second slide, if you will. I referenced Mr. Flake of Arizona, but here is another Member. And I will read it for you because it is very difficult to see in the back of the Chamber, and I understand that. The printing is small. And here is what it says, and this was a quote from last year in the Wall Street Journal, in fact:

``If she were to become Speaker in the next Congress, Pelosi said she would press to severely reduce earmarks.''

And then here's the quote:

``Personally, myself, I'd get rid of all of them.'' Then the quote begins again. She says, ``None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has, and the fiscal responsibility of it.''

Now, I want to repeat this. Mr. Speaker, bear with me because I think this definitely needs repeating because it is really what Ms. Kaptur said just a few minutes ago in regard to the Presidential fundraising activities, and she got, I guess, what you would call a standing ovation for her remarks.

``Pelosi said she would press to severely reduce earmarks. `Personally, myself, I'd get rid of all of them. None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has, and the fiscal irresponsibility of it.''' Virtually the same thing that my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has said in this body, Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions.

And yet, Speaker Pelosi is on track this year to take home $100 million, more than 1 percent of all the House earmarks. And I am not standing here, Mr. Speaker, suggesting that those Member initiatives on behalf of the Speaker or anybody else, any other Member of this body, is for anything but the most worthy projects in her district, and I'm sure that that is the case. I am sure that every one of those Member requests on behalf of Speaker Pelosi would pass anybody's smell test and would survive any kind of challenge to strike them if a Member wanted to do that on this floor, and a Member can do that and then we have a fair and open vote on it. No, I am not suggesting any such thing, and I have great respect for the Speaker.

But as this article points out so clearly, everybody in this process of being able to get earmarks for their district, all Members are not treated equally. I can't remember the exact quote from ``Animal Farm,'' but you know what I am referring to. All Members definitely are not treated equally. That $29 billion worth of earmarks, it's not divided equally. If you look at it and you look at it very carefully, as CQ Weekly has done, and nobody in this Chamber, I think, Mr. Speaker, can deny this, you will see that members of the Appropriations Committee, that is about 65, it is a very selective committee. Most Members want to get on that very powerful committee. They do a lot of great work and it is a nice position to be in. But when you look at each Member, as they have done in CQ Weekly, and you see the discrepancy where some Members may get an opportunity to bring home $6 or $7 million to their district and other Members get an opportunity to bring home $180 million to their district or $100 million to their district, and as you look at it very carefully, it would seem that the members of the Appropriations Committee certainly get favored treatment. The members of the leadership certainly get favored treatment. Members that have been here for a long time who maybe are committee chairmen or chairwomen get favored treatment. And the last favored group, Mr. Speaker, are those Members who are representing districts where it is very competitive and they won by a very narrow margin, maybe literally by the skin of their teeth, and they are up for another re-election where it is going to be really tough.

So no matter which party is in control, Republicans do this, the Democrats do this, you let that Member get more opportunities, a bigger bite of the apple, if you will, to give the impression to the folks back home that they've elected the right person; we've got a Member who really can deliver this pork back home. They might rail against everybody else's pork, but that which is brought home by their Member, Mr. Speaker, is welcomed. So this is the way this process goes.

On the other hand, a rank-and-file Member, let's say a Member of what we might refer to pejoratively as the ``obscure caucus,'' who represents a district where they are absolutely having

no challenge, no difficulty getting re-elected, maybe their district is inner city and it's been gerrymandered and drawn for them so that no Member of the other party has any opportunity to win that congressional seat. So they're in what we call, and we all know this, my colleagues, they're in what we call a ``safe district.'' They don't have to worry about re-election. Hopefully, they're doing constituent services and they're representing their people well in the way they vote, but they really don't have to worry about a political challenge.

So when you look in this magazine, and you look at this article in regard to the fairness issue, you find that they are the ones that get the least amount. And yet in many instances, Mr. Speaker, they are representing districts, maybe an inner-city district, a poor district, a district that has a very poor tax base, it has a decaying infrastructure, it doesn't have a good water and sewage system in a certain part of the district, and they are the ones that need help more than anybody. And yet the way this game is played up here, they're at the back of the line in regard to what they can bring home to their district. I think many times Members don't complain about that because they're afraid if they complain, they'll get nothing. You know, it's a little dangerous to complain.

So, Mr. Speaker, I come here this hour and talk about this, yeah, with a little bit of trepidation. Have I, as Congressman Gingrey, who represents the 11th Congressional District of northwest Georgia, have I ever asked for a Member initiative? Absolutely. And I've been able to deliver on occasion, not always; most of these requests are turned back. But if it really has merit, yes, I have. And I hope, as I spend this time on the floor talking about this issue that's so problematic, that there won't be any reprisals or repercussions because of that. Because I'm trying to do it, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan way with a spirit of cooperation and wanting to do as Ms. Kaptur was wanting to do in regard to Presidential election financing, do what's right for this Congress, do what's right for this body.

So here is my proposal: we have introduced legislation, and it's called the Earmark Reform Act of 2007, H.R. 3738. We just introduced it today; we had a press conference on it today. I was very, very pleased to be joined with two of my colleagues at the press conference, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling of Texas, and my good friend and classmate, the gentleman from New Jersey, Representative Scott Garrett.

And here is what I would do, Mr. Speaker: I would immediately say to the American public, we are going to slash these so-called ``earmarks'' in half for the next fiscal year. We're going to drop the number down from $29 billion to $14.5 billion. And then we're going to simply divide that number by the total membership of the Congress, the House and the Senate, and that's 535 Members, 435 here, 100 in the Senate. And when you do that division, you come up with a number of $27 million.

And you would say to each Member, Mr. Speaker, in this bill, you would say, you have an opportunity to look in your district, and if you want to ask for and receive money from the John Q. Public hardworking taxpayer to fund this project in your district, you're going to be limited to this amount in the first year of this legislation to $27 million. That means the most powerful Member of this body, the most powerful Member of leadership, the most senior Member of this body is not going to be able to get $180 million worth of earmarks while the Members who represent districts that are most in need end up with maybe 3 or $4 million. Each Member has an opportunity, then, to ask for and receive the exact same amount. Because, after all, Mr. Speaker, think about it, we represent 670,000 people, approximately, each Member. You know, they have the same need. And if we're going to do Member initiatives, it ought to be fair and evenly balanced, and that's basically what this bill does.

You know, if a Member like Mr. Flake or like Ms. Pelosi, as she was quoted in the Wall Street Journal last year, decides, you know, I don't like this process, I think it's inherently wrong, and it has the potential for massive abuse, and as she says, None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has for them, and the fiscal irresponsibility, then if Mr. Flake or Ms. Pelosi said, you know, I don't want any earmarks for my district, let them apply for grants through the normal process, I will help them, my office will help them, Mr. Speaker, and try to show them how to write a grant if they don't know how to do it, but I'm not going to specifically ask for any earmarks, then that amount, if it's one Member, $27 million, Mr. Speaker, what we would do is subtract that amount from the 302 Allocation of Discretionary Spending.

So you would spend $27 million less during that fiscal year because that Member said, you know what, I agree with Ms. Pelosi and I agree with Mr. Flake and several other Members of this body that it's wrong; it has too much potential for corruption. And if we have enough Members, let's say you had 10 Members say that, then you're talking about $270 million. People could say, well, Congressman Gingrey, you know that's a very small portion of the budget; it's just a drop in the ocean. Well, $270 million in my district is much more, Mr. Speaker, than a little drop in the bucket. It's real money.

And so, this idea, then, of, first of all, in my bill, immediately cutting this number, that number of $29 million in half, and then just say let's give every Member the same opportunity, the fairness issue, and also let each Member who is philosophically opposed to earmarks, give them back to the taxpayer, what a breath of fresh air, I think. And then in subsequent years what we would do on this bill, Mr. Speaker, is we would say that you can only earmark 1 percent of total discretionary spending.

So that would drop that number $14.5 billion down to $10 billion. And when you make that division, you're not talking about $27 million per Member, maybe you're only talking about $20 million. And eventually, it may be that the Members of this body, Mr. Speaker, will come to the conclusion, as Ms. Pelosi did and as Mr. Flake has done consistently, and he has, indeed, put his money where his mouth is, that maybe more and more Members, my colleagues, will say, you know, we don't really need this earmarking business. We let people apply for grants and let projects get funded on their merit, and Members then don't get tempted to have someone come to them and say, you know, I know you're a powerful Member, and we've got this little project back home, wherever it is, in whomever's district in whatever State, and, oh, by the way Congressman, what can we do for you? Can we have a little fund-raiser for you? I've got some people back in the district that would love to help you, know you're doing a great job for us, and you just get back to us and let us know what you want us to do for you; but keep this project in mind, it really means a lot to us. And that project may be $2 million, it may be $5 million, it may be a $25 million project. So that's how this happens, Mr. Speaker. I think Members just sort of fall into the trap of all of that.

What I am trying to do is two things. I'm trying to save money for the taxpayer of this great country and stop this runaway spending and cut down these budget deficits and reduce this national debt, which is approaching $9 trillion; but I'm also trying to keep my colleagues on both sides of the aisle from becoming corrupted because of a corrupt system.

And that's really what it's all about. That's why I wanted to not rush out of here on the last vote and catch the first plane back to good ole Georgia, which I'm looking forward to doing maybe tomorrow; but I felt like it was important enough to come to the floor and to say to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that I see a better way. And I think we can do this in a bipartisan fashion.

And I will say this, Mr. Speaker, if we can't do it in a bipartisan fashion, this Member, this Republican Member, and hopefully his colleagues on this side of the aisle, would make a pledge to the American people that, you know, we got your message loud and clear in November of 2006. We understand why we're no longer in the majority, because we lost our fiscal discipline; but we're going to get it back, and we're going to start with this.

And this is not a baby step; this is a giant step. If you feel like maybe the

better approach would be to totally eliminate earmarks, well, maybe we will get there. Maybe Members will see that this can work and it will work.

And so, Mr. Speaker, again, the opportunity to be here on the floor to talk to my colleagues, I'm sure I would have some other speakers if it were not for the fact that we had our last vote an hour and a half ago and Members needed to get home to their district, and work hard, and I understand that. But there are a lot of Members that feel very strongly about this.

We have, I think, 25 cosponsors of the legislation, again, H.R. 3738, the Earmark Reform Act of 2007. It's an issue, Mr. Speaker, that's not going away. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if next week and the next week and the next week we don't hear about more and more Members whose action in regard to earmarks is a little questionable. And, you know, when you start connecting the dots, in some cases it can become very, very questionable.

So let's try to do the right thing. I'm going to appeal to Members on both sides of the aisle to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3738, which immediately cuts the total amount of earmark spending in half, and it makes sure that no one Member, no matter what party, majority or minority, no matter what committee, committee chairman or ranking member, no matter how threatened a Member might be politically that you want to shore up with these little trinkets of goodies, that's not right, that's not the right way. And if we can't do it the right way, then I would join Mr. Flake in saying, Let's get rid of all earmarks.

In the meantime, I think this is not a baby step, as I pointed out, indeed, a giant step in the right direction. And if we can't do it right with that, then the next step should be, I think, total elimination.

I thank the Speaker and I thank my leadership for giving me this opportunity to do this hour. I thank my colleagues for listening, for being here, and to try to understand that this is a Member who is not overly partisan, who has friends on both sides of the aisle, that wants to help all of the Members, but ultimately to get back to helping the American taxpayer and to restore fiscal responsibility in this place.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, throughout the course of our Nation's history, the prosperity of America and its citizens has invariably been linked with the success of our economy. Our country should be proud of its entrepreneurs who are the key components of that success.

I would like to recognize and thank the National Franchisee Association for providing the support and resources necessary to maintain its membership which consists of Burger King franchisees.

The NFA was founded with a mission: ``To improve, preserve and ensure the economic well-being for all of its members.'' For nearly 20 years, the National Franchisee Association has delivered this promise by expanding its services and adapting to the ever-changing economic and technological landscape.

Today, the NFA's membership is comprised of approximately 1,200 franchisees from across the country, representing every district in every State.

NFA members employ thousands of citizens and provide individuals, especially our Nation's youth, with an opportunity to learn traditional American values, including hard work, cooperation and responsibility.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to welcome the NFA's membership to our Nation's Capital, and I thank them for their continuous positive contribution to the fabric of our society.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, the distinguished ranking member and former chairman of the Rules Committee, my colleague, for yielding a little time. I know we have got other Members, Mr. Speaker, who want to address this issue.

I do thank the ranking member and all my former colleagues on the Rules Committee for the work they have done in regard to this issue. I look forward and I encourage all my colleagues and anybody who's got a computer that is interested not just in process, Mr. Speaker, because bad process leads to bad policy, but I would encourage anybody to go to this address.

I was just going to say: rules-republicans.house.gov. That is exactly right. The ranking member is correct.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Miami on the Rules Committee, my former colleague on the Rules Committee, he is still there, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, brought up that point about the second-degree amendments in reference to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Akin.

Mr. Speaker, I had the same situation. As a former immediate past member of the Rules Committee who enjoyed, I thought, pretty good collegiality with both sides during the two years that I was privileged to serve on the Rules Committee, I had the same situation, a second- degree amendment, and I couldn't really get it filed until a first- degree amendment was actually brought in under the deadline.

There was no way. Mr. Diaz-Balart pointed that out. A second-degree amendment, by its very nature, is going to be a late amendment. They absolutely shut the door; they, the new majority. I was just absolutely astounded that that happened to a former member and colleague on the Rules Committee.

The whole point is, as the gentleman from California points out, this whole process where they promised to bring reform and openness has absolutely been a farce, a fiasco. They have closed down the process. They have done nothing of which they promised. I am glad to be here tonight to weigh in just a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield back because other Members want to speak. I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today in opposition to this rule. It is the latest example of a long line of broken campaign promises made by this Democratic majority to conduct the most open, fair, and inclusive Congress in history. However, the Democrat majority has taken this opportunity yet again to shut out and alienate nearly half of the American population from the democratic process.

But I not only rise today in opposition to the rule but the underlying legislation as well. I do so because this massive expansion of an entitlement program is an irresponsible way to spend American taxpayers' hard-earned money.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we will be debating on the floor of the House today increases this government-run health care program far past its original intent to help low-income families purchase health care coverage for their children. The reality is this bill does not protect the most vulnerable amongst our children and citizens. Rather, it diverts these precious resources from those who most need it in order to cover adults and already privately insured children.

In fact, the extra $35 billion the Democrats are asking American families to pay for is aimed at a population, Mr. Speaker, where 77 percent of the children already have private health insurance coverage. These children would simply be transferred from private insurance coverage to a taxpayer-funded, government-controlled health care entitlement program.

So I wholeheartedly support the concept of the continuation of the SCHIP program, because as a physician for nearly 30 years, I acutely understand how quality health care is critical for our American children. And that's why I am a proud original cosponsor of H.R. 3584, the SCHIP Extension Act.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation looks to extend the current SCHIP program for 18 months, and it focuses the program and its funds on those individuals who really need it: low-income, uninsured American children.

I am also a cosponsor of the Barton-Deal alternative to this 140 percent massive 5-year Democratic expansion. Barton-Deal increases funding by 35 percent, and this is sufficient to cover the poor children who have fallen through the cracks; it is estimated to be 750,000 to 1 million kids. That covers it, Mr. Speaker.

So I, again, want to say that I am adamantly opposed to this legislation, not because I don't support SCHIP, but because this legislation irresponsibly spends American tax dollars. And I believe Congress can and should do a better job, because I believe the American taxpayers deserve better.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte, my good friend from California (Mr. Cardoza), my classmate, and all the members on the Agriculture Committee for bringing this resolution to the floor today during the inaugural Congressional Sportsmen's Week.

I also want to thank the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, under the leadership of co-chairs Ron Kind of Wisconsin and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, during this Congress. This bipartisan organization, comprised of close to 300 Members of the House and Senate, focuses on protecting the interests of our Nation's sportsmen. As a proud member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I know that it works diligently for our sportsmen who have historically shaped the character and the quality of America's cultural heritage, natural resources and economic vitality.

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Goodlatte said, I first introduced the Hunters for the Hungry resolution in the 108th Congress to bring attention to an often overlooked group, our Nation's hunters, who help feed thousands of homeless and hungry people each year. The purpose of this resolution is to praise the work of Hunters for Hungry programs across our country. These programs provide a unique way in which to address our Nation's hunger problem.

Although these organizations are called by different names across the country, Hunters for the Hungry organizations show the humanitarian and the kindhearted spirit of our Nation's hunting community. These programs are volunteer and cooperative efforts among hunters, sportsmen's associations, meat processors, State meat inspectors and hunger relief organizations.

Over the past 3 years, these programs have brought hundreds of thousands of pounds of excess venison to homeless shelters, soup kitchens and food banks. Each year, donations have multiplied, and many programs now cannot even cover the costs of processing, packaging, storing and distributing the abundant supply of donated venison.

Hunters for the Hungry organizations serve as a great example of how our Nation can address issues like hunger without government intervention. These organizations receive no Federal funds, and they operate from donations and volunteer service. We must raise the awareness of these organizations so they can have the resources and the volunteers to serve America's underprivileged.

One such organization, Mr. Speaker, in my district is Pure Cuts Deer Processing in Floyd County. Nick Ballinger operates this volunteer effort, and it feeds thousands of hungry people in northwest Georgia. He's always open to both financial contributions and venison donations so that he can expand the organization and feed more people annually. Nick is just one of many kindhearted hunters who donate their time and money for those in need.

Mr. Speaker, I once again ask the House to speak in one voice of gratitude and urge passage of the Hunters for the Hungry resolution to honor this great community service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 326 which commemorates the 25th anniversary of the dedication of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

The idea of the memorial began in 1977 as a way to make amends for the indifference that had met Vietnam veterans who returned home to this country. It was also conceived as a place of honor for the brave young men and women who served and died in the Vietnam war including, Mr. Speaker, my Pony League baseball teammate, Dick Ulmer, and to give the estimated 43 million Americans, parents, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands and children, and yes, including those of 1st Lieutenant Ulmer of North Augusta, South Carolina, so directly affected by the losses in Vietnam a place to remember, to mourn, to reflect, and hopefully to heal.

Five years later, in 1982, ground was broken for the memorial and the first panel of the Wall, as the memorial is called today, was unveiled. Since that time, the Wall has become not only the most visited memorial on the National Mall with more than 4 million visitors annually, but also a very powerful and a moving place for recollection, solace and comfort for Vietnam veterans and their families.

As a place to honor the more than 58,200 servicemembers who died during the Vietnam war, and that number is just astounding as we think about the current situation in Iraq; and, of course, we mourn each and every one of those 3,600 lives that have been lost over a 4-year period of time. But Vietnam, 58,200 servicemembers died. The Wall has also become a national symbol of healing and coming together.

In short, the Wall has achieved a purpose and effect well beyond the original purpose, and no one who goes there can escape the emotional, deep impact that it conveys.

Mr. Speaker, it is entirely proper and fitting to commemorate the Wall's 25th anniversary. It honors the selfless sacrifice of not only those who died, but also the service of more than 3 million Americans who served in the Armed Forces in Southeast Asia. And beyond that, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial has helped this Nation reunite after one of the most divisive times in this Nation's history. For these reasons and many more, I urge all Members to support this resolution. I look for a unanimous vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota, Colonel John Kline.

Mr. Speaker, in my concluding remarks I just want to say that as I listened to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), my colleague on the House Armed Services Committee, talking about the Vietnam War Memorial, the Wall, as he pointed out, I reflected back maybe almost 25 years ago when I went to the Wall for the first time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I had ever been to any other war memorial. The World War II Memorial, as we know, was not there at the time. But I went to the Wall, the Vietnam War Memorial, to look for the name of a friend. It is kind of hard to find, as we all know, the small engraved names on the wall. Of course they direct you how to do that. I think a lot of us just go to the wall and start looking.

As I think back on those years ago when I looked up to see my friend Dick Ulmer's name, and think about that classmate, teammate, friend, weight-lifting buddy when we were in the sixth, seventh, eighth grade, and thinking about the fact, Mr. Speaker, that he had given his life. I thought about his parents, who are now deceased, and of course his wife and his sister.

This opportunity today to control the time on our side, and I thank Ms. Shea-Porter for that opportunity, to reflect back on a great hero. I think an important thing for us to remember today as we vote, and I think we will have a unanimous vote on this, is that no matter how popular a conflict, or maybe in the case of the Vietnam War, with many people unpopular, the men and women that paid the price, the ultimate sacrifice, and their families, it doesn't matter what the conflict, they do their duty.

God bless them and God bless America.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of House Resolution 443, which recognizes the service of the 65th Infantry Regiment, Puerto Rico National Guard.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the First Battalion, 65th Infantry Regiment, Puerto Rico National Guard, continues a tradition of outstanding service in the Army established by members of that regiment in World War I, World War II, and in Korea. Their motto, ``Honor and Fidelity,'' summarizes that service.

Mr. Speaker, in Korea, as an active Army unit, the regiment fought with particular distinction, participating in nine major campaigns from 1950 until 1953. For its actions, the unit was awarded two Presidential Unit Citations, a Meritorious Unit Commendation, and two Republic of Korea Unit Citations.

Such outstanding service led General Douglas MacArthur to say: ``The Puerto Ricans of the gallant 65th Infantry on the battlefields of Korea are writing a brilliant record of achievement in battle, and I am proud indeed to have them in this command. I wish that I had many more like them.''

In achieving such recognition for their competence and valor, the men of the 65th Infantry suffered heavy casualties and numerous vicious battles against determined North Korean and Chinese units. Moreover, the men of the 65th not only had to overcome severe weather and terrain and shortages of clothing and equipment, but also the elements of prejudice and unfavorable bias that they encountered.

Mr. Speaker, given the history of outstanding service by the 65th since its inception back in 1898, as well as the continuing commitment and dedication shown by the current members of this unit, it is fitting that we take the time today to recognize and to honor that service.

I strongly urge all Members to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. Before yielding back, I would like to encourage all of our colleagues, both sides of the aisle, and I am sure we will have a unanimous vote on H.Res 443. I thank the gentlewoman from New Hampshire for allowing me to control the time on this side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 207, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the United States Air Force as an independent military service, joining my colleague, the mayor of Dayton, and my colleague on the House Armed Services Committee.

Many Americans may not realize that for the first 40 years of its existence, the United States Air Force was actually a department of the Army. It was not until President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 that the Air Force became an independent military service and W. Stuart Symington became the first Secretary of the Air Force, later a United States Senator.

Since 1947, the Air Force has been an integral part of the United States military. Over the last 15 years the United States Air Force has been in continuous combat. Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm featured a full spectrum of Air Force capabilities. During the so- called ``peacekeeping missions'' in Somalia, Haiti and Kosovo, the Air Force contributed logistical and operational support and demonstrated its ability to achieve mission objectives without the use of ground forces.

In Georgia's 11th Congressional District, Mr. Speaker, Dobbins Air Reserve Base has contributed to the success of the Air Force by providing key training of pilots and support personnel on both the C- 130 and the C-5 platforms. In addition to Dobbins' training capabilities, FEMA's Federal Incident Response Team Atlanta is staged at Dobbins, and it mobilizes throughout the Southeast to disasters, both natural and manmade.

Dobbins also plays a role in the continued air dominance of the United States as the initial testing grounds for the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter.

Never before has the United States' ability to project military power depended so heavily on air and space capabilities. Whether in a leading role or a support role, the United States Air Force has proved its unsurpassed airspace and cyberspace capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to remember the importance of a strong national defense and certainly vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 207.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman from Texas who just preceded me stated, we just completed a memorial dedication remembrance ceremony on the steps of the Capitol as Members on both sides of the aisle came together led by our distinguished Speaker, our distinguished majority leader, and our distinguished minority leader. We came together in a very bipartisan way to once again pay tribute to the lives that were lost, indeed, and to their families, and to our first responders and the lives that were lost on their part and, of course, the City of New York on that great tragic day, that

great tragedy that occurred 6 years ago today, Mr. Speaker.

Before we went to the steps, the majority leader made a statement to our colleagues on this floor, which I fully support and endorse. I paraphrase his comments, but basically what Mr. Hoyer said to us, just a few minutes ago, was that the terrorists, the extremists, those who hate our way of life and hate everything about this country, our great country, brought us to our knees, but they didn't bring us down. And they will never bring us down.

I absolutely agree that it showed the resolve of the American people that they can't bring us down. They got our attention, absolutely. And, Mr. Speaker, today, of course, also is the day that General Petraeus, the commander of Multinational Force Iraq, the four-star general, the combatant commander on the ground in Iraq, along with our ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, gave their report to the American Congress, to the House of Representatives, they will do the same thing over the next couple of days to the Senate, and directed this report to the House Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, there were 111 Members of those two respective committees present for this hearing today, which went on almost 7 hours. It was an opportunity for Members on both sides of the aisle to come together to listen carefully to a report that we mandated in our emergency supplemental spending bill that was passed March of this year, some 6 months ago.

Mr. Speaker, the thing that bothered me about this report was that in this town, last week, in this Congress, indeed, we heard nothing but negative comments about the messenger and what he might bring in regard to this report to suggest that it would be less than honest. Mr. Speaker, the New York Times today ran an article that basically showed a picture of General Petraeus and said, underneath the caption of that picture, General Petraeus is General Betray Us, to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this general, our combatant commander of Multinational Force Iraq, would lie to the American people for some political advantage.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to my friend from Mississippi. I think that he may have a copy with him of that particular ad. I will be happy now to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi before I yield to my colleagues, the gentleman from Minnesota and also the gentleman from Tennessee. But I thank the gentleman firstly from Mississippi for bringing that New York Times ad so that our colleagues on the floor can see just how despicable this is. Now, at the bottom, you can't see the fine print, but moveon.org disavows itself from any political affiliation.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to give the Members of this body an opportunity to repudiate that ad. I have introduced a resolution. I understand our leadership on the Republican side will have a resolution to just say to the Members, please, in a bipartisan way, this cannot stand, and we cannot tolerate this. I think we will get an overwhelming show of support for that resolution.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

The gentleman is so, so right. Here we are talking about a four-star general, West Point graduate, 35 years of military service, third rotation in Iraq, to have to put up with that kind of despicable attack. And, like I say, we are going to give our colleagues on both sides of the aisle an opportunity to repudiate that, which I am sure they will.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Wamp.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, because he knows of what he speaks and he speaks it well.

You know, this situation with the ad that the gentleman from Mississippi so kindly brought to the floor so all of our colleagues who may not have seen it in the newspaper this morning would have an opportunity to know exactly of what we are speaking about tonight, the gentleman from Tennessee suggested that sometimes people want somebody else to do their dirty work.

Mr. Speaker, look at this first slide to my left. Here is the quote: ``No one wants to call Petraeus a liar on national TV, noted one Democratic Senator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.''

This was last week, an anonymous Democratic Senator being interviewed by Politico.com.

Well, lo and behold, it looks like one these outside groups indeed are doing the dirty work of calling General Petraeus ``General Betray Us.'' How despicable.

As I said just a few minutes earlier, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a gentleman, a patriot, a great leader who has served this country honorably and selflessly for over 35 years. He has risked his life in combat. He accepted lengthy deployments away from his family to defend our Nation and its citizens from its enemies.

For this, Mr. Speaker, he deserves the respect, the admiration and gratitude of every single American, and not disgraceful slander from despicable groups like moveon.org. Is that Phil Gingrey coming up with an original statement? No. I am quoting Senator Joe Lieberman. God bless Senator Lieberman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx.

I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina with such prescient words she brings to us.

I want to bring my colleagues' attention to the next poster I have got. I am going to give two quotes, one from General Petraeus from the hearing today and the other from Ambassador Crocker.

First from General Petraeus: ``To summarize, the security situation in Iraq is improving, and Iraqi elements are slowly taking on more of the responsibility for protecting their citizens. Innumerable challenges lie ahead. However, coalition and Iraqi security forces have made progress towards achieving sustainable security. As a result, the United States will be in a position to reduce its forces in Iraq in the months ahead.'' That was from the testimony of General David Petraeus. Later in the hour we will talk a little more about specific recommendations for troop withdrawal that General Petraeus made.

I will read that quote from Ambassador Crocker in just a minute, but at this point I see my friend from Mississippi is still with us, and I would like to yield to him, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi. The gentleman is right, I was having a little trouble finding that poster because I don't have that poster; but I do have a smaller copy of it. I guess you would call this a slide, Mr. Speaker.

But I did want to read this quote from the testimony of Ambassador Crocker before I call on my colleague, Colonel John Kline. Here is what Ambassador Crocker said: ``A secure, stable democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is attainable. In my judgment, the cumulative trajectory of political, economic and diplomatic developments in Iraq is upwards, although the slope of that line is not steep. The process will not be quick. It will be uneven, punctuated by setbacks as well as achievements, and it will require substantial United States resolve and commitment.''

I think the ambassador and General Petraeus served this country extremely well today in their testimony, and their facts were accurate.

Mr. Speaker, with that I want to yield to my colleague on the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

The point you made, of course, about the Iraqi national police, General Jones, you're right. I was in that same hearing with Representative Kline last week, Mr. Speaker, and General Jones did talk about this Iraqi national police force of about 25,000 that in the past was rife with corruption, and of course, a lot of changes in the leadership, as General Petraeus pointed out today, that has occurred.

But I think it's important, and I think Mr. Kline would agree with me, for our colleagues to understand that the press in the last week, talking about the Jones report, suggested that the entire Iraqi security force was incompetent and corrupt when, indeed, 49,000 is only about 10 percent of the 550,000 Iraqi national army and combined police force. So many of them are doing a good job, as you pointed out in the hearing today.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would have time to stay, I would be glad to yield back to him as we go forward, but absolutely this Jones report last week, I couldn't believe what I was reading the next day after hearing the report and hearing General Jones, retired Four-Star General Jones, Marine, former Marine commandant, and Colonel Kline, a Marine, knows him well. He was one of 20 members of that commission.

Again, this commission was created by the Congress, by the new majority, as we passed that emergency supplemental spending bill back in February or March, 6 or 8 months ago, to tell us, you know, what's the situation with the Iraqi security force, both army and the police, and not just, as we pointed out earlier, the national police.

And almost to a person, the members of that panel who spoke, not all 20 did, but they gave encouraging news. They pointed out the shortcomings, of course, of the national police and the Iraqi police force that was not perfect. They didn't give us some Pollyanna, glossed-over, varnished report. They told the truth. But as Colonel Kline points out, I thought it was an encouraging report. Of course, you would never have known it, Mr. Speaker, by the headlines the next day. So the gentleman may want to comment on that.

In fact, I think General Petraeus said that that Marine expeditionary unit will be brought home next month.

I thank the gentleman again.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield to one of my colleagues, another of my colleagues I should say, on the House Armed Services Committee, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight Investigation, a new subcommittee, a good subcommittee chaired by my good friend, majority member Dr. Vic Snyder, and I'm speaking of the gentleman from Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, and at this time I'd yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Light at the end of the tunnel, indeed. The gentleman is right on target.

As we conclude this Special Order hour, I want my colleagues to take a good look at this ad that ran today in the New York Times.

I know it's hard for the Members to actually see the text, or you can see the picture; but, basically, what it says, the caption is: ``General Petraeus or General Betray Us?'' With a big question mark. Then under that: ``Cooking the books for the White House.''

The first and last paragraph, I will quote, let me read this to you, this is what MoveOn.org, a political action committee says.

I hope not, I say to the gentleman from Missouri. I think if you look at their funding trail though you would find that they haven't contributed probably too much support in any way, shape, or form to Republican Members.

But hears what they say about General Petraeus: ``General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was 'tangible progress' in Iraq and that `Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.'

``And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said `We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.' ''

Then their final paragraph, I skipped the middle one, they say: ``Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops.

``But we won't hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops, General Petraeus has actually said, will need to stay in Iraq for as long as 10 years.''

Finally, they say, MoveOn.org, today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

In conclusion, as the majority leader said a few minutes ago, before we walked out on the steps, to commemorate and honor the American people on the sixth anniversary of that tragedy of 9/11, we did that in a bipartisan way. This is not a political argument that we bring to the floor tonight, and this business, if we are winning in Iraq, the Democrats lose. If we are losing in Iraq, the Democrats win. If we are winning in Iraq, the Republicans win. This is not about who wins politically. This is for the American people.

We are going to win. We are going to let victory have a chance. We are not just simply blindly staying the course.

In regard to this surge, this is exactly what the Iraq Study Group, Lee Hamilton and former Secretary James Baker, recommended to the Congress; and this is what the President has done.

I commend him for it. I think we are making progress; but there is, indeed, as the gentleman from Missouri said, light at the end of the tunnel, a bright light. We need to give victory a chance.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me before he yields to the gentleman from New Mexico, because as I join this hour Special Order and I am hearing from my colleagues, some of the brightest minds and best speakers on our side of the aisle, I don't think I could stand to go behind all four of them. So I am happy to have the opportunity. But it's awfully tough following my colleagues of the likes of the chairman of the Policy Committee and part of our leadership.

But I wanted quickly, Mr. Speaker, to again pay tribute to General Petraeus and also Ambassador Ryan Crocker. I just want to point out, in regard to Ambassador Crocker, I was reading his bio before they testified before our two committees today, the 6\1/2\- to 7-hour testimony, physically an ordeal, but Ambassador Ryan Crocker, I think a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, don't know his bio, and I don't have time to read it all. But suffice to say that in September 2004 President Bush conferred on Ambassador Ryan Crocker the personal rank of career ambassador, career ambassador, the highest rank in the foreign service. This is the character of the man and the men that presented this report to us today.

And, basically, we cut right to the chase, and what they said is, now is not the time to quit, and give victory a chance. You can slice it and dice it any way you want to, but that is basically what they said to the 111 members of those two committees, the House Armed Services Committee, the House Committee on Foreign Relations.

And so I just want to make three points, though, Mr. Speaker, that I have thought about and that I have heard in the last couple of weeks on reasons that I have heard Members give for wanting to give up and not give victory a chance.

One of them was this business of, well, you know, it has been too great a strain and stress on our forces. We don't have enough troops back home. What if some other conflagration, war, would break out somewhere in the world in the next year, 2 years, 5 years? We don't have enough troops. We need to bring them home.

Well, Mr. Speaker, retired General Jack Keane, the Vice Chairman of the United States Army, Vice Chief of Staff, spoke to us last week as well, and he also spoke on Saturday morning on Washington Journal. I hope some of my colleagues saw that. But what General Keane said, and I agree with him so much, is, You mean to tell me that you want to accept defeat? You want to lose the war, a war of this magnitude, as the gentleman from Tennessee pointed out, and what all is at stake in regard to the Middle East in this global war on terror? You want to give up that war so that you can bring the troops home and then restock and get ready for the next potential conflict and that's a good trade- off? I don't think so.

And I want to say another thing, Mr. Speaker, that I have heard a lot of people say: We can't afford this war. We cannot afford to spend $750 billion, almost $1 trillion and counting, on this war because we need to rebuild our infrastructure in our country. We need to shore up our bridges. Obviously, that was in the news because of the tragic occurrence in Minnesota. Or we need more money for Head Start, or we need more money for K-12 education, or we need more Pell Grants, or we need to have more money for the food stamp program and the farm bill or whatever you can come up with.

Let me tell my colleagues, if you don't spend the money to protect the American people, what good do all these other things do us when you see what can happen and did 6 years ago today on 9/11 when over 3,000 were killed and the economic blow to this country was over $2 trillion? You talk about destroying some infrastructure. That's what it's all about when you let your guard down and you don't stand up and be secure in this country.

And last but not least, I have heard many say, well, you know, our troops are coming home injured and many of them are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or syndrome. That's where you wake up at night, having nightmares, and maybe for the rest of your life you can't get over the mental trauma that you have gone through in a time of difficult war.

Well, let me tell you something my colleagues, as a physician Member of this body. You talk about post-traumatic stress syndrome. You think a lot of them are coming back with that now? You think that that is a tragedy? Well, you just wait and see the numbers that come back with mental illness and post-traumatic stress syndrome and nightmares and a life of anxiety when they have to come back knowing that their comrades in arms have died in vain, their buddies in the foxhole have been blown to smithereens by some improvised explosive device and they have to come home a loser. And we are not going to let that happen, and I think that is what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were telling us today: let's give victory a chance.

With that I will say, finally, as I conclude, who wins politically? Who cares. The American people lose if we lose in Iraq. That is what is important. This is not about the next election; this is about giving victory a chance.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tennessee, Zach Wamp, for, first of all, conducting this special order hour, leadership hour on the Republican side, and for allowing me and my colleague and great friend from Virginia, Thelma Drake, for being part of that. Doug Lamborn, the gentleman from Colorado, I think, has joined us.

Mr. Speaker, I was on the trip with Thelma Drake from Virginia when we visited Iraq and Afghanistan, and I am not going to repeat everything that she said, but I want my colleagues to know that this was my fourth trip to Iraq, my first opportunity to go to Afghanistan.

But this was a necessity that I go this fourth time. I think some 40 or 50 Members of the Congress during the so-called August recess spent 5 to 7 days in the Middle East and the combat zone in 120-degree weather.

Those of us on the Armed Services Committee, I am sure, felt duty bound to do this, particularly as we approach the report from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker that's going to be delivered to the House on next Monday, September 10.

I have been four times, but this was the most meaningful visit, because I came to a realization, really, actually, it emboldened my feeling that we need to give victory a chance. Again, I want to thank Zach Wamp, the gentleman from Tennessee, for the passion that he brings to this issue. I thought he was just an expert on energy, but he is also an expert on national defense, more important, the global war on terror, as he so passionately explains this issue.

I was on the floor last night during some of our special order time, 5-minute speeches and the two sides, the Democratic majority has an hour and the Republican minority has an hour. I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a gentleman from Maryland, talking about losing a soldier, a 22-year-old brave patriot in his district, and he talked with the mom and was trying to, of course, console her.

The gentleman said on the floor last night, you know, it was sort of ironic, the mom of the fallen soldier said, isn't it ironic, I am here planning my son's

funeral and the Commander in Chief is planning a wedding.

That's not the kind of commentary that we need on the floor of this House to suggest that the Commander in Chief doesn't care, that he has got his head in the sand and that each and every one of these 3,700 or so KIAs and 18,000 of our best and bravest that have sustained, in some instances, massive injuries, if you don't think that the Commander in Chief goes to bed every night with this on his heart, then you are just flat wrong.

I think the gentleman, on more reflection, would agree with what I am saying. This President cares. This Commander in Chief cares. He wants to give victory a chance.

It's not a matter of staying the course and same old same old, the Iraq Study Group, the gentleman from Indiana, the long-serving distinguished Democrat, 37 years in this body, and Ambassador Baker, Secretary Baker, served under three Republican Presidents, you have got two people that made some suggestions. One of the main suggestions that they made was we need a surge, we need more troops, especially in and around Baghdad, and those four provinces, where all of the violence, most of the violence, 95 percent of it, is occurring. This is exactly what the President responded to.

What did we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle? Oh, well, you know, too little, too late.

Yet, you know, 3 or 4 years ago it was, well, you're not putting enough troops in there to do the job, you didn't listen to General Shinseki, it's a constant pulling the rug out from under the combatant commanders, and we see 435 people that want to be Commander in Chief. It just doesn't work that way.

In the Democratic special hour last night, after we talked about our experience in Iraq and these recent trips, the team on the Democratic side said, you know, we can't afford to spend this money. We've almost spent $1 trillion trying to win this global war on terror, and we need to be spending this money to repair bridges, to give more money to the gulf coast, to maybe even give more money than a 300 percent increase in the SCHIP program to cover every man, woman and child from cradle- to-grave with universal health care.

Even if I were for some of those things, I will tell you this, you spend that money on those things, and you don't protect our people from global terrorism, then you will see, in a New York minute, how quick that money would go down the toilet as these people blow up this infrastructure, just like they did 9/11, almost 6 years ago now, and killed 3,300, almost the same number, that we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan over a 4-year period. They killed them within a period of 45 minutes.

I am so glad the gentleman brought that up, because what he is talking about, and I commend to all my colleagues, read the article, these were three, in one case, I think, a citizen of Germany, maybe of Islamic descent, but a German citizen, and not only were they planning on attacking Frankfurt, where most people fly into when they go into Western Europe, certainly from this country, but also, and I know the gentleman is aware of this, their plan was to attack Ramstein Air Force Base and the Landstuhl European Army Medical Center where every one of these troops, our troops, that are injured so severely, and our great physicians on the battlefield are able to save their lives to get them through Ramstein Air Force Base to that Landstuhl Army Medical Center there just a few miles away, and that's what they were going to attack.

The lowest of the low.

Of course, I know we want to yield to our friend from Colorado, and we will hear from him in just a second, but as I conclude my remarks, I just want to say, and Mrs. Thelma Drake, the gentlewoman from Virginia mentioned this a little earlier, we had a report today in the House Armed Services Committee, a report that was requested by Congress in our last emergency supplemental, from the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, on these benchmarks, and the Comptroller General talked about the progress. Really, he talked mainly about lack of progress, and it was ironic that even though several of those benchmarks, we had made some progress, he pretty much gave the Iraqi government a failing report card.

I think that is disappointing here, just a matter of a few days prior to General Petraeus' report.

He even suggested that while General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are highly professional and we would get a professional report from them, we would not get an unbiased report. The only unbiased report was coming from him and from the Government Accountability Office.

I suggested to him, during that hearing, you know, you might be unbiased, but your ability to interpret what you see on the ground certainly militarily may not come even close to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. So let's wait for the report, let's give victory a chance. That's what I want to say to all my colleagues. Let's button our lips for the rest of this week, and let's see what the report says.

I would suggest that the President is going to listen to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, and I would suggest that yes, indeed, the Iraqi government is making progress, that they are not making as fast of progress as we would hope, but we would continue to put pressure on them, but let's give victory a chance.