Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I recall March 6, 2003. I came to this floor and spent an hour and outlined the 17 resolutions before the United Nations in which Saddam Hussein continued his open defiance. That is what was also discussed. So what is lost from this debate is Saddam Hussein's recalcitrance unto the world. As a veteran of the Gulf War, that was ended by a ceasefire, where Saddam Hussein did not uphold his end of that agreement.

To the last speaker, he spoke about the political and economic, but in order for an infancy government to be able to survive, you have to be able to establish its political apparatus, you have to be able to give it its economic goals and a means to achieve them, but you also need to establish security.

Therein lies the President's plan. He met with the leaders of Iraq and he got some concessions from Iraq. ``In fact, you will take the lead, you will work with your parliament, you will achieve these political and economic goals as we work together to establish your security.'' That is the plan.

The Democrats only want to focus on one small portion of the plan, which is called a surge, which is disrespectful to the plan. But it makes good politics, and that is what is disheartening to me.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

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

Madam Speaker, I stand before you in opposition to this resolution. It champions a dismally irresponsible and dangerous course of action. On its face, the resolution merely addresses the troop surge, ignoring the President's plan in its totality, as I said earlier.

I will now address our efforts to move forward on the diplomatic and economic front. With regard to the establishment of government capacities, the establishment of the rule of law is a necessity, for to have Iraq address the national plan of reconciliation, to have them pass enabling legislation for the Constitution and amendment process, and to set provincial elections, is extremely important.

With regard to the economic piece, the concession whereby the Iraqi government will seek to have a quasi-Alaskan model with regard to the revenue sharing of its precious assets is extremely important, because you do not want the distribution of the oil proceeds to go to regional leaders. It will only empower them and then weaken the unity Federal Government.

With regard to the debt relief agreements, much has been negotiated, but the neighboring Gulf States need to step forward, and upcoming meetings are at hand.

The debate seems to be on the security piece. There are those saying well, let's just back out completely. They use words such as ``withdraw to the United States'' and ``redeploy.'' But is that a plan? I haven't heard any form of military plan. They say what, we will just turn it over to them? Wow.

As we listen to the neighboring leaders, they express caution of cataclysmic consequences. I fear how America will be defined by our friends. Do you reach out to a child as you are teaching it how to walk, let go of the hand and let them fall and say it is up to you, and leave them alone? You are going to have to find your way to the kitchen. Or do you go back and help them walk?

I am concerned about how cold and callous the new majority is to this new infant democratic government. But I guess even more disconcerting to me is the politics behind this resolution. While the majority tells the American public that change must occur, that we are going on the wrong course, this amendment basically opts for the status quo, the same status quo for which they have attacked the administration, which they campaigned against last fall.

They offer no solution, only acting as the critic, and being a critic is the easiest role in the world.

Just sit back and just bark at someone, yet offer no plan of resolution for stability within the region. What is the plan of success for them? Silence.

Let us also address the undemocratic process under which their resolution was brought to the floor here. We stand here and debate how best to bring democratic government to Iraq, yet this majority in Congress shows the leaders in Iraq how to be undemocratic and deny a Republican minority a chance to bring a substitute resolution. I find that quite ironic that this Capitol that is supposed to be the most democratic process in the world is now undemocratic.

I beg of my colleagues not to play politics with the safety and security of this Nation. I must remind this body and the American people the threat we face.

Iraq is a critical front in the larger global war on terror. We are entrenched in a fight against masters of intimidation, bound together by an extreme, perverted ideology which they claim is a legitimate interpretation of Islam.

Our enemies seek to establish regimes that rule according to a violent and intolerant distortion of the Islamic faith, that is, to deny all political and religious freedoms and aim to establish sanctuaries for violence and additional attacks. They have no centralized command structure or place to call home. Instead, they exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization. They mobilize resentful, disillusioned, and underemployed young men and women and have mastered technology to aid them in their bidding.

Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, explicitly warned that the establishment of a democratic Iraq is the death of al Qaeda there. Think about that. The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq says to establish a democratic Iraq is the death of al Qaeda. Yet, what does the new majority want? Pull-out of our troops, weaken the stability of that country, to be overtaken then by al Qaeda, instead of strengthening the democratic government, ensuring that they have an economy political apparatus and have the security to prevail, which is the death of al Qaeda.

Our resolve should be to succeed in this struggle, and we must be stronger in our resolve than their resolve to inflict terror. At every step they are watching our move, waiting for us to falter, fail, drop our guard, or just walk away.

General John Abizaid, the former commander of U.S. CENTCOM, described well the ramifications of letting Iraq fall to terrorism in his testimony before the United States Senate: ``The enemy's vision of the future would create a region-wide zone that would look like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Music would be banned, women ostracized, basic liberties banished, and soccer stadiums used for

public executions. The people of the region do not want the future these extremists desire. The more we talk about this enemy, the more its bankrupt ideology will become known.''

This enemy uses suicide bombings, beheadings and other atrocities against the innocent citizens of the world to pursue its objectives. They are the enemy of freedom and wanting nothing more than to disrupt peaceful, civilized people everywhere. No one is safe from this hatred, and it is not restricted to the Middle East. Just ask those in London and Italy and other places around the world. This is a global threat. Iraq is not the limit of this beast's haven.

It is the challenge of our generation to destroy this enemy wherever it lurks. We cannot do it without the resolve, cunning, and above all vigilance. The price that we pay for freedom is eternal vigilance from those who seek to steal it away.

While we have not been attacked on our homeland since September 11, 2001, it is not for the lack of the terrorists' efforts. We have been fortunate to have spoiled and foiled several plots here in this country and around the globe. Yet, the fight is far from over. Chances are that today you feel safe in your neighborhood. You can walk to the store. You can play with your children at the local park or in your backyard without having the fear of being blown up by a roadside bomb or being shot by a sniper. You allow your children to go to the malls without fear of a suicide bomber.

It is that peace of mind, this feeling of safety that we are endowed as the elected leaders of this country to preserve at all costs.

I remind you that these extremists want to disrupt and destroy our every way of life. They are not equipped to do battle on a conventional battlefield. Instead, they look to disrupt our most basic freedoms, our securities and our institutions, public and private. The world is their battlefield. Their hope and their goal is to outlast our resolve.

It is our burden to bear, our generation's great challenge to defeat their hopes and objectives. We cannot cower and seek the sanctity of security in this challenge. You are not free when you cower. You have given in to the designs of the terrorists if you do.

This debate began with the Speaker asking whether or not this resolution will make our troops safer. The answer I believe is no. This resolution lacks courage. It lacks leadership and it lacks a forward way of thought. This resolution, to me, is pure political theater. The administration has given us a legitimate plan to work with, and the majority in this House has given us nothing but criticism and a path for an easy way out that virtually holds the door open for terrorists to destroy an infant democratic government and to open a way of access to the U.S. and our allies for terror.

I close with a thought from a past President who faced the trials of war in his lifetime. President Kennedy said, ``Let us resolve to be the masters, not the victims, of our history, controlling our own destiny without giving way to blind suspicions and emotions.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Thinking about this debate, I reflected back to when this House voted on the resolution to go to war and so thought I would better look up what I said, because I remembered something that was very serious to me and what was very curious was the years before 2001.

I had watched a lot of people vote against the defense bill. Yet coming off of September 11, there was this bravado about going to war, and I felt a sense of unease. So I thought I would go back and see what I said when I came to the floor on that day, and I would like to share it with everyone.

I said: ``I have seen great resolve uttered in this Chamber and the swaggering display of courage.

``I can share with my colleagues, as a veteran of the gulf war, that war may be glorious in verse or prose, but in reality it is not. We are about to send America's finest, and that means men and women will die. It will be a noble cause, but we must remember the resolve of this moment, because in war it is chaotic. Not everything is going to go right. We cannot be 400 and 500 generals between the House and the Senate.''

Now, I said that back on September 14, 2001, trying to caution all of my colleagues, many of whom had voted against defense bills, now rattling sabers, feeling this bravado of let us go to war.

Now I have to ask, was that a false bravado because now, as war has gotten chaotic and has gotten hard and difficult, now they cower, and I have great concern.

So I ended with: ``We cannot have the bravado of today and then run at the first sound of the guns.''

Please remember this day when it gets hard.

The gentleman I am about to yield to, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), was chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, and I remember him well because I had served as the chairman on the House Armed Services Committee at the time and served with Mr. Smith, and when we came out after Oklahoma City, then-President Clinton, very concerned about terrorism, and we passed our first anti-terrorism bill here in the House and many people were like, wait a minute, that was a domestic act of terror.

No, President Clinton began to focus abroad, not only upon the Russian Mafia, but he was also focusing on Osama bin Laden and other terror. It can be debated whether or not he took great vigilance on that front or not, but let me post a real compliment to Mr. Clinton because he turned to Hugh Shelton.

General Shelton was at the time the commander of Special Operations. I was very upset coming out of the House conference on the anti- terrorism bill because Joe Biden and I were trying to bring the country to roving wiretaps, but the country was not ready for it. So then it was defeated.

I then get on the phone and call General Shelton and bring him up to Washington, D.C., and I asked him a simple question: What are the top ten unfunded requirements that you have given Special Operations, the missions that you have to do in the dark world to secure America but you don't have the resources to accomplish them?

He sat down and he detailed them. More importantly, as President Clinton then named him, appropriately and wisely, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he worked then with Jerry Lewis and prepared the force. So when America was hit on September 11 and we immediately sent those special operators into Afghanistan, they were prepared, they were equipped, they were trained to fight in the dark world and special operations, and Jerry Lewis, his leadership, was responsible for that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California such time as he may consume.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

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

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

The mission here is to develop a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself, govern, sustain and defend. So under that, under govern, you have political. Under sustain, you have economic. And under defend, you have security.

So as I listened to my colleagues come to the floor and say it only requires a political solution, really? These are not inextricable. I also appeal for consistency. I just heard the last speaker talk about the necessity for national interests, so he said it is not in our national interests to be in Iraq.

Let's stop and think about that for a second. Let's be consistent. In the 1990s, Republicans operated under what was called the Weinberg Doctrine, that only commit U.S. ground troops if there is a national vital security interest. And that is how we kind of were guiding ourselves based off the Weinberg Doctrine. Then what happens? We have got Bosnia. We said oh, that is a European problem. Then the U.N. came in, the U.N. was ineffective.

President Clinton made a judgment, and he upset Republicans. He made a judgment that because of the atrocities in Bosnia, the ethnic cleansing that was occurring, that it took U.S. ground troops, a presence of them. Republicans at the time said there are not vital national interests at stake. Democrats then said, oh, that doesn't matter, this is a humanitarian cause.

Democrats said, it is okay to take U.S. troops, put them on the ground to stop the fighting for a humanitarian purpose. That is what Democrats said in the 1990s. Republicans were curious about all of this because it was against the Weinberg Doctrine. As a matter of fact, there were 315 votes. I brought a resolution to the floor, 315 Republicans; Democrats then said, oh, no, no, no, no. Don't put U.S. ground troops on the floor, and that was in the middle of the Dayton Peace Accords.

Bill Clinton was very upset with me. So the President brings me down to the White House and says, hey, work with me. So I said, I will, and we drafted benchmarks for the success of the civil implementation of the Dayton Accords. I worked with President Clinton.

Where do I hear you working for a solution in Iraq? Don't just be the critic. I ask of my colleagues, where is your consistency and your policies? If you are as consistent as you were for a Democratic President, it was a humanitarian cause in Bosnia, I don't hear you talking at all about the atrocities that occurred under Saddam Hussein.

The murders, the ethnic cleansing, a humanitarian cause, the effect it has not only upon the neighbors, the stability of the Middle East, but what about Israel? Do you want to turn your back on Israel?

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, do you want to turn your back on Israel? If that is what you are asking me, Mr. Speaker, do you want to turn your back on Israel?

I am stunned. I just ask for people to remain consistent, or if you change your beliefs, say that you change your beliefs, or if you don't want to say that you changed your beliefs, then we must assume that you changed your beliefs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, this past fall I had an opportunity to meet with 18 representatives of the European Union. The European Union is quick to say that we are not necessarily with you on Iraq. But boy, we are with you in Syria and standing tough on Iran.

Do you know what the message is? It is inextricable. You cannot pick and choose. The Middle East is so complex. So, Mr. Speaker, when you begged of me to address you the question, it is this: If we were to follow the Pelosi-Murtha plan, what happens to Israel if we leave a vacuum that is quickly filled by Islamic extremists in Iraq? Therein lies the question.

I believe we jeopardize the safety and security of a lone democracy called Israel, and we leave them to defend against a region filled with vipers who seek their annihilation.

Now, our friends who are also of Arab nations, they are partners in our coalition to help on the political and economic success of Iraq, and they are eager for us to also help Israel and the Palestinians resolve those differences. It is all inextricable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, Ron Lewis.

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

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

I would ask the last speaker if he could remain for a moment. I have such great respect for my colleague, Mr. Michaud of Maine. We have worked together on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We deal with the consequences of war. And so out of my respect for Mr. Michaud, I would like for us to clarify what may be a potential contradiction.

The gentleman said that, and correct me if I am wrong here, unanimously commanders did not ask for an increase in troops. According to General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and this was in his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on January 11, 2007: ``So, collectively, the military commanders, both U.S. and Iraqi, have asked for this increase. And those of us in advisory positions agree with their request.

``General Casey and his Iraqi counterparts have determined that there are more forces needed . . .

``To do this, we're going to need additional U.S. forces. General Casey and General Abizaid have asked for those additional forces, as have the commanders below them.

``In addition, to reinforce success at Anbar province, the Marine commander out there has asked for, and General Casey and General Abizaid have asked for, an increase of about 4,000 troops out there . . .

``So, collectively, the military commanders, both U.S. and Iraqi, have asked for this increase.''

That was our testimony of our Chairman of the Joints Chiefs before the Armed Services Committee. So I will yield to the gentleman and ask if he was aware of General Pace's comments before the Armed Services Committee because it appears contradictory to the gentleman's statement.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure our record is clear because we have got the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs quoting General Abizaid. So I want to work with the gentleman.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a former Army captain.

I would say to the gentleman that just spoke, that in 3 years Iraq has gone from a repressive dictatorship who enslaved his people to an inclusive government chosen by a freely elected Parliament under a popular ratified constitution. That is a fact.

I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

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

As a good listener of the gentlelady's remarks, I would think she would be in support of the President's plan. I agree with her when she was talking about what is necessary for Iraq to govern itself, but in order for this country to begin to govern itself, it also needs to have security, and the Iraqi people themselves must have a belief in the support of that new unity government.

Now, with regard to the Iraqis themselves, whom we have been training, that is, the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police force, that is exactly what the plan is. The plan is for the Iraqis to take the lead.

So the gentlelady's remarks confuse me, because as she says, I want the political apparatus to do this, but I define Petraeus' need for additional troops as an escalation. Therefore, she advocates for the status quo, and everybody knows the status quo is for failure. The remarks confuse me.

The commander on the ground of our forces in Baghdad just said on January 26, that this is about Iraqis taking charge of their own security. In order for them to do that, we have to buy them time to continue to train and for the government to become more legitimate in the eyes of the Iraqi people. Earlier what I said, the mission is to govern, sustain and defend. You have the political, economic and security necessities to accomplish that mission. I think everybody in this body is going to agree.

When I met with President Talabani in August, we talked about the establishment of the rule of law, we talked about the implementation of the national plan of reconciliation, the distribution of the oil revenue, the modernization of their electrical grid. Promoting Iraqi unity was really deep on the President's mind.

I wrote a note here after I met with him. The note I wrote was I believe the unity federal government has a real challenge. Their challenge is to convince the Iraqi political, religious and civil society leaders to compromise for a sustainable settlement to support the new federalism. That is the challenge.

So I am challenged when I hear individuals say, well, on the security apparatus, let's just get U.S. forces out of there, we'll let the Iraqis take care of this. The question is, are the Iraqis prepared to do it alone? I haven't heard anybody say they are, that they can do it alone.

The Iraqis in turn said we still need coalition assistance, and so the commanders on the ground say we need these more troops to do this. We are sending General Petraeus, our best commander, to the field.

Mr. Speaker, a father-in-law of a soldier wrote this 10 days ago: ``From where I am sitting, it seems that threatening loss of funding for operations in Iraq, tying the hands of senior officers, to say nothing of the Commander in Chief, and proposing to legislate the conduct of this war, looks worse than cut and run. It feels like betrayal of the families who bear the burdens.''

I can remember being in the desert in the first gulf war while this body debated a resolution on the utilization of force. I know what it was like to lose a friend in war. I shed the tears of my father when he lost buddies for his Army service in Korea.

Challenged by my own Member of Congress who voted against that resolution, I felt betrayed. While I was in the desert, I felt betrayed, so much so that I vowed while I stood at that cemetery in Lafayette, Indiana, the funeral of my friend, that I felt I still had a mission left, and it was to come help the country again.

So I ran against that incumbent Member of Congress who I felt betrayed me while I was in the desert in the gulf war. I had never run for any political office in my life. I was elected in this body at the age of 32 with so much to learn.

But I have never forgotten about the soldier, the sailor, the airman, the marine and the coast guardsman. I am so proud of them and what they do.

The world of an American soldier is more complex today than ever before, with technology, intricate rules of engagement designed to eliminate the loss of noncombatant life and a tough, innovative and savvy enemy. Our soldiers who are in the fight are watching and listening.

One wrote from Iraq 2 weeks ago: ``Until victory or until the perseverance and the spirit of the American will arose, victory in Iraq is achievable by our amazingly capable and determined Armed Forces. Their effort will only be undercut by self-serving politicking and pointless impatience. If we decide we want victory, we will have it. If we quit on our effort, we will have defeat.''

Contending with the complexity of today's battlefield and the ripple effects of politics 6,000 miles away, our soldiers live and measure value by simple enduring imperatives. They place a lot of value in loyalty. They count on each other, loyal to each other, to their commanders and to their oath to defend the Constitution, and their love of country helps them do their duty. A warrior bears true faith and allegiance.

Members of our Armed Forces live and die by the readiness of their buddies to express their loyalty in the conduct of faithful duty. They expect no less of their leaders up the chain, whether they wear the stripes and diamond of a first sergeant, the eagles of a colonel, or the stars of an admiral or general, or their leaders in government, both executive and legislative branches.

Yet, in response, what do we offer? The fortitude of contradiction I say. The Senate unanimously confirms a new multinational force commander, General David Petraeus, whose most compelling value is perhaps his reputation for unrivaled understanding for his clear grasp of counterinsurgencies.

Yet the authors of the resolution before us seek to deny our best commander the manpower assets he has asked for to prevail. What a disturbing contradiction. The Senate unanimously says, this is our best commander. Before they vote and say we are going to send you, he says, I need these five brigades. Then this body drafts a resolution that says, we do not think he should have the five brigades.

I suppose we have the Senate and the House now in complete contradiction. General Petraeus is a decisive man who has a decisive strategy, and he intends to reinforce our troops and root out the enemy. Aside from the gratuitous gloom that is smothering the debate on Iraq, moving in reinforced strength to destroy an enemy is a time- honored and frequently successful course of military action.

It is so especially when conducted by a capable commander. We have already agreed that General Petraeus is such a commander. Many of us know that this is what our troops yearn to do. It is what Americans yearn for us to do, prevail.

Now, lest one of my colleagues is tempted to try some contextual mischief, we all know that military victory with the right strategy is only part of the equation of success in Iraq. Real success is not a quick, easy affair. I might offer success as defined by the establishment of a stable, popularly elected government, the rise of the rule of law, and the stability necessary to foster the growth of a strong middle class.

That will take a combined and continued effort using diplomatic, informational and economic levers. But those levers cannot fully operate without security. And that is the challenge I have in listening to this debate. We in Congress have confirmed General Petraeus and sent him now into battle.

And what now do some want to do with him? They seek to turn the House floor into a cockpit of battlefield wisdom to disavow his strategy. Some may say, go to Iraq, Commander. Disregard the strategy that you talked about in the Senate. Instead use your brilliance to conduct a feckless campaign of status quo.

The resolution before us disavows the human assets our commander needs to accomplish his mission. But then it says, we support the troops. How can you say we support the troops but you don't give the commander that which he says he needs? I do not understand.

I am a colonel in the Army Reserve. I have served for 26 years this Nation. How can you say to me, Steve, I support you. I will give you the beams, the bullets, the ammo, the water. I will

give you anything you need, but do not ask me for any troops and good luck on your mission. Because you do not get to ask for reinforcements. You do not even get to ask for anybody else.

As we know the Pelosi-Murtha real strategy is to slowly bleed our battlefield commander dry. They know he cannot prevail waging a campaign of the status quo. So some will slowly reduce funding for his Army in an effort for it to wither on the vine. And it to me is disgraceful.

Ladies and gentlemen, does this fit the definition of loyalty and support of members of the United States Armed Forces serving bravely in Iraq?

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

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

Sometimes in the middle of debate when one gentleman refuses to yield to another gentleman, it can be for a variety of reasons perhaps, but sometimes it is because the argument is pretty weak.

So I have listened to this debate. I have not heard anybody on this side of the aisle call any of my Democratic colleagues unpatriotic. So the gentleman who just spoke protests too much. Maybe he has some deep feeling inside, has some guilt inside perhaps. I don't know. I can't speak to that. Only he can. I would be more than pleased to yield to him. I would extend the courtesy to him. But I just don't recall that at all.

As a matter of fact, I had to turn here to some staff that is with me because they are just as sensitive about this as I am and the seriousness of this debate.

The gentleman to my left is an Air Force Academy grad and he is the Air Force Reserves, and he flies C-5As right into Baghdad. He knows what that is like.

The two gentlemen right behind me, this gentleman right here, Jeff Phillips, served in the first gulf war, in the second gulf war, and has two Bronze Stars. This other gentleman over here, Jim Lariviere, served in Afghanistan and wears the Bronze Star.

So I turned to all three of these guys and I asked them, Have you heard anybody say or make someone feel as though they were unpatriotic? And the answer was ``no'' from these three men.

So please don't come and pollute the debate because it only makes you look silly.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, it only makes Members look silly if they pollute the debate.

One thing about war is that you have to improvise, adapt, and overcome. Right? You hear that a lot. We do it and our enemies do it, and it is extremely important.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10\1/2\ minutes to the former veteran of the Arizona National Guard, Mr. Shadegg.

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

I would like to, on my time, yield to the gentlewoman. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman on my time, since she would not yield on her time. Would the gentlewoman please identify by name a Republican who has called a Democrat in this debate unpatriotic?

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have neglected to do?

Mr. Speaker, are you questioning my motives

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Is it proper for one Member to try to question the motive of another Member?

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the Speaker. I am thankful that the gentlewoman gave the answer to her question, and the answer was that it was implicit.

It is very easy in debate to come down and to create a straw person and then attack the straw person. If the gentlewoman has felt that way, that is completely unfortunate. But please don't say you have been called unpatriotic. That is the exchange I had with an earlier speaker. Don't accuse Republicans of such things. I am disturbed by that and very bothered.

I am more than pleased to yield to the gentlewoman.

I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.

I am more than pleased to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Now I seek to reclaim my time, because that is a legitimate question.

As the commander in the field, if you say to the commander, ``I support

you.'' All right? What is the commander going to say? The commander says, ``All right, I have a mission, and you say I support you.'' That means, I suppose, that I support you by making sure that you have been properly trained, that you have your uniform, that you have your ammunition, you have your helmet, you have your body Kevlar. You have what is necessary to accomplish your mission. But do you? If the commander says, ``I need more troops to accomplish that mission,'' you say, ``But you can't have those.'' Is that then supporting the commander?

That is why I pointed out the contradiction in that the Senate says to General Petraeus, ``We agree, you are our best commander to go over there.'' And before they took that vote, he said, ``I need those five brigades.'' So they passed the vote and they sent General Petraeus over.

Now we are faced with a vote that says I support the troops, I support the members of the Armed Forces.

How can we say, ``I support you, but, Mr. Commander, we are not going to give you the troops''? That is the point of the question.

So please don't try to spin it into something that says, oh, you are calling me unpatriotic. That is what I think is rather peculiar.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have any other speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

There was a peculiar comment a bit ago from the gentleman from Ohio when he said, well, I didn't call you unpatriotic when you sent troops into battle and they didn't have their up-armored Humvees. What a weird statement to say.

You see, we prepare our force. So, for example, when myself and Colonel Phillips in the first Gulf War, those Hummers that we took in, they didn't even have doors on them. We didn't have doors on the side of those. We didn't go in with all the side plates and front plates, groin plates, neck plates, shoulder plates. We didn't do all that. Most of that, the body armor, was reserved for special ops. When you move in to counterinsurgency and then the enemy begins to use roadside bombs to attack our Hummers, what do we have to do? We respond. That is why I made the comment of what does our military do? They improvise, they adapt and they overcome, and that is exactly the same thing which our enemies do. So it was a very peculiar comment to say, well, we didn't attack you because. I don't know. It's so peculiar, I don't even want to comment anymore on it.

What I would like to comment on is the nature of the enemy and the significance of Iraq and the global war against militant Islamists.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to turn our attention to the nature of the enemy we face and the significance of Iraq in the global war against militant Islam. We often use the term ``global war on terrorism'' to describe our efforts since the September 11 attacks. I believe this is a misnomer. In reality, we are engaged in a campaign to counter a global, radical Islamist insurgency, a global jihad. This global insurgency is, in fact, a diverse confederation of Islamic movements that uses terrorism as only one of its many tactics in their war against the West.

On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda, declared war on the United States, Israel and the West in his statement ``World Islamic Front Declaration of War against Jews and Crusaders.'' Subsequently, bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, issued a statement after September 11 announcing a two-phase strategy for al Qaeda's war. First, reestablish the Islamic Caliphate, the historical and temporal authority of all Muslims that existed from 632 A.D. until 1924 A.D, and, second, use the Caliphate as a launch pad for a jihad against the West.

No one believes that Osama bin Laden directly controls this worldwide insurgency. Rather than a single monolithic movement, al Qaeda is but one movement that symbolizes a broad and diverse confederation of militant Islamic movements that operate around the world. This insurgency includes such wide-ranging organizations as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the Islamic Army of Aden, al Qaeda in Iraq, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Abu Sayyaf Group in Malaysia and the Philippines. In addition, Iran, a majority Shia country, backs numerous radical Islamic groups, including Hezbollah and Palestine rejectionist groups such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. These wide-ranging and disparate groups are loosely linked ideologically, linguistically and culturally. They use family ties, personal relationships and financial links to coordinate their efforts. Thus, the global jihad plays out in a variety of theaters around the world. These include:

The Americas, where in North America we saw the September 11 attacks and as a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report stated, Federal authorities have shut down at least 25 charities contributing to terrorist activities since September 11. That is here in our own country.

In South America there is a strong al Qaeda presence in the tri- border area of Argentina, Paragiau and Brazil.

In Western Europe, where there have been recently uncovered plans for attacks against Great Britain and the United States and where insurgent financial networks and planning cells flourish throughout Europe supporting insurgent activities.

In the Southern Pacific, where the Bali bombings in October 2002 were attributed to an al Qaeda-linked cell.

In the Ibernian Peninsula and North Africa where North Africans were blamed for the May 2004 Madrid bombings and where there have been bombings in Casablanca, Morocco and Tunisia.

In the greater Middle East, where there are ongoing Islamic insurgencies in Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Turkey, Lebanon and Israel/Palestine.

In East Africa, where simultaneous bombings in October 1998 in Kenya and Tanzania were coordinated from the Sudan.

The Caucuses and European Russia, where nationalist insurgencies in Chechnya, Georgia, and Azerbaijan have been co-opted by Islamic militants.

South and Central Asia, where the Taliban and al Qaeda continue to operate in Afghanistan and in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas.

And in Southeast Asia, where Islamic insurgencies continue in Indonesa, the Philippines and southern Thailand.

These Islamic insurgencies share a common goal. They are oriented toward the overthrow of the current world order and its replacement with a pan-Islamic Caliphate. They wish to change the status quo using violence and subversion in order to initiate a clash between Islam and the West. They use terrorism, subversion and propaganda to further their goals and initiate open warfare.

It will come as no surprise that most of the active Islamic insurgencies take place either within the historical bounds of the Caliphate, meaning North Africa, Spain, Turkey and the Middle East, or in areas claimed by the new broader pan-Islamic Caliphate, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Indonesia. These insurgencies contribute to what is called an arc of instability that reaches from Indonesia across South Asia and the Middle East to North Africa.

Where does Iraq fit into this global jihad? Iraq has become the front line in the open warfare of the global insurgency. In many ways, Iraq is a microcosm of the complex worldwide Islamic

insurgency. The centrality of Iraq to the insurgency became clear in a July 2005 letter to the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from al Qaeda's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. In discussing Iraq, Zawahiri stated:

``I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.''

Zawahiri went on to outline the larger strategy for Iraq. First, expel the Americans from Iraq. Second, establish an Islamic authority and reestablish the Caliphate. Third, extend the jihad neighboring secular Islamic countries. Fourth, eliminate Israel. Thus we see a clear statement from the number two man in al Qaeda that Iraq is centrally important to the global jihad.

Al Qaeda is not alone in operating in Iraq. There have been extensive Iranian involvement that has been alleged recently. On March 14, 2006, General John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``Iran is pursuing a multitrack policy in Iraq, consisting of covertly supporting the formation of a stable, Shia Islamist-led central government while covertly working to diminish popular and military support for U.S. and Coalition operations there.''

While the full extent of Iranian support is unknown, it appears that at a minimum Iran is supporting the 20,000-man Badr Brigade as well as the 2,000-man Wolf Brigade which is an offshoot. Just this week, administration officials announced that Iran was the source of deadly explosive form projectiles being used in Iraq.

Iraqis also grasp that Iraq is central in this global struggle. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki told us here in a joint session of Congress, ``I know that some of you here question whether Iraq is part of that war on terror, but let me be very clear. This is a battle between true Islam, for which a person's liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and that of terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak.''

The centrality of Iraq in the larger global Islamic insurgency cannot be disputed. Our enemies and our friends in the region grasp its significance. To fail in Iraq is to fail in the larger struggle. And our enemies are watching. They remember what America did not grasp the scope of the threat posed by radical Islam. Yet the signals were there:

In 1979, 66 American diplomats taken hostage, held in Iran for 444 days.

In 1983, a truck bomb kills 241 Marines at their barracks in Beirut.

In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 bombing kills 270, including 189 Americans, over Lockerbie, Scotland.

In 1993, six killed at the first World Trade Center bombing by militant Islamic terrorists.

In 1996, 19 U.S. servicemembers were killed at Khobar Towers.

In 1998, 225 people killed in bombings at our U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.

In 2000, al Qaeda's attack on the destroyer USS Cole kills 17 American sailors.

In 2001, September 11, killed 2,973.

Until 2001, we failed to properly react to this threat. The enemy perceived us as weak and believed that we lacked the will to fight.

This resolution before us, if approved, will signal our lack of resolve and I am troubled. It will be interpreted, I believe, by the forces of the global jihad that the United States lacks the will to persevere against the forces of radical Islam. It will give comfort to their thoughts, for they will know that we in Congress are uncertain and irresolute. In a war where information and willpower are more important than firepower, we must continue to send the signal that we cannot and will not cease to fight the enemy's vision of the world. You see, even if you have your way and you say we are going to withdraw the troops, whether they come back to the United States or whether they go to an over-the-horizon position and this new infancy government fails, we cannot cower to the security of America. This front continues.

The Bible states, ``If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?'' If the trumpet is uncertain, who will follow? This resolution, I think, sends the wrong signal to our friends and to our enemies and I urge my colleagues to support those troops, sound the certain trumpet, and defeat the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, I just want to compliment her for her civility and the way she led the debate. It was a good discussion, and it is exactly what the American people are looking for from this body. I congratulate the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express deep sorrow at the passing of our friend and colleague, Charlie Norwood. While most of us hope to make a difference in this world, Charlie Norwood certainly did that. He also made a difference in the lives of those who were fortunate enough to have known him.

Charlie was steadfast and did what he thought was right. He was an immovable object in the defense of principle, and when met with irresistible force, it wasn't likely that Charlie was the one who was moved.

During the development of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, I worked closely with Charlie and several of my colleagues to see if there was an alternative plan and how we were going to work this out. Charlie's contributions were insightful, they were valuable, and added considerably to the worth of our final product. During that process, he was constantly mindful of two things, and that was the need to help seniors who had no drug coverage and the need to be wise stewards for taxpayers.

Coming to Congress with a medical background, Charlie provided a point of view that enhanced any debate he entered. While witnesses before him, at the Health Subcommittee may have cringed at times under his questioning, the responses that were drawn out always added an important dimension to our debates.

Charlie will be sorely missed: in Congress, in the Health Subcommittee, but more importantly in all our lives. I give my deepest sympathies to his wife, Gloria, his sons Charles and Carlton, and his constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here to honor the Indianapolis Colts and Super Bowl champions. The Colts are a team that I believe represent the best of professionalism and goodwill.

My congratulations to Tony Dungy for his accomplishments in leading the

Colts to an overall season record of 16-4 and for becoming the first African American head coach to win a Super Bowl. I am most hopeful that such reference does not have to be made in the future. That is the goodness of America. Coach, you have also demonstrated that nice guys can win.

I also commend the passionate Indianapolis Colts who braved single- digit temperatures to welcome back home for the first time to the city of Indianapolis and the State of Indiana the Vince Lombardi Trophy.

Mr. Speaker, I also learned something, though, that I think America should know about the Super Bowl. You see, the teams that actually play the Super Bowl actually get 17 percent of the tickets. Those tickets go to those fans of the two teams, and they are upper deck, end zone seats, which means that all of the prime seats of the Super Bowl go to all of the other owners. So what I am most hopeful is that America takes note here that actually the fans of the teams that get to play the Super Bowl really do not get to see much of their team in a Super Bowl. And so what happens here is the city who wants a Super Bowl in their city, they trade seats for votes. And so it is like, hey, if I want the Super Bowl in Detroit, and you are the team owner in Detroit, I will give you 1,500 seats at the 35-yard line.

By the end of the first quarter with all of the rain, you had over 10,000 empty seats. You say, what happened to the fans? Well, those are people there who wanted to see a football game, but do not necessarily like to sit in the rain because they didn't like either team.

So we need to redo how they do the Super Bowl and actually sit the fans where they can enjoy the game. So hopefully that is taken into account.

To Coach Dungy, the entire team, the owner Jim Irsay, the dedicated staff of the Colts organization and thousands of Colts fans, I offer my congratulations to the Colts for the Super Bowl victory over my father's beloved Chicago Bears. Go Colts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 521, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building.''

Lane Evans completed 24 years of remarkable service to his nation as a member of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. His work here reflected the principles that guided him throughout his life. Lane's concern for our military men and women, the environment, and those less fortunate speaks to his character and commitment to make life better. But it was his unwavering support for the Nation's veterans that best defined his time in Congress. Agent Orange, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Spina Bifida, and expanded services for women veterans are just some of the causes for which Lane will be fondly remembered by his colleagues and our veterans.

I served on both the Armed Services and the Veterans' Affairs Committees with Lane, and have always respected his counsel, especially in his role as my Ranking Member when I chaired the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Even when we disagreed on policy matters, I never doubted that his positions on veterans issues were rooted in his service as a United States Marine during the Vietnam Era. Lane is a man of integrity, compassion, and honor.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 521. Naming this post office is a small, but lasting and appropriate way to honor Lane, and I hope those who visit this facility will recognize the contributions of the man for whom it is to be named.

Madam Speaker, this resolution expresses the support for the designation and goals of Hire a Veteran Week, and calls upon the President to issue a proclamation supporting these goals. It is identical to the legislation passed by the House in the 109th Congress on July 24, 2006.

America's veterans deserve special employment opportunity more than any other sector of society. These men and women have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way to preserve the Nation's way of life and economic system. They have worn the uniform from pole to pole, often risking their lives not only in combat, but also in exploring, rebuilding infrastructures devastated by natural disasters, providing medical care in remote locations, and transporting refugees from genocide. They answer the Nation's call to duty, asking in return only our support and our thanks.

Veterans are the most diverse communities in America. They come from every major ethnic and socioeconomic group. Today's veterans are goal- oriented, physically fit, know how to take and give orders, and are comfortable with technology. The best way to say thanks to veterans for their service is to give them the opportunity to prove their worth in the workplace.

I also want to thank Congressman John Boozman and Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth for their very effective work during the 109th Congress to improve employment opportunities for veterans, and particularly disabled veterans, and I look forward to their continuing efforts during the 110th Congress.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing this legislation to come to the floor for consideration, and ask that my colleagues support the bill, H. Con. Res. 5.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3421) to authorize major medical facility projects and major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, under title I of the amended bill, veterans making claims would be able to hire an attorney or an agent after a notice of disagreement referred to as an NOD, with a VA benefits decision having been filed. In the spirit of compromise, we worked with our Senate counterparts to craft this provision in such a way as to provide veterans with the opportunity to retain representation while protecting them from unscrupulous attorneys, while at the same time with great hope, not adding to the burden on VA's already overwhelmed claims system.

Title II of the compromise language increases support of servicemembers returning from the war on terror by improving VA's outreach and increasing the number of clinicians treating post- traumatic stress disorder, referred to as PTSD, and improving their training.

The funds will also expand telehealth initiatives that are invaluable to rural veterans and expand the number of community-based outpatient clinics able to treat mental illnesses. The title further authorizes spending for collaboration and PTSD diagnosis and treatment between the VA and the Department of Defense. Families contending with the loss of a loved one will also benefit from bereavement counseling authorized under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, veterans undergoing blind rehabilitation treatment for Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis, and those trying to break the cycle of homelessness, will also see increased support under this legislation. The bill authorizes $2 billion for blind rehabilitation specialists and increases the number of facilities where these specialists will be located. It also authorizes the VA to designate six Parkinson's Disease Research, Education and Clinical Centers of Excellence and at least two multiple sclerosis centers of excellence.

The compromise legislation also strengthens VA's homeless grant and per diem programs. The provisions in title III would also make modifications to veterans education programs.

Mr. Speaker, I have been fortunate to meet some of these spouses of our severely wounded veterans, and I must say there is no one more deserving than these spouses who care for their wounded, America's heroes and their husbands on a daily basis.

Therefore, section 3 of the compromise contains a provision to authorize the VA to provide these education benefits under chapter 35 of title 38 of U.S.C. to these spouses' independent children of these severely injured servicemembers prior to the members' discharge, these servicemembers who in the opinion of the VA will most likely be discharged with permanent and total service-connected disabilities.

Rather than wait the 2- or 3-year time period, let us permit the spouses then to obtain their educational benefits so they can gain an education. When the husband or wife receives his or her discharge, they are then able to care for the family. Given the long convalescence many of these severely injured servicemembers experience while being on active duty, this provision, I think, makes a great deal of sense in how we support our families.

This is not a new benefit. The current law requires severely injured servicemembers to already be discharged for a condition qualifying for a chapter 35 benefit. We merely authorize the VA to pay these benefits sooner to those who would qualify following a member's discharge.

Mr. Speaker, under title III of the amended bill, it would also clarify the VA's pro rata refund policy for nonaccredited education institutions. We extend the authorization for work-study positions located at the VA cemeteries, State veterans homes and State approving agencies through June 30, 2007. We would require the VA to report on methods to improve and streamline the administrative processes and procedures of education programs in chapters 30 through 36 of title 38 of the United States Code and restore lost entitlement for certain chapter 35 education beneficiaries forced to discontinue a course of education due to being called to full-time National Guard duty.

Mr. Speaker, title IV, section 402, contains a provision that would extend for 1 year the VA Secretary's authority to provide the family of a veteran interred in a private cemetery with a government marker or any headstone. Congress had previously given the Secretary a 5-year authority effective for deaths that had occurred as of September 11, 2001. However, this authority expires on December 31 of this year.

Section 403 of the compromise agreement would allow tribal governments to participate in the VA's State Cemeteries Grants Program. This program dates back to 1978 and complements the department's National Cemetery System.

Title V of the compromise language improves the status of veteran and disabled veterans small businesses when competing for contracts at the Department of Veterans Affairs. There would be a reasonable expectation, Mr. Speaker, that all of the Federal Government's agencies in the Department of Veterans Affairs would be a leader in achieving the President's goal for annual procurement from at least 3 percent of the disabled veteran-owned businesses. Sadly, our most recent data from fiscal year 2005 indicates that the VA did barely over half of what the President directed and the public law required.

Mr. Speaker, the compromise agreement would also require the VA Secretary to establish annual contracting goals for small businesses owned and controlled by veterans and service-disabled veterans. The goal of the service-disabled veterans would not be less than 3 percent of these contracts. The veteran and disabled veteran-owned small businesses would be given priority in VA contracting as well as priority among other set-aside groups eligible for preferential treatment under the Small Business Act.

Title VI of this compromise bill contains provisions affecting the Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service. The compromise agreement would also clarify the part-time employment of DVOPS and LVERs, which is half-time employment, and require that DVOPS and LVERs hired after the date of enactment successfully complete training by the National Veterans Training Institute within 3 years of appointment.

Finally, title VI of the compromise would establish a 3-year demonstration program to identify not less than 10 military occupational specialties that would lead to State licensing and authorize the use of any unobligated funds for the project through fiscal year 2009.

Title VII provisions of the legislation strengthen support for homeless veterans, increasing authorization for housing, per diem payments and other specialized services. It also creates a VA Office of Rural Health and dramatically improves outreach for rural veterans.

State veterans homes will now be reimbursed by VA for the cost of care provided to veterans with 70 percent or higher service-connected conditions. Further, veterans in these homes with service-connected conditions rated at

least 50 percent would receive their medications free of charge. In order to increase access to long-term care, VA would conduct a pilot program that makes non-VA facilities, such as community hospitals, eligible for State veterans home per diem payments.

Mr. Speaker, title VIII of the compromise language authorizes $36.8 million for advanced planning of a collaboration project between the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center in Charleston, S.C. and the adjacent Medical University of South Carolina, referred to as MUSC.

The project is likely to ensure that veterans in the low country of South Carolina receive the highest quality and state-of-the-art facilities. It would replace the aging infrastructure of the VA facilities and combine this with the MUSC facilities which are adjacent. Connecting these facilities, not just the sharing of clinicians, which is now the case, is the way to go.

There is very expensive and advanced medical equipment, lab and ancillary services. That is the goal of this collaboration. Both VA and the Medical University will remain committed to preserving VA's unique identity and commitment to veterans priorities. The enhanced collaboration envisioned in Charleston is innovative and will serve as a national model as its design and operation benefiting from the best minds in the public and private sectors will afford South Carolina veterans higher quality, more efficient care and truly state-of-the-art facilities.

This is a big deal, Mr. Speaker. It is a big deal because this idea is going to be leveraged also into Louisiana.

We are authorizing over $600 million for repair and replacement of flood and hurricane-damaged facilities in New Orleans and along the gulf coast of Mississippi.

The bill authorizes $98 million for the replacement of the VA Medical Center in Denver and directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to explore the viability of public-private partnerships as he moves forward in Denver.

Twenty-two other major construction projects in 15 States are authorized in this bill, which also approves continued leasing of eight medical facilities and requires the VA to explore options for construction of a new facility in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Mr. Speaker, on May 3, 2006, an incident of a VA employee's stolen laptop computer potentially put at risk the personal data of 25.6 million veterans and 2.2 million Active Duty, Guard and Reservists. This was the largest information security breach to have occurred in government and it is the second largest such security breach in the Nation's history.

Title IX of the compromise bill would protect our veterans and servicemembers from the misuse of their sensitive personal information. The bill directs the VA to provide breach notification to individuals, reports to Congress, broad alerts, data breach analysis and credit monitoring services, and identify theft insurance.

Title IX, what we do is direct the Secretary to issue implementing regulations within 180 days of enactment of this bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, title X of the compromise language makes technical and clarifying amendments to title 38

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. Berkley, I want to thank you. I want to thank you for your tenacity, for your commitment to your veterans that you serve, not only in your district, but across the country. I have enjoyed working with you on your project in Las Vegas. I enjoyed my visits with you when I was out there.

One of the challenges which we face is the growth of population that you have in Las Vegas, which is like none other in the country. I know that Ms. Brown believes that Orlando is growing the fastest, but Las Vegas, it is beyond comprehension how you are able to stay ahead of it.

So whatever we plan today, what I have learned about working with you, what we planned 2 years ago is already obsolete today. This is an ongoing issue that I want to work with the gentlelady with, and I compliment your effort and leadership

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), the subcommittee chairman on health.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues from the committee from both sides of the aisle for their bipartisanship in the crafting and supporting of a substantive and forward-thinking bill. It enhances veterans health care and benefits both through stronger veterans programs and through fundamental organizational reforms and innovation.

I would also like to thank the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and Ranking Member Ike Skelton. Mr. Skelton, if you please, extend to your staff, they worked through the night with us, because there are certain things in our bill that mentioned DOD and they were wonderful to work with. So please extend our appreciation for their work.

I would also like to thank the leadership of Chairman Henry Brown and Ranking Member Mike Michaud for their good work on the Health Subcommittee; Chairman Jeff Miller and Berkley on their leadership on benefits; Chairman John Boozman and his leadership, along with Ms. Herseth on economic opportunity; Chairman Michael Bilirakis and Mr. Strickland on ONI.

I would also like to extend an appreciation to Ranking Member Lane Evans and that of the acting Ranking Member, Mr. Filner. I also extend deep appreciation to Senator Larry Craig and Ranking Member Akaka of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee whose vision and collaborative spirit do veterans justice.

Without the around-the-clock efforts by our dedicated staff both in the House and the Senate, I would not be standing here today, nor would our veterans and their families be the beneficiaries of a better VA system tomorrow.

I also want to thank Senator Lindsey Graham and former Senator Ernest Hollings and Dr. Ray Greenberg of MUSE, who recognized the value of the ``Charleston model'' that will now be hopefully leveraged across the country to bring state-of-the-art medicine to veterans.

I also want to thank Senator Richard Burr from North Carolina for his leadership and care to provide for America's homeless veterans.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, and that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on S. 3421.

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

Well, it sure hasn't taken very long. Mr. Wu, I guess, would oppose a Republican bill but support Mr. Durbin's bill. I would invite the gentleman; you know, not long ago you and I got into a debate on this floor and what I asked the gentleman to do is to read the bill. What I would welcome the gentleman again is to read the bill, because the bill that you said you didn't like then, you should like it now. Or you like this one now but you didn't like it then?

What is interesting here is that when we came to this floor, what they have done in this bill is they have essentially taken exactly what we had done earlier in the year and actually said: Okay, for Federal lands, for national cemeteries in Arlington, we already have that bill. We are going to put now a section just after it, and the very same time, manner, place, content neutral restrictions that have been constitutionally upheld are going to be in this bill. I would just ask the gentleman to remain consistent.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

I reclaim my time. Your interpretation of unfettered discretion is a great attempt at artful words, but that is not what we did in that bill.

What I am most concerned about here, and let's just pause for a second. When we came to the floor and we did the Fallen Heroes bill, we did this because we wanted to make sure it was narrowly tailored. And we said, what is our nexus? Our nexus here is Federal land of exclusive jurisdiction. So I remember a conversation about this, and Mr. Conyers, and it is very important: Federal land. And so we said, okay, Arlington, owned by the United States Army and our national cemeteries. This now is about everything else. So the intent here is solid.

It is unfortunate that we have come to the floor to talk about the standards of dignity at a military funeral. We really shouldn't be having to do that. That is what is sad about this. And I think we all agree that we need to set the standards of dignity. We are talking about now setting a misdemeanor with regard to, we are going to set the content out there with regard to all of these funerals; and my only concern here is, is I do not want this stricken down as overbreadth under the doctrine that the Supreme Court to do that, and I am hopeful that doesn't happen. And I will yield to the scholars of the Judiciary Committee here. But I just want to let you know when we came to the floor and did this before, we did this for it to be narrowly tailored, and hopefully the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down. But I just wanted to speak and say why we did it one way not months ago, and now obviously we are doing it a little bit differently.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor and privilege to serve with Mike Sodrel during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives. Plain spoken and determined, Mike spent his time in Congress working hard for Indiana's Ninth Congressional District.

Mike's success in the trucking industry was brilliantly translated into a multitude of valuable contributions during his tenure on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. His vast knowledge of transportation issues served him well to promote needed for roadway improvements and expansion throughout the district and the Nation.

Mike Sodrel's expertise and service was not limited to transportation, but extended to three other committees--befitting not only his past experiences but the interests of Indiana--Agriculture, Science, and Small Business. Mike played a crucial role as a member of each committee, using his keen insight to promote issues important to Indiana, such as research and development projects, alternative energy sources such as E-85, and hosting two successful job fairs with me in Bloomington.

Although his time in Congress was short, Mike Sodrel's imprint on the 20 counties comprising the Ninth District will be felt for years to come. His heart and mind were always in tune with the Hoosiers back home and in concert with the welfare of this great Nation that he had the great honor and responsibility of representing.

Mr. Speaker, for 12 years, John Hostettler served the people of southwest and west central Indiana with an abiding faith and determination to do that which is right. Defeating an incumbent in 1994, he carried with him to Congress his steadfast belief that this nation must ever stray from the Constitution for its governing principles.

Holding to his convictions, John served with distinction on both the House Armed Services and Judiciary Committees. His ideological values guided him through difficult decisions. From legislation on gun control, to abortion and fiscal restraint, John never wavered from his convictions. His principled leadership and dedication to service will always be referenced as an example to his colleagues and countrymen.

John's strength of character led him throughout his years in Congress, often being the lone voice speaking out on an issue. It was this commitment that made him a valuable and esteemed member of Indiana's delegation. This nation should boast the patriotic efforts of this great Hoosier. His selfless dedication to service and continued demonstration of leadership while helping to govern this country is to be applauded. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague Chris Chocola of Indiana will be leaving Congress at the end of this session. I was impressed by the dedicated service offered during his tenure in the House of Representatives. His background as a lawyer and successful businessman was instrumental as a constant champion of fiscal restraint by the Federal Government. His extensive experience of managing a large public corporation proved invaluable to his vision of how the Federal Government should operate. It inspired his advocacy that government should be run like a business, efficient and effective, always with the customer and our fellow citizens.

As a member of both the Ways and Means and Budget Committees, he introduced legislation to streamline the budget process with the hope of reining in excessive and unfocused spending. Chris sought a reformation of the tax code so that hard working Americans could keep more of their paycheck. He introduced legislation so that families could continue to make tax free withdrawals from an education savings plan, as well as legislation to allow individuals to make tax free deductions of medical expenses without a gross income limitation. His boundless leadership and bold initiatives will always be looked upon as an asset to a grateful nation.

As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, he secured $12 million in Federal funding needed to make historic improvements to U.S. 31, a roadway connecting South Bend to Indianapolis. In addition, his work on the committee also helped to complete the Hoosier Heartland Corridor, a transportation project that after over a decade is in its final stage of construction.

Chris Chocola's service to this Nation and to Indiana's Second Congressional District will leave an indelible mark for years to come.

Madam. Speaker. I rise to salute one of the greatest Members of this body, Henry Hyde.

Congressman Hyde has a distinguished career in public service, beginning with his service in the Navy during World War II. Following service in the Illinois General Assembly, Mr. Hyde won election to the House of Representatives in 1974, admittedly a tough year for Republicans.

It was not long before Henry's leadership and steadfastness to principle became apparent to this House. Henry has been a stalwart defender of the rights of the unborn, and has pushed the Congress to see clearly the impact of its decisions on the defenseless.

I have been honored to serve with Henry while he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, enduring long markups to move the Contract with America legislation, equipping our law enforcement with the tools to fight terrorism, and combating the scourge of drugs in our society.

His amiable personality hides an individual who doesn't shy from a fight, especially for upholding the Constitution, the rule of law, and other interests of the United States.

He is a true giant in this House. His presence next Congress will be missed and I am honored to call him friend.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor with a heavy heart to honor a great man, particularly because this comes on the eve of his retirement from the United States Army. I have had the privilege of working with this distinguished gentleman in the service of our country for the last 14 years. His name is Major General Joe Webb, Jr. He has distinguished himself by his exceptional service to the United States of America while in positions of increasing responsibility within the Army Medical Department, a career that was launched in June of 1961 when he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant.

From January 1 of 1996 through 31 December of 2006, he served in successive positions of increasing responsibility as the Senior Dental Corps Staff Officer, with the Office of the Surgeon General; Commander of the United States Army Dental Command; the Assistant Surgeon General for Force Sustainment; Commanding General of Tripler Army Medical Center and DOD Lead Agent for TRICARE in the Pacific region; and culminating his illustrious career in the position of United States Army Deputy Surgeon General.

Major General Webb was an officer and leader who approached each of his assignments with great tenacity. In a career spanning more than 35 years, this soldier, clinician and commander displayed throughout his distinguished military service the highest levels of leadership, professional competence, integrity and moral courage.

Much is spoken and written about Major General Joe Webb. The consensus and the prose consistently agree that this man is the genuine article. Because of my extensive contact with general officers, I know what attributes are necessary for success at the strategic level. You see, I work with generals that do generals' work, I also have worked with generals that do colonels' work. The most refreshing encounters that I have experienced are with colonels that do generals' work. This was the epitome of Joe Webb.

In 1996, the Dental Corps was confronted with significant recruiting and retention compromises that would have had a detrimental impact on the dental health of soldiers, sailors and airmen if it was not remedied.

I served on the Personnel Committee of the House Armed Services and later chaired that committee, with responsibility for the oversight of the military health delivery system.

My brother, John, is now a Colonel and dentist in the Army Medical Corps; at the time, I went to my brother to say, John, what is the problem? We are not able to retain these dentists. There are so many open slots. We are having an exodus. At the time President Clinton was doing a drawdown. I know a lot of the warriors are leaving the service, but we have to stop the leak.

My brother explained the situation to me and the order of the consequences. He proposed a strategy for success, but more importantly, my brother identified the major players, even mapped out a strategy of success on the back of a napkin and said, I must put you with Joe Webb. Joe Webb was a Colonel at the time, and was a key element of ensuring a successful remedy to this looming problem.

The following day Congressman Norwood, Joe Webb, my brother, John, and I initiated a dialogue that focused on a strategy for implementation. The impact of the continuation pay package reached all three services and preserved the human capital necessary to deliver world-class dentistry. This is a living legacy that continues to have far-reaching implications. Many call it propay, but those who receive that check know exactly what it means.

I called upon the combined and extensive expertise of Joe Webb and my brother, John Buyer, as critical resources to make the legislation a reality from its introduction, through conference, and into law. Without their dedicated focus on this issue, it is likely that the continuation pay bill would never have met with the success it had. The Air Force, the Navy and Marine Corps programs rested their future upon the shoulders of then Colonel Joe Webb. But this was common through this man's career.

Having been excited by this success, the team of Joe Webb and John Buyer then elevated the health expectations throughout the dental enterprise. They devised the concept of dental wellness to replace the only adequate dental health standard of dental readiness with an optimal dental health standard of wellness. Dental wellness is now the standard in all three services. Legislation to assist the services in achieving higher levels of dental wellness will continue to have a profound and lasting impact upon future forces.

The team of Joe and John then broke down parochial barriers to successfully make the UHQ MEDIVAC training program at Fort Rucker a reality in time to have a successful impact on the Second Gulf War. So now when a dust-off helicopter comes in, and these litters need to be reconfigured, even at night or under trying circumstances, they have been trained under the difficult standards and are prepared to save lives. This project would never have occurred had it not been for their insights and their strategies.

As a Colonel, Joe Webb also served as the Commander of the largest dental command in the Department of Defense. The United States Army Dental Command, called DENTCOM, is comprised of more than 3,800 personnel and 172 clinics worldwide, and had an operating budget of over $200 million.

A strategic visionary, Major General Webb impacted the implementation of the dental care reengineering initiative, which revolutionized the provisions of the dental care to soldiers to improve the quality of practice for dental care officers.

This gifted leader then was assigned as the Assistant Surgeon General for Force Development and Sustainment. He moved from a colonel at DENTCOM to this new job as a brigadier general. In this capacity, he was responsible for the Army Medical Department's contracting logistics facilities and information management across the Medical Corps.

This proven and tested leader was then selected for promotion to major general and assigned to command the Pacific Region Medical Command and Tripler Army Medical Center. In this capacity, he was responsible for providing primary, specialty and tertiary care to over 500,000 in the Pacific Command, and over 100,000 VA beneficiaries. He led and managed the day-to-day operations for a 229-bed medical center which is the primary referral medical center in the Pacific. A strategic leader, he played a lead role in the Army's theater security cooperation program, working closely to establish professional medical relationships with other countries. He also reached out to the underserved Pacific Islanders and used all means available to increase access to care for those in need.

In July of 2004, he was selected to serve as the Army Deputy Surgeon General and Chief of Staff of the United States Army Medical Command. He masterfully guided the activities of an organization which executes an $8 billion annual operating budget, encompassing over $6 billion in facilities assets through 12 major subordinate commands, comprised of more than 48,000 military and civilian personnel, eight medical centers, 47 hospitals, 73 separate clinics, 172 dental clinics, 14 biomedical research facilities worldwide. While serving as the Deputy Surgeon General, Major General Webb also placed a renewed emphasis on issues related to the physical and mental well-being of the United States Army Reserve and Army National Guard Members. Under his management and direction, training opportunities for the Reserve AMEDD components were synchronized and improved to meet current and future needs.

Major General Webb's imprint on military medicine extends beyond the Army throughout the Department of Defense and into the national and international communities. His extraordinary achievements are characterized by profound dedication, compassion, intellect and professionalism. Major General Webb's distinguished performance of duty is in keeping with the most proud and cherished traditions of military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the United States Army Medical Command, the United States Army and the United States of America.

I have first- and secondhand knowledge of Joe Webb that few have. That is why I have come to the floor. This is a man that has internal anchors. He has a backbone of steel. When it comes to his passion and his commitment, no one can match him. He requests the noblest of things from the noble, and he achieves great results. This is a great man who served our country for over 39 years and I thank him for his service. This is my friend, Joe Webb.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6314) to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain expiring provisions of law and to expand eligibility for the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance program.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise and urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 6314, a bill that would extend several existing Department of Veterans Affairs benefits provisions.

This bill will extend these provisions of health care services to veterans exposed by chemical and biological testing under Projects 112 and SHAD, and treatment and rehabilitation programs for seriously mentally ill and homeless veterans until December 31, 2007. The bill would also extend VA's homeless grant and per diem programs until September 30, 2007, and extend additional services for mentally ill and homeless veterans until December 31, 2007. It would extend VA's Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, as well as the program which is providing government markers in private cemeteries until that date.

The work/study provisions of the legislation allowing veterans to assist VA and other government agencies would be extended until June 30, 2007. The work/study program is an increasingly popular benefit that provides veterans with an alternative use of their GI Bill if they choose not to go to college.

The bill also provides education benefits for the family members of severally injured veterans who are undergoing long-term convalescence while on active duty. Spouses and children of servicemembers who are determined by the VA to be permanently and totally disabled due to a service-connected cause or causes would be eligible to receive Chapter 35 education benefits while the servicemember is still on active duty while undergoing treatment. This Chapter 35 provision would enable spouses and dependent children of severely wounded servicemembers to access their Dependents' Educational Assistance benefits while the servicemember is going through extended convalescence prior to discharge.

Under the current law, these beneficiaries must wait until the member is discharged, and since the spouses of these members most often become the primary breadwinner, I believe it is important to give them as much of a headstart as possible on becoming more competitive in the job market. The amount of the benefit remains the same.

I thank the Blinded Veterans Association for bringing this important issue to the attention of myself and members of the committee. We met with Army Sergeant 1st Class Jeffrey Mittman and his wife Christine. Sergeant 1st Class Mittman was blinded by an IED and is undergoing extensive rehabilitation and facial reconstruction.

Madam Speaker, this young soldier is articulate, has a very positive outlook on his life and is truly an inspiration. One look at his wife and you can immediately pick up the burdens she is bearing in caring not only for her husband, but also for her children. His wife Christy is a model of the love and support that she is providing to her husband as they face these challenges together. In fact, I think of this as the Christine Mittman provision, a provision not only that would help Christy, but also other spouses lessen the financial stress.

So, in essence, while Christy is providing leadership and mentoring for her children, caring for her husband instead of waiting until he completes all of the facial reconstruction and rehabilitation necessary, she can start her educational opportunities now.

I think this is the right thing to do. We all know he is going to be 100 percent disabled. She wants to become a nurse, so let's give her and others who are likewise situated to have these opportunities.

Madam Speaker, the committee is currently also undergoing bipartisan negotiations on a number of bills, not only with my House counterparts, but also with the Senate counterparts.

Among these bills are H.R. 3082, the Veterans Small Business and Memorial Affairs Act of 2006. It passed the House on July 24, 2006. We have informally been discussing provisions since July 28. The bill improves the status of veterans and disabled veterans small businesses when competing for contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs. It allows Tribal government to participate in the VA's State Cemetery Grants Programs, authorizes the VA Secretary to provide the family of a veteran interred in a private cemetery with government markers, which we are doing now. It also requires the Veterans Employment Training Service, otherwise known as VETS, to establish nonmandatory guidelines for disabled veterans outreach programs. There are a lot of things in this bill, and I am hopeful we are going to get this done and negotiated.

There is another bill, H.R. 4061, the Department of Veterans Affairs Information Technology Management Improvement Act. It would centralize VA's IT organizational structure so that it reports directly to the Department's chief information officer.

Ultimately, the bill would empower the CIO with the authority over the IT budgets, equipment and personnel. While the House passed this bill with widespread bipartisan support, and I appreciate the leadership of Mr. Filner and others on this legislation, the Senate is even yet to take action on that bill.

There is another bill, H.R. 5815, the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Authorization Act of 2006, that would ensure that we will efficiently provide the right facilities with the right places for veterans' health care. Given the current veteran population and those which we can expect in the coming years, it would authorize $2.5 billion for major implementation projects and $51 million for facilities leases. This is an important bill, and we are getting close on these negotiations.

We have another bill, H.R. 5835, the Veterans Identity and Credit Security Act, as amended. This bill requires notification to Congress and individuals in the event of a data breach. All of us Members understand and remember the data breach.

And we had extensive oversight on the committee. Mr. Filner and I were able to lead over eight hearings in a 6-week time frame, and we are perfecting change in our cooperation with the administration. This is a good bill and I am hopeful that we can get this bill done.

This bill also included a scholarship and loan repayment program to provide the Secretary with a recruitment and retention tool to attract qualified people in the areas of information technology and management so they can work in these security areas. As I said, this bill received widespread bipartisan support here in the House and I am most hopeful that we can move to the Senate and achieve our work

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend Mr. Filner for his comments.

You are absolutely right. We have a lot of good work product that hopefully we can get done.

At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to a friend of America's veterans, the Honorable Michael Bilirakis. Michael will be retiring and leaving us here at the end of this Congress, and his work and leadership will be missed.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. We will have one more opportunity, I am hopeful, to speak about Mr. Bilirakis' efforts.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the First District of South Carolina, the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Henry Brown.

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

Ms. Berkley, I want to thank you for your leadership on this bill. Thank you for working with Nancy Johnson, Jeb Bradley. This symbol of honor and remembrance is very important. I want to thank you for that.

Also I want to embrace your words regarding the leases. In the construction bill we have a number of leases, and we need to complete our work. And so I embrace your words. I call on you for your help. The Senate has not been as helpful. You know that is a continuous body over there. We do not know how it is about to be reorganized. We have a lot of our work that needs to be done over the last 2 years, and we cannot let this construction bill die on the vine. We have to complete that work.

If we do not re-up these leases, it is going to cost the Federal Government more money because there are penalty clauses that will go into effect, and we cannot and should not let that happen.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

I thank the gentlewoman for her contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Honorable Tim Murphy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Filner for his cooperation on this bill and other bills. Mr. Filner, we have got the CIO bill, we have got the cyber security bill. The Senate sent us two health bills, a benefit bill and we have got the construction bill. So all of these are in negotiation with the Senate. It is hard work. It represents 2 years of effort.

Recalling the recent words of my esteemed colleague, Nancy Pelosi, with the creation of this new theme of a bipartisan way for all Americans, let's embrace it. Let's get our work done. We enjoy bipartisanship on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I wish other committees could see how well we have worked together over the years. I call on leadership of everyone here in the House in dealing with these bills here on veterans affairs to complete our work on behalf of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I also call upon the Senate leadership to finish our legislative negotiations. Let's complete our work. Let's not forget our veterans and their families. And, Mr. Speaker, I also call upon the leadership of the veterans service organizations and the military service associations to encourage the Senate leadership to finish our negotiations and again finish the work that we had started on behalf of this Nation's veterans and dependents.

These warriors fought for our freedom. The least we can do is complete our work and provide for them the best care and benefits possible. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no furthers requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks relative to the bill which the House just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was a good listener to my colleague, Mr. Skelton, and we have worked very well over the years. Sometimes we disagree, but I think more times we agree than disagree.

In review of the section, though, I would say to my good friend from Missouri that, with regard to how individuals are tried, I have worked with the administration and the Senate and with my good friend Lindsey Graham. When you start this legislative process, Mr. Skelton, and you start with five amendments and you end up with a colloquy, some good things must have happened in the process. So I just want my good friend from Missouri to know that a lot of the concerns I had have been worked out with Mr. Hunter, with his cooperation, and with the Senate and with the administration.

I know some of you have some concerns that didn't get worked out, and I can understand that and I can relate to the gentleman, but with regard to a process here, the Supreme Court struck down the tribunals, said the Congress needs to act on this to come up with a process, and when I examined this, we took some of the best, not only of our own legal system, but we took some of the best out of the UCMJ, and we took some of the best out of the world court to create the military commissions.

So, now, when you look at title 18, the first chapter will be the Federal criminal code that will apply to United States citizens. The second chapter then is the UCMJ, and the third chapter will now be the Code of Military Commissions. In my judgment, the Code of Military Commissions is in fact a process that will reflect America's values, and it will be balanced against the protection of our national security, and it has indispensable judicial guarantees that are recognized by the world.

The Supreme Court, yes, they will examine our commissions, no differently than how they examine the tribunals, but I am left in an area of good comfort, and that is my counsel that I now give to my country, of 26 years' experience not only as a military JAG officer but also the 14 years here helping lead our country. I am

comfortable with regard to this process, not only if I were the military prosecutor but even if I were the military defense counsel, about the protections that we are affording not only this unlawful enemy combatant but making sure that we have a balance of interests.

Yesterday, on the floor, a couple of our colleagues had raised some issues as to whether American citizens could be subject to the Code of Military Commissions and whether or not, if an American citizen was even classified as an enemy combatant, could they then be subject to a military tribunal. The answer is no. American citizens cannot. Mr. Hunter has made it very clear in this language.

So even a strict constructionist, when they read this language in the Supreme Court, it is very clear. Section 948 says this does not apply to American citizens; that it only applies to aliens. But let's go with an example: Let's say an American citizen has been arrested for aiding and abetting a terrorist, maybe even participating in a conspiracy, or maybe participating in an action that harmed or killed American citizens.

That American citizen cannot be tried in the military commission. His coconspirators could be tried in a military commission if they were an alien, but if that other coconspirator is an American citizen, they will be prosecuted under title 18 of the first chapter of a Federal crime, or even we could assimilate the State laws under the Assimilated Crimes Act.

I am trying to go into details, and I want to share with the American people here beyond the rhetoric that sometimes you hear on the floor, that with regard to the process itself, I am very comfortable with the fact that American citizens cannot be tried in this.

The reason I am spending a little time on it is that there was an editorial that went out there by a law professor published in the Los Angeles Times. Let me tell you, as a lawyer myself, just because a law professor says it, I am going to tell you what: not necessarily true.

I read his editorial, and I also then looked at the law. Let me now speak unto the law professor: read the bill. Just like what you would do to your law students, you would tell them to read the bill. And when you read the bill and when you open it up, you would find that the words you wrote so that the readers in Southern California would somehow take what, action, or give you credit or credence to your words, your words are false. And that is completely unfortunate.

So hopefully people will begin to understand that this whole issue about these military commissions applying to American people is not true at all.

In the end, let me thank Mr. Hunter on a good work product. I do wish that, in the end, that this really could have been a product, Mr. Skelton, that the two of you could have brought together. I don't know what happened there, because I have such respect for both of you.

Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman says the President can make any determination he wanted with regard to status, I would just like the gentleman to know that the determination of one's status is done by a tribunal under article V of the Geneva Conventions.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Wait a minute. Reclaiming my time, please do not come to the floor and make things up. As a JAG officer in the first Gulf War, I wrote the practice and procedures for article V tribunals. I participated in the tribunals to determine status, a person's status. The President of the United States does not participate in that process.

So, please, don't be silly and just make things up.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

What I would like to share with everyone, having done interrogations, I have interrogated Iraqi high command when I was at the Western Enemy Prisoner of War Camp. I assure you that trying to use any type of method to torture or beat the person you are trying to interrogate, I assure you, you never want to do that as an interrogator, because whatever he is going to say is really not going to be helpful to you. So as an interrogator, it is the last thing. It wouldn't even enter your mind that you want to do this type of thing.

The only time, I won't say the only time, some of the most difficult situations are usually what we find in the field where time is of the essence, where someone has just been killed, you are in a battlefield situation, you have gotten a prisoner and you need to know who they are and where they just went. That is generally where bad things happen. It is not at a garrison, in prison or a detention center.

Mr. Speaker, to bring a chill into the debate, the issue of who can be detained is not addressed in this bill. This bill is about trying alien detainees who are unlawful enemy combatants. Nothing in this bill changes the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.