Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments. Since its enactment in August of 1965, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) has helped bring us closer to realizing the true spirit of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees all American citizens the quintessential democratic right to vote. Today we'll vote to reauthorize expiring provisions of the VRA and by doing so send a signal that we will not tolerate discrimination at the polls.

Some of our colleagues will rise today to offer amendments that would weaken the VRA. I am opposed to any attempts to dilute the intent and spirit of the VRA by weakening Section 5 of the bill. Section 5 ensures that the Federal Government will take a closer look at election practices in states and localities with a history of discrimination at the polls.

Our Nation has made a great deal of progress since 1965 when the VRA was first signed into law by President Johnson. But some municipalities continue to make it difficult, intentionally or otherwise, for ethnic and racial minority voters to register and vote. The great civil rights leaders of the 1960s, including our distinguished colleague Rep. John Lewis, worked tirelessly to fight discrimination in all aspects our society. They knew then, and we know now, that the right of all Americans to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. We must continue their great legacy and pass the bill before us today without amendment.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from California.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Almost 1 year ago, in August, I stood on the border of Gaza. I watched a gate descend. I watched the last Israeli leave Gaza. Israel said to the Palestinians, we will take a risk for peace. Build something here. Provide security. We want peace.

And what did they do with that? What did the Palestinians do with that offer? They fired Kassam missiles on Israeli civilians. They elected a terrorist regime sworn to the liquidation of Israel. They dug a tunnel. They snuck through the tunnel, they showed up on Israeli soil, they kidnapped a 19-year-old soldier and snuck him back. Israel took a risk for peace, and this is how it was rewarded.

Israel took the same risk in Lebanon. They left Lebanon. They said provide security here. We will take a risk for peace, and let's have it together. What happened with that offer? Hezbollah was allowed to dominate southern Lebanon. And just last week, Hezbollah terrorists infiltrated a border, snuck across an undisputed border, murdered some Israelis, kidnapped others, murdered some more, and snuck back across.

Every time Israel has taken a risk for peace, that risk has been answered with violence, and that is not acceptable.

What would we have done? It is exactly what we did do on 9/11. When terrorists infiltrated our borders, we responded robustly to protect innocent civilians.

Israel has the right to do the same. There can be no double standard. There can be no moral relativism. This resolution simply says that Israel has taken risks for peace. Those risks ought to be answered with reciprocation, and not missiles; with good faith, security, and not kidnappings. Israel has done what we have done, and this resolution reaffirms that.

I thank my friend from New York, and Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the grave crisis that a constitutional amendment demands. I will tell you what the grave crises are that we should be spending our time on.

North Korea tested a ballistic missile last week. We are still waiting for a strategy for success in Iraq. Gas prices are skyrocketing. War is erupting in the Middle East. And Congress wants the American people to believe that same-sex marriages are the gravest threat to their security.

We need to be focusing on issues of true security and safety for the American people and not on rhetorical devices that have no substantive meaning, because the other body already defeated it.

Mr. Speaker, I spent all morning this morning at the National Defense University participating in a military exercise with respect to Iran's development of nuclear weapons. I spent my time trying to figure out how we are going to protect the American people from that threat, and then I come to the floor of the House, and we waste time debating how we are going to protect the American people from same-sex marriages when we cannot even amend the Constitution in this session of Congress.

If we spent more time trying to hunt down Osama bin Laden and less time trying to hunt down people in marriages that we find objectionable, we would all be safer.

Now, I have a deep respect for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on the other side of this issue, but I would suggest that the American people want us focused on real security and real safety.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to share with my colleagues the passing of Sonny Dolci. Most Members of the House never met Sonny Dolci. But everyone has a Sonny Dolci in their congressional district.

Sonny Dolci was a veterans' leader in Northport, Long Island. He died 3 days before Independence Day. And he had a special link to that day. Because he embodied the finest qualities of great Americans who refused to say `no' when it came to their country or their community.

When the veterans of Northport wanted to build a new facility, Sonny Dolci said, ``Give me the shovel.''

When community leaders wanted to organize a celebration of Northport, Sonny helped lead what is today one of the largest festivals on Long Island: Cow Harbor Day.

When a Korean War memorial was planned, Sonny traveled to eastern Long Island, and climbed amongst the rocks to find the perfect facing.

Sonny would not take no for an answer.

That is really what Independence Day is about: the Americans who refused to say no when faced with challenge.

Two hundred thirty years ago, George Washington found himself surrounded in NY by the most powerful Navy on earth. He didn't give in, he kept up the fight for independence. And we replaced foreign monarchy with American democracy.

One hundred fourty years ago, Abraham Lincoln lost battle after battle for American unity. He didn't give up. He kept fighting until we replaced slavery with liberty.

And 60 years ago, men like Sonny Dolci left their homes for World War II and then Korea. They refused to say no to defeating tyranny and totalitarianism.

They came home, and looked at the moon. And when President Kennedy said we could even defeat the distance of space, they said, ``Let's go''.

That determination and spirit made us the country we are today. They wouldn't take no for an answer. And neither should we.

The threat today is our reliance on foreign oil. Our generation needs a Declaration of Energy Independence. If we can beat the British, defeat slavery, triumph in World War II and land Americans on the moon, we can design vehicles that get more than 40 miles per gallon. That is today's challenge.

Sonny Dolci never said ``It's too hard'' when it came to the safety and security of his country, his community, his comrades, or his children.

And as long as his spirit and fortitude lives in each of us, we will give the next generation of children the peace and security that Sonny fought and worked to give us.

And that is the greatest legacy of all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.

I believe that estate taxes at 2001 levels were inherently unfair. And I voted to reform those levels by increasing the exemption and lowering the tax rate through 2010. Today, I would vote for all estate tax reform that permanently raised the exemption to $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples, while lowering the rate to 45 percent.

Unfortunately, the majority has refused to even entertain a compromise. In fact, they won't even allow us to vote on a compromise, even though they could vote against it. They insist that we either take or leave their bill: a $700 billion cost, added to an existing $8 trillion debt.

Why do we need compromise? Why can't I support the legislation before us today? For three reasons.

First, at a time of war that has been described as ``generational'', when we experienced shortages on the battlefield, funding cuts in Pentagon weapons systems, and cuts in homeland security funding to my constituents in New York because of budget strains, adding an additional $700 billion in estate tax relief is irresponsible. How is it that we have $700 billion for estate tax relief, but just cut funds for a critical Air Force advanced energy program? Why is it that we slashed college loan programs because we had to save $12 billion, but we have $700 billion for estate tax repeal? How is it possible to defend cutting Homeland Security funds to NY by $80 million because we can't afford it, and then pass a bill that spends $700 billion to repeal the estate tax?

Second, I have been fighting for meaningful and permanent relief of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which has become the largest middle class tax increase in history. The Administration and Republican leadership of Congress has not agreed to real alternative minimum tax relief. All we can afford they say, is a temporary bandage every year. The cost of the permanent AMT reform that Representative Lowey and I have introduced is about $400 billion. The cost of permanent repeal of the estate tax is $700 billion. Why is it that we can't afford tax relief for millions of middle class families, but we can afford twice the cost for tax relief to several thousand estates?

Third, a $700 billion liability to the Federal Treasury represents a staggering unfunded liability for our children. Let me prove my point in specific and non-partisan terms.

Recently I attended a meeting with the Comptroller General of the United States. He was chosen to this position by President Bush, the Republican Speaker of the House, and the Republican Leader of the Senate.

The Comptroller described the long term fiscal position of the Federal Treasury. Over the next 30 years, Federal revenues will remain fairly constant as a percentage of the federal budget. On the spending side--even if we do what we have never been able to do, and keep spending at the level of inflation--our total costs will skyrocket, particularly with the rapid growth of our aging population. The resulting gap between revenues and expenses will be so huge that in 2040, the entire Federal budget will be adequate to pay for only two things: interest on debt, and a small piece of social security. Everything else--the military, veterans benefits, the FBI; the CIA, education, health, homeland security--will require either a catastrophic tax increase on our children, or abolishment by our children. And today, we add $700 billion to their problem.

Mr. Speaker, we can provide estate tax relief that is affordable and fair, by allowing a vote on Mr. Pomeroy's substitute. But denied that opportunity by the leadership, I cannot support a ``take it leave it'' bill. Not when, by taking this, I leave the real bill to our children.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share the following article from Time Magazine with my colleagues in the House. I believe it contains some important insights into what we really need to focus on during the long war.

[From Time Magazine, June 25, 2006]

Forget Flag Burning

(By Major General Robert Scales (Ret.))

Some in Congress appear to be taking a sabbatical from the

long war on terrorism to introduce a constitutional amendment

banning the burning of the flag. The debate over such an

amendment may or may not be worth having, but one thing is

clear: at a time when the country is at war, now is not the

time for such tertiary considerations.

I understand reverence for the flag. It comes naturally to

soldiers. We commit our lives to serving intangibles,

swearing oaths to a piece of parchment or saluting an expanse

of cloth decorated with stars and stripes. We understand

symbolism because symbolism is what in large measure compels

us to do a job that might result in our demise.

The American flag symbolizes freedom. The Constitution we

soldiers are pledged to defend guarantees freedom of

expression even when freedom of expression includes the right

to deface the flag, however obnoxious that act may be. Of

course, I'm old enough to remember flag burning when flag

burning was ``cool.'' I was in Hawaii, on R. and R., halfway

through my tour in Vietnam. My wife and I were watching

television when student war protesters in California--none of

whom had the slightest chance of facing violent death in

combat--illuminated their campus by torching Old Glory. I was

appalled by the sight. A short time later, Walter Cronkite

informed the world that my unit, the 101st Airborne, was

beginning an offensive in the A Shau Valley. I left for

Vietnam the next day to confront an enemy that undoubtedly

would have punished those protesters had they burned the

North Vietnamese flag in Hanoi.

But that was then. The image of the flag that soldiers see

today is different. Instead of flags aflame, we see flags

covering coffins of soldiers and Marines returning the hard

way from Iraq and Afghanistan. Pushing forward a

constitutional amendment is labor-intensive work. I'm

concerned how such a diversion during wartime might appear to

those who are still serving in harm's way.

Please don't get me wrong. I have many friends in Congress,

patriots all. Each one of them has been to Iraq and

Afghanistan many times. Although he refuses to advertise the

fact, one was wounded there during an inspection tour last

year. My concern relates not to the sincerity of Congress but

to the perceptions among our young men and women that their

overseers are suddenly distracted at a time when attention to

their needs has never been more necessary.

Our soldiers want to be assured that Congress is doing all

it can to reduce losses in what Lincoln ruefully termed the

``terrible arithmetic'' of war. They want to know that

Congress is doing all it can to give them the weapons they

need to maintain the fighting advantage over the enemy. They

are concerned that their equipment is wearing out under

constant use. They and their families are worried that not

enough soldiers are in the pipeline to replace them.

We know from letters and conversations that our young

soldiers returning from combat are concerned about the future

of their institutions. They want to know who is focused on

reshaping our Army and Marine Corps so that both services

will be better able to fight the long fight against radical

Islam. How will Congress fund the future? Where will the new

weapons and equipment come from? They are also worried about

more personal issues like housing and health care for

themselves and their families.

Dan Brown was my First Sergeant in Vietnam. I was new to

war. He had served in two. He gave me a piece of advice then

that Congressmen intent on changing the subject should heed:

``In combat the main thing is to keep the main thing the main

thing. Otherwise, you die.'' The main thing today for

Congress and the Nation should be the war in Iraq. Soldiers

are sworn to defend the right to free speech with their lives

even if ``speech'' is expressed in despicable ways. What they

want in return is the assurance that our lawmakers will hold

their interests dear.

So the message from most of us soldiers is clear: Debate a

flag-burning amendment if you wish. But don't create the

perception among our young men and women in combat that there

are more important issues than their welfare at the moment.

Wait a while. At least for their sake, wait until the last

flag-draped coffin comes home.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the distinguished ranking member

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member and the entire subcommittee for excellent work on the Defense Appropriations Act of 2007. This act does an extraordinary job of continuing the transformation of our forces, while funding our military at war.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that every military threat now and in the foreseeable future is derived from or impacted by one thing, and that is our dependence on foreign oil.

We fund a Defense budget of $500 billion this year, including supplemental spending. Of that amount, $10.6 billion is spent on the Pentagon's direct energy costs alone, and of that $10.6 billion, $4.7 billion bought one thing, fuel for our Air Force planes. That is about the same amount as the President has budgeted for the National Cancer Institute this year alone.

The Department of Defense uses 97 percent of all Federal fuel consumption, and half of that is used for fuel for the Air Force. A single F-16 can burn 28 gallons of gas a minute, in fact.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, $10 million for the Air Force's alternative fuels research program to help reduce our reliance on foreign oil to fly our own Air Force planes is not included in the budget.

I was going to submit an amendment that I would let the Air Force allocate $4 million for B-52 synthetic fuels testing, $3 million for other synthetic fuel testing, and about $3 million for studies on synthetic fuel and suitability for use in jet engines. However, I will not proceed with my amendment in the hope that the honorable gentleman and ranking member will pursue this effort during conference with the Senate.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I know he, above all people, realizes that our energy dependence is a national security issue that we must triumph over. I thank the gentleman.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Castle

Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to this resolution, H. Res. 861.

Mr. Speaker, I pride myself on being unapologetically supportive of a robust military. I do believe that President Wilson was correct when he said the United States can help make the world safe for democracy. I believe that we must stand decisively against totalitarianism in whatever form it takes--and today, it takes the form of a twisted misinterpretation of Islam that is radical, extremist, and murderous. And nothing is more important to me, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, than supporting and honoring our troops.

Sadly and cynically, Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us has not been drafted to unify the American people around these principles. It has been drafted to divide the American people based on politics.

This resolution--a nonbinding sense of the House--is not a policy statement. It is a political strategy. It is designed not to win the war in Iraq, but to win elections at home.

First, Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake about the legislative intent of this resolution.

It is a sign of this Republican leadership that they would introduce a resolution on an issue as critical as the war in Iraq; then refuse to include in that resolution a single idea, a single solution, a single policy that would actually win the war in Iraq; then refuse to allow sufficient debate or even consideration of alternative resolutions that would demonstrate our national resolve as well as our constructive ideas on how to prevail.

Who can be against the resolution's operative statement: ``Declaring that the United States will prevail in the global war on terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary''?

Who can be against the clause in the resolution that states that we ``Honor the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces'' . . . that we ``call upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security''?

But the Republican leadership, in their callous attempt to politicize the war in Iraq has inserted other language that is troubling.

A clause I find questionable, Mr. Speaker, is this: ``Whereas Iraqi security forces are taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq'';

In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are reports that Iraqi Security Forces are not significantly leading independent operations. Proportionately, Iraqi security forces are performing fewer combat operations than just 6 months ago.

Mr. Speaker, the Majority should have worked on a bipartisan basis to write a plan to find Osama Bin Laden, and catch or kill him.

If the Republican Majority wanted near unanimity, they would have removed these clauses, or at least refined them. They would have allowed us to offer alternative language. They would have offered to hold bipartisan consultations to find language that would unite Congress and the American people.

Instead, they put partisanship ahead of bipartisanship on an issue that demands cooperation from both sides of the aisle: the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the well-being of our troops, the honor of their sacrifices.

Mr. Speaker, let me make two final points.

First, about the importance of honoring our troops. I passionately agree with the resolution's call for honoring our troops. In fact, while the House debated this resolution on the floor yesterday, I secured a public commitment from the Army at an Armed Services Committee hearing that they would end the shortages of life-saving coagulant products that help our soldiers from bleeding to death. Every day for the past 2 weeks I have been working on this issue.

It is proper that we pass a non-binding resolution honoring our troops. But I have secured a commitment from the Army to bind their wounds. So I will not take second place to anyone in this body on the issue of supporting and honoring our troops. And I am insulted that some of the very same people who rail about not degrading the morale of our troops will use the vote on this resolution to degrade the morale of our troops.

Second, Mr. Speaker, instead of passing non-binding resolutions that are political documents, let us pass a binding policy to win the war on terror. The resolution we should be voting on today would require the President to certify to Congress that number of Iraqi forces that have reached combat proficiency, and redeploy an equivalent number of U.S. forces. It would commit some of those forces to containing the growing resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and finding, once and for all, the murderer who escaped our grasp and started the real war on terror-- Osama Bin Laden. It would commit ourselves to properly funding our troops so that no American citizen has to dig into their own pockets and mail life-saving coagulants to our troops because they were not properly equipped.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if those who wrote this resolution spent more time unifying us around those principles and less time dividing us on political rhetoric, we might be out of Iraq by now, and relentlessly finding, capturing and killing those who masterminded the attacks on our country in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment restores funding for certain advanced energy research programs to last year's levels. That research is absolutely critical to reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

The funding in this bill for research and university resource centers is $9,448,000 below last year's levels, and those are the very centers that are researching and developing hydrogen and hybrid and other advanced transportation technologies.

Now, we all understand how vital that research and development is. The President of the United States on this floor during the State of the Union proclaimed that we must reduce our addiction to foreign oil. Anyone in their cars at a gas station today, as we are on the floor, paying over $3 a gallon for gas understands how important it is that we reduce that addiction to foreign oil.

I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. Our military understands how critical that is. Last year, the Department of Defense spent $10 billion on basic energy costs. Of that, $4.7 billion was spent to buy one thing, fuel for Air Force planes.

I was in Iraq last month and was on a wonderful Stryker combat vehicle. It gets about 10 miles to the gallon.

It is dangerous, Mr. Chairman, when we have to borrow money from China to fund defense budgets to buy oil from unstable Persian Gulf countries to fuel our military to protect us from China and unstable Persian Gulf countries.

We have all talked about having men on the Moon, research and development programs to end that dangerous dependence on foreign oil. We have talked about having new Apollo programs to research and develop new vehicles, not lunar landing modules that will put people on the Moon, but hydrogen and hybrid vehicles that will make it easier and safer and less expensive for people to drive on our roads here on Earth. And yet, this bill cuts $9.5 million from the very research centers that are engaged in deploying those vehicles.

This is not a giant leap for mankind. This is not even one small step for mankind. It is a step backwards, and so my amendment does not go above last year's level. It does not take a giant leap that I think we need. All it does is it keeps us steady so we do not continue to lose ground to the very adversaries we have around the world who are willing to use oil as a weapon against us and use oil to blackmail us and compromise our capabilities.

This amendment simply offsets salaries in the Treasury and Transportation accounts and restores $9,448,000 for basic research at the research and university research centers to continue our vital work, and I hope that the House will agree to it and support it.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Gary Melius. Over the past 10 years, Gary has dedicated himself to the continuation of Oheka Castle, which is treasured by the town of Huntington, Long Island, and all of New York State.

As the second largest mansion in the United States, Oheka Castle stands as an architectural marvel and an historic structure that must be protected. Gary Melius knows this fact better than anyone.

Prior to his leadership, the castle's previous occupant went bankrupt leaving this structure abandoned. It was at this grave juncture in 1996 that Gary came to the helm.

With his diligent guidance, Oheka Castle has been restored to its original structural magnificence. Gary's service has insured that Oheka Castle will remain a treasure for our children and future generations on Long Island.

For 10 years, Gary has devoted himself to the protection, preservation and public awareness of Oheka Castle. I applaud Gary Melius for his achievements and contributions to Oheka Castle and the town of Huntington.

I thank my friend from California and particularly I want to thank him for his strong and wise leadership on national security issues.

As the gentleman mentioned he and our colleague from Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Scott, and I co-founded the Democratic Study Group on National Security Policy, which advocates for a long and smart military, which believes in policy that are robust and visionary when it comes to our national security.

I have the great honor, not just being a Member of Congress, but serving on the House Armed Services Committee. And I was in Iraq just a month ago. It was my second visit as a member of the Armed Services Committee. And when I was there I had the sense that we were getting close to finding al-Zarqawi. He was still on the loose but we were getting closer, and I am glad that we finished the job. This is a guy who relished beheadings. This is someone who enjoyed car bombings. This is someone who killed Americans who killed, Sunnis, who killed Shi'ia, who killed Kurds. And so I believe it is an important day and it is good news that while we have many struggles ahead this one struggle no longer exists.

But I think it is very important for us to focus on the future. While I was in Iraq I had the opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Maliki and President Talabani and General Casey and his troops. All of those people were involved and should take credit for what happened today.

The questioning now faces what is next. The gentleman talked about our plan for Iraq. The fact that 2006 should

be a year of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, that we need a responsible redeployment of U.S. forces, that we need to promote Iraqi political compromise to unite the country, encourage our allies to play a constructive role, hold the Bush administration accountable. And there is one more thing that we must do that I know my colleagues and I agree completely on. And that is to make sure that our troops continue to have everything they need, because despite the fact that al-Zarqawi has been removed, there are going to be other al-Zarqawis in the world. There are going it be others who enjoy beheadings and car bombings. And for as long as long as they exist, we are going to need the capabilities of meeting and defeating them.

That is why I was so distressed when my constituents woke up this morning to this front page in our Long Island newspaper, Newsday. The front page headline, ``Blood clot bandages, frontline shortage, some troops calling home to ask for life saving dressings.''

By the way, I would say to my friends from Georgia and California, this story is under a story about how Ann Coulter visited my district having just attacked 9/11 widows as being witches and harpies. After Ann Coulter attacked 9/11 widows, I have about a hundred of them in my district, comes to my district and attacks them. Under that story is this story about potential shortages of blood clot bandages.

Let me share with my colleagues what this story says. ``Despite Army order that frontline medics get special clotting bandages, soldiers say they're still needed.'' It begins with this lead. ``Nine months after an Army order that all combat orders would get life saving clotting bandages to curb bleeding deaths, some troops in Iraq are still calling home, asking friends and families to supply them. Despite Army assurances that there are plenty of bandages to go around. Soldiers have written to say they have not found their way to all those on the front lines, and the manufacturer under contract with the Army acknowledged last week that early production problems may have spurred a shortage.''

Now, let me be clear on this. We have been working with the Army and we will continue to work closely with them. They are trying to get to the bottom of this and that is their obligation. I appreciate their responsiveness to this report. But we cannot afford continued reports like this three years after the invasion.

It is unfair that Ms. Doreen Kenny, who lost her job, Jacob Fletcher, in Iraq, one of the first Long Islanders to be killed in action, has to have her photograph in this story with the quote, ``If I can prevent one knock at the door of a military family, I will do all I can to prevent them from living through the heartbreak I have had to live through.''

Why is she in this story? Because Doreen Kenny, who lost her boy, is mailing this critical medical equipment to our troops in Iraq. That is not what she should be having to do right now.

So I know we will continue as Democrats to ensure that when we go to war we do not go with the Army we have, as Secretary Rumsfeld said, but with the supplies they need. That those of us who believe that we have to draw a line against totalitarianism understand that we have to make sure our supply lines are adequately equipped. That we cannot afford to send soldiers into hostility and then read reports that they are calling home asking for blood clotting bandages.

I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership. We will continue to pursue this vitally important plan for Iraq, but I know that at the centerpiece of those plans is the understanding that we have to protect the protectors and defend the defenders, and that is what Democrats are doing in the United States Congress today.

Well, I thank the gentleman for the question. You know, every Member of Congress prides themselves on the work we do with respect to veterans case work. I know in my district we have two people devoted exclusively to trying to work with veterans, get them their retroactive payment, get them their medals.

We secured over $2 million in my district in back payments for our veterans, but those are Vietnam veterans. Some of these are World War II veterans, Korean veterans. This country is just now catching up to people who were in the military theater 40 years ago. Just catching up now to those people.

Can you imagine what our situation is going to be where we now have a multitude, a new generation of veterans coming back with post-traumatic stress disorder and other very serious physical and psychological problems, and we have to say to them we are sorry, we know we sent you to the front, but now we have got to balance the budget on your backs because we have run out of money? Just cannot do it as a result of the fiscal policy of the past 6 years.

When the gentleman and I were elected, we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. We could have paid for the war in Iraq and then paid for health care for every single soldier that went, so that they did not have to go without the potential of coagulant bandages. So when they came home, they came home to a country that would take care of them.

Now, we have got an $8 trillion debt, and we have to make painful cuts. The other side has forced us to cut back on those services, forced veterans to dig deeper into their pockets.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, there is a lot of talk by the administration about the global war on terror and America's fight on the global war on terror. 133,000 of our troops are fighting the global war on terror. They are the ones who have been made to engage in the sacrifice. They are the ones who have been uprooted from their families.

These two gentlemen on the front page of my daily newspaper, they are fighting the global war on terror. The rest of us are watching it on television. America can do better than that. I refuse, and I know the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Georgia should refuse to be the first generation of Americans in history to say let everybody else do it, we will just sit back and relax. We will pass a permanent repeal of the death tax or the estate tax which may cost $300 billion, and then have the temerity to tell these people on the front page of Newsday, sorry, we cannot afford your supplies, we cannot afford to take care of you when you come home. I do not want to be the first generation of Americans to balance the budget on the backs of someone who is on his back in this photograph.

We have an obligation if we are going to fight the Zarqawis of the world, something I believe we should do, to make sure that those who are doing the fighting are protected and make sacrifices at home that save their lives abroad.

I spent some time this evening with the gentleman and with one of our best generals, and he was telling the story of visiting with a critically wounded soldier in a military hospital and walking out with that soldier's mother. And the mother said, General, my son is not sleeping at night. And the General said, well, of course he is not sleeping at night, look what he has been through. She said, no, General, he is not sleeping because he is up all night thinking about the fact that his unit is still in Iraq and he is worried about them.

That is the sacrifice that we are talking about and the dedication and the professionalism, and we have an obligation to those men and women to protect them.

If the gentleman would allow me to make a concluding point. This front page newspaper tells the story of contrast, and the same contrast is played out on the floor of the House frequently. You have got this front, top of the newspaper that says ``Ann the Ripper Brings Campaign Against 9/11 Widows to Long Island,'' and then you have the rest of the page devoted to the possibility of front-line shortages of critical medical equipment. These guys get less so that Ann Coulter, who writes a book calling 9/11 widows witches and harpies, who will make a lot of money off the proceeds of that book, can get a bigger tax cut.

How is that fair in America today? How is that just? How does that do justice to these people? It doesn't. We can do better. The Democrats will do better. We understand the need to fight and to use hard power around the world to fight totalitarianism and to fight terrorism, but if you are going to take on the fight, you got to take it on with the right supplies. And that is what we are about.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the students from Half Hollow Hills High School East in Dix Hills, New York for their hard work in the ``We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals. These outstanding young Americans placed fourth in this nationwide competition and I am honored to call them my constituents.

The students, Jason Aronson, Matt Bauman, Jillian Bernstein, Eric Bierman, Emily Chen, Davina Etwarn, Leily Faridzadeh, Zach Goldberg, Chris Green, Arun Gupta, Jennifer Kim, Praneet Korrapati, Emily Kuznick, Tia Mansouri, Joshua Milber, Brooke Schachner, Stephen Schiraldi, Dana Schwartz, Dara Seidl, Fauzia Shaikh, Kunaal Sharma, Kavita Vani, Alyssa Weinberg and Joshua Wohl, led by their teacher Scott Edwards, demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental ideals and values of American constitutional government.

Also worthy of special recognition is Eileen Gerrish, the state coordinator, and Charles Trupia, the district coordinator, who are among those responsible for implementing the ``We the People'' program in my district.

Their success in the competition is also a testament to the excellent teachers at Half Hollow Hills East High School and elsewhere on Long Island.

I offer my congratulations on their success and commend these students on their dedication to the study of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I rise to oppose this rule, and I must express my very deep concern with the underlying bill.

Despite the very best efforts of many of my colleagues, this bill remains a broken promise on the most critical issues that we confront, specifically renewable energy. The gentleman from Indiana is absolutely correct, we need to do much more than we are doing in this bill on renewable energy.

Let me tell you why this is so critical, Mr. Speaker. This year, the Department of Defense will spend $10 billion on its basic energy bill. Of that $10 billion, $4.7 billion will buy one thing: fuel for the Air Force planes. That $4.7 billion is about what we are going to spend for the National Cancer Institute.

We need renewable energies, Mr. Speaker, not just for our environment, not just to bring gas prices down, but as a matter of national security. What could be more dysfunctional than having to borrow money from China in order to buy oil from our Persian Gulf adversaries in order to fuel airplanes to protect us from China and our Persian Gulf adversaries?

On renewable energies, this bill, as it is currently drafted, falls short. Last July, we passed an energy bill, and many of us printed press releases patting ourselves on the back for this sweeping new investment in renewable energy. Those press releases promised $3.3 billion would be spent on renewable energies this year alone, $3.3 billion authorized for research, development, and deployment of renewable energy. But when it comes time to actually sign the check, the check doesn't say $3.3 billion, it says $1.3 billion. That is $2 billion short.

This is like No Child Left Behind all over again. You promise to pay high, you actually pay low. In this case, it is not Leave No Child Behind; pit is Leave No Barrel of Oil Behind.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the argument can be made, and I respect the argument, that many renewable technologies did receive increases over last year. Many specific accounts for renewable energy, research and development did receive increases over last year's levels. But only in Washington can a $2 billion shortfall be called an increase.

Try that logic with your utility company. When the bill comes, try saying I know I was going to pay $100, $150, but what I really meant to say was, I am giving you $15. No utility company would let you get away with it, and the Congress shouldn't allow that to be gotten away with.

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is the bottom line. And if we are truly serious about ending our dependence on foreign oil and strengthening our military, we would not be shortchanging this bill. I hope that the gentleman's efforts prevail. I hope that this Congress will have an opportunity to put our money where our mouths are when it comes to renewable energy, not just as an environmental issue, not just to get gas prices down, but to make sure our military has the capabilities to defeat our enemies around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I need 1\1/2\ minutes to make my point. I think this is rather clear and rather simple.

I was in Iraq about 3 weeks ago when a bipartisan delegation was sent to urge the leaders of the Iraq Government to show respect and tolerance for their different faiths and create a unity government.

This rule explicitly rejects respect and tolerance for servicemembers of different faiths in our own military. I offered an amendment that sought common ground, that preserved in its entirety every single word that the majority had in with respect to allowing and ensuring the right of military chaplains to pray in accordance with the dictates of their conscience.

Every word of the Republican language was in, and then I added this simple statement, ``and shall behave with sensitivity, respect, and tolerance towards servicemembers of all faiths.''

Who could be against sensitivity, respect and tolerance to servicemembers of all faiths? The Rules Committee majority, which wouldn't even allow us to debate my amendment, which wouldn't even allow us to vote on that amendment.

Who could be against national security that depends on unit cohesion and allowing our local commanders to make fundamental personnel decisions and ensure good order and discipline? The Rules Committee majority, which wouldn't even allow us to debate that amendment or listen to those military guidelines.

People talk a good game around here about family values. But when it comes time to vote on family values, they won't vote on family values in our military. They talk a good game about a strong military and security, but when the time comes, won't listen to our commanders.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

I thank the gentleman.

I will remind my colleagues that every faith talks about the importance of respect and tolerance for one another. Unfortunately, this Congress has chosen to reject those values by not even allowing us to discuss them when it comes to our own military.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although we do not oppose it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the gentleman's amendment. The amendment would provide $1 million for the Peace Through Healthcare Initiative to provide humanitarian assistance for critically ill Iraqi children.

Mr. Chairman, it is well known that nothing aids the international reputation of our country, and particularly our image in the developing world, as much as our humanitarian and our relief efforts. Following the aid we provided after the recent disasters of the tsunami in Indonesia and the earthquake in Pakistan, polls in both countries showed a significant increase in those who viewed America favorably. Yet humanitarian relief is more than just a tool of international politics. It is exactly who we are.

Americans are the most generous people in the world. We give more to charity each year than any other nation. We are just and we do not hold a people guilty for the sins of their leadership.

Mr. Chairman, health care in Iraq is in a perilous state, but time and time

again American servicemembers in the field, warriors and medics, and American hospitals and doctors back home have gone out of their way to help those in need. I have read numerous cases of Iraqi children being medivaced out of the country in order to receive first class medical treatment for everything from cleft palate to congenital heart disease.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman has heard these stories as well, and we both recall one case of the chief of police in the southern Iraqi province of Wasit. He worked hand-in-hand with our troops every day, putting his own life at risk. And then, one night, he turned to his American advisers and said, ``My son is dying of leukemia and the road to Baghdad is too unsafe for me to drive him to a good hospital.''

Within 24 hours, the child and his mother were helicoptered to Baghdad. The child was treated there by U.S. Army medics in the International Zone and airlifted to Jordan.

In Jordan, very sadly, Mr. Chairman, the child passed away, but with tears in his eyes, the chief of police turned to his American friends only days later and said, ``I will never forget what you have done for me.''

That, Mr. Chairman, is what this amendment is about. It is about doing the right thing for innocent children. It is about making friends and building relationships with the people of Iraq and all for only $1 million.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers on our side. So I would close by again thanking the chairman and the gentleman for his leadership and agreeing with them that nobility is a bipartisan virtue.

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