Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. C.T. Cozart from my hometown of Chattanooga, TN, as he steps down as Chairman of the Board of Carson Newman College. Thank you for allowing me to take a moment to recognize his tremendous contributions and to thank him for his service to our state and nation. Mr. Cozart has been an outstanding leader in our civic and faith communities.

C.T. graduated from the University of Tennessee and began a 30-year career with Chevron. In 1996, he retired as the vice president of marketing for Chevron Lubricants and moved back to his home state of Tennessee. His career caused frequent moves, so he and his wife became active in over ten churches throughout the country. The church was his most important connection with each new town and its people. C.T. is a deacon, has taught Sunday school, and served as head of the pastor search committee at two churches, most recently at Red Bank Baptist Church.

In 2000, C.T. was asked to serve on the Board of Trustees of Carson Newman College, one of the nation's premiere Baptist colleges, located in Jefferson City, Tennessee. Upon becoming chairman in 2006, he led the board with integrity and dignity through some of the most challenging times in the school's history. Throughout his tenure, his leadership has united Carson Newman and provided a clear and distinct path for the future of this Christian institution. Without exception, his tenure demonstrates the Christ-like manner in which C.T. Cozart has led his life.

C.T. is a charter member of the SimCenter; National Center for Computational Engineering at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. As one of only two members of this board with a non- engineering background, he brings a unique business prospective to the education community.

C.T. has been married to his wife Molly, for 46 years and is the proud father of two married adult children, Kathy and Scott Cushing, and Scott and Elaine Cozart. He is blessed with two grandchildren Camden and Mackenzie. C.T. is a wonderful example of integrity and leadership, and I am proud to recognize him today.

I thank the distinguished ranking member and the chairwoman and Mr. Jackson.

I love this Capitol. I love every square inch of it. I have spent many, many hours walking people through this Capitol and talking about the extraordinary history of this place. About 1,700 times I have taken groups through the Capitol over the last 13 years.

Some of the stories that I have learned about as I share them just send chills up and down my spine. To think that there were 4,000 Union troops during the Civil War stationed on Capitol Hill, that 4,000 troops were here at the Capitol during the Civil War.

And when you go up inside of the Dome, the magnificent Dome, which around the world is the beacon of freedom, the symbol of hope, recognizable everywhere in this world, you go up inside of it, and you ask what the little hooks are hanging there, and they will tell you that is where they hung the lanterns when Union soldiers would work side by side with slaves to build that Rotunda in the depths of the Civil War.

That is a fact that few people know because, as Ms. Norton said, the story was never told. It was never archived, the incredible commitment and the irony of the people fighting for the slaves' freedom were working side by side during the Civil War to build this temple of freedom. All the history books point out that that is one great and grave omission in the Capitol history.

A guy named Oz Guiness once told me that the power to convene is greater than the power to legislate. And we convene here in the Capitol, people from all over the world, for good causes. The floor space of the Rotunda, which is the most prominent room in Capitol, is about 7,500 square feet. As Ms. Norton said, the floor space of this new hall, which has been called the great hall, is almost three times that size. It's a magnificent space designed to bring all of the visitors there to convene them before they enter this temple of freedom.

I want to answer the question why not the Great Hall, because it has been referred to as the great hall. But the Great Hall for over 100 years is the foyer, the Great Hall, at the Library of Congress in the Jefferson building. It is one of the most ornate spaces in the United States of America. I think it is the most beautiful room in Washington, D.C. And it is called the Great Hall. The Librarian of Congress told us, as soon a I became the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee in January, that this was a conflict because the CVC construction adds a tunnel between the Great Hall and the great hall. On two sides of the tunnel is going to be two great halls. Are you kidding me? How did we do that? That's confusing. That's problematic. That diminishes the name and the history for over a century of the Great Hall of the Library of Congress, which everyone in this city, Presidents, Vice Presidents, Speakers of the House, know as the Great Hall. So you can't call this the great hall. So what shall it be called?

Emancipation brings us all together at a time in this country where we need things to bring us together. This is a way to honor this incredible process that led to an event that liberated all people in this country under our Constitution, not just some. And it was Abraham Lincoln who was the great emancipator.

So our parties come together today, and I ask the House to join us in this most important naming. It is important what you name things. It's important what we name each other. It's important what we call things. It's important what we call each other. Words matter.

Emancipation liberates us today, the thought of Emancipation Hall, the largest and most prominent room in this 580,000-square-foot addition to the Capitol.

Come together, House of Representatives. Come together, United States Senate. Let us send the message to all who come to this temple of freedom that emancipation lives on. And with such an important moment in the learning process of this experiment in freedom and democracy known as the American Republic, let's come together today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

All I want to do is rise to raise some concerns, because I think this is a case where clearly these motives of this legislation are meritorious, worthy. But at the Commerce Committee, when this bill was reported out, some concerns were raised, and I want to reraise those concerns on the floor of the House today because I think everything that has been said is accurate, but I think the likely place that this mercury is going to come is to my district, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Everybody within DOE and the NNSA, the National Nuclear Security Administration, expects this mercury to come to the Y-12 National Security Complex.

We are in the middle of modernization, sweeping modernization, new facilities, because we are the Fort Knox for highly enriched uranium for our country, and we basically received a mandate from the Congress to more properly secure this material. We've got a new design basis threat. We have new security challenges. This is about a $42 million price tag. I understand there are ways to pay for it, but it's going to go somewhere, and when you push on one side of the balloon, out pops the other. We just want to raise the concern because probably no place in America wants to be the place that this mercury comes to.

You've raised the concerns about mercury. We can safely store it and we do. We have got an excellent record and reputation. But we want to make sure that this is done properly. And I am not going to speak in opposition to the legislation because I think that the merits of the legislation are justified, but I am raising these concerns because we need to address this.

The administration has issued a SAP, Statement of Administration Policy, today against this bill. So we need to solve some of these problems as we go forward.

With that I applaud your efforts, the work that you've done, raise these concerns because we are probably going to end up with this stuff, and I thank you for your work. And with that, I am not going to object; I am just going to raise these concerns.

Madam Speaker, each Veterans Day we recognize and pay tribute to the extraordinary courage of those who have served in our nation's armed forces. The sacrificial service of these brave men and women committed to God, family, and country has preserved the freedom of this great Nation and granted freedom to millions around the world. Though, we must never forget that freedom is not free. The price of freedom is paid for with the lives and blood of the men and women of our Armed Forces.

Just 8 days ago on November 1, 2007, our Nation lost retired BG Paul W. Tibbetts when he died at the age of 92 surrounded by family and friends in Columbus, OH. At a time when our Nation witnessed the rape of Nanking, the Death March to Bataan, and the tragedy of Pearl Harbor, General Tibbetts fulfilled his call to duty and today we honor him for his service.

February 23, 1915, was a significant day in history as it marked the birth of Paul Warfield Tibbetts, Jr. to Mr. Paul and Enola Gay Tibbetts. Just 30 years later their son would command the most famous single military air strike in world history over Hiroshima, Japan, in a plane carrying his mother's namesake.

In one of his very rare interviews, General Tibbetts, offered his perspective on his role in the bombing of Hiroshima. ``I'm not proud that I killed 80,000 people, but I'm proud I was able to start with nothing, plan it and have it work as perfectly as it did,'' he said years later. ``You've got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war, and you use anything at your disposal.''

This gives us great insight into the life and legacy of BG Paul W. Tibbetts, whose unwavering commitment epitomized the words of the 18th Century British philosopher John Stuart Mill, ``War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his continued leadership.

It is not just General Petraeus that moveon.org attacks. One of the distinguished, I think very reasonable members of the Democratic Caucus here in the house, Brian Baird of Washington State, also has been protested by moveon.org in his office since he returned from Iraq in August and basically told what he saw. He came back and just said, this is what I saw: There is progress, and we shouldn't leave precipitously because there will be major consequences.

He told the truth. He is an honorable guy. He serves here in the House. I respect him. He is a Democrat, and moveon sends hundreds of people to protest at his office. It is a political agenda, and it is unfortunate.

I grew up a Democrat. The first half of my life I was a Democrat; the second half I was a Republican. I don't think either party has an exclusive on integrity or ideas, but I think this is so far over the top.

There used to be things that we did in this country as Americans, not as Democrats and Republicans. This should not be about winning the next election or the last election. Wars should not divide us along Democrat and Republican lines, and everything should not be seen through that prism, and moveon.org is shameless to do this. It is shameless, this advertisement in The New York Times, and, as the gentleman from Georgia said, everyone in this body should condemn

what they are doing to try to win elections over our men and women in uniform in Iraq.

My nephew is serving there in Iraq right now. I hate it that he would turn around and see this in a full page ad in a major newspaper against the most equipped leader to lead our forces in Iraq that our country has to offer, period, is who this is.

For them to slander him in this way for political gain is un- American. What they have done is un-American. They have the right under the Constitution to say it, and we have the right as Americans to reject it, and everybody in this House should do that.

Three main things, while I have an opportunity to speak tonight.

The mission is just. We lose sight of that sometimes, that our men and women in uniform are doing and carrying out what is right for our country at this very volatile time in world history.

It is also easy to forget that over half the Democrats in the United States Senate and almost half the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted to remove Saddam Hussein by force. And others will come and say, oh, George Bush sold us a bunch of bad information.

Listen, if there was any bad information, everyone had the same information, and many of us voted, from both sides of the aisle, to remove Saddam Hussein by force. It is just very convenient now to say, oh, that was them and not me.

It is hard to take responsibility for your actions. It is hard to stand before the American people and say we need to work through this together. We need to stand behind our troops until they prevail, until we have victory and not retreat in Iraq, instead of saying this is all about them. It used to be in this country about us. We did things like this together, and we didn't retreat so the world would see us walk away from our commitments. This mission is just, number one.

Number two, the military has been extraordinary. They have been great. You heard General Petraeus say that today. What the Marines have done in Anbar, the progress that has been made there, it wasn't even hardly covered by the GAO report. They didn't even talk about the extraordinary success, civilian casualties way down, 80 percent success in the Anbar Province.

The moderates are even siding up with us and saying ``We don't like al Qaeda. They are cutting off our people's fingers. They are killing our children. We want to fight with the Americans against these insurgents.''

That is not the way it was before we strengthened our forces and had this success in Anbar. The military is performing in an extraordinary way and the tribal governments are now siding with us. That is progress by any definition.

The military is succeeding in Iraq. You may not want to hear it, because, as one of your distinguished leaders said, you are in trouble politically if we succeed as a Nation in Iraq. That is what he said. I hated that he said it. That is terrible. That is an indictment on politics in America. We all win if we beat these terrorists in Iraq. Everyone in this country wins. The military is succeeding.

Number three, the political progress in Iraq is not happening. That is true. We need to be honest about it. I wish personally we could get rid of the Maliki government because I think it is deplorable. But we promoted free elections and that is what we got, and we can't very well turn around now and say, oh, we didn't like who you elected. Get rid of him. They have got to do that. That is the tough work of freedom. They have got to do that. I hope they do. But that is up to them. Politically, we are not succeeding the way we need to succeed in Iraq, and all of us in this House have an obligation to come together and see that through to completion.

Let me just close with this: I have worked for 13 years in a bipartisan way. I have scars on my back to prove it. I have made people on my side of the aisle livid with some of the positions that I have taken working with the other side. But I will not----

You didn't have to say ``amen.''

But I will not cooperate with anyone for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to walk away in defeat or to leave prematurely before we can hold our head up and say ``America has succeeded with this just mission in Iraq.''

I don't want to stay for 5 years or 10 years. I think it is a matter of months before we can see real, live redeployments. But the military leaders need to do that. It doesn't need to happen on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. We can't micromanage this war, and we sure as heck shouldn't be sending signals that we are going to pull them out, because that is the worst thing we can do for the long-term interests of our country.

The Middle East is in chaos. The Wall Street Journal said it well last week. The worst religious and political pathology in the history of the world is in the Middle East, and now you add to that nuclear weapons, terrorism, IEDs and control of the world's oil supplies, there is a lot at stake.

This is not Vietnam. Nothing like it. Nothing like it. It is a whole lot worse, the stakes of losing in Iraq. I believe that deep in my soul, and I am going to continue to say that on the floor of this House. We need to stand together as a Nation and stand together behind our men and women in uniform until we can leave in victory and drive back this terrorist threat at this point we are fighting in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.

It's a privilege and an honor to come back down to the floor tonight. I want to talk on two fronts, really. The one is about Iraq and the other is the threat of radical Islam, Islamofascism, as some people call it; but I think it's important here right on the cusp of the sixth anniversary, tomorrow of 9/11, to remind our colleagues and our fellow countrymen that we are not only not out of the woods, but that these threats are grave. They are grave this week.

It's easy for everyone in this country to get lulled back into complacency or look for the comforts of our living room and shopping malls, but we face a huge growing and imminent threat from the terror itself here on our homeland.

We come, as members of the Republican Policy Committee tonight, we just left a briefing downstairs from a Lebanese Christian named Brigette Gabriel, who wrote a book called ``Why They Hate Us.'' Some would ignore her, but, frankly, coming from that world and able to go on Internet chat rooms and read Arabic and know what's going on out there, we should listen. We should listen very carefully to what's happening in the world of radical Islam.

I think it is very ironic that some of the very people who may have said a few months ago, ooh, let's embrace the Iraq Study Group's recommendations today would say, no, too late. We even heard that today from distinguished Democrats, some of them, too late. Too late. Too late for what?

Let me tell you, this is not good news. We're at war. There is no good news. But this is positive news from the battlefield. And I think it's very ironic that in Anbar, and now spreading from Anbar originally out through the tribal groups and the provinces, where we're making real progress is among the moderates, which is kind of

the Iraq Study Group's recommendation, is convert the moderates to allies. Work to get them to stand against the radicals; work to get the tribal leaders to say, al Qaeda is the enemy and we're now with the Americans and our allied forces. That's happening. But I'll bet you some people don't want to hear that positive news. That's the reality on the ground. That's important.

I would also say, though, in a macroscale, where some of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations can be very instructive today for all of us is we need to engage moderate Islam, not just in country, in Iraq, but throughout the world, because just the sheer numbers of growth within Islam, if you read the demographics, for instance, in Mark Steyn's book, ``America Alone'' it's overwhelming; 5 years out, 10 years out, they swamp us in population. If you think Americans or Europeans are growing as a population, we're shrinking. We are shrinking. There's fewer and fewer of us every decade and millions and millions more Muslims.

And if the moderates within Islam won't stand against the radicals, that's why I reach out to the gentleman from Minnesota here in the House. Man, if there are freedom-loving people within Islam, where are they? They need to speak out. They need to be aggressive, and more and more of them in Iraq are because their relatives have been killed by al Qaeda. And once they kill your relative, maybe you're going to speak out. But they're intimidated; they're squashed.

Let me give you an example. Mark Steyn just tells us recently of a book that was published called ``Alms for Jihad; Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World.'' A guy named Jay Millard Burr wrote it. Great research in Saudi Arabia where all this oil money, and we heard this downstairs from Brigette as well, using the Saudi Arabian oil money to promote terrorists around the world, period. It's happening. This documents, ``Alms for Jihad,'' how they're funneling through charities. A man named Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz heads it up. The charity is called the Khalid bin Mahfouz or Blessed Relief Foundation. Millions of Saudi oil dollars into this charity that funds al Qaeda directly. This book exposes the whole thing. So you need to go to Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble to get the book. But guess what? You can't get it. It vanished. It was bought up, taken out of circulation, financially, they took the book off the market.

Let me tell you, folks, in this country, from Dearborn, Michigan to right here in Virginia, Falls Church, Virginia, oil money from the wahabis in Saudi Arabia training up young people in this country, under a global Shari'ah, Islamic law, bringing them up against America in this country today.

Listen, this, to me, at the sixth anniversary of 9/11, is a call to action for Americans who've been lulled into complacency thinking that somehow this conflict is about Iraq. If we would just leave Iraq, all of our problems go away.

I'll say to you tonight, Mr. Speaker, this is not about Iraq. Iraq is the venue, it's the theater, it's where al Sadr is, it's where the Iranians and the Syrians have come, it's where they've recruited, it's where the fight is, but it's not about Iraq. It's about us and radical Islam at war. That's the theater. But let me tell you, it could just as easily be here tomorrow. God forbid it, but it could be just as easily here.

They have virtually taken some parts of Europe in terms of public opinion. They've challenged laws of countries and states in their courts, challenging Islamic law should take precedence, and that's what they would like to see here.

You may say, oh, he's wild; he's off the reservation. Not true. This is the way it is. They're using our very porous borders to come at us. And we're not secure. We're ignoring the threat.

Let me tell you what the Wall Street Journal editorial said last week. It said, the world's most political and religious pathologies, combine with oil and gas, terrorism and nuclear ambitions. In short, unlike yesterday's Vietnam, the greater Middle East, including Turkey, is the central strategic arena of the 21st century as Europe was in the 20th century. This is where three continents, Europe, Asia and Africa, are joined. He goes on to say, so let's take a moment to think about what would happen if the last Black Hawk helicopter took off from Baghdad International. And he goes on to talk about Iran's influence in Iraq, emboldening Iran.

Clearly, Ahmadinejad said less than 2 weeks ago he can feel the United States in retreat in Iraq, and we've lost our will. And that when we leave because they force us out, Iran is prepared to fill the vacuum. That's what he said 2 weeks ago. We can ignore it if we want to. But let me tell you, a precipitous withdrawal that the left in this country is asking for, a forced withdrawal from Iraq today, will lead to the most destabilization in the world that we have seen.

And let me tell you, this threat we face, nobody wants to hear this, is greater than the threat of Nazi Germany. And if people say we had no business in Iraq, then we had no business storming the beaches of Normandy because the Germans didn't attack us. But we knew it was our obligation, as the leader of freedom in the world, to go and save Europe from Nazi Germany. We did that. We're doing it again, and it's uncomfortable.

As I said in the previous hour, my nephew's over there. Specialist Jeffrey Watts is fighting in Iraq for us tonight. I'd love for my nephew to come home, but not until we can leave in victory; not until we leave an Iraq and a Middle East that's more secure than they were yesterday; not until we can assure the American people that Iran is not going to rise up and seize control with nuclear weapons in the Middle East, unless you want to accept Armageddon.

I actually know how the story ends. I know the Bible from cover to cover, and I'm prepared to go on across that river at any time. But I've got to tell you, unless you're willing to just accept those ramifications, that's how high the stakes are in Iraq.

This is not George Bush's war. This is America's fight. We committed it together. Some people would like to blame it on others now and not accept the responsibility. But this is America's fight against radical Islam, and it will go on for years to come, even when Iraq is over. And there'll be a time where Iraq is not the central theater. I'm concerned we're going to be fighting radical Islam all the days of my life.

The question is, are we going to stand up, as generations before us have, and defend freedom. Are people like my nephew going to be willing to go and stand between a real threat in our civilian population, because that's what this is. And don't think for a second that it's all about Iraq. Some people dressed in pink would have you believe that. It's not true. And I'll tell you, what some of them are doing is downright un-American, and 50 years ago they'd have run them out of here on a rail.

I'd be happy to yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tone and the statement of our colleague who just completed his hour and was talking about what our country can do when we pull together. Over the next hour, I believe that several Members of the Republican Conference here in the House of Representatives will come down and share their perspectives gained, many of them from physically going to Iraq or Afghanistan, or both, during the recent August district work period when Members were back in their district and allowed to travel to give firsthand accounts of what they learned and their meetings with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker and others, and a real up-to-date report on the situation in Iraq.

But I do agree with the gentleman in his closing comments that we must as a Nation take ownership again of certain things not even in a bipartisan way but in a nonpartisan way because these are America's problems. They are not Republican or Democratic problems. And frankly, as much as some people would like to say it or believe it or use it for political purposes, this is not President Bush's war; this is America's fight. President Bush and Vice President Cheney will be gone in just a little over a year. The problems will not go away. The threats will still be here. The challenges of this generation to answer our patriotic call to this Nation, to answer our responsibility in sacrifice and service will continue, I believe, for some time.

I did not go to Iraq in August, but my nephew did. Specialist Jeffrey Watts is now serving his country as a soldier in Iraq for the next 15 months as part of the 1-181st Field Artillery Brigade. I heard the gentleman from Minnesota talk about the deployments. What I was fascinated by when I was with the 1-181st earlier this summer as they shipped out to Fort Bliss to train to go to Iraq, is how many members of the 1-181st, and this is a National Guard unit, also deployed with the 278th from our Tennessee National Guard a year and a half ago and came back and redeployed with the 1-181st. They didn't have to but did; and how many vice versa went before, many of them because they are volunteering to serve their country in harm's way. In harm's way, big harm's way, because they love the opportunity to serve their country. They are incredibly selfless patriots of the highest order, and I do think this House comes together in praise of these valiant Americans who understand that freedom is not free and that somebody has to stand between a real threat and our civilian population, and that is what they are doing.

General Petraeus will be here next Monday with Ambassador Crocker to give us an update. Everybody is anticipating that, and you have this review and that review and these stats and those stats. And even the Government Accountability Office is heavily involved, as if they somehow supervise the Pentagon. But I think it is important for us all to prepare to listen objectively next Monday because I think you are hearing in a bipartisan way, Members like the gentleman from Washington State from the Democratic side who recently came back and clearly said much progress has been made. This Petraeus plan is working.

The guy who understands this insurgency threat more than anyone in our military and therefore anyone in the world is leading a new approach in Iraq. And the report will come beginning next week. And if we are objective, I think we will support his recommendations. If we are not objective and we have a political bias or an agenda, we may reject it.

Some of his words in anticipation of next week are already out. He talks about the extraordinary progress in the Anbar Province. General Petraeus says that was the result not of military actions certainly alone, it was the result of really a political shift where the population, led by the sheikhs of major tribes, decided to reject al Qaeda and its Taliban-like ideological behavior and the extremist behavior that they have come to associate with it.

He said: ``That is what brought the level of violence down so dramatically, because al Qaeda no longer finds a hospitable place in the Euphrates River valley the way it certainly did in the past. We have been banging away at al Qaeda for years, but until we could hold them off with the help of the local population and local volunteers, those operations were never as meaningful as they have been in recent months. That is what we are trying to do in other locations in Iraq. That has also led to a rise in the detainee population over the last 6 months as more al Qaeda operatives have been caught. And while there is always a concern that they will gain strength, the pool of potential recruits has actually shrunk. Their sanctuaries have shrunk considerably so they don't have the ease of locations and movements where they are safe the way they were before. Clearly there is real progress being made. War is an ugly thing. It is always an ugly thing. It is not perfect, but great progress is being made.''

Now, I am going to take the time before I introduce the gentlelady from Virginia and others that will come to read an opinion from a German journalist about Iraq that was in the Wall Street Journal last Monday and then submit it for the Record. Josef Joffee. He says:

``In contrast to President Bush's dark comparison between Iraq and the bloody aftermath of the Vietnam War last week, there is another, comforting version of the Vietnam analogy that gained currency among policymakers and pundits. It goes something like this:

``After that last helicopter took off from the U.S. Embassy in Saigon 32 years ago, the nasty strategic consequences then predicted did not in fact materialize. The `dominoes' did not fall. The Russians and Chinese did not take over, and America remained number one in Southeast Asia and in the world.

``But alas, cut-and-run from Iraq will not have the same serendipitous aftermath, because Iraq is not at all like Vietnam.

``Unlike Iraq, Vietnam was a peripheral arena of the Cold War. Strategic resources like oil were not at stake and neither were bases. In the global hierarchy of power, Vietnam was a pawn, not a pillar, and the decisive battle lines at the time were drawn in Europe, not in Southeast Asia.

``The Middle East, by contrast, was always the `elephant path of history' as Israel's fabled defense minister, Moshe Dayan, put it. Legions of conquerors have marched up and down the Levant, and from Alexander's Macedonia all of the way to India. Other prominent visitors were Julius Caesar, Napoleon and the German Wehrmact.

``This is not just ancient history. Today, the great Middle East is a caldron even Macbeth's witches would be terrified to touch. The world's worst political and religious pathologies, combined with oil and gas, terrorism and nuclear ambitions.

``In short, unlike yesterday's Vietnam, the greater Middle East is the central strategic arena of the 21st century, as Europe was in the 20th century. This is where three continents--Europe, Asia and Africa-- are joined. So let's take a moment to think about what would happen once that last Black Hawk took off from the Baghdad International Airport.

``Here is a short list. Iran advances to No. 1, completing its nuclear arms program undeterred and unhindered. America's cowed Sunni allies--Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the oil-rich Gulfies--are drawn into the Khomeinist orbit.

``You might ask: Wouldn't they converge into a mighty anti-Tehran alliance instead? Think again. The local players have never managed to establish a regional balance of power; it was always outsiders--first Britain, then the U.S.--who chastened the malfeasants and blocked anti- Western intruders like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

``With the U.S. gone from Iraq, emboldened jihadi forces shift to Afghanistan and turn it again into a bastion of Terror International. Syria reclaims Lebanon, which it has always labeled as a part of `Great Syria.' Hezbollah and Hamas, both funded and equipped by Tehran, resume their war against Israel. Russia, extruded from the Middle East by adroit Kissingerian diplomacy in the 1970s, rebuilds its anti-Western alliances. In Iraq, the war escalates, unleashing even more torrents of refugees and provoking outside intervention, if not partition.

``Now, let's look beyond the region. The Europeans will be the first to revise their romantic notions of multipolarity, or world governance by committee. For worse than an overbearing, in-your-face America is a weakened and demoralized one. Shall Vladimir Putin's Russia acquire a controlling stake? This ruthlessly revisionist power wants revenge for its post-Gorbachev humiliation, not responsibility.

``China with its fabulous riches? The Middle Kingdom is still happily counting its currency surpluses as it pretties up for the Olympics, but watch its next play if the U.S. quits the highest stakes game in Iraq. The message from Beijing might well read: `Move over America, the Western Pacific, as you call it, is our lake.'

``Europe? It is wealthy, populous and well-ordered. But strategic players, those 27 member-states of the E.U. are not. They cannot pacify the Middle East, stop the Iranian bomb, or keep Mr. Putin from wielding gas pipelines as tools of `persuasion.' When the Europeans did wade into the fray, as in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, they let the U.S. Air Force go first.

``Now the upside. The U.S. may have spent piles of chips foolishly, but it is still the richest player at the global gaming table. In the Bush years, the U.S. may have squandered tons of political capital, but then the rest of the world is not exactly making up for the shortfall.

``Nor has the U.S. become a `dispensable nation.' That is the most remarkable truth in these trying times. Its enemies from al Qaeda to Iran--and its rivals from Russia to China--can disrupt and defy, but they cannot build and lead.

``For all the damage to Washington's reputation, nothing of great import can be achieved without, let alone against, the United States. Can Moscow and Beijing bring peace to Palestine? Or mend a global financial system battered by the subprime crisis? Where are the central banks of Russia and China?

``The Bush presidency will soon be on the way out, but America is not. This truth has recently begun to sink in among the major Democratic contenders. Listen to Hillary Clinton who would leave `residual forces' to fight terrorism. Or to Barack Obama, who would stay in Iraq with an as-yet-unspecified force. Even the most leftist of them all, John Edwards, would keep troops around to stop genocide in Iraq or to prevent violence from spilling over into the neighborhood. And no wonder, for it might be one of them who will have to deal with the bitter aftermath if the U.S. slinks out of Iraq.

``These realists have it right. Withdrawal cannot serve America's interests on the day after tomorrow.

Friends and foes will ask: If this superpower doesn't care about the world's central and most dangerous stage, what will it care about?

``America's allies will look for insurance elsewhere. And the others will muse: If the police won't stay in the most critical of neighborhoods, why not break a few windows or just take over? The U.S. as `Gulliver Unbound' may have stumbled during its `unipolar' moment. But as giant with feet of clay, it will do worse and so will the rest of the world.''

[From the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 27, 2007]

If Iraq Falls

(By Josef Joffe)

In contrast to President Bush's dark comparison between

Iraq and the bloody aftermath of the Vietnam War last week,

there is another, comforting version of the Vietnam analogy

that's gained currency among policy makers and pundits. It

goes something like this:

After that last helicopter took off from the U.S. embassy

in Saigon 32 years ago, the nasty strategic consequences then

predicted did not in fact materialize. The ``dominoes'' did

not fall, the Russians and Chinese did not take over, and

America remained No. 1 in Southeast Asia and in the world.

But alas, cut-and-run from Iraq will not have the same

serendipitous aftermath, because Iraq is not at all like

Vietnam.

Unlike Iraq, Vietnam was a peripheral arena of the Cold

War. Strategic resources like oil were not at stake, and

neither were bases (OK, Moscow obtained access to Da Nang and

Cam Ranh Bay for a while). In the global hierarchy of power,

Vietnam was a pawn, not a pillar, and the decisive battle

lines at the time were drawn in Europe, not in Southeast

Asia.

The Middle East, by contrast, was always the ``elephant

path of history,'' as Israel's fabled defense minister, Moshe

Dayan, put it. Legions of conquerors have marched up and down

the Levant, and from Alexander's Macedonia all the way to

India. Other prominent visitors were Julius Caesar, Napoleon

and the German Wehrmacht.

This is not just ancient history. Today, the Greater Middle

East is a cauldron even Macbeth's witches would be terrified

to touch. The world's worst political and religious

pathologies combine with oil and gas, terrorism and nuclear

ambitions.

In short, unlike yesterday's Vietnam, the Greater Middle

East (including Turkey) is the central strategic arena of the

21st century, as Europe was in the 20th. This is where three

continents--Europe, Asia, and Africa--are joined. So let's

take a moment to think about what would happen once that last

Blackhawk took off from Baghdad International.

Here is a short list. Iran advances to No. 1, completing

its nuclear-arms program undeterred and unhindered.

America's cowed Sunni allies--Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, the

oil-rich ``Gulfies''--are drawn into the Khomeinist orbit.

You might ask: Wouldn't they converge in a mighty anti-

Tehran alliance instead? Think again. The local players have

never managed to establish a regional balance of power; it

was always outsiders--first Britain, then the U.S.--who

chastened the malfeasants and blocked anti-Western intruders

like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

With the U.S. gone from Iraq, emboldened jihadi forces

shift to Afghanistan and turn it again into a bastion of

Terror International. Syria reclaims Lebanon, which it has

always labeled as a part of ``Great Syria.'' Hezbollah and

Hamas, both funded and equipped by Tehran, resume their war

against Israel. Russia, extruded from the Middle East by

adroit Kissingerian diplomacy in the 1970s, rebuilds its

anti-Western alliances. In Iraq, the war escalates,

unleashing even more torrents of refugees and provoking

outside intervention, if not partition.

Now, let's look beyond the region. The Europeans will be

the first to revise their romantic notions of multipolarity,

or world governance by committee. For worse than an

overbearing, in-your-face America is a weakened and

demoralized one. Shall Vladimir Putin's Russia acquire a

controlling stake? This ruthlessly revisionist power wants

revenge for its post-Gorbachev humiliation, not

responsibility.

China with its fabulous riches? The Middle Kingdom is still

happily counting its currency surpluses as it pretties up its

act for the 2008 Olympics, but watch its next play if the

U.S. quits the highest stakes game in Iraq. The message from

Beijing might well read: ``Move over America, the Western

Pacific, as you call it, is our lake.''

Europe? It is wealthy, populous and well-ordered. But

strategic players those 27 member-states of the E.U. are not.

They cannot pacify the Middle East, stop the Iranian bomb or

keep Mr. Putin from wielding gas pipelines as tools of

``persuasion.'' When the Europeans did wade into the fray, as

in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, they let the U.S. Air Force

go first.

Now to the upside. The U.S. may have spent piles of chips

foolishly, but it is still the richest player at the global

gaming table. In the Bush years, the U.S. may have squandered

tons of political capital, but then the rest of the world is

not exactly making up for the shortfall.

Nor has the U.S. become a ``dispensable nation.'' That is

the most remarkable truth in these trying times. Its enemies

from al Qaeda to Iran--and its rivals from Russia to China--

can disrupt and defy, but they cannot build and lead.

For all the damage to Washington's reputation, nothing of

great import can be achieved without, let alone against, the

U.S. Can Moscow and Beijing bring peace to Palestine? Or mend

a global financial system battered by the subprime crisis?

Where are the central banks of Russia and China?

The Bush presidency will soon be on the way out, but

America is not. This truth has recently begun to sink in

among the major Democratic contenders. Listen to Hillary

Clinton, who would leave ``residual forces'' to fight

terrorism. Or to Barack Obama, who would stay in Iraq with an

as-yet-unspecified force. Even the most leftish of them all,

John Edwards, would keep troops around to stop genocide in

Iraq or to prevent violence from spilling over into the

neighborhood. And no wonder, for it might be one of them who

will have to deal with the bitter aftermath if the U.S.

slinks out of Iraq.

These realists have it right. Withdrawal cannot serve

America's interests on the day after tomorrow. Friends and

foes will ask: If this superpower doesn't care about the

world's central and most dangerous stage--what will it care

about?

America's allies will look for insurance elsewhere. And the

others will muse: If the police won't stay in this most

critical of neighborhoods, why not break a few windows, or

just take over? The U.S. as ``Gulliver Unbound'' may have

stumbled during its ``unipolar'' moment. But as giant with

feet of clay, it will do worse: and so will the rest of the

world.

I think that says it pretty well from a German journalist about our commitment in Iraq, what the stakes are, what will happen if we are to, as our Democratic colleague said, precipitously withdraw from Iraq.

We all want our troops home. I want my nephew home, but not until it is in our national interest for us to draw down troops on the timeline that secures our liberty and protects our people and our place in the world. And that is what is at stake.

I want to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her service to the Commonwealth of Virginia and to this great Nation of ours on the Armed Services Committee and for going and bringing us that unique insight.

As I prepare to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, let me say I think part of the equation for the Congress in a responsible, objective way in the days ahead is to remember that this is not all about Iraq. It is about the bigger picture with the global threat of the jihadists, the most radical elements of Islam, and the way that they are spreading their influence around the world outside even of the Middle East. I think we have to really understand that to know what the stakes are associated with the precipitous withdrawal or anything that is perceived to be a retreat.

These are real problems. It's easy to say, oh, George Bush got us into this war with flawed intelligence. It's also easy to forget that over half of the Democrats in the United States Senate voted to remove Saddam Hussein by force and almost half the Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to remove Saddam Hussein by force based on the very same knowledge and understanding that the executive branch had about what the threats were, and we made that decision as Americans.

It is really unfortunate today that decisions and responsibility for those decisions now end up being peeled off as partisan issues instead of, we do these things together, we stand together, we stand behind our troops together, we stand behind their mission together.

We had Members like Ralph Hall of Texas come back and say to a person the men and women in uniform told him while he was there that we should stay and finish what we started and not leave until we can successfully complete this mission. And you say, well, what is that and when will we know? Objectively, you're getting that report and it's much more positive than it was, and the stakes for leaving are incredibly high.

If you don't believe the influence of the radical Islamists around the world, I would encourage you to read Mark Steyn's book, ``America Alone,'' where he lays out what's happened in Europe and the influence with the global sharia, which is a call to Islamic law, and the intimidation and the threat around the world, or even this new book called ``Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World,'' by J. Miller Burke. He wrote this book exposing the connection between the Saudi royal family and terrorism through these charities that they set up and funnel money.

It reminded me of the Oil-for-Food scandal at the United States where Saddam Hussein corrupted the United Nations.

All of the corruption that exists through this radical effort, because this book that lays all this out can't be bought today. It has vanished from all of the Amazons. It has vanished from the availability of Barnes & Noble to find the book. What happened to it?

Well, through intimidation and money, they have taken this information out of circulation so the people can't see these connections.

They literally tie him, this man, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, to the charity that he set up to fund bin Laden with Saudi royal family money, and then when they published the book, it vanished. You can't get it. You can't go buy it.

Mark Steyn lays out, this is the kind of work that the radical Wahabi sect, the al Qaeda operatives, are doing in the world. They have infiltrated and corrupted, and we are like boiling frogs if we deny any longer how this threat is overtaking the free world. America Alone's premise is they've already got Europe and frankly Australia is really the only nation standing with us like they need to.

This is a growing global imminent threat. If we pull out, it will rapidly deteriorate in the world. Our credibility will be lost for generations. We may never regain it. Those are the stakes. That's bigger than Iraq. Iraq is one chapter in this long-term gener- ational struggle for our freedom. The sooner we realize it, the better we are.

I went and spoke to kids in schools in August, and they asked the question about, well, Afghanistan and the Taliban attacked us, but Saddam Hussein in Iraq didn't attack us. Why did we go there?

The lesson of history is Germany didn't attack us, either. Japan attacked us. Germany didn't attack us. But did we ignore the threat of Nazi Germany? No. Our men stormed the beaches of Omaha and liberated Normandy and Omaha Beach, and liberated Europe, so that our way of life could be preserved. Sometimes they forget that, but that's American leadership. This is very, very similar to that.

Are we going to exert it in a world in what this editorial calls the caldron, you know, of the worst political and religious pathology in the history of the world in the Middle East? This is the central stage. We cannot retreat from this without us really, really taking a global hit.

The next president is going to inherit the responsibility of doing this, of carrying this forward.

I want to yield to the statesman from Georgia, a physician, a healer, a man with a great heart but a strong back, also a member of the Armed Services Committee, Dr. Phil Gingrey.

That reminds me, today, yet another terrorist plot coming out of Germany, preparing to attack our Air Force base in Germany and soft targets of just public places in Germany where Americans are known to hang out was foiled, thankfully. The German authorities were on top of it.

That is a major, major terrorist attack again. We see this over and over again, thankfully, you know. God has spared us, our intelligence is working, we are listening. Because of FISA, we are able to listen to foreign terrorists talk to each other. We've taken the precautions.

Then I have this theory that they don't want to strike us right now because they don't want our country to pull back together again and be resolute against this threat, so that those things, combined, have kept our country secure and safe at home while we are fighting these insurgents and these terrorists in the Middle East.

We're going to be fighting them somewhere. If it's not in Iraq, it's going to be Somalia, Northern Africa. I can go through a list of the troubling places in the world where we're going to face these kinds of problems and activities, and there are 20 countries that are at risk around the world for big-time terrorist actions like the Taliban came out of Afghanistan, and we can either basically stand against this threat today or face it globally and more at home tomorrow. That's not a threat. It's reality. In Germany today it was proven again they are trying to hit our targets wherever they are.

The lowest of the low who would attack your wounded and injured.

I thank the gentleman for that commentary, especially the update on the hearing today from the GAO and Mr. Walker.

I will be a little more pointed to tell you as the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the GAO, and funds Mr. Walker's organization, that unfortunately many times, whether it is government spending or oversight in Iraq, a lot of what happens in his office revolves around him and not us.

It is all about him, and again today, it's all about him. He's the only one that somehow can be unbiased, and he's the only one that can do this. And there's a little kingdom over at the GAO and he's the king. And we need to remember that and put it in perspective this week before we hear from the absolute expert on counterinsurgency in modern world history, David Petraeus, the best we can put in charge. He's the best we can offer to this situation. And let's listen to him objectively and not get caught up in an ego matter, frankly, involving Mr. Walker.

And I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, a distinguished member of our Veterans' Affairs Committee, a relatively new Member, but a very experienced and seasoned Member, Doug Lamborn.

I thank the gentleman, and at this time I want to yield to the ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri, Todd Akin.

I thank the gentleman from Missouri and his distinguished leadership as the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Let me say, before introducing the gentleman from Texas, one of the biggest changes that I see, not just in Iraq, but globally, is that finally moderate Muslims are standing up against the radicals. We're seeing that in country, we're seeing that in other parts of the world. Up until a few months ago when they saw American resolve coming forward, they literally were so afraid and intimidated and harassed, and the radicals were seizing the moment.

Now, finally, and let me tell you, because of the sheer numbers, if we're ever going to really permanently throw this threat back, the moderate people in Islam have to lead and help us, and that's beginning to happen.

A gentleman who's been to Iraq six times, Dr. Burgess from Texas, another physician, a healer, a member of the Commerce Committee with extraordinary perspective from six separate visits to Iraq in country. I yield him such time as he may consume, hoping to get the other gentleman from Texas in at some point in the next 7 minutes.

I'd like to yield our final minute to Mr. Hensarling of Texas to close.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Reverend Billy Dean of Hamilton County, Tennessee. We celebrate Reverend Dean's 60th year in the ministry and his 77th birthday.

Billy Dean was born on September 20, 1930, to parents James Thomas and Kate Dean. He had four brothers and one sister.

Billy began his religious pursuit in a small country church in Soddy Daisy, Tennessee. He attended Kirkman Vocational High School and graduated in 1950. Billy entered the ministry when he was seventeen and pastured at Shanty Town Baptist on Sand Mountain. Because of his commitment to the ministry, Billy would ride the bus to Trenton and walk up the mountain to church for morning and evening services on Sunday.

Billy married Jo Whitmire in 1953 and became the proud parents of a three year old son, Vince, when they adopted him in 1962. After his marriage Billy attended Tennessee Temple Baptist College in Chattanooga.

Reverend Dean went on to pastor several Baptist churches, including Philadelphia Baptist and Maranantha Baptist, as well as serving as a detective for 28 years at the Chattanooga Police Department. Billy retired from the police department in 1991.

In 1992, Frawley Road Baptist approached Billy to come as interim pastor to help them get through a difficult period for the church. After 15 years, Billy is still pastor at the growing Frawley Road church and his son, Vince, is now Music Director and Associate Pastor.

I have been a friend of Billy Dean for many years. I have firsthand given witness to his extraordinary testimony and even watched his son enter public service as a result of his father's walk of faith. State Representative Vince Dean carries on the Dean tradition in the Tennessee General Assembly as we hail this family for their lifetime of service and faithfulness to God and His people.

Madam Speaker, I ask that the United States House of Representatives join me in celebrating Reverend Dean's birthday and thanking him for his commitment to the Kingdom of God here on earth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report, and I thank the leadership from Tennessee for the role they played in formulating this bill. The chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Gordon, and Senator Lamar Alexander listened.

If being fiscally conservative means turning a deaf ear to the leaders of our extraordinary free enterprise system, like the Augustine participants who recommended these solutions, then we are being penny wise and pound foolish as fiscal conservatives. If we do not invest, you will not balance the budget again.

I was here in 1995 when the budget wasn't balanced, and then it became balanced. Not by cutting spending but by rightly slowing the growth of spending and restraining government spending. But we balanced the budget with a dynamic growth economy.

The chairman of the Science Committee pointed out that the Internet itself came out of a DARPA investment through programs like this, and it was telecommunications that gave the United States this dynamic global economy where revenues soared. If we want to lead the world in energy technologies, you had better invest now.

This is not a social program transferring wealth from one to the other. This is an investment in the next generation. This reaps the highest return of investments we make in the Federal Government, and this is an authorization. I am an appropriator. We might not be able to appropriate all this money, but the authorization allows us to try every year as the priorities come to the committee.

What is important? Is it important to invest in the next generation? You bet it is. Are we falling behind? You bet we are. Are we going to do something about it? We had better. And you can't vote ``no'' all the time. All year, I have come down here at the committee and on the floor and voted to restrain spending or even cut spending. Not now. Not on this. It is too important. This is a generational legacy.

I am proud of what we are doing in our national laboratories, and we need to stoke that fire and allow this country to be all that it can be.

Vote ``yes'' on this conference report in a bipartisan way and say to the next generation we are going to lead the world.

I just want to make the quick point that every commodity, sugar, corn, soybeans, are reduced on the AGI from $2.5 million down to 1, except sugar. Why is it not reformed like the other crops in terms of how much a person can make to receive these government payments? Sugar is not only protected, it's helped through this bill instead of reformed like the other commodities.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and I commend him for his work on this important bill.

As you know, our Nation is facing a major health care crisis because of childhood obesity. Due to a significant decline in physical activity by our Nation's youth, a growing number of children are experiencing illnesses and the other health problems, such as Type II diabetes, hypertension and respiratory problems. The rise in obesity-related health conditions also has high economic costs and has greatly increased health care spending, both mandatory and discretionary.

As the social and economic costs of childhood obesity increase, the number of children engaging in physical activity is drastically decreasing and many schools are even cutting back on physical education programs because of budgetary concerns. It is critical that we focus our efforts on funding for physical activity at this time to fight this epidemic of childhood obesity and improve the health of our children.

Mr. Chairman, the National Youth Sports Program is a vital program that promotes physical activity and provides children with the leadership and academic skills to improve their well-being. Due to the elimination of funding for NYSP next fiscal year, many children in Tennessee and throughout the country will lose the opportunity to participate in this important program. I simply ask that you work with us to ensure that proper funds are allocated to NYSP and the promotion of physical activity as we go to conference.

Would the gentleman yield?

I just rise as the captain of the Republican team to say that these recruiting classes that you all continue to bring to Washington are a problem for us. Hopefully, the American people will weigh in the near future and send us an athlete or two in a larger class.

But congratulations to you. There is not enough of that comity, cooperation and fellowship around here.

Monday was a great day. To the captain of the team, Chet Edwards, and to Joe Baca, the low man, we did our best; they played their best and deserve their victory.

Madam Speaker, I do rise as the ranking member of the subcommittee in reluctant opposition to the rule. I say that because I am very

grateful for the work that the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) have done on protecting the Appropriations Committee's prerogatives in this bill, particularly with, I think, the important recommendation to name the largest space in the new Capitol Visitors Center Emancipation Hall. We will talk more about that during general debate.

But I am in opposition because only three amendments were ruled in order; that is, three out of 23, which is 13 percent. Last year it was 100 percent; the year before last it was 45 percent. And that is not enough. Therefore, I am actually going to support the amendments that are offered.

But I am going to support the bill. We did work in a bipartisan manner. This is a good bill. I am going to support the bill, but the rule is just not quite enough, to be honest with you. We should have had these amendments ruled in order. I say that respectfully because I think it is important that we try to open this up as much as possible.

The structured rule is not a problem, but only three amendments being ruled in order is a problem. So I reluctantly rise in opposition to the rule. I look forward to the general debate. I look forward to the passage of the bill with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Chair, I want to start by saying that it's an awesome feeling being in my 11th year as a member of the House Appropriations Committee to be standing here as the ranking member offering our first bill and to congratulate our chairwoman from Florida on her first product. It is a joyous occasion for each of us, and I am grateful for this opportunity.

Let me also say that while I do not support and we do not support the overall spending that the Appropriations Committee is recommending for the year, we certainly do support this bill. This bill is a fiscally responsible product. We did work in a bipartisan way. We kind of went through waves where we could do better at times, but towards the end we really came together, and especially on the critical issues, in a bipartisan way. I commend the gentlelady from Florida on that cooperative spirit. I think we both learned a lot along the way about how to work with each other and how to reach out to our members and we do have a good subcommittee on both sides of the aisle.

I too want to thank this outstanding staff: Jeff Shockey and Liz Dawson on the minority side; Tom Forhan, Chuck Turner and David Marroni on the majority; particularly Melissa Chapman and Amanda Schoch on my personal staff for all the work that they've done. We're new, we're learning, but we are working together and we're grateful for that.

I want to point out a few things in this bill that I think are very noteworthy. As the chairwoman said, the Inspector General of the Architect of the Capitol is a very important move. Former chairman and now ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Lewis, began this initiative in the '07 bill. For the chairwoman to go forward with it I think is incredibly important. We've learned a lot. Unfortunately, a lot of lessons learned from the CVC, but clearly they need the oversight of the Inspector General.

I also want to commend her on responding to the needs of the Capitol Police. If we are not state-of-the-art in communication on Capitol Hill, then in the whole country we've got a problem with security. They need the money for interoperable communications. It is now in this bill and we're grateful for that.

One caution, and we talked about it some during the rules debate, is this FDA building, the swing space, the whole issue of are we in the wake or behind the CVC going to go into another major capital improvement project and is that necessary or even wise at this time to go forward with that. We're going to talk more about that, but my view is we need sweeping procurement reforms in the way the AOC operates. I know that this is not necessarily an AOC directly driven project, but the whole supervision of how we procure capital improvements, renovations and do it is not efficient.

Frankly, we saw the Botanical Gardens a few years ago, we didn't learn enough lessons from that. We went into the CVC. It's gotten out of hand. We need reforms before we go forward. I look forward to discussing that more as the morning goes.

The Green the Capitol Initiative falls under the category of the prerogative of the majority but the responsibility of the minority to question, is this real substantive. I think there's widespread bipartisan support for environmental improvements on Capitol Hill and across the country. I'm the cochairman of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus. The gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, will speak in a few minutes with concerns about the Green the Capitol Initiative. He's one of the leaders, as am I, on renewable energy and energy-efficiency technologies, but does this end up being somewhat window dressing, not as much substance as we would like. It's not a large budget issue, but we have the obligation to ask these questions.

One of the questions would be, we have an E-85 pump coming but we don't yet have these fleet vehicles or leased vehicles running off of E-85. So we've got to connect the dots and make this work, but we're respectfully asking these questions with the same desire as the majority, to green the Capitol and frankly be as environmentally responsible across the board as we can.

Let me also say another disappointing aspect is that we're still in my view not doing enough for the blind and physically handicapped. The digital talking books program does still receive a reduction even though we made some improvements at the full committee. I want to advocate for doing all we can along the way.

And then let me just say a word about something that's in this bill that thankfully the Rules Committee allowed to stay in this bill and it's the naming of the hall which some say that this subcommittee or even the full committee should not take action on, but I disagree. Because time is of the essence. This new Capitol Visitors Center is the 600-pound gorilla that we've been trying to get our arms around and frankly we've both taken a lot of ownership in this. We inherited this problem, as did the Acting Architect, Mr. Ayers, inherit the cost overruns in this very large project, which is unprecedented. We haven't done it in the history of the Capitol, something this large, 580,000 square feet, $592 million, over twice the original cost; but frankly the planning overlapped September 11. $170 million in cost overruns are for enhanced security improvements in the wake of September 11. But there is a 20,000 square foot space in the middle of this new Capitol Visitors Center, and it's going to be the largest congregate space in the Capitol. Unfortunately, through, I think bad communication, this hall was called the Great Hall, which is exactly the same name as the main hall in the Library of Congress for over 100 years. The Great Hall is this beautiful, ornate room at the Library of Congress. Early on, there was bipartisan agreement at our subcommittee that both of these halls on each end of a tunnel should not be called the Great Hall.

So we took action and I think carefully thought through and felt through some of the options, and the most glaring omission in the history of the Capitol is the irony that the people that built the Capitol were, in large part, slaves who never were honored in any way, shape or form for the work that they did building this Capitol. There were even periods of time where the people working on the dome were Union soldiers and slaves, at the same time, building the dome during the Civil War. What an unbelievably awesome thought that the people who were fighting for their freedom were working side by side with these slaves.

Listen, this is our opportunity to truly honor them in a way that transcends our service, our existence, individuals. And so the naming of this 20,000 square foot hall Emancipation Hall is something that is ripe with life and tradition and time-honored work for all of us. I'm pleased that it was left in the bill, and I'm pleased that our Senate counterparts took action on this yesterday by introducing legislation.

The power to convene is greater than the power to legislate. Sometimes we forget that things like this may seem to be symbolic, but it means so much more. I've taken 1,700 groups through the Capitol over the last 13 years. I give these tours and it inspires young people to a life of service. What greater way to honor freedom than to walk people through this new 20,000 square foot hall and say, this is Emancipation Hall, a great lesson of history.

We gained our national character by the mistakes that we learned from, never to repeat again. That's where we get our character. That's why this is so important.

Some people say we shouldn't spend the money to change the name of the signs. We should never have printed the signs. Let's not make another mistake by not rectifying this first mistake.

I really appreciate the bipartisan spirit in which we have worked on this particular issue.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Lewis of California.

Madam Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, let me just underscore what Mr. Lewis said about the work of Jesse Jackson, Jr., on the work on Emancipation Hall, but also the support from John Lewis, Jim Clyburn and Ms. Norton, who is in the Chamber this morning, and all the people who have any jurisdiction or involvement in this particular issue.

Ms. Kilpatrick and the Congressional Black Caucus support his bill, in large part because of Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s, leadership. He is extraordinarily bright. He was so articulate and passionate about this issue. Frankly, it wouldn't have been done to this point. We are not complete without him. I just want to underscore that recognition.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman of Pennsylvania, a member of the full committee, Mr. Peterson.

Madam Chair, before recognizing the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, Mr. Ehlers of Michigan, I want to just point out that the Comptroller General of the GAO, David Walker, has stated that he ``supports the right of GAO employees to organize if they so choose.'' And I also recognize the presence on the floor today of the chairman of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Brady, a friend of mine.

But to speak eloquently on this bill is a man who knows as much about the House as anyone here, a person who I work with very well. I yield 9 minutes to Mr. Ehlers of Michigan.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, with the understanding that the distinguished Chair from Florida will close, I would like to yield myself 1 minute before yielding the balance of our time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I congratulate our chairwoman for just working really hard, having a lot of hearings, digging in, learning a lot, and then finding a way to work together through the process, and I'm grateful.

Also, I want to say, with regard to the GAO issue and outside counsel, using outside counsel is actually commonplace; even the House itself has used it, the legislative branch agencies have used that. And then also to say about the greening of the Capitol issue, what we've heard today should remind us to use great caution because we are all for greening and environmental efficiency, but we need to be careful that the Congress itself is not a guinea pig to try a whole lot of things just to see how they work.

With that, Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia, the former chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Kingston.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to commend the authors, commend the ENERGY STAR Program. This is the kind of greening initiative that actually resonates. We will accept the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

You know, when we were in the majority, we supported and accepted this approach. I believe this is part, or should be part, of the Speaker's Green the Capitol Initiative. This is a lot of trees. It is a space efficiency issue. They are storing all this paper. It is a government efficiency issue.

Why don't we, Madam Chair, just accept this amendment, as we have in previous years, address this issue in conference, move right along and get Members on their way this afternoon?

I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I certainly support it.

I wasn't going to say anything, but I just want to say that because we have not accepted commonsense amendments like the previous amendment, and because the Rules Committee only granted three amendments in order, we are losing a lot of support for this bill on this side of the aisle unnecessarily because I do think we worked hard to make it fiscally responsible. But they are making a strong case, and we have closed the process down instead of opening it up.