Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 48 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2730-H2736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carney). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker so much for
the opportunity to come and address the House once again.
Once again I want to thank the Republican leadership for the
opportunity to bring another edition of the Official Truth Squad. The
Official Truth Squad is a group of folks on the Republican side who got
together and were interested in trying to bring about some correction
to the disinformation and the misinformation that so often happens here
in Washington.
Listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle for the past
couple of minutes, I feel like I am in Alice in Wonderland. They have
gone through the looking glass and it is difficult to tell what is real
and what is not.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I believe we have entered a new
phase of democracy in our Nation. And I call it Orwellian democracy.
What it means is that the majority party, whatever the majority party
says is accomplished,

[[Page H2731]]

regardless of the actions that they take. And it is so true when you
think about the issues that have been brought to the floor this
evening. And I want to touch on a few of those before I talk about this
incredibly important issue that we have as has been brought to the
floor earlier in terms of discussion with the supplemental Iraq
resolution to fund and make certain that our troops, our men and women
who are defending our liberty, have the appropriate resources that they
need.
But my friends on the other side of the aisle talked about the
wonderful issues that they have brought and passed on this floor of the
House so far this year. They didn't mention that virtually none of them
have gotten through the Senate, which is another issue all together.
But they talk about these grand issues, and the statement was made
that we ``gave Republicans the vote they wanted all along,'' which is
just terribly amusing, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, because what has
come to the floor to be voted on in this House of Representatives this
session so far have been bills that have had very little input, by and
large, from the minority party, very little input, frankly, from the
vast majority of the Members of the House.
And so the Official Truth Squad, the role of the Official Truth Squad
is to bring light and truth to the issues that we are working with here
in the United States Congress. And we have a number of quotes that we
enjoy citing. One of my favorite comes from Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, who was a United States Senator from the State of New York,
and a very brilliant man. And he had a saying that he would use from
time to time, and it was that everyone is entitled to their opinion,
but they are not entitled to their own facts. And I should say, Mr.
Speaker, that that quote, the truthfulness of that quote was never more
true than right here in the United States Congress because certainly
everybody has their own opinion. But if they would look at the facts,
if they would look at the facts on behalf of the American people, I
tell you, Mr. Speaker, we all would be a whole lot better off.
I want to highlight a couple of bills that my friends brought and
mentioned as being the wonderful panacea of this new majority, which is
taking us in a new direction. That was their slogan over the past
campaign. And, Mr. Speaker, they are absolutely right. They are taking
us in a new direction. The problem is the direction is backwards.
And a couple of the issues that they cite, the 9/11 Commission, they
talk about bringing all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations to the
floor. In fact, that is not what they did. In fact, they didn't bring
the ones that were most important to truly gain control from Congress's
standpoint, from an accountability standpoint, over the ability for us
to protect our Nation. They left those out. Now, they don't want to
talk about those, but they left those out. Mr. Speaker, that is a fact,
not an opinion. That is a fact.
They talk about the fixing of student loans that they did. And
certainly student loans are important, and I have all sorts of young
people in my district who are desirous of making certain that they can
have the opportunity to gain student loans and have the opportunity to
further their education. Extremely important issue.
And what the majority party did, at least they would have you
believe, is to fix the challenge of providing student loans at a
reasonable interest rate. In fact, what they did was bait and switch,
for they decrease interest rates for a 6-month period of time, and then
it shoots right back up to where it has been. So that is the truth.
That is a fact, Mr. Speaker. That is not opinion. That is a fact. All
you have got to do is read the bill.
And then my favorite bait and switch, my favorite Orwellian phrase,
or example of Orwellian democracy that they have is the whole issue of
prescription drugs for our seniors.
Mr. Speaker, in my previous life, before I came to Congress, I was a
physician. I was an orthopedic surgeon, took care of patients for over
20 years. And I knew in my heart of hearts, as my patients knew, that
when the Federal Government got involved in the delivery and the
minutiae of medicine of taking care of people, it rarely, if ever
worked.
And so my good friends on the other side of the aisle say that they
have solved the problem of the Medicare part D. Well, the problem that
they didn't see is that Medicare part D, which has offered our seniors
much greater choice and covered the vast majority of seniors with an
opportunity to receive the medications that they desire, the problem
that they didn't see is that, or that they won't acknowledge is no
problem at all, and that is that the program is working. Eighty to 90
percent of seniors in this Nation are pleased with the options and the
choices that they have. But, no, that didn't fit their talking points.
And so as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, what they did was pass a bill
that would go a long way toward limiting the choices of American
seniors to have medications that they so desperately need and deserve.
And if you didn't believe me, if you didn't believe those were the
facts from my standpoint, Mr. Speaker, all you have got to do is turn
on your television, because now we have a number of groups who are
advocacy groups and groups who look out for seniors who are now
advertising to try to get the message to the majority party that, hey,
don't do that. That program is working. Leave that program alone. Don't
upset my prescription medication. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker. It is on
the television. They are advertising that right now because they
understand and appreciate that when government inserts itself into the
practice of medicine that the people that lose are the patients.
And so I am pleased to be able to have the opportunity to come down
here tonight and to work on setting the record straight, providing some
facts.
I do want to utilize a couple of the quotes that my good friend said
a little bit earlier, my good friend from Florida said, this is a
``better emergency supplemental that is coming to the floor.''
What is coming to the floor is a, I hope it is coming to the floor,
is a bill that will hopefully provide for the appropriate resources,
appropriate monies for our troops to defend our Nation and to continue
the incredibly valiant work that they are doing in both Iraq and
Afghanistan.

{time} 2030

Now, the problem that some of our friends on the other side of the
aisle have is that they are trying desperately, as valiantly as they
can, to make their program make sense. And why, Mr. Speaker, you would
ask, are they having trouble having it make sense? Well, the problem
that they have is that they really don't believe that the troops and
the mission of liberty ought to be supported to the degree that we
believe it ought and that it must be in order to maintain our freedom.
So they are left with a Nation that desires to support the men and
women who are diligently and valiantly defending freedom around the
world, left with a Nation that wants to support those individuals, and
we are left with a majority party, many of whose Members, including
many in the leadership, don't want to do so.
And I don't say that lightly, Mr. Speaker. I say that in all
seriousness, and I say that because I know, and you know, that the
policy that has been proposed by this majority party now as it relates
to the incredibly difficult and brave work that is being done in the
Middle East on behalf of all Americans by our troops, the program that
the majority party is proposing is a program called ``slow bleed.''
Slow bleed. It kind of gives you chills when you think about it, Mr.
Speaker, when it is being used in reference to our Nation and our
troops. Slow bleed.
What does it mean? Well, Mr. Speaker, it means that high-ranking
members of the majority party, the Democrat Party, have decided that
they are not interested in funding the troops. They are not interested
in the mission of victory, of liberty over tyranny. They are not
interested in that. What they are interested in is removing the
funding.
So I quote, Mr. Speaker, a fact. I quote Representative John Murtha
in an interview that he gave just 1 month ago when asked about this
slow bleed program that they are trying to put in place. He said,
``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the
deployment. They won't have the equipment.''

[[Page H2732]]

Mr. Speaker, that is a little concerning. We have men and women who
are putting their lives on the line, who are standing in front of
enemies the likes of which we have never seen. And here in the United
States House of Representatives, this majority party has a Member who
is determining funding for the troops who says, ``They won't be able to
do the deployment. They won't have the equipment.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, what equipment is he referring to? Well, he is
referring to protective armor. He is referring to vehicles that have
the appropriate protection from IEDs. He is referring to the kind of
air superiority, the air power, that is necessary to protect our troops
on the ground. As far as I can tell, he is referring to everything that
would be used in the normal course and operation of a military
activity.
And why do I say that? I say that because what they are trying to do,
what they are attempting to do, is to truly remove from generals on the
ground the ability to defend not only their troops, but to defend
liberty and defend freedom.
It is a remarkable thing, Mr. Speaker. We are at an incredible
crossroads in our country's history, and we have a leadership in place
that has a difficult time matching their message with their action,
because what they want to do doesn't match what the American people
want done, and it is extremely difficult for them.
I quote again, Mr. Speaker, from Mr. Murtha when asked, but why don't
you just cut off the funding for the war? This was back on March 4. He
was asked on a news program, why don't you just cut off funding for the
war? That is the honest thing to do, Mr. Speaker. If they want to have
the vote about whether or not we ought to continue our involvement, our
protection of liberty, and our engagement in this war on terror, you
ought to have that vote. Let us have that vote. Let us have that
debate. But, Mr. Speaker, they won't do that. They won't do that.
Why won't they do that? That is what Mr. Russert asked on NBC's Meet
the Press on March 4, 2007. He asked Mr. Murtha, ``But why not cut off
funding for the war?''
And what did Mr. Murtha say? ``Well, you don't have the votes to do
that. We don't have the votes to do that. You just can't go forth, and
the public doesn't want--they don't want that to happen.''
So, Mr. Speaker, the contortions that you see on behalf of the
majority party on this issue are because their desire, their zeal to
end support for our men and women who are defending liberty and
fighting tyranny and fighting terror around the world don't mesh. They
don't mesh.
There are some who get it right, though, throughout Congress, some
members of the majority party who understand and appreciate what their
leadership is trying to do. One of those is Senator Joseph Lieberman
from Connecticut. Speaker Pelosi was quoted as saying, ``Democrats have
proposed a different course of action. Over and over again we have
suggested a different plan.'' And Senator Lieberman was very sage when
he said, ``Any alternatives that I have heard ultimately don't work.
They are all about failing. They are all about withdrawing, and I think
allowing Iraq to collapse would be a disaster for the Iraqis, for the
Middle East, and for us.''
Slow bleed, Mr. Speaker. Slow bleed. That is a sad and dangerous time
when we find our majority party here in the United States House of
Representatives supporting a policy that would remove the ability for
our troops to do what they must do to defend our liberty.
What is our principle on our side of the aisle? What is the
Republican principle? Well, the principle is that our troops in combat
deserve to be sent the resources and the reinforcements that they need
to succeed in their mission in Iraq without strings and without delay.
Without strings and without delay.
We have, as a matter of fact, a piece of legislation that would do
just that. Representative Sam Johnson from Texas, a war hero, truly a
war hero, an individual who spent years in a prisoner of war camp in
Vietnam, an individual who knows of the challenges that troops face
when involved with an enemy that is ferocious, but an individual who
understands and appreciates that from this Chamber, from that Congress,
you cannot micromanage a war. And when you attempt to do that as a
Congress, when you attempt to have 435 Members of Congress who want to
all be generals or 100 Members of the United States Senate who want to
all be generals or Commanders in Chief, when you have that, it doesn't
work. It can't work. It is impossible.
So if you want to have the vote, I tell my friends, I ask my friends,
I challenge my friends in the majority party, if you want to have the
vote on whether or not we ought to simply cut off the funding to
support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, let us have that vote. Let
us have that vote. I would be interested in the outcome of that. I
doubt we would get 100 votes in support of that. And it wouldn't,
because that is not what the American people want. The American people
don't want failure, and that is the prescription that the Democrats,
the majority party, are giving us.
We have a bill, House Resolution 511, introduced by Representative
Sam Johnson, as I mentioned, and it is very simple. It states what the
principle ought to be when American military forces are in harm's way.
And that principle says, as this resolution says, ``Congress will not
cut off or restrict funding for units and members of the Armed Forces
that the Commander in Chief has deployed in harm's way in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.'' That is it.
That is it.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with that is that that doesn't fit the
bumper-sticker politics of the majority party. That doesn't fit the
Orwellian democracy of the majority party. That doesn't fit the
hypocritical actions that are being taken by the majority party. And
consequently this bill is languishing in committee.
There is a discharge petition, which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is a
petition that Members of the House of Representatives can sign to be
able to bring legislation out of the committee when it is against the
will of the leadership. That discharge petition was begun today. What
it allows is Members of the House of Representatives, when there are a
majority of them, and that takes 218 Members, when there is a majority
of them who sign that, then that bill then comes to the floor of the
House for a vote.
So I challenge my friends on both sides of the aisle, House
Resolution 511, sign the discharge petition. This is principle. This is
principle. This is truth. This is the kind of support that our men and
women deserve. It is not feigned support. It is not Orwellian support.
It doesn't say, yes, I support you, and then pull the rug out from
under you. It is not hypocritical support. It doesn't say we want to
support you so very, very much, but we are not going to do what it
takes. This says it all. It says that we will not cut off or restrict
funding for units or members that are deployed in harm's way. Why can't
we have a vote on that, Mr. Speaker? What are they afraid of, Mr.
Speaker? What are they afraid of?

I would suggest they are afraid of the fact that this would pass on
the floor of the House of Representatives. This bill would pass. And
because it doesn't fit their political agenda, their political agenda,
then I doubt that we will see it unless we can get 218 Members of the
House of Representatives to sign the discharge petition.
So what about this bill that they are going to bring to the floor?
What about this supplemental bill that the majority party is planning
to bring to the floor this week? Of course, we have been told it would
be earlier than this; so they seem to be having some difficulty within
their own ranks in garnering support. But what the bill does, as we
understand it, is to put in place an inflexible timeline, an inflexible
timeline that says that the troops must come home regardless of what is
happening on the ground unless the mission is completely accomplished,
in essence. Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know, in battle and in war, it is
just not possible to have 535 Commanders in Chief. That is not the way
our system works, not the way it ought to work, not the way our
Founders envisioned it.
In fact, it is curious, Mr. Speaker, when the Articles of
Confederation were written and our Nation was formed, some of the
aspects of those articles didn't work very well; so the

[[Page H2733]]

Founders of our great Nation got together in a Constitutional
Convention, and they worked on issues to try to make certain that this
Federalist system, this United States, could come together and work
together. And one of the first things that they did was recognize that
in the Articles of Confederation there were no provisions for a
Commander in Chief. So one of the easiest things that they were able to
do was to get consensus on the fact that the Commander in Chief ought
to be one individual, and that that individual ought to be the
President of the United States and the executive branch, and that that
was the only way to work it because obviously you couldn't have
countless Members of the House of Representatives or countless Members
of the United States Senate who were functioning as Commanders in
Chief. It doesn't work, and they recognized that.
So putting in place an inflexible timeline that culminates with a
date certain for the withdrawal micromanages our commanders in the
field, and it undermines the efforts of our troops on the ground. I
believe that. I believe that putting in place the kind of artificial
timelines and artificial constraints on our commanders, on our
generals, on our troops would be a disaster. It doesn't make any sense.
All it does is make political points. And that, Mr. Speaker, isn't
fact. Isn't fact. It is just not Republicans who believe that that
would be the wrong course. There is a remarkable orchestra of
individuals and groups all around the Nation that are standing up now
and speaking out against the foolishness of that kind of proposal.

{time} 2045

I cite for you, Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post. Now, the Washington
Post is a wonderful newspaper. It has been around for a long time. But
nobody would contend that the Washington Post was a very conservative
newspaper or a great friend of conservative thought. Nobody would
contend that.
But what does the Washington Post say about this plan of the
majority, about the Democrat plan? They say, ``It is an attempt to
impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war
itself.'' That, Mr. Speaker, was written on March 13, just 1 week ago.
``An attempt to impose detailed management on the war without regard
for the war itself.''
What volumes that speaks, when you think about where it is coming
from. It is not coming from individuals who would have any political
chip, no political reason to embarrass the majority party or to call
them out on a policy that may not necessarily be very sound. What that
does is demonstrate that they understand and appreciate the consequence
of adopting what is supposed to come to this floor this week as the
Iraq war supplemental would be devastating for the nation of Iraq, for
the Middle East, for the United States, and, yes, for the world.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the Iraq Study Group. The Iraq
Study Group was the bipartisan group that got together, actually a
group that began because Representative Frank Wolf, a Republican in
this House, added it to a piece of legislation that was passed almost a
year ago. What it said is that we ought to have a bipartisan group get
together and work in a non political way to make recommendations to the
executive branch and to Congress about how to move forward in Iraq.
They came up with a number of recommendations. We hear it all the
time from the other side that the Iraq Study Group didn't endorse this
or didn't propose this or didn't support that; that they supported a
withdrawal of the troops from Iraq; that they didn't support any
escalation in the number.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you look on page 73 of the Iraq Study Group,
Mr. Speaker, that is another fact, if you look on page 73 of the Iraq
Study Group report, it, in fact, supports an escalation, a small
escalation, of the number of troops in Iraq. What they also did was
oppose a date certain for withdrawal.
Mr. Speaker, again a fact. I quote from one of the cochairman, former
Secretary of State James Baker, who said in testifying before the
United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, ``The Study Group
set no timetables and we set no deadlines. We believe that military
commanders must have the flexibility to respond to events on the
ground.''
Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues here in the House heard that.
I hope that they are listening, because what they are saying, what the
Iraq Study Group said is exactly what we are saying now, and that is
that this supplemental bill that has artificial timetables and
artificial deadlines that are capricious and politically motivated,
clearly that that kind of action is not appropriate, it wasn't called
for by the Iraq Study Group, and would not allow the military
commanders to have the flexibility that they need to succeed.
How about the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Speaker, again, not a paper in
our Nation that has tended to be terribly friendly to conservatives or
Republicans. The Los Angeles Times, in an editorial on March 12, when
it had reviewed what the majority party was proposing in this
supplemental Iraq war resolution to fund the hard, incredibly
diligently working men and women who are defending liberty, what did
the Los Angeles Times say? Well, Mr. Speaker, the Los Angeles Times
called for the bill to be vetoed. Vetoed, Mr. Speaker. Why would they
do that?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our receiving a message from the Senate.
The message from the Senate is that a Senate bill was passed, and we
are pleased to see that. We look forward to the time when the Senate
will take up some of the legislation that the House majority has
passed, that they have been so terribly proud of, and look forward to
working in concert on that legislation.
But I was talking, Mr. Speaker, about the supplemental war resolution
that will come forward, the bill that will provide for appropriate
funding of our troops in harm's way, defending liberty and defending
us, and the proposal that is coming from the majority party is a
proposal that would micromanage the operations of our troops. It is a
proposal that has been described as ``slow bleed,'' which is a proposal
that means that you will defund, you will remove the funding from the
men and women who are working so valiantly to defend us.
That is not just an opinion from our side of the aisle. That is an
opinion from all over. Many people are recognizing that. The Washington
Post, as I mentioned, had an editorial that criticized the majority
party for coming forward with it. The Iraq Study Group supports, in
fact, a minor, small escalation in the number of troops, and never
said, Mr. Speaker, never said that they agreed with artificial
timelines. The Los Angeles Times, again, Mr. Speaker, a paper that has
not been noted for its friendliness to our side of the aisle, called
for the bill to be vetoed. They called for the bill to be vetoed. Why
did they do so? They said, ``It is absurd for House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi to try to micromanage the conflict and the evolution of Iraqi
society with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.''
Mr. Speaker, that is a fact. March 12 of this year, the Los Angeles
Times calls the war supplemental ``absurd.''
And what about the National Intelligence Estimate? The National
Intelligence Estimate, which was released in January, warned of the
dangers of early troop withdrawal. They said that if coalition forces
were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that
this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale
and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to give credibility to the
National Intelligence Estimate. Those are the folks that determine in
an objective way, in a non political way, what are the consequences or
prospective consequences of actions that this Nation takes.

This poster here talks about the consequences of failure. It is
important that we talk about the consequences of failure, because many
people, not just on our side of the aisle, but many people around this
Nation, including the Washington Post, including the Los Angeles Times,
have concluded for themselves that the proposal that the majority party
has put forward is a bill that will result in defeat or failure in
Iraq. So it is important that we look, Mr. Speaker, at the consequences
of failure for our Nation. What are the consequences of failure?

[[Page H2734]]

This is from the National Intelligence Estimate. What they say is
that Iraqi security forces would be subject to sectarian control; that
interference by neighboring countries would occur in an open conflict,
that means Iran, Syria, other neighboring countries; that massive
civilian casualties and population displacement would occur. Massive
civilian casualties.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the majority party, the leadership in the
majority party, has considered the consequences of that? What would
happen? Al Qaeda in Iraq would plan increased attacks inside and
outside of Iraq, and spiraling violence and political disarray,
including Kurdish attempts at autonomy in Kirkuk.
Mr. Speaker, clearly, clearly, failure, failure will result in a much
worse situation for the people in Iraq, the people in the Middle East;
I would suggest much more danger in the Middle East and for our friends
in Israel; and, Mr. Speaker, it would result in a much more dangerous
situation, I believe, for the United States of America.
So, what are they doing? What is the other side doing to try to pass
this piece of legislation, this hypocritical piece of legislation, this
piece of legislation that they are having such difficulty doing,
because, again, what the American people want and what they in their
rhetoric, what the majority party in their rhetoric, say are two
completely different things. So what are they having to do?
Well, they are having to use a lot of what has come to be known in
this town, Mr. Speaker, as pork. The original estimate for the bill was
about $100 billion. About $100 billion, Mr. Speaker. The other side has
now added over $20 billion to the bill. And what are they doing, Mr.
Speaker? They are buying votes. They are buying votes.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that an emergency bill, this is an
emergency bill to fund our troops, is not the appropriate vehicle for
unrelated spending, either foreign or domestic. Our troops ought not be
bargaining chips. Our troops ought not be bargaining chips. That is
what the majority party is doing.
Quoted here in a publication here in Washington earlier this month,
it says, ``Democratic leaders see this emerging strategy as a way to
encourage their liberal members to vote for the supplemental budget
bill.'' This emerging strategy is buying votes, adding all sorts of
items to the bill.
Curiously, this party, the majority party, ran in their campaign on
this wonderful issue of fiscal responsibility, financial
responsibility, making certain that everything that came through
Congress was paid for. They call it PAYGO, pay-as-you-go; make certain
that you have got the resources in place in order to pay for whatever
proposal you are moving forward.
Well, they have virtually thrown that out the window. We have had a
number of amendments on bills that would hold their feet to the fire
and make certain that they were accountable on this PAYGO issue, and
they have defeated everything that would make them accountable.
They are doing the same thing here. They willfully abandoned their
pledge of fiscal responsibility. Not long ago they pledged to follow
pay-as-you-go budget rules and spending restraints to curb the deficit,
and this bill would not be subject to PAYGO.
Last year, it is important to appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that House
Republicans rejected a $14 billion increase in nonemergency spending
that the Senate tried to attach to an emergency troop funding bill; $14
billion was saved for the American taxpayer in a bill that came to the
floor of the House from the Senate just last year. Under a different
majority we saved $14 billion. The majority party now is going to
spend, if they have their way with this bill, at least $21 billion more
than has been requested.
That is important, Mr. Speaker, because this is an emergency bill,
and as such it doesn't come under the normal budgetary rules. So if
they are able to spend $21 billion in this piece of legislation, then
what happens is that they don't need to spend that $21 billion in the
normal course of activity, in the normal budgetary process, so it frees
up another $21 billion, and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, what you get is $42
billion of more spending, extra spending.
But, Mr. Speaker, our troops deserve the resources that should be in
this bill, the finite resources, the resources that the President and
the generals and the commanders in the field have requested. They
should be able to receive those resources now, not after, not after our
friends on the other side of the aisle in the majority party carry out
this incredible political charade of voting on a bill that will never
become law in its current form because the Senate, the Senate, won't go
along. They have, in essence, said so.
Mr. Speaker, there are some incredible quotes that I have regarding
this issue of micromanaging the war and this issue of loading the bill
up with pork. There is a Democratic claim earlier this year, just last
week, as a matter of fact, from Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who said,
``There is no micromanaging of the war, period.''
Mr. Speaker, as you know, I already have outlined that individuals
outside of the Republican Party and the Republican cause have reached
the conclusion that, yes, in fact this is micromanagement: Again, the
Los Angeles Times editorial where they said it is ``absurd'' that they
try to micromanage the war. The Washington Post editorial said, in
short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt
to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war
itself. Aggressive oversight is quite different from mandating military
steps according to an inflexible timetable.
Even some of their own Members have reached the conclusion that this,
indeed, is micromanaging the war. Representative Dan Boren of Oklahoma
said just 2 weeks ago, ``It is still micromanaging of the war.''

{time} 2100

Mr. Speaker, this plan that our friends on the other side of the
aisle have truly does a disservice to the discussion, does a disservice
to the debate, makes it seem that all votes are for sale here in
Washington to Members of the House. Really, it is a cynical ploy.
Spending the kind of money they are proposing to spend is not helpful
at all.
Where are they planning to put some of that money? It is important to
look at that. We talk about the Iraq emergency war supplemental, an
extra $21 billion. Where would some of that money go? Well, $1.8
billion in crop disaster assistance. It may be appropriate money to be
spent, Mr. Speaker, but in an emergency war supplemental, it is
absolutely the wrong place. If you will recall, if this House, if this
majority party has its way and puts that money there, what it will
allow them to do is increase somewhere else spending by $1.8 billion
and follow their shadow PAYGO rules.
$60 million for salmon fisheries.
Mr. Speaker, it truly is a cynical ploy on the part of this majority
party if they continue to march down this road of packing this
legislation with all sorts of extraneous spending that nobody in their
logical, correct, factual, truthful mind could conclude was related to
the emergency war supplemental. $60 million for salmon fisheries; $25
million for spinach growers. Spinach growers may indeed need some
emergency assistance, but in an emergency war supplemental? I think
not.
Mr. Speaker, $50 million for asbestos abatement in the Capitol, and
it goes on and on and on.
Mr. Speaker, as we know, there are very specific guidelines in this
bill for our troops, very specific dates about when they must be at a
certain place in the accomplishment, in the engagement, in the
execution of the challenges that they have before them, very specific.
In this bill there is very specific language about the amount of money
that is available for the troops and when it would be cut off if in
fact those arbitrary timelines and benchmarks were not met.
But, Mr. Speaker, I learned this afternoon something very, very
interesting, and that is there is a significant amount of money for
livestock, American livestock, in this bill. That is real pork, if you
will. It may be upwards of billions of dollars, but I can't tell you
exactly what it is because in the language of the bill it says that the
amount of money that will be available for this livestock provision
will be ``such sums as may be necessary.'' Mr. Speaker, that is
unlimited. And it struck me as truly ironic and sad that this majority
party, this Democrat

[[Page H2735]]

leadership, believes we ought to have an unlimited amount of funds for
livestock in this Nation and a finite and limited amount of money for
our troops in the field.
Mr. Speaker, that contrast just speaks volumes. It speaks volumes
about the cynicism with which this House is being led, about the
hypocrisy by which this bill is being brought to the floor. An
unlimited amount of money for livestock in America and finite, limited
amounts of money and arbitrary guidelines, arbitrary timelines for our
troops in the field.
Mr. Speaker, it saddens me. It saddens me to serve in a body where
the majority party has a leadership that is that cynical and brings the
debate and the items that we discussed here on the floor of the House
to a point that is so very, very trite really. So very, very trite.
Mr. Speaker, I have only a few minutes left, and I wanted to spend a
few moments discussing the larger issue, the larger war on terror. I
think it is important we do that because when the American people think
about the issue in Iraq and whether or not we ought to be there, and
the debate can be had about whether or not we ought to be there, and
that is an appropriate debate to have. And I wish we could have an
honest and open debate and an honest and open vote on whether or not we
ought to be there, a single vote on that; but the majority party has
seen not to bring that kind of open and honest debate to the floor of
the House of Representatives.
But when Americans think about what is going on in the world, they
understand and appreciate that however things have been executed or
delivered in Iraq, the activity that has gone on on behalf of the
American people in Iraq, although they may have problems with that,
they understand and appreciate that the bigger picture, the larger war
on terror, is a challenge that we must recognize in America and we all
must face. It is a challenge and the facing of an enemy the likes of
which we have never seen.
You don't have to go far to find examples of that, Mr. Speaker. In
fact, the best examples I have found are those that come from the self-
proclaimed enemies themselves. This is a quote, Mr. Speaker, from Abu
Musab Al-Zarqawi, an individual with whom we had as far as I know no
concerns before he decided that he wanted to become a mortal enemy of
the free world. He acted upon that in a way that has been extremely
treacherous. He said, ``We have declared a fierce war on this evil
principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a little chilling, but it is important
that we recognize that is the nature of the enemy in this war on
terror. The consequences of not engaging and not being certain that we
prevail in this war on terror, the consequences of failure in that
activity would deliver a death knell to our society. The issue is as
large as that.
I try to visit schools in my district, the Sixth District of Georgia
as often as possible, and I like to talk to young people and get their
perspective on their life and what they see in the future. Most of them
are very, very hopeful; and I share that hope and optimism for the
future of our Nation. But oftentimes when we are talking about
government and talking about politics and talking about the issues of
the day, I will ask them, especially the middle school students and the
high school students, I will ask them: Do you believe the United States
will continue to survive forever? And it is an interesting question
because it forces one to think, well, what allows us to survive right
now? What has been put in place that allows us to survive right now?

Most young people when you ask them that question, they have not
really ever thought about that. They have not thought about what has
brought about the preservation of our Nation, the longest surviving
democracy in the history of the world. It is a remarkable question to
ask. Most of them have not ever thought about it; but when they do
think about it, they understand the gravity of the question. They
understand that there are challenges in this world. They understand
there are people like Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi out there who want to see
the end of our Nation as we know it. That is not our opinion; that is
his stated fact. That is what he has said that he wants to do.
So, Mr. Speaker, the gravity of the challenge that we have facing us
is real, and the magnitude of it is remarkable. And the ferocity of the
enemy is unlike any we have ever faced.
When I get individuals to tell me, well, if you just think about this
in the way we fought World War II or previous wars in which we
prevailed, then you will appreciate we need to do X, Y and Z. But I
would suggest that the enemy that we are up against is not like any
enemy we have faced. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is
think about the terrorist plot and the attacks that were foiled because
of the wonderful intelligence work on the part of Great Britain and the
United States and Pakistan last August. And that plot as you will
remember was a plot to bring down at least 10 or more civilian airlines
carrying enough people who were flying across the Atlantic Ocean to
bring them down in a terrorist act so they could kill more people than
were killed on 9/11. So they had to have 10 or a dozen planes that they
would work in concert to bring down. That plot was foiled. That was a
real plot. That was a real plan on the part of our enemy.
And that plan itself is chilling enough, Mr. Speaker; but when you
realize and appreciate that two of the individuals who were apprehended
and had participated in the planning of that and were intent on
carrying out that act were a married couple, a mom and a dad with an 8-
month-old child, and they were going to use that 8-month-old child's
baby food in the airplane to be the vessel for carrying the bomb on
board. They were going to kill themselves and their 8-month-old child
and bring down a plane and kill as many innocent civilians as they
could.
Mr. Speaker, that is an enemy whose ferocity we can't even
comprehend. That is an enemy who says: We have declared a fierce war on
this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong
ideology. That is an enemy the likes of which we have never seen, and
that is an enemy that requires that we in the United States House of
Representatives work in concert together, that understand and
appreciate the gravity of our time, of this time and make certain that
we do all that we can to follow the principles that have allowed us to
become the longest-surviving democracy on the face of the Earth.
Part of those principles are embodied in the United States
Constitution. Part of that United States Constitution that has allowed
us to prevail and to have the greatest amount of success and provide
the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest number of people ever
in the history of mankind, part of those principles stipulate that
there is one Commander in Chief, not 535.
So if the majority party wants to have a vote about whether or not we
want to end the funding for the battle that our Commander in Chief
believes we must be engaged in in order to make this next step in the
larger war on terror, if the majority party wants to have that vote,
then let's have that vote. But to do so as they are planning to do this
week, in a cynical and hypocritical way, to load up the bill with so
much extraneous spending, tens of billions of dollars in order to buy
votes to pass this hypocritical and cynical bill that micromanages this
incredibly important endeavor that we are engaged in right now is
wrong. It does an injustice and a disservice to not just this body but
our entire Nation.
I urge my colleagues to encourage leadership on both sides of the
aisle to support that open and honest debate. I know on our side we are
ready for that debate. We are ready for that debate. I would hope that
the Speaker and the Democrat leadership would encourage and support
that debate as well.

{time} 2115

It is an incredible privilege to come to the floor of the House and
share these words, Mr. Speaker. I thank my leadership for that
opportunity.
It is very humbling to serve in the United States House of
Representatives, a body in which 10,000 or 11,000 or so individuals
have served in the history of our Nation. It is a great responsibility
in serving in this body, but the primary responsibility is to make
certain that we do all that we can to preserve and protect our
Constitution and our Nation.

[[Page H2736]]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest humbly that the bill that is being
proposed by the majority leadership this week on the supplemental
emergency war resolution is not a bill that does a service to our
Nation and does credit to the work of this House of Representatives.
I urge my colleagues to bring forth the bill that will show that, in
fact, we do indeed support the troops in harm's way.

____________________