Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would ask the last speaker if he could remain for a moment. I have such great respect for my colleague, Mr. Michaud of Maine. We have worked together on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We deal with the consequences of war. And so out of my respect for Mr. Michaud, I would like for us to clarify what may be a potential contradiction. The gentleman said that, and correct me if I am wrong here, unanimously commanders did not ask for an increase in troops. According to General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and this was in his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on January 11, 2007: ``So, collectively, the military commanders, both U.S. and Iraqi, have asked for this increase. And those of us in advisory positions agree with their request. ``General Casey and his Iraqi counterparts have determined that there are more forces needed . . . ``To do this, we're going to need additional U.S. forces. General Casey and General Abizaid have asked for those additional forces, as have the commanders below them. ``In addition, to reinforce success at Anbar province, the Marine commander out there has asked for, and General Casey and General Abizaid have asked for, an increase of about 4,000 troops out there . . . ``So, collectively, the military commanders, both U.S. and Iraqi, have asked for this increase.'' That was our testimony of our Chairman of the Joints Chiefs before the Armed Services Committee. So I will yield to the gentleman and ask if he was aware of General Pace's comments before the Armed Services Committee because it appears contradictory to the gentleman's statement.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The mission here is to develop a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself, govern, sustain and defend. So under that, under govern, you have political. Under sustain, you have economic. And under defend, you have security. So as I listened to my colleagues come to the floor and say it only requires a political solution, really? These are not inextricable. I also appeal for consistency. I just heard the last speaker talk about the necessity for national interests, so he said it is not in our national interests to be in Iraq. Let's stop and think about that for a second. Let's be consistent. In the 1990s, Republicans operated under what was called the Weinberg Doctrine, that only commit U.S. ground troops if there is a national vital security interest. And that is how we kind of were guiding ourselves based off the Weinberg Doctrine. Then what happens? We have got Bosnia. We said oh, that is a European problem. Then the U.N. came in, the U.N. was ineffective. President Clinton made a judgment, and he upset Republicans. He made a judgment that because of the atrocities in Bosnia, the ethnic cleansing that was occurring, that it took U.S. ground troops, a presence of them. Republicans at the time said there are not vital national interests at stake. Democrats then said, oh, that doesn't matter, this is a humanitarian cause. Democrats said, it is okay to take U.S. troops, put them on the ground to stop the fighting for a humanitarian purpose. That is what Democrats said in the 1990s. Republicans were curious about all of this because it was against the Weinberg Doctrine. As a matter of fact, there were 315 votes. I brought a resolution to the floor, 315 Republicans; Democrats then said, oh, no, no, no, no. Don't put U.S. ground troops on the floor, and that was in the middle of the Dayton Peace Accords. Bill Clinton was very upset with me. So the President brings me down to the White House and says, hey, work with me. So I said, I will, and we drafted benchmarks for the success of the civil implementation of the Dayton Accords. I worked with President Clinton. Where do I hear you working for a solution in Iraq? Don't just be the critic. I ask of my colleagues, where is your consistency and your policies? If you are as consistent as you were for a Democratic President, it was a humanitarian cause in Bosnia, I don't hear you talking at all about the atrocities that occurred under Saddam Hussein. The murders, the ethnic cleansing, a humanitarian cause, the effect it has not only upon the neighbors, the stability of the Middle East, but what about Israel? Do you want to turn your back on Israel? Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, do you want to turn your back on Israel? If that is what you are asking me, Mr. Speaker, do you want to turn your back on Israel? I am stunned. I just ask for people to remain consistent, or if you change your beliefs, say that you change your beliefs, or if you don't want to say that you changed your beliefs, then we must assume that you changed your beliefs. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. BUYER. I am more than pleased to yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, this past fall I had an opportunity to meet with 18 representatives of the European Union. The European Union is quick to say that we are not necessarily with you on Iraq. But boy, we are with you in Syria and standing tough on Iran. Do you know what the message is? It is inextricable. You cannot pick and choose. The Middle East is so complex. So, Mr. Speaker, when you begged of me to address you the question, it is this: If we were to follow the Pelosi-Murtha plan, what happens to Israel if we leave a vacuum that is quickly filled by Islamic extremists in Iraq? Therein lies the question. I believe we jeopardize the safety and security of a lone democracy called Israel, and we leave them to defend against a region filled with vipers who seek their annihilation. Now, our friends who are also of Arab nations, they are partners in our coalition to help on the political and economic success of Iraq, and they are eager for us to also help Israel and the Palestinians resolve those differences. It is all inextricable. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I stand before you in opposition to this resolution. It champions a dismally irresponsible and dangerous course of action. On its face, the resolution merely addresses the troop surge, ignoring the President's plan in its totality, as I said earlier. I will now address our efforts to move forward on the diplomatic and economic front. With regard to the establishment of government capacities, the establishment of the rule of law is a necessity, for to have Iraq address the national plan of reconciliation, to have them pass enabling legislation for the Constitution and amendment process, and to set provincial elections, is extremely important. With regard to the economic piece, the concession whereby the Iraqi government will seek to have a quasi-Alaskan model with regard to the revenue sharing of its precious assets is extremely important, because you do not want the distribution of the oil proceeds to go to regional leaders. It will only empower them and then weaken the unity Federal Government. With regard to the debt relief agreements, much has been negotiated, but the neighboring Gulf States need to step forward, and upcoming meetings are at hand. The debate seems to be on the security piece. There are those saying well, let's just back out completely. They use words such as ``withdraw to the United States'' and ``redeploy.'' But is that a plan? I haven't heard any form of military plan. They say what, we will just turn it over to them? Wow. As we listen to the neighboring leaders, they express caution of cataclysmic consequences. I fear how America will be defined by our friends. Do you reach out to a child as you are teaching it how to walk, let go of the hand and let them fall and say it is up to you, and leave them alone? You are going to have to find your way to the kitchen. Or do you go back and help them walk? I am concerned about how cold and callous the new majority is to this new infant democratic government. But I guess even more disconcerting to me is the politics behind this resolution. While the majority tells the American public that change must occur, that we are going on the wrong course, this amendment basically opts for the status quo, the same status quo for which they have attacked the administration, which they campaigned against last fall. They offer no solution, only acting as the critic, and being a critic is the easiest role in the world. Just sit back and just bark at someone, yet offer no plan of resolution for stability within the region. What is the plan of success for them? Silence. Let us also address the undemocratic process under which their resolution was brought to the floor here. We stand here and debate how best to bring democratic government to Iraq, yet this majority in Congress shows the leaders in Iraq how to be undemocratic and deny a Republican minority a chance to bring a substitute resolution. I find that quite ironic that this Capitol that is supposed to be the most democratic process in the world is now undemocratic. I beg of my colleagues not to play politics with the safety and security of this Nation. I must remind this body and the American people the threat we face. Iraq is a critical front in the larger global war on terror. We are entrenched in a fight against masters of intimidation, bound together by an extreme, perverted ideology which they claim is a legitimate interpretation of Islam. Our enemies seek to establish regimes that rule according to a violent and intolerant distortion of the Islamic faith, that is, to deny all political and religious freedoms and aim to establish sanctuaries for violence and additional attacks. They have no centralized command structure or place to call home. Instead, they exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization. They mobilize resentful, disillusioned, and underemployed young men and women and have mastered technology to aid them in their bidding. Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, explicitly warned that the establishment of a democratic Iraq is the death of al Qaeda there. Think about that. The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq says to establish a democratic Iraq is the death of al Qaeda. Yet, what does the new majority want? Pull-out of our troops, weaken the stability of that country, to be overtaken then by al Qaeda, instead of strengthening the democratic government, ensuring that they have an economy political apparatus and have the security to prevail, which is the death of al Qaeda. Our resolve should be to succeed in this struggle, and we must be stronger in our resolve than their resolve to inflict terror. At every step they are watching our move, waiting for us to falter, fail, drop our guard, or just walk away. General John Abizaid, the former commander of U.S. CENTCOM, described well the ramifications of letting Iraq fall to terrorism in his testimony before the United States Senate: ``The enemy's vision of the future would create a region-wide zone that would look like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Music would be banned, women ostracized, basic liberties banished, and soccer stadiums used for public executions. The people of the region do not want the future these extremists desire. The more we talk about this enemy, the more its bankrupt ideology will become known.'' This enemy uses suicide bombings, beheadings and other atrocities against the innocent citizens of the world to pursue its objectives. They are the enemy of freedom and wanting nothing more than to disrupt peaceful, civilized people everywhere. No one is safe from this hatred, and it is not restricted to the Middle East. Just ask those in London and Italy and other places around the world. This is a global threat. Iraq is not the limit of this beast's haven. It is the challenge of our generation to destroy this enemy wherever it lurks. We cannot do it without the resolve, cunning, and above all vigilance. The price that we pay for freedom is eternal vigilance from those who seek to steal it away. While we have not been attacked on our homeland since September 11, 2001, it is not for the lack of the terrorists' efforts. We have been fortunate to have spoiled and foiled several plots here in this country and around the globe. Yet, the fight is far from over. Chances are that today you feel safe in your neighborhood. You can walk to the store. You can play with your children at the local park or in your backyard without having the fear of being blown up by a roadside bomb or being shot by a sniper. You allow your children to go to the malls without fear of a suicide bomber. It is that peace of mind, this feeling of safety that we are endowed as the elected leaders of this country to preserve at all costs. I remind you that these extremists want to disrupt and destroy our every way of life. They are not equipped to do battle on a conventional battlefield. Instead, they look to disrupt our most basic freedoms, our securities and our institutions, public and private. The world is their battlefield. Their hope and their goal is to outlast our resolve. It is our burden to bear, our generation's great challenge to defeat their hopes and objectives. We cannot cower and seek the sanctity of security in this challenge. You are not free when you cower. You have given in to the designs of the terrorists if you do. This debate began with the Speaker asking whether or not this resolution will make our troops safer. The answer I believe is no. This resolution lacks courage. It lacks leadership and it lacks a forward way of thought. This resolution, to me, is pure political theater. The administration has given us a legitimate plan to work with, and the majority in this House has given us nothing but criticism and a path for an easy way out that virtually holds the door open for terrorists to destroy an infant democratic government and to open a way of access to the U.S. and our allies for terror. I close with a thought from a past President who faced the trials of war in his lifetime. President Kennedy said, ``Let us resolve to be the masters, not the victims, of our history, controlling our own destiny without giving way to blind suspicions and emotions.'' Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I recall March 6, 2003. I came to this floor and spent an hour and outlined the 17 resolutions before the United Nations in which Saddam Hussein continued his open defiance. That is what was also discussed. So what is lost from this debate is Saddam Hussein's recalcitrance unto the world. As a veteran of the Gulf War, that was ended by a ceasefire, where Saddam Hussein did not uphold his end of that agreement. To the last speaker, he spoke about the political and economic, but in order for an infancy government to be able to survive, you have to be able to establish its political apparatus, you have to be able to give it its economic goals and a means to achieve them, but you also need to establish security. Therein lies the President's plan. He met with the leaders of Iraq and he got some concessions from Iraq. ``In fact, you will take the lead, you will work with your parliament, you will achieve these political and economic goals as we work together to establish your security.'' That is the plan. The Democrats only want to focus on one small portion of the plan, which is called a surge, which is disrespectful to the plan. But it makes good politics, and that is what is disheartening to me. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Thinking about this debate, I reflected back to when this House voted on the resolution to go to war and so thought I would better look up what I said, because I remembered something that was very serious to me and what was very curious was the years before 2001. I had watched a lot of people vote against the defense bill. Yet coming off of September 11, there was this bravado about going to war, and I felt a sense of unease. So I thought I would go back and see what I said when I came to the floor on that day, and I would like to share it with everyone. I said: ``I have seen great resolve uttered in this Chamber and the swaggering display of courage. ``I can share with my colleagues, as a veteran of the gulf war, that war may be glorious in verse or prose, but in reality it is not. We are about to send America's finest, and that means men and women will die. It will be a noble cause, but we must remember the resolve of this moment, because in war it is chaotic. Not everything is going to go right. We cannot be 400 and 500 generals between the House and the Senate.'' Now, I said that back on September 14, 2001, trying to caution all of my colleagues, many of whom had voted against defense bills, now rattling sabers, feeling this bravado of let us go to war. Now I have to ask, was that a false bravado because now, as war has gotten chaotic and has gotten hard and difficult, now they cower, and I have great concern. So I ended with: ``We cannot have the bravado of today and then run at the first sound of the guns.'' Please remember this day when it gets hard. The gentleman I am about to yield to, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), was chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, and I remember him well because I had served as the chairman on the House Armed Services Committee at the time and served with Mr. Smith, and when we came out after Oklahoma City, then-President Clinton, very concerned about terrorism, and we passed our first anti-terrorism bill here in the House and many people were like, wait a minute, that was a domestic act of terror. No, President Clinton began to focus abroad, not only upon the Russian Mafia, but he was also focusing on Osama bin Laden and other terror. It can be debated whether or not he took great vigilance on that front or not, but let me post a real compliment to Mr. Clinton because he turned to Hugh Shelton. General Shelton was at the time the commander of Special Operations. I was very upset coming out of the House conference on the anti- terrorism bill because Joe Biden and I were trying to bring the country to roving wiretaps, but the country was not ready for it. So then it was defeated. I then get on the phone and call General Shelton and bring him up to Washington, D.C., and I asked him a simple question: What are the top ten unfunded requirements that you have given Special Operations, the missions that you have to do in the dark world to secure America but you don't have the resources to accomplish them? He sat down and he detailed them. More importantly, as President Clinton then named him, appropriately and wisely, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he worked then with Jerry Lewis and prepared the force. So when America was hit on September 11 and we immediately sent those special operators into Afghanistan, they were prepared, they were equipped, they were trained to fight in the dark world and special operations, and Jerry Lewis, his leadership, was responsible for that. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.

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

Mr. BUYER. Now I seek to reclaim my time, because that is a legitimate question. As the commander in the field, if you say to the commander, ``I support you.'' All right? What is the commander going to say? The commander says, ``All right, I have a mission, and you say I support you.'' That means, I suppose, that I support you by making sure that you have been properly trained, that you have your uniform, that you have your ammunition, you have your helmet, you have your body Kevlar. You have what is necessary to accomplish your mission. But do you? If the commander says, ``I need more troops to accomplish that mission,'' you say, ``But you can't have those.'' Is that then supporting the commander? That is why I pointed out the contradiction in that the Senate says to General Petraeus, ``We agree, you are our best commander to go over there.'' And before they took that vote, he said, ``I need those five brigades.'' So they passed the vote and they sent General Petraeus over. Now we are faced with a vote that says I support the troops, I support the members of the Armed Forces. How can we say, ``I support you, but, Mr. Commander, we are not going to give you the troops''? That is the point of the question. So please don't try to spin it into something that says, oh, you are calling me unpatriotic. That is what I think is rather peculiar. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have any other speakers?

Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his contribution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There was a peculiar comment a bit ago from the gentleman from Ohio when he said, well, I didn't call you unpatriotic when you sent troops into battle and they didn't have their up-armored Humvees. What a weird statement to say. You see, we prepare our force. So, for example, when myself and Colonel Phillips in the first Gulf War, those Hummers that we took in, they didn't even have doors on them. We didn't have doors on the side of those. We didn't go in with all the side plates and front plates, groin plates, neck plates, shoulder plates. We didn't do all that. Most of that, the body armor, was reserved for special ops. When you move in to counterinsurgency and then the enemy begins to use roadside bombs to attack our Hummers, what do we have to do? We respond. That is why I made the comment of what does our military do? They improvise, they adapt and they overcome, and that is exactly the same thing which our enemies do. So it was a very peculiar comment to say, well, we didn't attack you because. I don't know. It's so peculiar, I don't even want to comment anymore on it. What I would like to comment on is the nature of the enemy and the significance of Iraq and the global war against militant Islamists. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to turn our attention to the nature of the enemy we face and the significance of Iraq in the global war against militant Islam. We often use the term ``global war on terrorism'' to describe our efforts since the September 11 attacks. I believe this is a misnomer. In reality, we are engaged in a campaign to counter a global, radical Islamist insurgency, a global jihad. This global insurgency is, in fact, a diverse confederation of Islamic movements that uses terrorism as only one of its many tactics in their war against the West. On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda, declared war on the United States, Israel and the West in his statement ``World Islamic Front Declaration of War against Jews and Crusaders.'' Subsequently, bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, issued a statement after September 11 announcing a two-phase strategy for al Qaeda's war. First, reestablish the Islamic Caliphate, the historical and temporal authority of all Muslims that existed from 632 A.D. until 1924 A.D, and, second, use the Caliphate as a launch pad for a jihad against the West. No one believes that Osama bin Laden directly controls this worldwide insurgency. Rather than a single monolithic movement, al Qaeda is but one movement that symbolizes a broad and diverse confederation of militant Islamic movements that operate around the world. This insurgency includes such wide-ranging organizations as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the Islamic Army of Aden, al Qaeda in Iraq, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Abu Sayyaf Group in Malaysia and the Philippines. In addition, Iran, a majority Shia country, backs numerous radical Islamic groups, including Hezbollah and Palestine rejectionist groups such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. These wide-ranging and disparate groups are loosely linked ideologically, linguistically and culturally. They use family ties, personal relationships and financial links to coordinate their efforts. Thus, the global jihad plays out in a variety of theaters around the world. These include: The Americas, where in North America we saw the September 11 attacks and as a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report stated, Federal authorities have shut down at least 25 charities contributing to terrorist activities since September 11. That is here in our own country. In South America there is a strong al Qaeda presence in the tri- border area of Argentina, Paragiau and Brazil. In Western Europe, where there have been recently uncovered plans for attacks against Great Britain and the United States and where insurgent financial networks and planning cells flourish throughout Europe supporting insurgent activities. In the Southern Pacific, where the Bali bombings in October 2002 were attributed to an al Qaeda-linked cell. In the Ibernian Peninsula and North Africa where North Africans were blamed for the May 2004 Madrid bombings and where there have been bombings in Casablanca, Morocco and Tunisia. In the greater Middle East, where there are ongoing Islamic insurgencies in Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Turkey, Lebanon and Israel/Palestine. In East Africa, where simultaneous bombings in October 1998 in Kenya and Tanzania were coordinated from the Sudan. The Caucuses and European Russia, where nationalist insurgencies in Chechnya, Georgia, and Azerbaijan have been co-opted by Islamic militants. South and Central Asia, where the Taliban and al Qaeda continue to operate in Afghanistan and in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas. And in Southeast Asia, where Islamic insurgencies continue in Indonesa, the Philippines and southern Thailand. These Islamic insurgencies share a common goal. They are oriented toward the overthrow of the current world order and its replacement with a pan-Islamic Caliphate. They wish to change the status quo using violence and subversion in order to initiate a clash between Islam and the West. They use terrorism, subversion and propaganda to further their goals and initiate open warfare. It will come as no surprise that most of the active Islamic insurgencies take place either within the historical bounds of the Caliphate, meaning North Africa, Spain, Turkey and the Middle East, or in areas claimed by the new broader pan-Islamic Caliphate, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Indonesia. These insurgencies contribute to what is called an arc of instability that reaches from Indonesia across South Asia and the Middle East to North Africa. Where does Iraq fit into this global jihad? Iraq has become the front line in the open warfare of the global insurgency. In many ways, Iraq is a microcosm of the complex worldwide Islamic insurgency. The centrality of Iraq to the insurgency became clear in a July 2005 letter to the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from al Qaeda's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. In discussing Iraq, Zawahiri stated: ``I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.'' Zawahiri went on to outline the larger strategy for Iraq. First, expel the Americans from Iraq. Second, establish an Islamic authority and reestablish the Caliphate. Third, extend the jihad neighboring secular Islamic countries. Fourth, eliminate Israel. Thus we see a clear statement from the number two man in al Qaeda that Iraq is centrally important to the global jihad. Al Qaeda is not alone in operating in Iraq. There have been extensive Iranian involvement that has been alleged recently. On March 14, 2006, General John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``Iran is pursuing a multitrack policy in Iraq, consisting of covertly supporting the formation of a stable, Shia Islamist-led central government while covertly working to diminish popular and military support for U.S. and Coalition operations there.'' While the full extent of Iranian support is unknown, it appears that at a minimum Iran is supporting the 20,000-man Badr Brigade as well as the 2,000-man Wolf Brigade which is an offshoot. Just this week, administration officials announced that Iran was the source of deadly explosive form projectiles being used in Iraq. Iraqis also grasp that Iraq is central in this global struggle. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki told us here in a joint session of Congress, ``I know that some of you here question whether Iraq is part of that war on terror, but let me be very clear. This is a battle between true Islam, for which a person's liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and that of terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak.'' The centrality of Iraq in the larger global Islamic insurgency cannot be disputed. Our enemies and our friends in the region grasp its significance. To fail in Iraq is to fail in the larger struggle. And our enemies are watching. They remember what America did not grasp the scope of the threat posed by radical Islam. Yet the signals were there: In 1979, 66 American diplomats taken hostage, held in Iran for 444 days. In 1983, a truck bomb kills 241 Marines at their barracks in Beirut. In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 bombing kills 270, including 189 Americans, over Lockerbie, Scotland. In 1993, six killed at the first World Trade Center bombing by militant Islamic terrorists. In 1996, 19 U.S. servicemembers were killed at Khobar Towers. In 1998, 225 people killed in bombings at our U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. In 2000, al Qaeda's attack on the destroyer USS Cole kills 17 American sailors. In 2001, September 11, killed 2,973. Until 2001, we failed to properly react to this threat. The enemy perceived us as weak and believed that we lacked the will to fight. This resolution before us, if approved, will signal our lack of resolve and I am troubled. It will be interpreted, I believe, by the forces of the global jihad that the United States lacks the will to persevere against the forces of radical Islam. It will give comfort to their thoughts, for they will know that we in Congress are uncertain and irresolute. In a war where information and willpower are more important than firepower, we must continue to send the signal that we cannot and will not cease to fight the enemy's vision of the world. You see, even if you have your way and you say we are going to withdraw the troops, whether they come back to the United States or whether they go to an over-the-horizon position and this new infancy government fails, we cannot cower to the security of America. This front continues. The Bible states, ``If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?'' If the trumpet is uncertain, who will follow? This resolution, I think, sends the wrong signal to our friends and to our enemies and I urge my colleagues to support those troops, sound the certain trumpet, and defeat the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express deep sorrow at the passing of our friend and colleague, Charlie Norwood. While most of us hope to make a difference in this world, Charlie Norwood certainly did that. He also made a difference in the lives of those who were fortunate enough to have known him. Charlie was steadfast and did what he thought was right. He was an immovable object in the defense of principle, and when met with irresistible force, it wasn't likely that Charlie was the one who was moved. During the development of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, I worked closely with Charlie and several of my colleagues to see if there was an alternative plan and how we were going to work this out. Charlie's contributions were insightful, they were valuable, and added considerably to the worth of our final product. During that process, he was constantly mindful of two things, and that was the need to help seniors who had no drug coverage and the need to be wise stewards for taxpayers. Coming to Congress with a medical background, Charlie provided a point of view that enhanced any debate he entered. While witnesses before him, at the Health Subcommittee may have cringed at times under his questioning, the responses that were drawn out always added an important dimension to our debates. Charlie will be sorely missed: in Congress, in the Health Subcommittee, but more importantly in all our lives. I give my deepest sympathies to his wife, Gloria, his sons Charles and Carlton, and his constituents.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here to honor the Indianapolis Colts and Super Bowl champions. The Colts are a team that I believe represent the best of professionalism and goodwill. My congratulations to Tony Dungy for his accomplishments in leading the Colts to an overall season record of 16-4 and for becoming the first African American head coach to win a Super Bowl. I am most hopeful that such reference does not have to be made in the future. That is the goodness of America. Coach, you have also demonstrated that nice guys can win. I also commend the passionate Indianapolis Colts who braved single- digit temperatures to welcome back home for the first time to the city of Indianapolis and the State of Indiana the Vince Lombardi Trophy. Mr. Speaker, I also learned something, though, that I think America should know about the Super Bowl. You see, the teams that actually play the Super Bowl actually get 17 percent of the tickets. Those tickets go to those fans of the two teams, and they are upper deck, end zone seats, which means that all of the prime seats of the Super Bowl go to all of the other owners. So what I am most hopeful is that America takes note here that actually the fans of the teams that get to play the Super Bowl really do not get to see much of their team in a Super Bowl. And so what happens here is the city who wants a Super Bowl in their city, they trade seats for votes. And so it is like, hey, if I want the Super Bowl in Detroit, and you are the team owner in Detroit, I will give you 1,500 seats at the 35-yard line. By the end of the first quarter with all of the rain, you had over 10,000 empty seats. You say, what happened to the fans? Well, those are people there who wanted to see a football game, but do not necessarily like to sit in the rain because they didn't like either team. So we need to redo how they do the Super Bowl and actually sit the fans where they can enjoy the game. So hopefully that is taken into account. To Coach Dungy, the entire team, the owner Jim Irsay, the dedicated staff of the Colts organization and thousands of Colts fans, I offer my congratulations to the Colts for the Super Bowl victory over my father's beloved Chicago Bears. Go Colts.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 521, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building.'' Lane Evans completed 24 years of remarkable service to his nation as a member of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. His work here reflected the principles that guided him throughout his life. Lane's concern for our military men and women, the environment, and those less fortunate speaks to his character and commitment to make life better. But it was his unwavering support for the Nation's veterans that best defined his time in Congress. Agent Orange, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Spina Bifida, and expanded services for women veterans are just some of the causes for which Lane will be fondly remembered by his colleagues and our veterans. I served on both the Armed Services and the Veterans' Affairs Committees with Lane, and have always respected his counsel, especially in his role as my Ranking Member when I chaired the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Even when we disagreed on policy matters, I never doubted that his positions on veterans issues were rooted in his service as a United States Marine during the Vietnam Era. Lane is a man of integrity, compassion, and honor. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 521. Naming this post office is a small, but lasting and appropriate way to honor Lane, and I hope those who visit this facility will recognize the contributions of the man for whom it is to be named.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, this resolution expresses the support for the designation and goals of Hire a Veteran Week, and calls upon the President to issue a proclamation supporting these goals. It is identical to the legislation passed by the House in the 109th Congress on July 24, 2006. America's veterans deserve special employment opportunity more than any other sector of society. These men and women have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way to preserve the Nation's way of life and economic system. They have worn the uniform from pole to pole, often risking their lives not only in combat, but also in exploring, rebuilding infrastructures devastated by natural disasters, providing medical care in remote locations, and transporting refugees from genocide. They answer the Nation's call to duty, asking in return only our support and our thanks. Veterans are the most diverse communities in America. They come from every major ethnic and socioeconomic group. Today's veterans are goal- oriented, physically fit, know how to take and give orders, and are comfortable with technology. The best way to say thanks to veterans for their service is to give them the opportunity to prove their worth in the workplace. I also want to thank Congressman John Boozman and Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth for their very effective work during the 109th Congress to improve employment opportunities for veterans, and particularly disabled veterans, and I look forward to their continuing efforts during the 110th Congress. Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing this legislation to come to the floor for consideration, and ask that my colleagues support the bill, H. Con. Res. 5.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, under title I of the amended bill, veterans making claims would be able to hire an attorney or an agent after a notice of disagreement referred to as an NOD, with a VA benefits decision having been filed. In the spirit of compromise, we worked with our Senate counterparts to craft this provision in such a way as to provide veterans with the opportunity to retain representation while protecting them from unscrupulous attorneys, while at the same time with great hope, not adding to the burden on VA's already overwhelmed claims system. Title II of the compromise language increases support of servicemembers returning from the war on terror by improving VA's outreach and increasing the number of clinicians treating post- traumatic stress disorder, referred to as PTSD, and improving their training. The funds will also expand telehealth initiatives that are invaluable to rural veterans and expand the number of community-based outpatient clinics able to treat mental illnesses. The title further authorizes spending for collaboration and PTSD diagnosis and treatment between the VA and the Department of Defense. Families contending with the loss of a loved one will also benefit from bereavement counseling authorized under this bill. Mr. Speaker, veterans undergoing blind rehabilitation treatment for Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis, and those trying to break the cycle of homelessness, will also see increased support under this legislation. The bill authorizes $2 billion for blind rehabilitation specialists and increases the number of facilities where these specialists will be located. It also authorizes the VA to designate six Parkinson's Disease Research, Education and Clinical Centers of Excellence and at least two multiple sclerosis centers of excellence. The compromise legislation also strengthens VA's homeless grant and per diem programs. The provisions in title III would also make modifications to veterans education programs. Mr. Speaker, I have been fortunate to meet some of these spouses of our severely wounded veterans, and I must say there is no one more deserving than these spouses who care for their wounded, America's heroes and their husbands on a daily basis. Therefore, section 3 of the compromise contains a provision to authorize the VA to provide these education benefits under chapter 35 of title 38 of U.S.C. to these spouses' independent children of these severely injured servicemembers prior to the members' discharge, these servicemembers who in the opinion of the VA will most likely be discharged with permanent and total service-connected disabilities. Rather than wait the 2- or 3-year time period, let us permit the spouses then to obtain their educational benefits so they can gain an education. When the husband or wife receives his or her discharge, they are then able to care for the family. Given the long convalescence many of these severely injured servicemembers experience while being on active duty, this provision, I think, makes a great deal of sense in how we support our families. This is not a new benefit. The current law requires severely injured servicemembers to already be discharged for a condition qualifying for a chapter 35 benefit. We merely authorize the VA to pay these benefits sooner to those who would qualify following a member's discharge. Mr. Speaker, under title III of the amended bill, it would also clarify the VA's pro rata refund policy for nonaccredited education institutions. We extend the authorization for work-study positions located at the VA cemeteries, State veterans homes and State approving agencies through June 30, 2007. We would require the VA to report on methods to improve and streamline the administrative processes and procedures of education programs in chapters 30 through 36 of title 38 of the United States Code and restore lost entitlement for certain chapter 35 education beneficiaries forced to discontinue a course of education due to being called to full-time National Guard duty. Mr. Speaker, title IV, section 402, contains a provision that would extend for 1 year the VA Secretary's authority to provide the family of a veteran interred in a private cemetery with a government marker or any headstone. Congress had previously given the Secretary a 5-year authority effective for deaths that had occurred as of September 11, 2001. However, this authority expires on December 31 of this year. Section 403 of the compromise agreement would allow tribal governments to participate in the VA's State Cemeteries Grants Program. This program dates back to 1978 and complements the department's National Cemetery System. Title V of the compromise language improves the status of veteran and disabled veterans small businesses when competing for contracts at the Department of Veterans Affairs. There would be a reasonable expectation, Mr. Speaker, that all of the Federal Government's agencies in the Department of Veterans Affairs would be a leader in achieving the President's goal for annual procurement from at least 3 percent of the disabled veteran-owned businesses. Sadly, our most recent data from fiscal year 2005 indicates that the VA did barely over half of what the President directed and the public law required. Mr. Speaker, the compromise agreement would also require the VA Secretary to establish annual contracting goals for small businesses owned and controlled by veterans and service-disabled veterans. The goal of the service-disabled veterans would not be less than 3 percent of these contracts. The veteran and disabled veteran-owned small businesses would be given priority in VA contracting as well as priority among other set-aside groups eligible for preferential treatment under the Small Business Act. Title VI of this compromise bill contains provisions affecting the Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service. The compromise agreement would also clarify the part-time employment of DVOPS and LVERs, which is half-time employment, and require that DVOPS and LVERs hired after the date of enactment successfully complete training by the National Veterans Training Institute within 3 years of appointment. Finally, title VI of the compromise would establish a 3-year demonstration program to identify not less than 10 military occupational specialties that would lead to State licensing and authorize the use of any unobligated funds for the project through fiscal year 2009. Title VII provisions of the legislation strengthen support for homeless veterans, increasing authorization for housing, per diem payments and other specialized services. It also creates a VA Office of Rural Health and dramatically improves outreach for rural veterans. State veterans homes will now be reimbursed by VA for the cost of care provided to veterans with 70 percent or higher service-connected conditions. Further, veterans in these homes with service-connected conditions rated at least 50 percent would receive their medications free of charge. In order to increase access to long-term care, VA would conduct a pilot program that makes non-VA facilities, such as community hospitals, eligible for State veterans home per diem payments. Mr. Speaker, title VIII of the compromise language authorizes $36.8 million for advanced planning of a collaboration project between the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center in Charleston, S.C. and the adjacent Medical University of South Carolina, referred to as MUSC. The project is likely to ensure that veterans in the low country of South Carolina receive the highest quality and state-of-the-art facilities. It would replace the aging infrastructure of the VA facilities and combine this with the MUSC facilities which are adjacent. Connecting these facilities, not just the sharing of clinicians, which is now the case, is the way to go. There is very expensive and advanced medical equipment, lab and ancillary services. That is the goal of this collaboration. Both VA and the Medical University will remain committed to preserving VA's unique identity and commitment to veterans priorities. The enhanced collaboration envisioned in Charleston is innovative and will serve as a national model as its design and operation benefiting from the best minds in the public and private sectors will afford South Carolina veterans higher quality, more efficient care and truly state-of-the-art facilities. This is a big deal, Mr. Speaker. It is a big deal because this idea is going to be leveraged also into Louisiana. We are authorizing over $600 million for repair and replacement of flood and hurricane-damaged facilities in New Orleans and along the gulf coast of Mississippi. The bill authorizes $98 million for the replacement of the VA Medical Center in Denver and directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to explore the viability of public-private partnerships as he moves forward in Denver. Twenty-two other major construction projects in 15 States are authorized in this bill, which also approves continued leasing of eight medical facilities and requires the VA to explore options for construction of a new facility in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker, on May 3, 2006, an incident of a VA employee's stolen laptop computer potentially put at risk the personal data of 25.6 million veterans and 2.2 million Active Duty, Guard and Reservists. This was the largest information security breach to have occurred in government and it is the second largest such security breach in the Nation's history. Title IX of the compromise bill would protect our veterans and servicemembers from the misuse of their sensitive personal information. The bill directs the VA to provide breach notification to individuals, reports to Congress, broad alerts, data breach analysis and credit monitoring services, and identify theft insurance. Title IX, what we do is direct the Secretary to issue implementing regulations within 180 days of enactment of this bill. Finally, Mr. Speaker, title X of the compromise language makes technical and clarifying amendments to title 38 Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BUYER. Ms. Berkley, I want to thank you. I want to thank you for your tenacity, for your commitment to your veterans that you serve, not only in your district, but across the country. I have enjoyed working with you on your project in Las Vegas. I enjoyed my visits with you when I was out there. One of the challenges which we face is the growth of population that you have in Las Vegas, which is like none other in the country. I know that Ms. Brown believes that Orlando is growing the fastest, but Las Vegas, it is beyond comprehension how you are able to stay ahead of it. So whatever we plan today, what I have learned about working with you, what we planned 2 years ago is already obsolete today. This is an ongoing issue that I want to work with the gentlelady with, and I compliment your effort and leadership