Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in my concluding remarks I just want to say that as I listened to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), my colleague on the House Armed Services Committee, talking about the Vietnam War Memorial, the Wall, as he pointed out, I reflected back maybe almost 25 years ago when I went to the Wall for the first time. Mr. Speaker, I don't think I had ever been to any other war memorial. The World War II Memorial, as we know, was not there at the time. But I went to the Wall, the Vietnam War Memorial, to look for the name of a friend. It is kind of hard to find, as we all know, the small engraved names on the wall. Of course they direct you how to do that. I think a lot of us just go to the wall and start looking. As I think back on those years ago when I looked up to see my friend Dick Ulmer's name, and think about that classmate, teammate, friend, weight-lifting buddy when we were in the sixth, seventh, eighth grade, and thinking about the fact, Mr. Speaker, that he had given his life. I thought about his parents, who are now deceased, and of course his wife and his sister. This opportunity today to control the time on our side, and I thank Ms. Shea-Porter for that opportunity, to reflect back on a great hero. I think an important thing for us to remember today as we vote, and I think we will have a unanimous vote on this, is that no matter how popular a conflict, or maybe in the case of the Vietnam War, with many people unpopular, the men and women that paid the price, the ultimate sacrifice, and their families, it doesn't matter what the conflict, they do their duty. God bless them and God bless America.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota, Colonel John Kline.

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

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of House Resolution 443, which recognizes the service of the 65th Infantry Regiment, Puerto Rico National Guard. Today, Mr. Speaker, the First Battalion, 65th Infantry Regiment, Puerto Rico National Guard, continues a tradition of outstanding service in the Army established by members of that regiment in World War I, World War II, and in Korea. Their motto, ``Honor and Fidelity,'' summarizes that service. Mr. Speaker, in Korea, as an active Army unit, the regiment fought with particular distinction, participating in nine major campaigns from 1950 until 1953. For its actions, the unit was awarded two Presidential Unit Citations, a Meritorious Unit Commendation, and two Republic of Korea Unit Citations. Such outstanding service led General Douglas MacArthur to say: ``The Puerto Ricans of the gallant 65th Infantry on the battlefields of Korea are writing a brilliant record of achievement in battle, and I am proud indeed to have them in this command. I wish that I had many more like them.'' In achieving such recognition for their competence and valor, the men of the 65th Infantry suffered heavy casualties and numerous vicious battles against determined North Korean and Chinese units. Moreover, the men of the 65th not only had to overcome severe weather and terrain and shortages of clothing and equipment, but also the elements of prejudice and unfavorable bias that they encountered. Mr. Speaker, given the history of outstanding service by the 65th since its inception back in 1898, as well as the continuing commitment and dedication shown by the current members of this unit, it is fitting that we take the time today to recognize and to honor that service. I strongly urge all Members to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. Before yielding back, I would like to encourage all of our colleagues, both sides of the aisle, and I am sure we will have a unanimous vote on H.Res 443. I thank the gentlewoman from New Hampshire for allowing me to control the time on this side.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 207, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the United States Air Force as an independent military service, joining my colleague, the mayor of Dayton, and my colleague on the House Armed Services Committee. Many Americans may not realize that for the first 40 years of its existence, the United States Air Force was actually a department of the Army. It was not until President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 that the Air Force became an independent military service and W. Stuart Symington became the first Secretary of the Air Force, later a United States Senator. Since 1947, the Air Force has been an integral part of the United States military. Over the last 15 years the United States Air Force has been in continuous combat. Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm featured a full spectrum of Air Force capabilities. During the so- called ``peacekeeping missions'' in Somalia, Haiti and Kosovo, the Air Force contributed logistical and operational support and demonstrated its ability to achieve mission objectives without the use of ground forces. In Georgia's 11th Congressional District, Mr. Speaker, Dobbins Air Reserve Base has contributed to the success of the Air Force by providing key training of pilots and support personnel on both the C- 130 and the C-5 platforms. In addition to Dobbins' training capabilities, FEMA's Federal Incident Response Team Atlanta is staged at Dobbins, and it mobilizes throughout the Southeast to disasters, both natural and manmade. Dobbins also plays a role in the continued air dominance of the United States as the initial testing grounds for the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter. Never before has the United States' ability to project military power depended so heavily on air and space capabilities. Whether in a leading role or a support role, the United States Air Force has proved its unsurpassed airspace and cyberspace capabilities. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to remember the importance of a strong national defense and certainly vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 207.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me before he yields to the gentleman from New Mexico, because as I join this hour Special Order and I am hearing from my colleagues, some of the brightest minds and best speakers on our side of the aisle, I don't think I could stand to go behind all four of them. So I am happy to have the opportunity. But it's awfully tough following my colleagues of the likes of the chairman of the Policy Committee and part of our leadership. But I wanted quickly, Mr. Speaker, to again pay tribute to General Petraeus and also Ambassador Ryan Crocker. I just want to point out, in regard to Ambassador Crocker, I was reading his bio before they testified before our two committees today, the 6\1/2\- to 7-hour testimony, physically an ordeal, but Ambassador Ryan Crocker, I think a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, don't know his bio, and I don't have time to read it all. But suffice to say that in September 2004 President Bush conferred on Ambassador Ryan Crocker the personal rank of career ambassador, career ambassador, the highest rank in the foreign service. This is the character of the man and the men that presented this report to us today. And, basically, we cut right to the chase, and what they said is, now is not the time to quit, and give victory a chance. You can slice it and dice it any way you want to, but that is basically what they said to the 111 members of those two committees, the House Armed Services Committee, the House Committee on Foreign Relations. And so I just want to make three points, though, Mr. Speaker, that I have thought about and that I have heard in the last couple of weeks on reasons that I have heard Members give for wanting to give up and not give victory a chance. One of them was this business of, well, you know, it has been too great a strain and stress on our forces. We don't have enough troops back home. What if some other conflagration, war, would break out somewhere in the world in the next year, 2 years, 5 years? We don't have enough troops. We need to bring them home. Well, Mr. Speaker, retired General Jack Keane, the Vice Chairman of the United States Army, Vice Chief of Staff, spoke to us last week as well, and he also spoke on Saturday morning on Washington Journal. I hope some of my colleagues saw that. But what General Keane said, and I agree with him so much, is, You mean to tell me that you want to accept defeat? You want to lose the war, a war of this magnitude, as the gentleman from Tennessee pointed out, and what all is at stake in regard to the Middle East in this global war on terror? You want to give up that war so that you can bring the troops home and then restock and get ready for the next potential conflict and that's a good trade- off? I don't think so. And I want to say another thing, Mr. Speaker, that I have heard a lot of people say: We can't afford this war. We cannot afford to spend $750 billion, almost $1 trillion and counting, on this war because we need to rebuild our infrastructure in our country. We need to shore up our bridges. Obviously, that was in the news because of the tragic occurrence in Minnesota. Or we need more money for Head Start, or we need more money for K-12 education, or we need more Pell Grants, or we need to have more money for the food stamp program and the farm bill or whatever you can come up with. Let me tell my colleagues, if you don't spend the money to protect the American people, what good do all these other things do us when you see what can happen and did 6 years ago today on 9/11 when over 3,000 were killed and the economic blow to this country was over $2 trillion? You talk about destroying some infrastructure. That's what it's all about when you let your guard down and you don't stand up and be secure in this country. And last but not least, I have heard many say, well, you know, our troops are coming home injured and many of them are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or syndrome. That's where you wake up at night, having nightmares, and maybe for the rest of your life you can't get over the mental trauma that you have gone through in a time of difficult war. Well, let me tell you something my colleagues, as a physician Member of this body. You talk about post-traumatic stress syndrome. You think a lot of them are coming back with that now? You think that that is a tragedy? Well, you just wait and see the numbers that come back with mental illness and post-traumatic stress syndrome and nightmares and a life of anxiety when they have to come back knowing that their comrades in arms have died in vain, their buddies in the foxhole have been blown to smithereens by some improvised explosive device and they have to come home a loser. And we are not going to let that happen, and I think that is what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were telling us today: let's give victory a chance. With that I will say, finally, as I conclude, who wins politically? Who cares. The American people lose if we lose in Iraq. That is what is important. This is not about the next election; this is about giving victory a chance.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi before I yield to my colleagues, the gentleman from Minnesota and also the gentleman from Tennessee. But I thank the gentleman firstly from Mississippi for bringing that New York Times ad so that our colleagues on the floor can see just how despicable this is. Now, at the bottom, you can't see the fine print, but moveon.org disavows itself from any political affiliation. Mr. Speaker, we are going to give the Members of this body an opportunity to repudiate that ad. I have introduced a resolution. I understand our leadership on the Republican side will have a resolution to just say to the Members, please, in a bipartisan way, this cannot stand, and we cannot tolerate this. I think we will get an overwhelming show of support for that resolution. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. GINGREY. Light at the end of the tunnel, indeed. The gentleman is right on target. As we conclude this Special Order hour, I want my colleagues to take a good look at this ad that ran today in the New York Times. I know it's hard for the Members to actually see the text, or you can see the picture; but, basically, what it says, the caption is: ``General Petraeus or General Betray Us?'' With a big question mark. Then under that: ``Cooking the books for the White House.'' The first and last paragraph, I will quote, let me read this to you, this is what MoveOn.org, a political action committee says.

Mr. GINGREY. The point you made, of course, about the Iraqi national police, General Jones, you're right. I was in that same hearing with Representative Kline last week, Mr. Speaker, and General Jones did talk about this Iraqi national police force of about 25,000 that in the past was rife with corruption, and of course, a lot of changes in the leadership, as General Petraeus pointed out today, that has occurred. But I think it's important, and I think Mr. Kline would agree with me, for our colleagues to understand that the press in the last week, talking about the Jones report, suggested that the entire Iraqi security force was incompetent and corrupt when, indeed, 49,000 is only about 10 percent of the 550,000 Iraqi national army and combined police force. So many of them are doing a good job, as you pointed out in the hearing today.

Mr. GINGREY. In fact, I think General Petraeus said that that Marine expeditionary unit will be brought home next month.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman again. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield to one of my colleagues, another of my colleagues I should say, on the House Armed Services Committee, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight Investigation, a new subcommittee, a good subcommittee chaired by my good friend, majority member Dr. Vic Snyder, and I'm speaking of the gentleman from Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, and at this time I'd yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. GINGREY. I hope not, I say to the gentleman from Missouri. I think if you look at their funding trail though you would find that they haven't contributed probably too much support in any way, shape, or form to Republican Members. But hears what they say about General Petraeus: ``General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was 'tangible progress' in Iraq and that `Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.' ``And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said `We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.' '' Then their final paragraph, I skipped the middle one, they say: ``Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. ``But we won't hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops, General Petraeus has actually said, will need to stay in Iraq for as long as 10 years.'' Finally, they say, MoveOn.org, today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us. In conclusion, as the majority leader said a few minutes ago, before we walked out on the steps, to commemorate and honor the American people on the sixth anniversary of that tragedy of 9/11, we did that in a bipartisan way. This is not a political argument that we bring to the floor tonight, and this business, if we are winning in Iraq, the Democrats lose. If we are losing in Iraq, the Democrats win. If we are winning in Iraq, the Republicans win. This is not about who wins politically. This is for the American people. We are going to win. We are going to let victory have a chance. We are not just simply blindly staying the course. In regard to this surge, this is exactly what the Iraq Study Group, Lee Hamilton and former Secretary James Baker, recommended to the Congress; and this is what the President has done. I commend him for it. I think we are making progress; but there is, indeed, as the gentleman from Missouri said, light at the end of the tunnel, a bright light. We need to give victory a chance.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would have time to stay, I would be glad to yield back to him as we go forward, but absolutely this Jones report last week, I couldn't believe what I was reading the next day after hearing the report and hearing General Jones, retired Four-Star General Jones, Marine, former Marine commandant, and Colonel Kline, a Marine, knows him well. He was one of 20 members of that commission. Again, this commission was created by the Congress, by the new majority, as we passed that emergency supplemental spending bill back in February or March, 6 or 8 months ago, to tell us, you know, what's the situation with the Iraqi security force, both army and the police, and not just, as we pointed out earlier, the national police. And almost to a person, the members of that panel who spoke, not all 20 did, but they gave encouraging news. They pointed out the shortcomings, of course, of the national police and the Iraqi police force that was not perfect. They didn't give us some Pollyanna, glossed-over, varnished report. They told the truth. But as Colonel Kline points out, I thought it was an encouraging report. Of course, you would never have known it, Mr. Speaker, by the headlines the next day. So the gentleman may want to comment on that.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman from Texas who just preceded me stated, we just completed a memorial dedication remembrance ceremony on the steps of the Capitol as Members on both sides of the aisle came together led by our distinguished Speaker, our distinguished majority leader, and our distinguished minority leader. We came together in a very bipartisan way to once again pay tribute to the lives that were lost, indeed, and to their families, and to our first responders and the lives that were lost on their part and, of course, the City of New York on that great tragic day, that great tragedy that occurred 6 years ago today, Mr. Speaker. Before we went to the steps, the majority leader made a statement to our colleagues on this floor, which I fully support and endorse. I paraphrase his comments, but basically what Mr. Hoyer said to us, just a few minutes ago, was that the terrorists, the extremists, those who hate our way of life and hate everything about this country, our great country, brought us to our knees, but they didn't bring us down. And they will never bring us down. I absolutely agree that it showed the resolve of the American people that they can't bring us down. They got our attention, absolutely. And, Mr. Speaker, today, of course, also is the day that General Petraeus, the commander of Multinational Force Iraq, the four-star general, the combatant commander on the ground in Iraq, along with our ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, gave their report to the American Congress, to the House of Representatives, they will do the same thing over the next couple of days to the Senate, and directed this report to the House Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Mr. Speaker, there were 111 Members of those two respective committees present for this hearing today, which went on almost 7 hours. It was an opportunity for Members on both sides of the aisle to come together to listen carefully to a report that we mandated in our emergency supplemental spending bill that was passed March of this year, some 6 months ago. Mr. Speaker, the thing that bothered me about this report was that in this town, last week, in this Congress, indeed, we heard nothing but negative comments about the messenger and what he might bring in regard to this report to suggest that it would be less than honest. Mr. Speaker, the New York Times today ran an article that basically showed a picture of General Petraeus and said, underneath the caption of that picture, General Petraeus is General Betray Us, to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this general, our combatant commander of Multinational Force Iraq, would lie to the American people for some political advantage. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to my friend from Mississippi. I think that he may have a copy with him of that particular ad. I will be happy now to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina with such prescient words she brings to us. I want to bring my colleagues' attention to the next poster I have got. I am going to give two quotes, one from General Petraeus from the hearing today and the other from Ambassador Crocker. First from General Petraeus: ``To summarize, the security situation in Iraq is improving, and Iraqi elements are slowly taking on more of the responsibility for protecting their citizens. Innumerable challenges lie ahead. However, coalition and Iraqi security forces have made progress towards achieving sustainable security. As a result, the United States will be in a position to reduce its forces in Iraq in the months ahead.'' That was from the testimony of General David Petraeus. Later in the hour we will talk a little more about specific recommendations for troop withdrawal that General Petraeus made. I will read that quote from Ambassador Crocker in just a minute, but at this point I see my friend from Mississippi is still with us, and I would like to yield to him, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, because he knows of what he speaks and he speaks it well. You know, this situation with the ad that the gentleman from Mississippi so kindly brought to the floor so all of our colleagues who may not have seen it in the newspaper this morning would have an opportunity to know exactly of what we are speaking about tonight, the gentleman from Tennessee suggested that sometimes people want somebody else to do their dirty work. Mr. Speaker, look at this first slide to my left. Here is the quote: ``No one wants to call Petraeus a liar on national TV, noted one Democratic Senator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'' This was last week, an anonymous Democratic Senator being interviewed by Politico.com. Well, lo and behold, it looks like one these outside groups indeed are doing the dirty work of calling General Petraeus ``General Betray Us.'' How despicable. As I said just a few minutes earlier, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a gentleman, a patriot, a great leader who has served this country honorably and selflessly for over 35 years. He has risked his life in combat. He accepted lengthy deployments away from his family to defend our Nation and its citizens from its enemies. For this, Mr. Speaker, he deserves the respect, the admiration and gratitude of every single American, and not disgraceful slander from despicable groups like moveon.org. Is that Phil Gingrey coming up with an original statement? No. I am quoting Senator Joe Lieberman. God bless Senator Lieberman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx.

Mr. GINGREY. The gentleman is so, so right. Here we are talking about a four-star general, West Point graduate, 35 years of military service, third rotation in Iraq, to have to put up with that kind of despicable attack. And, like I say, we are going to give our colleagues on both sides of the aisle an opportunity to repudiate that, which I am sure they will. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Wamp.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi. The gentleman is right, I was having a little trouble finding that poster because I don't have that poster; but I do have a smaller copy of it. I guess you would call this a slide, Mr. Speaker. But I did want to read this quote from the testimony of Ambassador Crocker before I call on my colleague, Colonel John Kline. Here is what Ambassador Crocker said: ``A secure, stable democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is attainable. In my judgment, the cumulative trajectory of political, economic and diplomatic developments in Iraq is upwards, although the slope of that line is not steep. The process will not be quick. It will be uneven, punctuated by setbacks as well as achievements, and it will require substantial United States resolve and commitment.'' I think the ambassador and General Petraeus served this country extremely well today in their testimony, and their facts were accurate. Mr. Speaker, with that I want to yield to my colleague on the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I am so glad the gentleman brought that up, because what he is talking about, and I commend to all my colleagues, read the article, these were three, in one case, I think, a citizen of Germany, maybe of Islamic descent, but a German citizen, and not only were they planning on attacking Frankfurt, where most people fly into when they go into Western Europe, certainly from this country, but also, and I know the gentleman is aware of this, their plan was to attack Ramstein Air Force Base and the Landstuhl European Army Medical Center where every one of these troops, our troops, that are injured so severely, and our great physicians on the battlefield are able to save their lives to get them through Ramstein Air Force Base to that Landstuhl Army Medical Center there just a few miles away, and that's what they were going to attack.

Mr. GINGREY. The lowest of the low. Of course, I know we want to yield to our friend from Colorado, and we will hear from him in just a second, but as I conclude my remarks, I just want to say, and Mrs. Thelma Drake, the gentlewoman from Virginia mentioned this a little earlier, we had a report today in the House Armed Services Committee, a report that was requested by Congress in our last emergency supplemental, from the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, on these benchmarks, and the Comptroller General talked about the progress. Really, he talked mainly about lack of progress, and it was ironic that even though several of those benchmarks, we had made some progress, he pretty much gave the Iraqi government a failing report card. I think that is disappointing here, just a matter of a few days prior to General Petraeus' report. He even suggested that while General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are highly professional and we would get a professional report from them, we would not get an unbiased report. The only unbiased report was coming from him and from the Government Accountability Office. I suggested to him, during that hearing, you know, you might be unbiased, but your ability to interpret what you see on the ground certainly militarily may not come even close to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. So let's wait for the report, let's give victory a chance. That's what I want to say to all my colleagues. Let's button our lips for the rest of this week, and let's see what the report says. I would suggest that the President is going to listen to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, and I would suggest that yes, indeed, the Iraqi government is making progress, that they are not making as fast of progress as we would hope, but we would continue to put pressure on them, but let's give victory a chance.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tennessee, Zach Wamp, for, first of all, conducting this special order hour, leadership hour on the Republican side, and for allowing me and my colleague and great friend from Virginia, Thelma Drake, for being part of that. Doug Lamborn, the gentleman from Colorado, I think, has joined us. Mr. Speaker, I was on the trip with Thelma Drake from Virginia when we visited Iraq and Afghanistan, and I am not going to repeat everything that she said, but I want my colleagues to know that this was my fourth trip to Iraq, my first opportunity to go to Afghanistan. But this was a necessity that I go this fourth time. I think some 40 or 50 Members of the Congress during the so-called August recess spent 5 to 7 days in the Middle East and the combat zone in 120-degree weather. Those of us on the Armed Services Committee, I am sure, felt duty bound to do this, particularly as we approach the report from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker that's going to be delivered to the House on next Monday, September 10. I have been four times, but this was the most meaningful visit, because I came to a realization, really, actually, it emboldened my feeling that we need to give victory a chance. Again, I want to thank Zach Wamp, the gentleman from Tennessee, for the passion that he brings to this issue. I thought he was just an expert on energy, but he is also an expert on national defense, more important, the global war on terror, as he so passionately explains this issue. I was on the floor last night during some of our special order time, 5-minute speeches and the two sides, the Democratic majority has an hour and the Republican minority has an hour. I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a gentleman from Maryland, talking about losing a soldier, a 22-year-old brave patriot in his district, and he talked with the mom and was trying to, of course, console her. The gentleman said on the floor last night, you know, it was sort of ironic, the mom of the fallen soldier said, isn't it ironic, I am here planning my son's funeral and the Commander in Chief is planning a wedding. That's not the kind of commentary that we need on the floor of this House to suggest that the Commander in Chief doesn't care, that he has got his head in the sand and that each and every one of these 3,700 or so KIAs and 18,000 of our best and bravest that have sustained, in some instances, massive injuries, if you don't think that the Commander in Chief goes to bed every night with this on his heart, then you are just flat wrong. I think the gentleman, on more reflection, would agree with what I am saying. This President cares. This Commander in Chief cares. He wants to give victory a chance. It's not a matter of staying the course and same old same old, the Iraq Study Group, the gentleman from Indiana, the long-serving distinguished Democrat, 37 years in this body, and Ambassador Baker, Secretary Baker, served under three Republican Presidents, you have got two people that made some suggestions. One of the main suggestions that they made was we need a surge, we need more troops, especially in and around Baghdad, and those four provinces, where all of the violence, most of the violence, 95 percent of it, is occurring. This is exactly what the President responded to. What did we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle? Oh, well, you know, too little, too late. Yet, you know, 3 or 4 years ago it was, well, you're not putting enough troops in there to do the job, you didn't listen to General Shinseki, it's a constant pulling the rug out from under the combatant commanders, and we see 435 people that want to be Commander in Chief. It just doesn't work that way. In the Democratic special hour last night, after we talked about our experience in Iraq and these recent trips, the team on the Democratic side said, you know, we can't afford to spend this money. We've almost spent $1 trillion trying to win this global war on terror, and we need to be spending this money to repair bridges, to give more money to the gulf coast, to maybe even give more money than a 300 percent increase in the SCHIP program to cover every man, woman and child from cradle- to-grave with universal health care. Even if I were for some of those things, I will tell you this, you spend that money on those things, and you don't protect our people from global terrorism, then you will see, in a New York minute, how quick that money would go down the toilet as these people blow up this infrastructure, just like they did 9/11, almost 6 years ago now, and killed 3,300, almost the same number, that we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan over a 4-year period. They killed them within a period of 45 minutes.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, as a proud sponsor of this legislation, I rise to support H.R. 2850, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2007. I want to thank my colleague on the Science Committee, Dr. Baird. I thank him for his kind comments. And certainly I want to thank our chairman, Bart Gordon, the ranking member, Mr. Hall of Texas, and all of the members of the Science Committee and staff. Both majority and minority have worked hard to bring this important bipartisan legislation through committee and to the House floor today. This legislation has passed the House in the 108th and 109th Congresses, and I hope that the third Congress will truly be the charm and we will see H.R. 2850 quickly passed by both Chambers and signed by the President. Mr. Speaker, chemists can design chemicals to be safe, just as they can design them to have other properties like color and texture. As chemists design products and the processes by which those products are manufactured, they can and should factor in the possible creation of any hazardous by-products. This technique of considering not only the process by which chemicals are produced, but also the environment in which they are created, is the basic definition of green chemistry. It is the method of designing chemical products and processes that at the very least reduce, and at the very best eliminate, the use or generation of hazardous substances. Mr. Speaker, the basic idea is this: Preventing pollution and hazardous waste from the start of a design process is far preferable to cleaning up pollution and waste at a later date. Additionally, the innovation created by this enhanced research will subsequently spur economic growth as developing new products and processes is an integral component of many industries, from fabrics to fuel cells, as an example. Green chemistry doesn't just help protect our environment, it also protects our workers. The conditions under which chemicals are created and used can present many risks to those who work on their production. But if companies utilize green chemistry, the materials they use will be as benign as possible, vastly improving employee conditions. Unfortunately, despite all of the promise of green chemistry, the Federal Government invests very little in this area. H.R. 2850 works to remedy this by promoting greater Federal investment in, and coordination of, this important research area. It does so by establishing a program that coordinates Federal green chemistry research and development activities within the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and the Department of Energy. Make no mistake, greater Federal attention will encourage universities and academic institutions around this country to train future workers in this exciting technology. H.R. 2850 will achieve this by supporting research and development grants to partnerships between universities, industry and nonprofit organizations. It will also promote education through curriculum development and fellowships that will collect and disseminate information about green chemistry. In past years, many industries, from chemical companies and pharmaceutical corporations, to carpet manufacturers and biotechnology businesses, have all endorsed H.R. 2850, showing a broad range of support for the merits of this legislation. This bill is nearly identical to the version passed in the 109th Congress. The companies and corporations that have voiced their strong support for this bill realize that the advancement of green chemistry is positive for not only their businesses, but also our country's environment, our economy and our Nation's citizens. The American Chemical Society, a nonprofit organization chartered by Congress, stated in support of H.R. 2850, ``Green chemistry means continuously improving process safety and resource efficiency leading to reduced cost, waste and environmental impact. It is the ultimate proof that environmental and economic benefit in chemistry can be optimized simultaneously.'' Mr. Speaker, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and green chemistry promises a ton of pollution prevention. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman, my good friend from Texas. It is indeed an honor to be a part of this special leadership hour to share a little time with my colleagues, of course, Judge Carter leading the hour; Chris Shays, the gentleman from Connecticut, 18 trips to the Middle East, to some extent in harm's way. I saw a couple of years ago, maybe it was 3 years ago, just happened to be channel surfing, watching C-SPAN. I guess I am an insomniac. There was Chris Shays having a town hall meeting talking to his constituents from Connecticut and taking some tough, the tough questions about this situation in the Middle East and why it was important and why he supported it. He outlined tonight the fact that he doesn't look at these things through rose-colored glasses. He understands that mistakes were made. We all do, but the mission is the mission. He went on and talked about this surge and why it's so important that every Member on both sides of the aisle give it a chance to work. Judge Carter said the same thing, pointed out that this surge of 30,000 troops wasn't even complete until the beginning of July. Yet, many of our colleagues, unfortunately, it seemed like most of them on the other side of the aisle, wanted to declare that the new way forward was a failure before it even started, before it had even begun. I remember back when I first came, I had the honor to come to this body with some of my colleagues that are here tonight on the floor, and people saying, well, you know, this mistake, the big mistake is we didn't put enough troops on the ground. I guess that's what General Shinseki had recommended. My Democrat colleagues kept pounding away, well, we didn't have enough troops. Then when the President, based really on the report of the Iraq Study Group, two of the most distinguished public servants in the Federal Government that any of us know, James Baker, Lee Hamilton, a Republican and a Democrat, came and said, you know, we need a surge of troops, that's exactly what the President did. And then my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle, most of them, not all, said, too little, too late. How do you satisfy some folks? I listened very carefully, of course, to my good friend and colleague, a freshman, but he seemed so much more experienced, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis), talking about if we lose, they win. He is absolutely right. That just is so simple but yet so profound, and I really compliment the gentleman from Tennessee making his first trip and having that insight, that wisdom we all pray for. That's what we need for us to win. Indeed, this is tough; it's not easy. But I heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle during the 5-minute remarks tonight, I heard the gentlelady from California say it was unconscionable that the President is playing politics with the war in Iraq; yet she, as a cofounder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, and many of her colleagues voted in favor before the August recess of every one of these, let's see if we can tie General Petraeus' hands behind his back. So, surely they don't want us to do poorly in Iraq. Surely not. I don't suggest that. But I just remind them that this Commander in Chief, I may not agree with him on every single thing. I think the issue of stem cell research is something I support him on. Some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle do not. His thoughts about a comprehensive immigration reform that includes what I think is amnesty, I don't support him on. Some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle do. But I can I think in the final analysis, this President, it may take 25 years, it may take 50 years, but I believe people will look back and say thank God that this man was in this place at this time after 9/11 and had the courage to stand up to finally say, you know, double-dog daring and triple-dog daring doesn't work. Mr. Davis talked about the marine barracks and the USS Cole and the hostages in Iran for the 400 and something days, the 52 hostages. This President, this Commander in Chief had the courage to stand strong. Now, my colleague just mentioned I had gotten back from Iraq, my fourth trip. I will probably never catch Mr. Shays. But each and every trip, honestly, I think I learn more and more. I want my colleagues to understand that. These trips, I hope the American people will listen. These trips are bipartisan. We go and, you know, we hear the facts. And the old saying, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. But I feel very strongly that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are going to come back and come to us as required by law, which we insisted on September 15, at least by that date, maybe a little bit before that date, and give us an accurate, fair, balanced report. They are not going to try to paint this picture too bright. They are going to be accurate. I have said all along, we need to wait for that report before we all try to become 535 commanders in chief, many of us, including myself, who are not even veterans. So I was very encouraged, I said to my colleague, Representative Carter, on my trip, I think the troops are strong, absolutely. As Representative Shays said, they get weary, the families get weary. The American public is a little impatient. I understand that. War fatigue does set in. But this is not the time to give up. This is the time to be tough, stand strong and give victory a chance, because Mr. Davis said, if we don't, they win. The consequences of that are unfathomable. As I conclude my remarks, I also want to say to a group of marines from my district, NAS Atlanta, deployed this morning, some of them for the third time. This is the ``Red Dogs'' HMLA-773, a squadron of 255 marines. They are helicopter guys, Mr. Speaker, and they are light attack helicopters. They are going to be in a situation there at the al Assad Air Base. The President just made the trip over Labor Day weekend to meet with the troops. That's where they are going. I saw them with their families, with their wives, with their little infant children. In one case, a little baby 2 weeks old was there in his mother's arms. There were cousins, there were aunts, there were uncles, and there were brothers and sisters and grandparents. It humbled me to stand among these heroes as I talked with them and told them how much, how deeply I think Members on both sides of the aisle appreciate their dedicated service to this country. I wish them Godspeed and hope they will come back safe and sound to their loved ones. But not one of them wavered, even though this may have been their second or third deployment. They are still strong, and that's the same thing that I saw when I went to Iraq on this recent trip. God bless them. Let's hang in there for a little while longer. Then we are going to hear from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on September 15, and it will be an encouraging bit of news.