John Kline

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his comments, and certainly for his service and for the service of our sons. I know that the South Carolina National Guard is held up by the Wilson family, and we are grateful. I know that all the people of South Carolina are grateful to their service to the National Guard, and for your service in the Guard and here in Congress. And I know that General Pace appreciates your kind remarks. Pete and Lynne Pace were next-door neighbors for Vicky and I when I retired from active duty in the Marines in 1994. He is not only a fine man and a fine officer, but a good neighbor. I understand that we are joined now by my colleague from Missouri, who had some words that he wanted to share with us concerning General Pace's forthrightness; is that right? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Again, I thank the gentleman for his service and his son's service and obviously the good parenting job that you have done, having your sons go into the Marine Corps. My son went into the Army. I have got to tell you, I am so proud of him sometimes I just bust out, but occasionally I wonder where I may have gone wrong in that upbringing thing. But I know you are proud of your sons and I of mine and Joe of his and all of our sons and daughters who are serving so well and so bravely in this war and in wars past. I want to just remind my colleagues and those who may be following this discussion tonight what is at the core of the fine men and women who are leading our men and women into combat, and I go back to the very, very famous words of General Douglas MacArthur after he retired and he went back to West Point, his alma mater, and gave a speech. In that speech, I am just going to read a paragraph of it here, he said some words that strike to the core of these men and women that we are talking about tonight. This was back on May 12, 1962. General MacArthur said, ``For all eyes and for all time, it is an expression of the ethics of the American soldier. That I should be integrated in this way with so noble an ideal arouses a sense of pride and yet of humility which will be with me always. `` `Duty,' 'Honor,' `Country,' those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you want to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.'' I think it is important for us to understand, and a little bit later this evening I am going to talk about some of those values and some of the fine young men and women who go to these service academies and provide the outstanding leadership that we have. Of course, tonight we are talking about that leadership and quite a bit about General Peter Pace, the first Marine Corps Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the man who is going to be retiring here in the coming months after he has served us so well in so many years. I am joined now by my friend and colleague and classmate, I guess, we came to Congress together in the 108th Congress, Dr. Phil Gingrey. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks and for his service here. You have been a great colleague and a great champion for our men and women who are serving so bravely and so well all around the globe. It is not just Iraq, as my friend knows, and here shortly I will be recognizing another colleague to talk about this threat that we face. But first, I want to recognize my friend and colleague on the Armed Services Committee and a great American himself, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words and for his strong support of our men and women in uniform. I know the people down in North Carolina are very proud to have you serve. There is no greater champion for our Special Operations Forces than you are and for all those fine soldiers down there, and I know that General Pace appreciates your support. So I thank the gentleman for joining us this evening. Mr. Speaker, I was thinking about the kind words that have been said tonight about General Pace. I certainly add to those. I mentioned earlier that I thought that General Pace was a fine man and a fine marine and a fine commander and a great neighbor when he and Lynn lived next door to Vicky and I down at the Marine Base at Quantico. I just have to share another story with my colleagues standing here. There was another time when General Pace and I were neighbors, and it was not such a nice location as the Marine Base at Quantico and the fine quarters there up on the hill. We were serving together in Mogadishu in 1992 and 1993 in the rubble of that country, in some pretty tough times and bad weather and bad conditions and starving people. We had some folks who were intent on shooting each other and shooting us. I remember going into the building one time and General Pace was sitting there, sort of an old, bombed-out room of the Embassy. I said, ``General, how is it going?'' He said, ``We are here, we are serving our country and we are in the Marines.'' He was a fine friend and fine neighbor, whether he was in the idyllic hillside down in Prince William County or bombed-out rubble in Mogadishu. You couldn't have a finer man with you. I am very proud to have known him and served with him, and I am very grateful for his many years of distinguished service, living by those ideals we discussed earlier. There are some more commanders that we want to refer to later tonight, but we want to put this in the context of this terrible war we are fighting. We are fighting an evil and adaptive enemy, and I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to commend my colleagues for their activities over the last day. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have come to the floor and offered amendments, in some cases, to do something, perhaps small but something to try to control the explosion of spending that we're seeing come forward through this budget and through this appropriations process. And so I want to commend my colleagues from North Carolina, Mr. McHenry, whose amendment we are debating now, which is a secondary amendment to our colleague, Ms. Foxx from North Carolina. I know it's a little confusing sometimes. These are efforts to try to control runaway spending, billions and billions of dollars, to be paid for, as we have heard in this debate, by the largest tax increase in American history. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues to try to do something to get our arms around that spending. But there is another reason why we have been coming to the floor, and that is to shed some light into a horribly flawed process of earmarks. One of our colleagues, the gentleman from New York, I believe, earlier came down and said, ``Why are we talking about earmarks? There aren't any earmarks in this bill.'' Well, you see, that's the point. We don't know if there are earmarks in this bill. We don't know if there will be earmarks in this bill, but frankly the suspicion that we have is that sometime in July, or perhaps August, we will find out that indeed there are going to be earmarks in this bill and we, Members of this House, are not going to have a chance to challenge those earmarks on this floor, and that is simply unacceptable. Now, there has been a great deal of media interest to bring focus to this. In fact, in this morning's paper, a local paper here, Roll Call, there is an editorial called Pork Rules that ought to underscore the very problem. I am just going to quote a couple of paragraphs from that story, because I think it does underscore the very issue that we're talking about on the floor of this House. It says: ``Under furious attack from editorial writers and Republicans, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) has come up with a new disclosure policy on earmarks. It's better than his previous one, the airdrop policy, but it's a far cry from full transparency.'' It's that transparency issue that we've been trying to get at. Continuing the quote: ``In a remarkable press conference Monday in which he read nearly every word of a 14-page earmark policy declaration before taking questions, Obey pledged that Democrats would fully disclose every earmark and its sponsor by the end of July.'' I would say to my colleagues, that is well past the proposed date that we are supposed to be voting on this and every appropriations bill in this House. So we will know every earmark and its sponsor by the end of July, at which point we can do absolutely nothing about it. Continuing the quote: ``That kind of disclosure would be only partially in keeping with the earmark rules Republicans put into place in September, after they got into no end of political trouble for corrupt, opaque special-interest pork trading. But the GOP rule made it possible for earmarks to be individually challenged in debate on appropriations bills.'' And that's the point. We heard the debate last night repeatedly that went something like this: Well, you Republicans put in earmarks, thousands of earmarks, and you airdropped earmarks into bills in conference, and so you did it, we're going to do it. But we're going to do it better because we're going to post a list sometime in July or August, at which time nobody will be able to vote on it. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, the earmark process in this body, in this Congress, on both sides of this Capitol, has been broken for years. There is no question about it. There is a reason why many of us have decided that the process is so broken that we won't participate in it. So claiming that you were bad and, therefore, we can do it, strikes me as a very hollow and weak argument. I hope my colleagues would agree with me on that. Just because somebody made a mistake doesn't mean that we are then authorized to make a mistake. We are seeking transparency. That was the promise made to us and the American people, that we would be able to look at these earmarks and be able to debate them on this floor and be able to vote on them on this floor, not have them given to us, pulled from what has been called a secret slush fund. Frankly, I don't know what else to call it. Because in this very bill that we are debating today, we simply don't know where that money is and where it's going.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this has been a fascinating debate. I have heard, unfortunately, some language that I certainly find offensive, that we are dishonoring, for example, those who have died in this country. I certainly don't believe that is the case. I don't understand how our insistence on making sure that we are appropriating the taxpayers' dollars responsibly dishonors anyone. Repeatedly I have heard that in this bill there are no earmarks. Again, I would reiterate, that is the point. We simply don't know if that is the case. The gentleman from Texas just stood down here and said he has requests for two earmarks in this bill. I don't know how many earmarks will end up at the end of the process, and, frankly, none of us do, because there is no transparency and we do not have visibility into this very, very flawed system for Members' projects for earmarks. Mr. Chairman, I know that my dear friend and colleague from North Carolina would like the opportunity to talk about his amendment and this process once again, so I would be happy to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the committee members and Chairmen Skelton and Snyder for their support of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program in this year's Defense authorization bill in the en bloc amendment. Inclusion of this program in the bill will move us forward as we seek to fill a gap that has only widened as our Nation has come to rely increasingly on the National Guard and Reserves to assist in combat operations. Based upon his experiences as a returning Vietnam War veteran, Minnesota National Guard Adjutant General Larry Shellito took the lead to build a reintegration program for returning Guardsmen who lack the established support infrastructure of their active duty counterparts. General Shellito and the Minnesota National Guard leadership have developed an innovative program to change how returning soldiers and airmen are reintegrated back into their communities. Through experiences drawn from the deployments of smaller units to Iraq and Afghanistan and Kosovo, they developed a unique combat veteran reintegration program with a focus on supporting soldiers and their families throughout the entire deployment cycle. This multifaceted program includes workshops for families and communities to help them for their servicemember's return and training events at 30, 60 and 90- day intervals for servicemembers following their demobilization. The training events have given Guardsmen and Reservists the opportunity to engage VA and health care representatives, while also allowing platoon sergeants and commanders to check in with their troops. Experience has shown that catching signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or even marital problems early can prevent even more severe problems in the future. I believe the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program represents the best ideas of not only Minnesota but also States and territories throughout the Nation that have stepped in to provide reintegration services to their troops. As envisioned, the Yellow Ribbon program included members of the other Reserve components in only a voluntary, unpaid status due to financial constraints. So I would like to thank Chairmen Skelton and Snyder for their support in finding the additional funding necessary to expand this program beyond the National Guard to all Reservists. Let me just close by saying that this program has the support of Lieutenant General Blum, the chief of the National Guard Bureau and many other organizations, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the Naval Reserve Association, the Noncommissioned Officers Association, and the Retired Enlisted Association. I will submit those letters for the Record. Again, I would like to thank Chairmen Skelton and Snyder for their hard work in making this possible. Departments of the Army and the Air Force, Arlington, VA, May 4, 2007. Hon. John Kline, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Kline: As you describe in your letter, the Minnesota National Guard's ``Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration'' program does a great job filling the gap in transition assistance services experienced by all Reserve Component members returning from a combat deployment. I consistently hear from Adjutants General, our troops and their families that the current transition program conducted at the active component demobilization station doesn't well serve the needs of the National Guard and the other Reserve components. We see, for example, that many DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, prepared at the active duty demobilization station contain significant errors and require correction at the home station. As you know from your own military experience, the DD 214 is an essential ticket to access veteran's benefits. The time required to correct these forms is a burden on our veterans. Like the rest of the transition assistance program of health care, education, VA and employment counseling, Minnesota, among other states, has demonstrated that it can be provided better at the home station. Several states participated in a National Guard-wide working group convened last fall to capture the best practices nationwide. The recommendations of that working group echo the results of previous twenty-four months of DoD working groups in which my staff has participated. We have just begun another DoD working group, this one chartered by Congress on the subject of Guard and Reserve transition to civilian employment. That report is due to Congress in October 2007. There are several very effective programs in our States to model--the solution set to this issue is well defined. The National Guard Bureau has well documented lessons learned from studying this issue. The need for more time to accomplish transition assistance at the home station is clear. Providing a better transition and reintegration experience for our Guardsmen is a top priority for me and Lieutenant General Clyde Vaughn, the director of the Army National Guard. There are currently 37,000 Guardsmen deployed to fight the war on terror. It's expected that another 60,000 will deploy within the next 18 months. Almost a full third of the National Guard and their families will require transition assistance in the near term. A national program, implemented swiftly, would arrive just in time for them. I salute and appreciate your continuing interest in the welfare of our National Guardsmen. Sincerely, H. Steven Blum, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Chief, National Guard Bureau.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Yes, I yield for purposes of the motion.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for the purposes of making a motion. motion to rise offered by mr. buyer

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times this evening and for the last days and weeks and months, indeed for years, we have Americans in harm's way in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the Horn of Africa. Around the world, these Americans need our help, and they deserve our help. It has been over 3 months since the President sent to us his request for emergency supplemental funding for our troops. It is time for us to stop playing politics and step up and do our part. We need to appropriate all of the funds our troops need, and we need to do it now. The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee said this afternoon that our young men and women are entitled to have the funding that they need. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not give them the funding that they need. It has been made very clear that the President will veto this legislation, and I believe that he should. He showed us that he would veto legislation that shackled our generals and made it impossible for our troops to do the job. This piecemeal approach, the 60-day funding, is unacceptable. We have men and women not only in harm's way, but men and women here who are already starting to feel the pain of the restriction in funds. Secretary Gates said they are shifting funds now. It is not fair for our young men and women to serve overseas and come back here and not have what they need even here in the States. We need to move forward on legislation that genuinely funds the troops and allows us a chance for success. I would like to close with just a couple of comments. General Petraeus said to his troops when he took over that the way there was going to be hard, but hard was not hopeless. As I said on this floor weeks ago, this legislation makes hard hopeless. In fact, this legislation is hopeless because it will not become law. We need to step up and take care of these troops.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, House Republicans believe that our commanders on the ground in Iraq deserve to have the resources and flexibility they need to lead our troops in harm's way during this critical phase of their mission. On the other hand, Washington Democrats would rather use our troops to make a political statement than work in a bipartisan fashion to get our brave men and women in uniform the funding they need to succeed in their mission. I thought the San Diego Union Tribune made a good point in an editorial stating: ``And even though this sham bill is merely a political show, the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate managed to lard it up in nearly $25 billion in wasteful pork, most of it entirely unrelated to war funding.'' It's time the Democratic leadership send the President a clean supplemental. It is simply unacceptable for Democrat leaders to restrict the necessary funds our troops need so political points can be scored with their defeatist base.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for her thoughtfulness and leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 305. Mr. Speaker, next week will mark the 27th anniversary of Operation Eagle Claw, better known to most Americans as ``Desert One,'' which the distinguished chairman mentioned moments ago. On April 24, 1980, a task force consisting of Army special forces, Army Rangers, Air Force special operations wing personnel and the Navy, Marines and Air Force succeeded in moving thousands of miles, undetected, until reaching a remote location in the Iranian desert 200 miles from Tehran in an effort to rescue the American hostages being held at the American Embassy. A combination of helicopters and C-130 aircraft rendezvoused with the intention of rescuing these hostages in Tehran the following evening. Due to mechanical failures and weather problems, only six out of eight helicopters successfully arrived at the Desert One rendezvous. Once the six helicopters arrived, the rescue attempt was dealt a final blow when it was learned that one of the helicopters had lost its primary hydraulic system. As the various aircraft began moving into position to return to their respective launching points, one of the helicopters, flown by one of my very best friends, collided with a C-130 aircraft on the ground. Flames engulfed the helicopter and the C-130, which resulted in the death of five airmen and three marines. During my 25 years in the Marine Corps, I had the good fortune to know many of the heroes of that day, and I did, in fact, count many of them as my best friends. These brave men were asked, and all proudly volunteered, to undertake the challenge of rescuing their fellow Americans in a mission of the utmost secrecy and gravest danger. Members from all branches of our armed services came together, bringing with them the best of skills and experience, but it was not enough to do the job. In the end, inadequate equipment, tremendous dust storms, extraordinary logistical challenges contributed to the mission's failure. But these circumstances in no way diminished the skill and bravery of the men who took on this hazardous mission against all odds. Out of the ashes of Operation Eagle Claw arose the organization that we honor today. In 1986, Congress established a new unified command for special operations forces, designated as the U.S. Special Operations Command. And today we gratefully honor the 20th anniversary of SOCOM's founding and the men and women who fill its ranks. Like their predecessors, the men and women that comprise today's special operations forces have accepted the challenge of tackling some of the most difficult and dangerous missions assigned to our military. As we have witnessed in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines and in many other locations across the globe, they have handled these missions with honor and skillful professionalism. To those who perished in Operation Eagle Claw and the many SOCOM missions since then, we offer our sincere appreciation. And to those who carry on their noble mission, we pledge our Nation's support.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses the situation that we are facing on the ground overseas and at home. The United States Marine Corps is suffering a little over 30 percent of the combat casualties. My amendment makes sure that they and their program, in support of this very important bill, gets 20 percent of the money allocated in the fund established in this bill. Mr. Chairman, on October 7, 2004, Marine Lieutenant Colonel Tim Maxwell's life changed forever. While on his third tour in Iraq, an enemy mortar attack left him with a battered body and severe brain trauma. But Colonel Maxwell is a marine, and despite the frustration of relearning how to walk and read, he has refused to give in to his wounds. In an open letter posted on his Web site, Colonel Maxwell talks about what it is like to be a wounded warrior: ``We tend not to complain about our injuries too much. Most of us know others who are worse off--a guy with a bad leg knows a guy who lost a leg, or both legs. I, with a brain that is `cracked,' know youngsters with brain injuries who are unable to walk or talk. We all know some who died. So it is not a good thing to complain. We are tough guys. We are all going to whip it.'' Having experienced loneliness, frustration, and depression during his recovery, Tim Maxwell set out to ensure that fellow wounded marines would have a place to recover with others like them. He said: ``When you're in the hospital, your morale is okay. You are with other wounded warriors. You can chat about it. Sometimes we just look at each other in the hallway and nod. That's all. Acknowledgment. But once you are out of the hospital, it's tough. It sounds great on the day you leave. But there's irritation, frustration.'' In May, 2005, Colonel Maxwell came across a 20-year-old wounded marine sitting alone inside a Camp Lejeune barracks. The young man couldn't use his arm and was lonely and lost, having seen his buddy killed in combat and with his family living far away in Florida. Colonel Maxwell decided that ``no marine was going to be left alone like that.'' So along with Gunnery Sergeant Ken Barnes, he convinced the Marine Corps leadership that wounded marines needed their own barracks to help them heal among other wounded warriors. The Marine Corps leadership agreed, and in September 2005, Camp Lejeune opened the first barracks for wounded marines. The following month the barracks was dedicated to the man whose vision led to today's Wounded Warrior Battalion: Lieutenant Colonel Tim Maxwell. Maxwell Hall at Camp Lejeune now houses 80 marines and provides them with the support structure necessary to heal. A similar barracks has also been established at Camp Pendleton, California, to care for west coast marines. The program has been so successful that the concept was formalized by establishing the Wounded Warrior Battalions at Lejeune and Pendleton. Simply put, Colonel Maxwell's vision of Wounded Warrior Battalions seeks to ensure that marines don't fall through the cracks that were so evident at Walter Reed. This amendment will help ensure this unique program succeeds and acts as a model for other services by assisting the Marine Corps transition this successful program from independent battalions on each coast into a single regiment with a headquarters located at Quantico. The regiment's 54 staff members will help oversee the battalions at Pendleton and Lejeune, track active duty and discharged wounded marines through their recovery, and connect them with resources at the VA, other government agencies, and through private organizations. The battalions will continue to handle the day-to-day tasks of ensuring that marines are scheduled for medical appointments, that they are transported to those appointments, and that they receive counseling support to help heal their mental scars. Earlier this week, I spoke with the newly appointed Wounded Warrior Regimental commander, Colonel Gregory Boyle. After the conversation I was even more convinced that the Wounded Warrior Regiment is the model for how to treat our wounded servicemembers. Colonel Boyle is motivated and ready to go forward. He came from infantry regimental command. Passage of this amendment will ensure he is able to do so. I appreciate the opportunity to bring this amendment to the floor, and I very much appreciate the support of Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened and, frankly, appalled that today in this House of Representatives we are debating a bill to put ``retreat and defeat'' into law at a time when we have our young men and women engaged in combat. There are many things, Mr. Speaker, which affect the morale of men and women in uniform and men and women in combat, but putting into law mandating their defeat is certainly one of them. Mr. Speaker, on February 10, 2007, General Petraeus addressed the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and civilians under his command in a short letter. In that letter, General Petraeus explained quite clearly that ``the way ahead will not be easy. There will be difficult times in the months to come. But hard is not hopeless, and we must remain steadfast to help improve security for the Iraqi people.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill makes hard hopeless. As a 25-year veteran of the Marine Corps and the father of a soldier recently returned from Iraq, it is with great hardship that I now oppose this emergency supplemental. This supplemental does not support our military; it undermines the best opportunity to prevent the dire predictions of our Intelligence Community when they put out that NIE saying that this course of action which will be driven by this bill will increase sectarian violence, cause massive civilian casualties, create a terror safe haven and a potential for wider conflict that would draw in other regional powers. Again, General Petraeus said, in talking to his soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, ``Success will require discipline, fortitude and initiative, qualities that you have in abundance.'' Would that we have more of that here. February 10, 2007. To the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Civilians of Multi-National Force--Iraq: We serve in Iraq at a critical time. The war here will soon enter its fifth year. A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder- to-shoulder with our Iraqi comrades, we will conduct a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. The stakes could not be higher. Our task is crucial. Security is essential for Iraq to build its future. Only with security can the Iraqi government come to grips with the tough issues it confronts and develop the capacity to serve its citizens. The hopes of the Iraqi people and the coalition countries are with us. The enemies of Iraq will shrink at no act, however barbaric. They will do all that they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them. Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our enemies. And together we must prevail. The way ahead will not be easy. There will be difficult times in the months to come. But hard is not hopeless, and we must remain steadfast in our effort to help improve security for the Iraqi people. I am confident that each of you will fight with skill and courage, and that you will remain loyal to your comrades-in-arms and to the values our nations hold so dear. In the end, Iraqis will decide the outcome of this struggle. Our task is to help them gain the time they need to save their country. To do that, many of us will live and fight alongside them. Together, we will face down the terrorists, insurgents, and criminals who slaughter the innocent. Success will require discipline, fortitude, and initiative--qualities that you have in abundance. I appreciate your sacrifices and those of your families. Now, more than ever, your commitment to service and your skill can make the difference between victory and defeat in a very tough mission. It is an honor to soldier again with the members of the Multi-National Force--Iraq. I know that wherever you serve in this undertaking you will give your all. In turn, I pledge my commitment to our mission and every effort to achieve success as we help the Iraqis chart a course to a brighter future. Godspeed to each of you and to our Iraqi comrades in this crucial endeavor. David H. Petraeus, General, United States Army Commanding.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 327, the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act. I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Iowa, for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. This bill bears the name of a constituent of Mr. Boswell's, Joshua Omvig, who tragically took his life. I wish that I could stand here today and say that Joshua was the last soldier, sailor, airman, or marine to fall through the cracks, the last young life to end prematurely because the system was unwilling or unable to assist them. But if that were true, the gentleman would not have had to introduce this bill, and we would not be here today discussing it. In January of this year, this tragedy repeated itself when Jonathan Schulze, a young marine from my district who had served honorably in Iraq, took his life after seeking assistance from two VA medical facilities in Minnesota. The loss of such a promising young life has sparked both sadness and outrage throughout Minnesota and the Nation; outrage not only at the loss of a young life, but because the VA system in which he was enrolled had apparently and tragically failed him. In the months since Jonathan's unnecessary death, the VA has launched two investigations to find out why this marine did not receive the care he so desperately needed. An initial medical inspector's investigation was inconclusive, but it is my sincere hope that the ongoing VA Inspector General's investigation will fully explain the circumstances that led to his death. Along with the full accounting of the VA's action in Jonathan Schulze's case, I am hopeful the passage of this bill today will provide the professionals of the VA medical system with the tools necessary to prevent the tragic deaths of young veterans like Joshua and Jonathan. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Iowa for introducing this vital legislation. I urge my colleagues, all of them, to support H.R. 327.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Yes. And I am smiling a little bit, but of course we learned a very tough and bitter lesson when we tried to use the Continental Congress to, in fact, command the Army of the soon-to- be the United States and it did not work well. We would be foolish to try to duplicate that now. And, in fact, the proposed supplemental, which we can talk about in a little more detail perhaps a little later in this hour, is an attempt to dictate the tactics that are being involved. It is micromanaging the war. It is taking away the resources that our troops need. I wonder if I could take just a minute of our time here. I know that I have been a big supporter and I am sure you have of a bill sponsored by our colleague, a real American hero, Congressman Sam Johnson from Texas, who, as my colleagues know, spent 7 years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi and understands the stakes here as well as I am sure anybody in America. He has a bill that this entire body ought to get behind. It cuts to the heart of the matter and reassures our troops, our allies, and our enemies that we are not going to undercut our troops. So if I could just read a little bit of that bill because I think that that is what we should be about. I will skip a couple of paragraphs, all of which are important, talking about previous acts and resolutions of Congress, but picking up on subparagraph (4), it says: ``Members of the United States Armed Forces have served honorably in their mission to fight terrorism and protect the greater security of the United States. ``These members of the Armed Forces and their families have made many sacrifices, in many cases the ultimate sacrifice, to protect the security of the United States and the freedom Americans hold dear. ``Congress and the American people are forever grateful to the members of the Armed Forces for the service they have provided to the United States.'' In that light it says: ``Faithful support of Congress--Congress will not cut off or restrict funding for units and members of the Armed Forces that the Commander in Chief has deployed in harm's way in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.'' And that is the road that we ought to be going forward on. I would hope that more and more of our colleagues would sign onto this bill and that this really awful effort to take central funding away from our men and women who are, as we stand here now on this floor, engaged in protecting our freedoms and advancing the cause of liberty around the world, to keep that funding from being taken away from them. I have talked to Sam many times. He and I are a part of an ever- dwindling group of Vietnam veterans in this body, and he and I and others have watched what happens when our young men and women go fight and give it their all and have the rug pulled out from under them by politicians in Washington, D.C. We watched what happens when combat operations are run from Washington, D.C., and it doesn't matter whether it is being run from the White House situation room, as bombing targets were selected sort of famously by President Johnson, or whether it is dictating from the floor of this House. We should not let that happen. And since this is the Official Truth Squad, I think that our colleagues need to understand that that is at the core of what this very dangerous supplemental bill has added. It is a terrible micromanaging of the war, and it will be forcing, forcing, our defeat in Iraq. And, unfortunately, with that defeat the war doesn't just end. We are still in a war that is going to last a long time against radical Islam, against jihadists. Were we to suffer defeat in Iraq, the war becomes tougher for us, not easier. And I see we are joined by some of our colleagues.