John Kline

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. If the gentleman will yield, we forget and time slips by that following that disastrous day, not some people were killed, but millions died. Again, we have forgotten the boats, the ships, with hundreds and thousands of Vietnamese scrambling to stay on board, leaky boats, rafts, as they tried to escape the horror that followed that day. A movie was made called ``The Killing Fields'' that depicted quite graphically the humanitarian disaster that followed that withdrawal. I think that that scenario of a humanitarian disaster has been painted for us by a number of true experts in the field, even those who have been harshly critical of the administration's conduct of this war. The recognition that you could have that kind of bloodbath is widely seen, except perhaps by the House leadership, who has, as we said earlier, a plan for defeat in Iraq, which I am afraid would in fact lead to that kind of disaster.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding. That is exactly the point. You had a chart up earlier that said something about you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. We seem to be very selective. We have heard a lot of very selective fact-choosing recently. I remember in the debate we had on the floor of this body a couple of weeks ago, there were people who said consistently that the President's troop surge was in violation of the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group. We know for a fact that is not true, that on page 73 the Iraq Study Group agreed that a surge would be appropriate if it was requested by the commander on the ground, and we have covered in this Special Order the fact that the commander on the ground, General David Petraeus, has in fact said that he needs those troops, and it will be for a temporary basis. If I can take one more minute, because I know our colleagues have joined us and others want to speak on this critical issue, we do have some details of the Democrat supplemental so far that I have been looking at and trying to figure out. It is just a barrage of demands on the administration for reports and certifications which will make this unworkable for the Commander in Chief. It is in fact micromanagement. There is by July 1, 2007, the President has to report on a whole series of things. By October 1, 2007, he has to have another report verifying the report from July 1. In either case, if that doesn't satisfy the majority in the Congress, we have to start withdrawing troops within 180 days. If none of that applies and nothing else pertains by March 1, that is less than a year away, we have to begin deployment and redeployment. We have to leave; we have to retreat from Iraq within 180 days. This indeed details a plan for defeat. I don't know yet exactly all it is going to say, but one of the things that is in this bill would require that no Federal funds could be used to send any military unit to Iraq ``unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified in writing at least 15 days in advance as to the readiness of this unit.'' I don't know, but if you are in the 82nd Airborne, within 15 days you are already long since on the ground and in combat. It is horrible micromanaging. As I said in my opening remarks joining you here on the floor, I agree with the L.A. Times, and I don't get to say that very often, so perhaps I should say it again: I agree with the L.A. Times that we don't need a General Pelosi or a General Murtha, or for that matter a General Price or a General Kline. We have a general on the ground, and we ought to be doing everything in our power to make sure that he and our young men and women have everything they need to succeed. I know that all of us worry about our sons and daughters that we send over there, we as a body. I certainly worry. My son has been over and back and is planning to deploy again to Afghanistan. I worry about my son and about all sons and daughters. But I absolutely do not want to be part of sending our sons and daughters into conflict knowing that all we have is a plan for them to fail. That, in my mind, and I think in many of their minds, is a betrayal. I had some of the $21 billion of extra spending here, but I know that we have other colleagues that are joining us, and for that I thank you again for your leadership and yield back. Mr. Price of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota again for his participation here and great perspective and for outlining truly what the majority party has done, and that is outlined their plan for failure. This is not a plan for victory. It is not even a plan for the defense of the United States. It is a plan for failure. I think it is important that as we bring truth and light to this discussion and this debate that the American people appreciate that. It is not by any grand fabrication that we come up with this Commander in Chief notion, it comes out of the Constitution of the United States. Article II, Section 2, for those who are interested in looking it up for themselves, says the President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the militia of several States when called into actual service of the United States. It doesn't say as long as the Speaker of the House says it is okay. It says that the President shall be the Commander in Chief. So if the majority leadership in this House wants to have a debate about whether or not we ought to fund the military challenges that we have around the world, including in Iraq, let us have that debate and let's have that vote. But let's not go through a micromanagement and a slow-bleed process which would be the death knell of our military accomplishments in the Middle East and in Iraq. With that, I am pleased to have join us the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis). I welcome you and look forward to your comments.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank Dr. Price for yielding and for really exerting the leadership to take the floor week after week and shine the light of truth on a lot of the obfuscation which, unfortunately, takes place on this floor and in this House. We had the opportunity to chat a little bit today about the Democrat Party's plan here in the upcoming weeks with the supplemental funding and, in general, their plans for the war against Islamist extremists, the war, if you will, which is being certainly heavily fought in Iraq. And they do kind of have a plan. Their plan is not a plan for victory, however, and that is what I think we need to keep in mind. Their plan simply says: get out; get out of Iraq. And that is not a plan for victory. There is a very interesting headline; perhaps you had a chance to talk about it before I made it down to the floor. In the Los Angeles Times editorial, it starts with a little headline that says: ``Do we really need a General Pelosi?'' I will quote: ``Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landing, or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.'' The Los Angeles Times, not the place I would normally go to find criticism of the Democrat majority. Well, I think that you and I would certainly concur that we don't need a General Pelosi. But we do have a general. We have a new general on the ground in Iraq, General David Petraeus, named by the Commander in Chief to execute this new strategy in Iraq, and confirmed, by the way, with no dissenting votes in the United States Senate. Let me just go through a few quotes that the new commander has shared with us in the last couple of months. This is General David Petraeus, the commander of multi-national forces in Iraq, senior commander on the ground. In looking at what would happen if we precipitously withdrew from Iraq, he said, a number of other potential outcomes, none of which are positive, could occur: ``Sectarian groups would obviously begin to stake out their turf, try to expand their turf. They would do that by greatly increased ethnic cleansing.'' On another occasion he said: ``The very real possibility of involvement of countries from elsewhere in the region around Iraq entering Iraq to take sides with one or the other groups.'' A new quote: ``The possibility of an international terrorist organization truly getting a grip on some substantial piece of Iraq.'' New quote: ``There is the possibility of problems in the global economy, should in fact this cause a disruption to the flow of oil,'' and so forth. We have a general on the ground, I would say to my colleagues, and it is General David Petraeus, and it should not be either General Pelosi or, for that matter, anybody else in this body. We cannot, we cannot prosecute foreign policy at all and certainly a military operation with 535, or maybe it is 540 with the delegates voting, different Commanders in Chief. You cannot run an operation like this by committee. And I think it would behoove us, certainly as Members of this body, but as American people, to go with the Constitution, recognize that the Commander in Chief is in fact elected by the Nation to be that, and to abide by one of the fundamental principles of military operations, and that is unity of command. That is now being exercised by the Commander in Chief overall, and by General David Petraeus in Iraq.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to add my voice to those deeply disappointed by conditions found at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The physical infrastructure and administrative problems revealed are absolutely inexcusable. As a Nation and as a military, we have a responsibility to provide both top-quality acute care and top- quality outpatient treatment. The fine doctors and nurses in Iraq; at Landstuhl, Germany; and at Walter Reed provide excellent medical care that has saved countless lives. But it is clear that a lack of leadership and administrative initiative at the top created these shameful conditions. The American military has historically entrusted the ultimate responsibility and accountability to those in command. I was pleased that the Army leadership followed that proud tradition, and I am hopeful that Walter Reed's new commander, Major General Eric R. Schoomaker, will rebuild trust in the Army's medical service. I am also hopeful that a number of corrective actions announced last week by Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker will help ensure each soldier receives the care which he or she deserves and that no one, no one, falls through the cracks.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I am now very pleased to yield the balance of our time to the ranking member on the Committee of Education and Labor, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, and the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, Mr. Johnson. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairwoman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairwoman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairwoman, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds only to point out in response to the gentleman pointing out that when we vote it is displayed on the board, I would remind the gentleman that when we vote it is on behalf of some 700,000 people who have a right to see how we voted. That is different in this case. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairwoman, in the interest of balancing time, I reserve my time.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I reserve my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. We are doing some math here, Madam Chairman. Could you give us, again, the time remaining on each side? We have been trying to keep track of the minutes here, but I have kind of lost a little bit.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Would you like to take some of that time now?

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I could not agree more with what the distinguished majority leader just said. This is not about business versus labor. We should all be pro-worker, and I believe that this bill is anti-worker. I agreed with the distinguished Speaker of the House who said it is about liberty and justice. I would add it is about the American way. It is about the sanctity of the private ballot, the secret ballot. It is about preserving the security of our workers, and make no mistake, despite claims to the contrary, the effect of this bill would be to eliminate the secret ballot and the process of selecting a union. Now, there is a subparagraph in there, 6(c) or something like that, but the effect of this will be to eliminate the secret ballot. Madam Chairman, let us, today, protect the essence of democracy. Let us protect the American workers. Let us support Mr. McKeon's substitute and let us oppose this bad legislation. Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will overlook the ``ex-Marine'' slight. Never an ex-Marine; always a Marine. It is a tremendous honor for me today to even be on the same floor as this great American here. We heard earlier today the hardship of some of our servicemen and -women missing a holiday with their families, and I know in my 25 years in the Marines I missed a number of those. But there is nobody who has missed more holidays with his family than this great American next to me. We have heard a lot of speeches during this so-called debate. I am not sure how much real debate there is, but certainly a lot of speeches. Some of them have been very eloquent. I think of Mr. McHugh the other night giving one of the best speeches I have ever heard on the floor of this House. Some of them have been partisan. Some of them have been shrill. Some persuasive; some not. We have heard a number of opinions expressed, and it reminds me a week or so ago we had a hearing in the Armed Services Committee and we had three experts, Ph.D.s all of them, experts in the field of international relations and military operations. One of them, the former Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, and it turns out that at the end of the hearing, each of the three of them had a different idea about what we ought to do. None of them supported what the President had been doing. One of them sort of supported what the President was doing. But each of them had different ideas. They had an opinion, arguably an informed opinion, but an opinion nevertheless. And on this floor we have heard more opinions. We have heard people say, I don't agree with this; I think this is a bad idea; or I think this is a good idea. We have heard some people say I have a better idea; or I am a member of a caucus who has a better idea; or I propose this; or I think that. And it kind of reminds me why it is a very bad idea to conduct a war by committee. But I fully acknowledge that people are allowed to have opinions and certainly every Member of this body can have an opinion. I remember the principal author of this resolution before us, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, stood up on the other side of the aisle here on the first day of this debate and he said, ``Everybody is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts.'' So I would just like to take a little bit of my remaining time here to talk about some of the claims and some of the facts that have been brought forward in this debate. One of the proponents said the new plan ``ignores the recommendations of the military commanders on the ground.'' How many times have we heard that in these two days? Well, what is the truth? General Petraeus, the new commander of the multinational force in Iraq, confirmed by the Senate with no dissenting votes, said: ``If we are to carry out the multinational force-Iraq mission in accordance with the new strategy, the additional forces that have been directed to move to Iraq will be essential . . . '' He said that last month. General Odierno, a new U.S. commander, Corps commander, says: ``This is about Iraqis taking charge of their own security. In order for them to do that, we have to buy them time to continue to train and for the government to become more legitimate to the eyes of the Iraqi people. They are doing that by moving forward. By bringing more troops in, it provides us the opportunity to work with them, to provide more time, and defeat this threat, which is both al Qaeda threat as well as sectarian violence.'' Even General Casey last month said he thought we needed more troops. Another claim has been by one of our colleagues: ``Prime Minister al- Maliki has indicated in virtually every way he can that he too opposes the surge.'' And yet on January 13, Prime Minister Maliki said: ``The strategic plan announced by U.S. President George W. Bush represents the common vision and mutual understanding between the Iraqi Government and the U.S. Administration''? I have more examples here, but one that we have heard over and over and over again in various forms was stated by one of our colleagues yesterday saying: ``Our President, again, is ignoring . . . members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group who opposed this escalation.'' This is the book. I commend it to every American. I would like to quote now from my dear, dear long-time friend and hunting partner, the former Secretary of State, James A. Baker III, who said on January 30 of this year: ``This is the language and all of the language of the report with respect to a surge: `We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.' The only two conditions are `short term' and `the commander in Iraq determines it would be effective.' '' Both of these conditions have been met. There have been many claims of fact which I have some counterarguments with. I would just say to all of my colleagues that I would concur with Chairman Skelton that we are entitled to our own opinion. We can certainly express it. But we are not, in fact, entitled to our own facts. So let's stick to the facts.