Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Would it have been possible for the Rules Committee to propose a rule to the House to waive the rule under which the Chair has just ruled this amendment out of order?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, isn't it true that the Rules Committee has the authority to waive the rules under which this House operates so that certain amendments may be brought to the floor?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Michigan, and I appreciate the comments of my fellow colleague from Washington. And I have been, as a physician, a strong supporter of the National Science Foundation. I believe strongly that, in fact, they need more money, not less. I would argue that we need to prioritize appropriately in our Federal budget and provide much greater resources in the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health and the CDC and others that ultimately work and derive huge benefit to our entire society and, in fact, to the world. But I commend my good friend from California for bringing this amendment forward because, although I may not have pulled out a couple of the items that he notes, for the life of me, I have a difficult time understanding and appreciating why on earth it would make any sense, and I would ask my good friend from Washington can you fathom how studying bison hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains might have some effect on contemporary society that would make a difference with the compelling argument that you made regarding the study of cross- cultural emotions?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would be happy to reclaim my time or I would be happy to have you answer the question, one or the other.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest candidly that it was a valiant attempt. It was truly a valiant attempt, and I appreciate the attempt, to make a justification for bison hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains. I would also suggest that the sexual politics of waste in Dakar, Senegal is a questionable study. So I commend my good friend from California, and I would be happy to yield to him.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would concur. I think that there are many things that are exciting and interesting to study, whether or not they ought to be priorities at this point, and again, I would point to the bison hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains. And if my good friend from Michigan would care to make a comment, I would be pleased to yield.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his comments. And he is making a very apt point. And I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Washington, who said, and I think it got down correctly, ``We are neither trained nor have expertise in this area.'' And you are absolutely right. But consistency is a wonderful thing and inconsistency is a challenge. I would suggest that none of us are pure in this area, but my good friend talks about we ought to delegate decisionmaking to authorities who have expertise, and we should. As a physician, I am compelled and have strong affinity for all of the advocacy groups that come to my office, as I know they come to yours, and advocate on behalf of specific diseases. Most recently this week, the folks who have suffered under the scourge of breast cancer have come, and they are asking for more resources. And I always suggest to them that it is appropriate for those decisions to be made by individuals at the National Science Foundation, at the CDC, at the National Institutes of Health. But, in fact, what my good friend from Washington does all the time, in his capacity in Congress, is to determine exactly what that line item ought to be from an appropriations standpoint. As a physician, the medical profession has suffered under the decisions that have been made in this Chamber and in the Chamber on the other side of this building because individuals thought they had greater expertise in the area of health care. And as my good friend from New Jersey clearly stated, and appropriately stated, that just this week we've been dealing with folks who believe they have greater expertise in the area of military competence and battles than our generals on the ground. So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that my good friend from Washington is absolutely correct, that we ought to delegate in certain instances, but we ought to also utilize the prerogative that we have and the responsibility that we have as representatives in this body, representatives of our districts, and make certain that we are good stewards of the taxpayers' money.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I know my good friend from Texas did not intend to, but I would respectfully request the Chair make certain that he calls into order individuals who impugn the motive of other Members of this body. I think it is important that we not do that in this Chamber.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlelady's comments, and I would just respectfully suggest it might be appropriate to review the words that were spoken and reflect upon them. Mr. Chairman, I would also suggest candidly that my recollection, I am not absolutely certain, but my recollection is that the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison had no government subsidy, and the remarkable inventions that they came up with were without the benefit of government subsidy. That is not to say that government subsidy isn't appropriate for certain occasions, but I would suggest that those individuals had remarkable accomplishments without the kind of support that we are discussing today. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to my good friend from New Jersey, the sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the angst most recently demonstrated is curious in light of the events of recent history regarding what this House has dealt with over the past week or two or three, and a little longer history in light of what this House and what this Congress deals with over and over and over again; and that is not the kind of appropriate kind of decisionmaking that my good friend from Washington so passionately advocates here in this bill, which is to delegate appropriate decisionmaking to people who have the expertise and have the knowledge to determine where those resources ought be spent and where those decisions ought be made. Would that we as a Congress and we as a House use that same brilliance in our decisionmaking when we make decisions regarding health care. Again, as a physician, this Chamber makes incredible decisions that affect the very personal health care of individuals about which it has no knowledge whatsoever, and takes the decisionmaking authority from physicians and patients in an inappropriate way, I believe. We also this past week determined as a Chamber, the majority party has determined that they have greater knowledge about the specific military activities that ought to occur on the ground as it relates to our brave men and women who are fighting to defend our liberty and our freedom. However, the majority party apparently believes that it is appropriate for them to make specific decisions what our commanders ought to be doing on a day-to-day basis. So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it would be appropriate to have some consistency in the arguments that are being brought to the floor here this evening regarding delegation of appropriate decisionmaking to those who have the expertise. With that, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I appreciate the valiant effort on behalf of my friend from Washington in attempting to dissuade Members from voting against this amendment, which I think is well founded. I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona for offering it. I would remind the gentleman from Washington that one of the roles of our office, one of the roles of our office is to assist individuals with grant applications. So there are other resources which the Federal Government supplies for individuals who are searching to try to fill out their grant applications. We are happy to help. I would also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman makes the point, appropriately, that only 25 percent of the grants are accepted. So why should we waste Federal dollars on teaching individuals who have other avenues to be able to determine how to fill out their grant application appropriately? Why should we waste precious Federal dollars that could go to, in fact, the kinds of cures that he is endeavoring to fund with the moneys that he is promoting? Why should we waste those Federal dollars in this kind of endeavor, which, I think, is frankly ill-founded and not needed. I am pleased to yield to my good friend from Arizona.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman, and I commend him for his amendment. I am pleased to yield to my good friend from Michigan.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I object.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to commend my colleagues as well for bringing what would on its face value be seen as a remarkably new and innovative program. In fact, I think as the gentleman said, advancing ``the Democratic innovation agenda.'' Well, it is curious, Mr. Chairman, because if you view and look specifically at the language that is in this amendment, and it is to be commended indeed, it bears striking resemblance to the language in current law. In fact, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, section 24 has language that is exactly the same as is in this amendment. So I want to commend my colleagues for being inventive and being innovative indeed. I also think it would be appropriate for them to cite, in fact, where the original language came from, and that was the prior Republican Congress. So I commend my colleagues for their innovation, indeed, in formulating an amendment that is already in place in current law.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late and we are drawing to a close on this, and I think this is an appropriate amendment upon which to end for this is the amendment that allows us as a Congress to say, yes, indeed, we believe that fiscal responsibility is important. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this bill, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act, authorizes $20.973 billion, nearly $21 billion, over 3 years and creates five new Federal programs. The National Science Foundation Authorization Act establishes a pilot program of 1-year seed grants for new investigators to help improve funding rates for young investigators and to stimulate higher-risk research. It encourages the NSF to foster relationships between academia and industry in order to spawn U.S. competitiveness and furthers the Agency's traditions of education in science, technology, engineering, and math. The NSF has a mission to achieve excellence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at all levels and all settings from kindergarten through postdoctoral training, from classrooms to science museums and online resources, having done so for the last half century. And while what this bill does is extremely important, equally important is this amendment that will apply the principle of pay as you go to any new spending authorized by this legislation by requiring that any new spending have a specific offset. The amendment provides that no authorization of appropriations made by this Act that results in costs to the Federal Government shall be effective unless there are decreases in spending elsewhere in the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, common sense dictates that that is what we should do. Not only common sense, but previous promises by this new majority. An excerpt of ``A New Direction for America,'' which was proposed by House Democrats in the 109th Congress as their plan for the majority, it reads: ``Our New Direction is committed to pay-as-you-go budgeting, no more deficit spending. We are committed to auditing the books and subjecting every facet of Federal spending to tough budget discipline and accountability, forcing the Congress to choose a new direction and the right priorities for all Americans.'' Well, hear, hear, Mr. Chairman. I heartily agree. But on April 18, Majority Leader Hoyer was quoted in Roll Call as saying, ``We want to get the budget deficit under control. We have said that fiscal responsibility was necessary, but we're not going to be hoisted on the torrent of fiscal responsibility.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, Americans all across this Nation are being shaken down by a ``torrent'' of fiscal irresponsibility. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, the rules are not rules if you only follow them when you want to. The Democrats promised pay-as-you-go rules for everything. Instead, they are picking and choosing, picking and choosing when to do so. At home, we call that breaking a rule and breaking a promise. So while what this bill does is extremely important, $20.973 billion is a considerable amount of money even here in Washington, and it is equally important that we are good stewards of the hard-earned money of the American people. We should not limit our talk about fiscal responsibility only when it is politically convenient. So I urge the new majority to rededicate itself to the principle of pay-as-you-go spending. Fiscal responsibility shouldn't be something that is just talked about only on the campaign trail. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this commonsense, fiscally responsible, pay-as-you-go amendment.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, as the contentious and sometimes ugly debate over our strategy in Iraq continues here in Washington, it's important to remember that there are patriotic Americans helping with positive activity abroad and at home. And today it's my privilege to acknowledge the incredible work being done by some folks in my State of Georgia and all across this Nation. Operation Homefront is a national nonprofit organization founded in the wake of September 11. The decent and committed Americans at Operation Homefront are providing necessary assistance and comfort to our troops and their family. Through financial assistance programs and other goods and services, these tireless volunteers are helping America's military families cope with the everyday difficulties that they face. They are truly making a difference. Our military families deserve nothing less than the unending gratitude and support of our entire Nation. Thanks to Operation Homefront for their efforts. I encourage every American to get involved. And let's show our military men and women that we honor their sacrifice, and we will never forget all that they do to defend our freedom at home and abroad.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much the opportunity that my leadership has provided in me in allowing me to come and share some comments this evening on the floor on what is truly a momentous and historic day for our Nation. Within the last hour, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the President has fulfilled the promise that he made to the American people. That is to uphold and preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States; and in so doing, he has vetoed the legislation that was passed by the Democrat majority recently, last week, to provide not just funding for our troops in harm's way but also to make 535 commanders in chief here in Congress and to spend an extra 20-odd billion dollars on what was supposed to be a clean, clear definition of the amount of resources needed by our troops to keep themselves safe and out of harm's way in both Iraq and Afghanistan. So within the last hour the President has vetoed that legislation, and this Congress will take up that veto tomorrow. Curiously, today we have had Members of the majority party come to the floor over and over and over again and express a peculiar amount of glee, glee that is highlighting their policy of failure and their policy of defeat. Frankly, I don't understand it, Mr. Speaker. Many of my constituents talked to me this past weekend when I was home and said they didn't understand it either. It was peculiar from their standpoint to understand and difficult to understand how the majority party in this Congress could believe that abandoning our troops in harm's way was an appropriate thing to do. And, consequently, I am as perplexed as they with the policy that this majority party has put in place. The policy that they have put in place, as is clear to everybody and we will talk about that a bit this evening, is to ensure defeat and to ensure failure of our troops. And it seems to be all, all, for politics, which is probably as sad and distressing as anything, Mr. Speaker. The Democrat leadership continues to be committed to a plan for failure in Iraq, and they seem to be doing it, as I say for political points, scoring political points, political partnership, political grandstanding, whatever you want to call it. And some might ask, well, how can you be so certain of that? Well, Mr. Speaker, we get example day after day after day. And the most recent example is what happened today, and that is, that the bill that this Congress passed, this majority passed last week to provide artificial timelines and specific benchmarks for our troops on the ground and to add incredible billions of dollars of pork to the war supplemental, the bill was passed last week, and they did not send it to the White House until today. Now, the President took his responsibility seriously and he vetoed that and turned that bill around rapidly. But why, why, the American people are asking, why did it take nearly a week to send that bill to the White House? Every day that goes by, every day that is added on to our troops and our military not having the resources that they need to be able to protect themselves, to be able to continue the mission that they have defined, every day that goes by that makes it so that they have to rob from Peter to pay Paul, every day that goes by that makes it so that they are unable to repair munitions and armaments, every day that goes by is costly to our men and women in the military, and costly in a way that costs lives. And so every day that goes by, by design, is a flawed policy, is a policy for failure, and is clearly a policy that is grounded in politics only. So the question has to be asked, Mr. Speaker, well, why did it take 5 days to send that bill to the President? Well, what we have seen today is the answer to that question; and that is, that the other side, the majority party, clearly wanted to score their political points, to take advantage of a May 1 anniversary that they would define, to distort that terribly, but to take advantage of that anniversary for political points. It is sad, Mr. Speaker, it is truly, truly very sad. I came to the floor last Wednesday, when this House passed the bill, and I talked about it being a sad and a sobering day for America, and a shame. And I talked about it being a shame because the policy that this majority party has adopted is a policy that sends the wrong message to our troops, it sends the wrong message to our allies, and yes, Mr. Speaker, it sends the wrong message to our enemies. Because to our troops it says that we don't believe in you. We don't believe you can accomplish your mission. We don't believe that you have the ability to do what you say you can do. We don't believe in our general that we supported and endorsed by unanimous vote in the Senate just this year. The message to our troops says, ``We don't believe in you.'' To our allies, the message is one that, I think if you look at it seriously, Mr. Speaker, is one that nobody would want to send. Because what it says to our allies is, with this majority party you can no longer trust the commitment and the word of the United States of America. That is what it says to our allies. I don't think that is the message, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to be sending around the world in this dangerous time. But probably the most important message is the message that it sends to our enemies. To our enemies it says, if you happen to have a difference with the United States of America and you believe that the destruction of the United States of America is at the core of your belief, then all you have to do is wait, all you have to do is wait; America will give up. That is the wrong message, Mr. Speaker. That is the wrong message. And it will ultimately end up in a more dangerous world if it is allowed to succeed. If that message is allowed to succeed by the policies of this Nation, it will ultimately end up in a more dangerous world. It will certainly end up in a more dangerous Middle East. And it will end up, I believe, and many scholars and experts in the military believe that it will end up causing greater amounts of casualties for the American people, and certainly for our military who will have to engage in a way and in a manner that is almost incomprehensible to us right now. Most of us in this Chamber, who we are privileged to serve, but most of us have members of the military who have come from our district; all of them have sacrificed to serve. They have recognized the importance of service to our Nation. They have stood up and they have said, I hear the call. If you talk to them, most of them will say that they are not in favor of the kind of policy that has been adopted by this majority party. One of them has been very open about that in this letter that I am going to read. It comes from a Lieutenant Jason Nichols, United States Navy, who is serving currently in Baghdad, in Iraq. The statements by the majority leader in the United States Senate recently about the war being lost have hit a nerve, they have struck a cord on the part of our men and women in the military. They have struck a cord across this Nation, Mr. Speaker. And the cord that they have struck is one that says, how on earth can we have a majority party, a majority leader who makes that kind of statement in the middle of conflict when our men and women are in harm's way? What kind of leader is that? This letter, as I say, comes from Lieutenant Jason Nichols, United States Navy, it is addressed to Senator Reid. And he says, ``Senator Reid, when you say we've lost in Iraq, I don't think you understand the effect of your words. The Iraqis I speak with are the good guys here, fighting to build a stable government. They hear what you say, but they don't understand it. They don't know about the political game, they don't know about a Presidential veto, and they don't know about party politics. But they do know that if they help us, they are noticed by terrorists and extremists, and they decide to help us if they think we can protect them from those terrorists. They tell us where caches of weapons are hidden. They call and report small groups of men who are strangers to the neighborhood, men that look the same to us but are obvious to them to be a foreign suicide cell. ``To be brief, your words are killing us. Your statements make the Iraqis afraid to help us for fear we will leave them unprotected in the future. They don't report a cache, and its weapons blow up my friends in a convoy. They don't report a foreign fighter, and that fighter sends a mortar onto my base. Your statements are noticed, and they have an effect. ``Finally, you are mistaken when you say we are losing. We are winning, I see it every day. However, we will win with fewer casualties if you will help us. Will you?'' Respectfully, Lieutenant Jason Nichols, United States Navy. Do you hear that, Mr. Speaker? The message that we are sending to our enemy, as I said, is all you have to do, if you oppose the United States, is just wait. But it is more than that, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? As Lieutenant Nichols said, quote, ``To be brief, your words are killing us.'' Mr. Speaker, who is ``us'' in that letter? Who is ``us''? ``Us,'' Mr. Speaker, are the brave men and women who stand up and fight on behalf of the United States of America, who stand up and defend our liberty and our freedom. Mr. Speaker, there are some people in my district who wonder why the action of Members of Congress who will make those kinds of statements, why that isn't defined as treason. I get asked those questions at home. They are tough to answer. They are tough to answer. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why? Why? Why do we have leaders that make those kinds of statements? It is not just members of the military that are saying that this policy that's being adopted and the kind of language that's being used are detrimental to our Nation and to our alliances and to our men and women in harm's way. There are all sorts of press reports and press opinions, editorials across this Nation that say what on earth are the Democrats doing? What on earth is the majority party doing? The Chicago Tribune described the Democrat surrender bill as ``Self- Defeating.'' They had in an editorial on the 27th of April, just 4 or 5 days ago, ``Establishing a timetable now would be self-defeating. A new defense secretary and a new commander on the ground should have time and flexibility to see if they can succeed where their predecessors failed,'' which is exactly what Americans believe. But there is this peculiar glee on the other side of the aisle that they are accomplishing something for political gain; however, that something puts America at greater risk. The Chicago Tribune goes on to say, ``President Bush will veto the spending bill approved by Congress this week because it contains a timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. He is right to do so.'' Mr. Speaker, this isn't a paper that is known to be terribly supportive of this President, but they understand the consequences of the actions of this majority party, they understand that they put us at greater risk. And finally, the editorial from the 27th of April from the Chicago Tribune goes on to say, ``Establishing a congressionally mandated timetable for withdrawal would straitjacket the ability of General Davis Petraeus, the top commander on the ground, to pursue the stabilization of Iraq as events and conditions warrant. ``Senator Harry Reid said recently the war is lost. This legislation would all but guarantee it.'' So in addition to having a certain amount of glee with the actions that are occurring, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Democrat leadership in both the Senate and the House is vested in the defeat of the United States in Iraq. They are now on record as being in favor of the defeat of the United States. It is a very peculiar strategy, Mr. Speaker. And the only way it makes sense is if you believe that this Congress ought to act for short-term political gain by a given political party; that is the only way it makes sense. No other way could it be deemed as being appropriate for the policy of this Nation to hamstring, to handcuff, to tie the ability of our generals on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan to make decisions. It seems truly that failure and defeat are the goal of the majority party. How sad, how sad for a once proud party in this Nation to have failure for the United States be their new strategy. The Wall Street Journal sees it similarly. They say that Washington Democrats are taking ownership of the defeat in Iraq. In an editorial on April 25, just last month, they say, ``In calling for withdrawal, Mr. Reid and his allies, just as with Vietnam, may think they are merely following polls that show the public is unhappy with the war. Yet Americans will come to dislike a humiliation and its aftermath even more, especially if they realize that a withdrawal from Iraq now will only make it harder to stabilize the region and defeat Islamist radicals. And they will like it even less should we be required to re- enter the country someday under far worse circumstances.'' It is peculiar, when you think about it, Mr. Speaker, because what you hear from the other side, what you hear from the Democrat majority in all of their discussion and all of their points, their political partisan points that they make about this, all that you hear is about this issue of failure. You never hear about what the next step is. We are going to talk about that a little bit tonight, about what the next step ought to be, about the consequences for failure. Because it is important that the American people appreciate that the decisions made in this Congress will affect this Nation for a long period of time if the decisions aren't made in the light of day and with eyes wide open about what the consequences of failure in this day and time in the Middle East will be. The Wall Street Journal also went on to say, ``At least Mr. Bush and his commanders are now trying to make up for previous mistakes with a strategy to put Prime Minister Maliki's government on a stronger footing, secure Baghdad and the Sunni provinces against al Qaeda, and allow for an eventual honorable U.S. withdrawal. That's more than can be said for Mr. Reid and the Democratic left, who are making the job for our troops more difficult by undermining U.S. morale and Iraqi confidence in American support.'' It gets to the issue of what kind of message, Mr. Speaker, we are sending to our allies. The San Diego Tribune was another paper that weighed in on this issue. They went on to describe the Democrat surrender bill as ``a sham that is detrimental to our efforts.'' They said, ``The Democratic campaign is a textbook lesson in why the war cannot be managed by a committee of 535 bitterly divided lawmakers. The Constitution gives Congress control of the Federal purse strings, to be sure, but this authority has never been an effective instrument for directing forces in a combat zone. The Constitution gives that authority to the commander-in-chief alone.'' This brings up the interesting issue, Mr. Speaker, of how this Congress can believe that it ought to be having 535 commanders-in- chief. It doesn't make any sense, because it puts every one of the Members of Congress who believe that they know better what ought to go on on the ground in a position that ties the hands of our generals. It is not unusual for the Democrat party to believe that Congress knows best. Oftentimes their decisions affect people in kind of peripheral and tangential ways. In this decision, Mr. Speaker, it affects our military men and women who are putting themselves in harm's way very directly and adversely. Now, I want to be clear that those of us in the Republican Party believe that this is an appropriate debate for Congress to have. It is appropriate for Congress to say, as the paper that I just cited says, that Congress has the power of the purse string, and it is appropriate for Congress to say, if it so desires, if the majority party so desires, that we ought not fund the troops anymore in Iraq or in Afghanistan or wherever else this majority party deems that it is not appropriate for us to fund troops. That is an appropriate debate. That is a clear debate, that is a clear vote, which is why we asked for a clear vote, a clean vote, on the war supplemental. Because, Mr. Speaker, when that happens, then it is very clear what people are voting upon. That, yes, we believe there ought to be resources available for our men and women in harm's way; or, no, we do not. That is a clear vote. We muddy the waters and we confound the issue and we do a disservice to our Constitution and we do a disservice to our men and women in the field, certainly, when we put arbitrary timelines and benchmarks in a bill that clearly, clearly, is not appropriate, and makes it so that the Constitution becomes undermined. The San Diego Union Tribune goes on to say more on April 26. General Petraeus was here, who is the Commander of American forces in Iraq on the ground. He visited this Congress last Wednesday and was not given the opportunity to speak to the House of Representatives as a whole in this Chamber. In fact, it is curious, Mr. Speaker, because the Speaker of this House went out of her way to visit the President of Syria on a visit recently to the Middle East, but she didn't go out of her way to visit with the American commanding general when he visited Congress. So, the San Diego Tribune last week said, ``Yesterday's pleas to lawmakers by General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, not to micromanage the war were brushed off without serious consideration in the House's partisan stampede. Meanwhile, essential funding for the troops has been sidetracked by the phony legislative exercise playing out on Capitol Hill.'' That is what I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that the only rational conclusion that one could come to about why we are going through this process, why we are going through this ``sham bill,'' as the San Diego Union Tribune calls it, why we are going through this exercise and putting the American people and our troops in harm's way through this exercise, is all about politics. It is all about politics. How sad, Mr. Speaker. How sad. The Union Tribune concludes, ``And even though this sham bill is merely a political show, the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate managed to lard it up with nearly $25 billion in wasteful pork, most of it entirely unrelated to war funding.'' So, Mr. Speaker, it is not just our men and women in the field who say that this is a wrong-headed policy. It is not just those of us on the minority side of the aisle who say that this is a wrong-headed policy and it sends the wrong message to our troops and to our allies and to our enemies. It is cogent individuals across this Nation who have come to that same conclusion. The opportunity to come to the floor is a true privilege and a great opportunity to share with the American people what our belief is about this supplemental war bill, and I am pleased to be joined by a colleague, the gentlelady from Tennessee, Congresswoman Blackburn, who is a true leader in this House and has been a true leader on this issue, because she understands and appreciates the importance and the consequences of the decisions that we make as they relate to our troops in the field and as they relate to our Nation and to our future liberty and our future freedom. I am so pleased you would join us this evening. I look forward to your comments.