Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker so much for the opportunity to come and address the House once again. Once again I want to thank the Republican leadership for the opportunity to bring another edition of the Official Truth Squad. The Official Truth Squad is a group of folks on the Republican side who got together and were interested in trying to bring about some correction to the disinformation and the misinformation that so often happens here in Washington. Listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle for the past couple of minutes, I feel like I am in Alice in Wonderland. They have gone through the looking glass and it is difficult to tell what is real and what is not. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I believe we have entered a new phase of democracy in our Nation. And I call it Orwellian democracy. What it means is that the majority party, whatever the majority party says is accomplished, regardless of the actions that they take. And it is so true when you think about the issues that have been brought to the floor this evening. And I want to touch on a few of those before I talk about this incredibly important issue that we have as has been brought to the floor earlier in terms of discussion with the supplemental Iraq resolution to fund and make certain that our troops, our men and women who are defending our liberty, have the appropriate resources that they need. But my friends on the other side of the aisle talked about the wonderful issues that they have brought and passed on this floor of the House so far this year. They didn't mention that virtually none of them have gotten through the Senate, which is another issue all together. But they talk about these grand issues, and the statement was made that we ``gave Republicans the vote they wanted all along,'' which is just terribly amusing, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, because what has come to the floor to be voted on in this House of Representatives this session so far have been bills that have had very little input, by and large, from the minority party, very little input, frankly, from the vast majority of the Members of the House. And so the Official Truth Squad, the role of the Official Truth Squad is to bring light and truth to the issues that we are working with here in the United States Congress. And we have a number of quotes that we enjoy citing. One of my favorite comes from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was a United States Senator from the State of New York, and a very brilliant man. And he had a saying that he would use from time to time, and it was that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. And I should say, Mr. Speaker, that that quote, the truthfulness of that quote was never more true than right here in the United States Congress because certainly everybody has their own opinion. But if they would look at the facts, if they would look at the facts on behalf of the American people, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we all would be a whole lot better off. I want to highlight a couple of bills that my friends brought and mentioned as being the wonderful panacea of this new majority, which is taking us in a new direction. That was their slogan over the past campaign. And, Mr. Speaker, they are absolutely right. They are taking us in a new direction. The problem is the direction is backwards. And a couple of the issues that they cite, the 9/11 Commission, they talk about bringing all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations to the floor. In fact, that is not what they did. In fact, they didn't bring the ones that were most important to truly gain control from Congress's standpoint, from an accountability standpoint, over the ability for us to protect our Nation. They left those out. Now, they don't want to talk about those, but they left those out. Mr. Speaker, that is a fact, not an opinion. That is a fact. They talk about the fixing of student loans that they did. And certainly student loans are important, and I have all sorts of young people in my district who are desirous of making certain that they can have the opportunity to gain student loans and have the opportunity to further their education. Extremely important issue. And what the majority party did, at least they would have you believe, is to fix the challenge of providing student loans at a reasonable interest rate. In fact, what they did was bait and switch, for they decrease interest rates for a 6-month period of time, and then it shoots right back up to where it has been. So that is the truth. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker. That is not opinion. That is a fact. All you have got to do is read the bill. And then my favorite bait and switch, my favorite Orwellian phrase, or example of Orwellian democracy that they have is the whole issue of prescription drugs for our seniors. Mr. Speaker, in my previous life, before I came to Congress, I was a physician. I was an orthopedic surgeon, took care of patients for over 20 years. And I knew in my heart of hearts, as my patients knew, that when the Federal Government got involved in the delivery and the minutiae of medicine of taking care of people, it rarely, if ever worked. And so my good friends on the other side of the aisle say that they have solved the problem of the Medicare part D. Well, the problem that they didn't see is that Medicare part D, which has offered our seniors much greater choice and covered the vast majority of seniors with an opportunity to receive the medications that they desire, the problem that they didn't see is that, or that they won't acknowledge is no problem at all, and that is that the program is working. Eighty to 90 percent of seniors in this Nation are pleased with the options and the choices that they have. But, no, that didn't fit their talking points. And so as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, what they did was pass a bill that would go a long way toward limiting the choices of American seniors to have medications that they so desperately need and deserve. And if you didn't believe me, if you didn't believe those were the facts from my standpoint, Mr. Speaker, all you have got to do is turn on your television, because now we have a number of groups who are advocacy groups and groups who look out for seniors who are now advertising to try to get the message to the majority party that, hey, don't do that. That program is working. Leave that program alone. Don't upset my prescription medication. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker. It is on the television. They are advertising that right now because they understand and appreciate that when government inserts itself into the practice of medicine that the people that lose are the patients. And so I am pleased to be able to have the opportunity to come down here tonight and to work on setting the record straight, providing some facts. I do want to utilize a couple of the quotes that my good friend said a little bit earlier, my good friend from Florida said, this is a ``better emergency supplemental that is coming to the floor.'' What is coming to the floor is a, I hope it is coming to the floor, is a bill that will hopefully provide for the appropriate resources, appropriate monies for our troops to defend our Nation and to continue the incredibly valiant work that they are doing in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, the problem that some of our friends on the other side of the aisle have is that they are trying desperately, as valiantly as they can, to make their program make sense. And why, Mr. Speaker, you would ask, are they having trouble having it make sense? Well, the problem that they have is that they really don't believe that the troops and the mission of liberty ought to be supported to the degree that we believe it ought and that it must be in order to maintain our freedom. So they are left with a Nation that desires to support the men and women who are diligently and valiantly defending freedom around the world, left with a Nation that wants to support those individuals, and we are left with a majority party, many of whose Members, including many in the leadership, don't want to do so. And I don't say that lightly, Mr. Speaker. I say that in all seriousness, and I say that because I know, and you know, that the policy that has been proposed by this majority party now as it relates to the incredibly difficult and brave work that is being done in the Middle East on behalf of all Americans by our troops, the program that the majority party is proposing is a program called ``slow bleed.'' Slow bleed. It kind of gives you chills when you think about it, Mr. Speaker, when it is being used in reference to our Nation and our troops. Slow bleed. What does it mean? Well, Mr. Speaker, it means that high-ranking members of the majority party, the Democrat Party, have decided that they are not interested in funding the troops. They are not interested in the mission of victory, of liberty over tyranny. They are not interested in that. What they are interested in is removing the funding. So I quote, Mr. Speaker, a fact. I quote Representative John Murtha in an interview that he gave just 1 month ago when asked about this slow bleed program that they are trying to put in place. He said, ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment.'' Mr. Speaker, that is a little concerning. We have men and women who are putting their lives on the line, who are standing in front of enemies the likes of which we have never seen. And here in the United States House of Representatives, this majority party has a Member who is determining funding for the troops who says, ``They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, what equipment is he referring to? Well, he is referring to protective armor. He is referring to vehicles that have the appropriate protection from IEDs. He is referring to the kind of air superiority, the air power, that is necessary to protect our troops on the ground. As far as I can tell, he is referring to everything that would be used in the normal course and operation of a military activity. And why do I say that? I say that because what they are trying to do, what they are attempting to do, is to truly remove from generals on the ground the ability to defend not only their troops, but to defend liberty and defend freedom. It is a remarkable thing, Mr. Speaker. We are at an incredible crossroads in our country's history, and we have a leadership in place that has a difficult time matching their message with their action, because what they want to do doesn't match what the American people want done, and it is extremely difficult for them. I quote again, Mr. Speaker, from Mr. Murtha when asked, but why don't you just cut off the funding for the war? This was back on March 4. He was asked on a news program, why don't you just cut off funding for the war? That is the honest thing to do, Mr. Speaker. If they want to have the vote about whether or not we ought to continue our involvement, our protection of liberty, and our engagement in this war on terror, you ought to have that vote. Let us have that vote. Let us have that debate. But, Mr. Speaker, they won't do that. They won't do that. Why won't they do that? That is what Mr. Russert asked on NBC's Meet the Press on March 4, 2007. He asked Mr. Murtha, ``But why not cut off funding for the war?'' And what did Mr. Murtha say? ``Well, you don't have the votes to do that. We don't have the votes to do that. You just can't go forth, and the public doesn't want--they don't want that to happen.'' So, Mr. Speaker, the contortions that you see on behalf of the majority party on this issue are because their desire, their zeal to end support for our men and women who are defending liberty and fighting tyranny and fighting terror around the world don't mesh. They don't mesh. There are some who get it right, though, throughout Congress, some members of the majority party who understand and appreciate what their leadership is trying to do. One of those is Senator Joseph Lieberman from Connecticut. Speaker Pelosi was quoted as saying, ``Democrats have proposed a different course of action. Over and over again we have suggested a different plan.'' And Senator Lieberman was very sage when he said, ``Any alternatives that I have heard ultimately don't work. They are all about failing. They are all about withdrawing, and I think allowing Iraq to collapse would be a disaster for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, and for us.'' Slow bleed, Mr. Speaker. Slow bleed. That is a sad and dangerous time when we find our majority party here in the United States House of Representatives supporting a policy that would remove the ability for our troops to do what they must do to defend our liberty. What is our principle on our side of the aisle? What is the Republican principle? Well, the principle is that our troops in combat deserve to be sent the resources and the reinforcements that they need to succeed in their mission in Iraq without strings and without delay. Without strings and without delay. We have, as a matter of fact, a piece of legislation that would do just that. Representative Sam Johnson from Texas, a war hero, truly a war hero, an individual who spent years in a prisoner of war camp in Vietnam, an individual who knows of the challenges that troops face when involved with an enemy that is ferocious, but an individual who understands and appreciates that from this Chamber, from that Congress, you cannot micromanage a war. And when you attempt to do that as a Congress, when you attempt to have 435 Members of Congress who want to all be generals or 100 Members of the United States Senate who want to all be generals or Commanders in Chief, when you have that, it doesn't work. It can't work. It is impossible. So if you want to have the vote, I tell my friends, I ask my friends, I challenge my friends in the majority party, if you want to have the vote on whether or not we ought to simply cut off the funding to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, let us have that vote. Let us have that vote. I would be interested in the outcome of that. I doubt we would get 100 votes in support of that. And it wouldn't, because that is not what the American people want. The American people don't want failure, and that is the prescription that the Democrats, the majority party, are giving us. We have a bill, House Resolution 511, introduced by Representative Sam Johnson, as I mentioned, and it is very simple. It states what the principle ought to be when American military forces are in harm's way. And that principle says, as this resolution says, ``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.'' That is it. That is it. Mr. Speaker, the problem with that is that that doesn't fit the bumper-sticker politics of the majority party. That doesn't fit the Orwellian democracy of the majority party. That doesn't fit the hypocritical actions that are being taken by the majority party. And consequently this bill is languishing in committee. There is a discharge petition, which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is a petition that Members of the House of Representatives can sign to be able to bring legislation out of the committee when it is against the will of the leadership. That discharge petition was begun today. What it allows is Members of the House of Representatives, when there are a majority of them, and that takes 218 Members, when there is a majority of them who sign that, then that bill then comes to the floor of the House for a vote. So I challenge my friends on both sides of the aisle, House Resolution 511, sign the discharge petition. This is principle. This is principle. This is truth. This is the kind of support that our men and women deserve. It is not feigned support. It is not Orwellian support. It doesn't say, yes, I support you, and then pull the rug out from under you. It is not hypocritical support. It doesn't say we want to support you so very, very much, but we are not going to do what it takes. This says it all. It says that we will not cut off or restrict funding for units or members that are deployed in harm's way. Why can't we have a vote on that, Mr. Speaker? What are they afraid of, Mr. Speaker? What are they afraid of? I would suggest they are afraid of the fact that this would pass on the floor of the House of Representatives. This bill would pass. And because it doesn't fit their political agenda, their political agenda, then I doubt that we will see it unless we can get 218 Members of the House of Representatives to sign the discharge petition. So what about this bill that they are going to bring to the floor? What about this supplemental bill that the majority party is planning to bring to the floor this week? Of course, we have been told it would be earlier than this; so they seem to be having some difficulty within their own ranks in garnering support. But what the bill does, as we understand it, is to put in place an inflexible timeline, an inflexible timeline that says that the troops must come home regardless of what is happening on the ground unless the mission is completely accomplished, in essence. Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know, in battle and in war, it is just not possible to have 535 Commanders in Chief. That is not the way our system works, not the way it ought to work, not the way our Founders envisioned it. In fact, it is curious, Mr. Speaker, when the Articles of Confederation were written and our Nation was formed, some of the aspects of those articles didn't work very well; so the Founders of our great Nation got together in a Constitutional Convention, and they worked on issues to try to make certain that this Federalist system, this United States, could come together and work together. And one of the first things that they did was recognize that in the Articles of Confederation there were no provisions for a Commander in Chief. So one of the easiest things that they were able to do was to get consensus on the fact that the Commander in Chief ought to be one individual, and that that individual ought to be the President of the United States and the executive branch, and that that was the only way to work it because obviously you couldn't have countless Members of the House of Representatives or countless Members of the United States Senate who were functioning as Commanders in Chief. It doesn't work, and they recognized that. So putting in place an inflexible timeline that culminates with a date certain for the withdrawal micromanages our commanders in the field, and it undermines the efforts of our troops on the ground. I believe that. I believe that putting in place the kind of artificial timelines and artificial constraints on our commanders, on our generals, on our troops would be a disaster. It doesn't make any sense. All it does is make political points. And that, Mr. Speaker, isn't fact. Isn't fact. It is just not Republicans who believe that that would be the wrong course. There is a remarkable orchestra of individuals and groups all around the Nation that are standing up now and speaking out against the foolishness of that kind of proposal. I cite for you, Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post. Now, the Washington Post is a wonderful newspaper. It has been around for a long time. But nobody would contend that the Washington Post was a very conservative newspaper or a great friend of conservative thought. Nobody would contend that. But what does the Washington Post say about this plan of the majority, about the Democrat plan? They say, ``It is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself.'' That, Mr. Speaker, was written on March 13, just 1 week ago. ``An attempt to impose detailed management on the war without regard for the war itself.'' What volumes that speaks, when you think about where it is coming from. It is not coming from individuals who would have any political chip, no political reason to embarrass the majority party or to call them out on a policy that may not necessarily be very sound. What that does is demonstrate that they understand and appreciate the consequence of adopting what is supposed to come to this floor this week as the Iraq war supplemental would be devastating for the nation of Iraq, for the Middle East, for the United States, and, yes, for the world. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the Iraq Study Group. The Iraq Study Group was the bipartisan group that got together, actually a group that began because Representative Frank Wolf, a Republican in this House, added it to a piece of legislation that was passed almost a year ago. What it said is that we ought to have a bipartisan group get together and work in a non political way to make recommendations to the executive branch and to Congress about how to move forward in Iraq. They came up with a number of recommendations. We hear it all the time from the other side that the Iraq Study Group didn't endorse this or didn't propose this or didn't support that; that they supported a withdrawal of the troops from Iraq; that they didn't support any escalation in the number. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you look on page 73 of the Iraq Study Group, Mr. Speaker, that is another fact, if you look on page 73 of the Iraq Study Group report, it, in fact, supports an escalation, a small escalation, of the number of troops in Iraq. What they also did was oppose a date certain for withdrawal. Mr. Speaker, again a fact. I quote from one of the cochairman, former Secretary of State James Baker, who said in testifying before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, ``The Study Group set no timetables and we set no deadlines. We believe that military commanders must have the flexibility to respond to events on the ground.'' Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues here in the House heard that. I hope that they are listening, because what they are saying, what the Iraq Study Group said is exactly what we are saying now, and that is that this supplemental bill that has artificial timetables and artificial deadlines that are capricious and politically motivated, clearly that that kind of action is not appropriate, it wasn't called for by the Iraq Study Group, and would not allow the military commanders to have the flexibility that they need to succeed. How about the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Speaker, again, not a paper in our Nation that has tended to be terribly friendly to conservatives or Republicans. The Los Angeles Times, in an editorial on March 12, when it had reviewed what the majority party was proposing in this supplemental Iraq war resolution to fund the hard, incredibly diligently working men and women who are defending liberty, what did the Los Angeles Times say? Well, Mr. Speaker, the Los Angeles Times called for the bill to be vetoed. Vetoed, Mr. Speaker. Why would they do that? Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our receiving a message from the Senate. The message from the Senate is that a Senate bill was passed, and we are pleased to see that. We look forward to the time when the Senate will take up some of the legislation that the House majority has passed, that they have been so terribly proud of, and look forward to working in concert on that legislation. But I was talking, Mr. Speaker, about the supplemental war resolution that will come forward, the bill that will provide for appropriate funding of our troops in harm's way, defending liberty and defending us, and the proposal that is coming from the majority party is a proposal that would micromanage the operations of our troops. It is a proposal that has been described as ``slow bleed,'' which is a proposal that means that you will defund, you will remove the funding from the men and women who are working so valiantly to defend us. That is not just an opinion from our side of the aisle. That is an opinion from all over. Many people are recognizing that. The Washington Post, as I mentioned, had an editorial that criticized the majority party for coming forward with it. The Iraq Study Group supports, in fact, a minor, small escalation in the number of troops, and never said, Mr. Speaker, never said that they agreed with artificial timelines. The Los Angeles Times, again, Mr. Speaker, a paper that has not been noted for its friendliness to our side of the aisle, called for the bill to be vetoed. They called for the bill to be vetoed. Why did they do so? They said, ``It is absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to try to micromanage the conflict and the evolution of Iraqi society with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.'' Mr. Speaker, that is a fact. March 12 of this year, the Los Angeles Times calls the war supplemental ``absurd.'' And what about the National Intelligence Estimate? The National Intelligence Estimate, which was released in January, warned of the dangers of early troop withdrawal. They said that if coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to give credibility to the National Intelligence Estimate. Those are the folks that determine in an objective way, in a non political way, what are the consequences or prospective consequences of actions that this Nation takes. This poster here talks about the consequences of failure. It is important that we talk about the consequences of failure, because many people, not just on our side of the aisle, but many people around this Nation, including the Washington Post, including the Los Angeles Times, have concluded for themselves that the proposal that the majority party has put forward is a bill that will result in defeat or failure in Iraq. So it is important that we look, Mr. Speaker, at the consequences of failure for our Nation. What are the consequences of failure? This is from the National Intelligence Estimate. What they say is that Iraqi security forces would be subject to sectarian control; that interference by neighboring countries would occur in an open conflict, that means Iran, Syria, other neighboring countries; that massive civilian casualties and population displacement would occur. Massive civilian casualties. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the majority party, the leadership in the majority party, has considered the consequences of that? What would happen? Al Qaeda in Iraq would plan increased attacks inside and outside of Iraq, and spiraling violence and political disarray, including Kurdish attempts at autonomy in Kirkuk. Mr. Speaker, clearly, clearly, failure, failure will result in a much worse situation for the people in Iraq, the people in the Middle East; I would suggest much more danger in the Middle East and for our friends in Israel; and, Mr. Speaker, it would result in a much more dangerous situation, I believe, for the United States of America. So, what are they doing? What is the other side doing to try to pass this piece of legislation, this hypocritical piece of legislation, this piece of legislation that they are having such difficulty doing, because, again, what the American people want and what they in their rhetoric, what the majority party in their rhetoric, say are two completely different things. So what are they having to do? Well, they are having to use a lot of what has come to be known in this town, Mr. Speaker, as pork. The original estimate for the bill was about $100 billion. About $100 billion, Mr. Speaker. The other side has now added over $20 billion to the bill. And what are they doing, Mr. Speaker? They are buying votes. They are buying votes. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that an emergency bill, this is an emergency bill to fund our troops, is not the appropriate vehicle for unrelated spending, either foreign or domestic. Our troops ought not be bargaining chips. Our troops ought not be bargaining chips. That is what the majority party is doing. Quoted here in a publication here in Washington earlier this month, it says, ``Democratic leaders see this emerging strategy as a way to encourage their liberal members to vote for the supplemental budget bill.'' This emerging strategy is buying votes, adding all sorts of items to the bill. Curiously, this party, the majority party, ran in their campaign on this wonderful issue of fiscal responsibility, financial responsibility, making certain that everything that came through Congress was paid for. They call it PAYGO, pay-as-you-go; make certain that you have got the resources in place in order to pay for whatever proposal you are moving forward. Well, they have virtually thrown that out the window. We have had a number of amendments on bills that would hold their feet to the fire and make certain that they were accountable on this PAYGO issue, and they have defeated everything that would make them accountable. They are doing the same thing here. They willfully abandoned their pledge of fiscal responsibility. Not long ago they pledged to follow pay-as-you-go budget rules and spending restraints to curb the deficit, and this bill would not be subject to PAYGO. Last year, it is important to appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that House Republicans rejected a $14 billion increase in nonemergency spending that the Senate tried to attach to an emergency troop funding bill; $14 billion was saved for the American taxpayer in a bill that came to the floor of the House from the Senate just last year. Under a different majority we saved $14 billion. The majority party now is going to spend, if they have their way with this bill, at least $21 billion more than has been requested. That is important, Mr. Speaker, because this is an emergency bill, and as such it doesn't come under the normal budgetary rules. So if they are able to spend $21 billion in this piece of legislation, then what happens is that they don't need to spend that $21 billion in the normal course of activity, in the normal budgetary process, so it frees up another $21 billion, and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, what you get is $42 billion of more spending, extra spending. But, Mr. Speaker, our troops deserve the resources that should be in this bill, the finite resources, the resources that the President and the generals and the commanders in the field have requested. They should be able to receive those resources now, not after, not after our friends on the other side of the aisle in the majority party carry out this incredible political charade of voting on a bill that will never become law in its current form because the Senate, the Senate, won't go along. They have, in essence, said so. Mr. Speaker, there are some incredible quotes that I have regarding this issue of micromanaging the war and this issue of loading the bill up with pork. There is a Democratic claim earlier this year, just last week, as a matter of fact, from Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who said, ``There is no micromanaging of the war, period.'' Mr. Speaker, as you know, I already have outlined that individuals outside of the Republican Party and the Republican cause have reached the conclusion that, yes, in fact this is micromanagement: Again, the Los Angeles Times editorial where they said it is ``absurd'' that they try to micromanage the war. The Washington Post editorial said, in short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Aggressive oversight is quite different from mandating military steps according to an inflexible timetable. Even some of their own Members have reached the conclusion that this, indeed, is micromanaging the war. Representative Dan Boren of Oklahoma said just 2 weeks ago, ``It is still micromanaging of the war.'' Mr. Speaker, this plan that our friends on the other side of the aisle have truly does a disservice to the discussion, does a disservice to the debate, makes it seem that all votes are for sale here in Washington to Members of the House. Really, it is a cynical ploy. Spending the kind of money they are proposing to spend is not helpful at all. Where are they planning to put some of that money? It is important to look at that. We talk about the Iraq emergency war supplemental, an extra $21 billion. Where would some of that money go? Well, $1.8 billion in crop disaster assistance. It may be appropriate money to be spent, Mr. Speaker, but in an emergency war supplemental, it is absolutely the wrong place. If you will recall, if this House, if this majority party has its way and puts that money there, what it will allow them to do is increase somewhere else spending by $1.8 billion and follow their shadow PAYGO rules. $60 million for salmon fisheries. Mr. Speaker, it truly is a cynical ploy on the part of this majority party if they continue to march down this road of packing this legislation with all sorts of extraneous spending that nobody in their logical, correct, factual, truthful mind could conclude was related to the emergency war supplemental. $60 million for salmon fisheries; $25 million for spinach growers. Spinach growers may indeed need some emergency assistance, but in an emergency war supplemental? I think not. Mr. Speaker, $50 million for asbestos abatement in the Capitol, and it goes on and on and on. Mr. Speaker, as we know, there are very specific guidelines in this bill for our troops, very specific dates about when they must be at a certain place in the accomplishment, in the engagement, in the execution of the challenges that they have before them, very specific. In this bill there is very specific language about the amount of money that is available for the troops and when it would be cut off if in fact those arbitrary timelines and benchmarks were not met. But, Mr. Speaker, I learned this afternoon something very, very interesting, and that is there is a significant amount of money for livestock, American livestock, in this bill. That is real pork, if you will. It may be upwards of billions of dollars, but I can't tell you exactly what it is because in the language of the bill it says that the amount of money that will be available for this livestock provision will be ``such sums as may be necessary.'' Mr. Speaker, that is unlimited. And it struck me as truly ironic and sad that this majority party, this Democrat leadership, believes we ought to have an unlimited amount of funds for livestock in this Nation and a finite and limited amount of money for our troops in the field. Mr. Speaker, that contrast just speaks volumes. It speaks volumes about the cynicism with which this House is being led, about the hypocrisy by which this bill is being brought to the floor. An unlimited amount of money for livestock in America and finite, limited amounts of money and arbitrary guidelines, arbitrary timelines for our troops in the field. Mr. Speaker, it saddens me. It saddens me to serve in a body where the majority party has a leadership that is that cynical and brings the debate and the items that we discussed here on the floor of the House to a point that is so very, very trite really. So very, very trite. Mr. Speaker, I have only a few minutes left, and I wanted to spend a few moments discussing the larger issue, the larger war on terror. I think it is important we do that because when the American people think about the issue in Iraq and whether or not we ought to be there, and the debate can be had about whether or not we ought to be there, and that is an appropriate debate to have. And I wish we could have an honest and open debate and an honest and open vote on whether or not we ought to be there, a single vote on that; but the majority party has seen not to bring that kind of open and honest debate to the floor of the House of Representatives. But when Americans think about what is going on in the world, they understand and appreciate that however things have been executed or delivered in Iraq, the activity that has gone on on behalf of the American people in Iraq, although they may have problems with that, they understand and appreciate that the bigger picture, the larger war on terror, is a challenge that we must recognize in America and we all must face. It is a challenge and the facing of an enemy the likes of which we have never seen. You don't have to go far to find examples of that, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the best examples I have found are those that come from the self- proclaimed enemies themselves. This is a quote, Mr. Speaker, from Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an individual with whom we had as far as I know no concerns before he decided that he wanted to become a mortal enemy of the free world. He acted upon that in a way that has been extremely treacherous. He said, ``We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a little chilling, but it is important that we recognize that is the nature of the enemy in this war on terror. The consequences of not engaging and not being certain that we prevail in this war on terror, the consequences of failure in that activity would deliver a death knell to our society. The issue is as large as that. I try to visit schools in my district, the Sixth District of Georgia as often as possible, and I like to talk to young people and get their perspective on their life and what they see in the future. Most of them are very, very hopeful; and I share that hope and optimism for the future of our Nation. But oftentimes when we are talking about government and talking about politics and talking about the issues of the day, I will ask them, especially the middle school students and the high school students, I will ask them: Do you believe the United States will continue to survive forever? And it is an interesting question because it forces one to think, well, what allows us to survive right now? What has been put in place that allows us to survive right now? Most young people when you ask them that question, they have not really ever thought about that. They have not thought about what has brought about the preservation of our Nation, the longest surviving democracy in the history of the world. It is a remarkable question to ask. Most of them have not ever thought about it; but when they do think about it, they understand the gravity of the question. They understand that there are challenges in this world. They understand there are people like Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi out there who want to see the end of our Nation as we know it. That is not our opinion; that is his stated fact. That is what he has said that he wants to do. So, Mr. Speaker, the gravity of the challenge that we have facing us is real, and the magnitude of it is remarkable. And the ferocity of the enemy is unlike any we have ever faced. When I get individuals to tell me, well, if you just think about this in the way we fought World War II or previous wars in which we prevailed, then you will appreciate we need to do X, Y and Z. But I would suggest that the enemy that we are up against is not like any enemy we have faced. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is think about the terrorist plot and the attacks that were foiled because of the wonderful intelligence work on the part of Great Britain and the United States and Pakistan last August. And that plot as you will remember was a plot to bring down at least 10 or more civilian airlines carrying enough people who were flying across the Atlantic Ocean to bring them down in a terrorist act so they could kill more people than were killed on 9/11. So they had to have 10 or a dozen planes that they would work in concert to bring down. That plot was foiled. That was a real plot. That was a real plan on the part of our enemy. And that plan itself is chilling enough, Mr. Speaker; but when you realize and appreciate that two of the individuals who were apprehended and had participated in the planning of that and were intent on carrying out that act were a married couple, a mom and a dad with an 8- month-old child, and they were going to use that 8-month-old child's baby food in the airplane to be the vessel for carrying the bomb on board. They were going to kill themselves and their 8-month-old child and bring down a plane and kill as many innocent civilians as they could. Mr. Speaker, that is an enemy whose ferocity we can't even comprehend. That is an enemy who says: We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology. That is an enemy the likes of which we have never seen, and that is an enemy that requires that we in the United States House of Representatives work in concert together, that understand and appreciate the gravity of our time, of this time and make certain that we do all that we can to follow the principles that have allowed us to become the longest-surviving democracy on the face of the Earth. Part of those principles are embodied in the United States Constitution. Part of that United States Constitution that has allowed us to prevail and to have the greatest amount of success and provide the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest number of people ever in the history of mankind, part of those principles stipulate that there is one Commander in Chief, not 535. So if the majority party wants to have a vote about whether or not we want to end the funding for the battle that our Commander in Chief believes we must be engaged in in order to make this next step in the larger war on terror, if the majority party wants to have that vote, then let's have that vote. But to do so as they are planning to do this week, in a cynical and hypocritical way, to load up the bill with so much extraneous spending, tens of billions of dollars in order to buy votes to pass this hypocritical and cynical bill that micromanages this incredibly important endeavor that we are engaged in right now is wrong. It does an injustice and a disservice to not just this body but our entire Nation. I urge my colleagues to encourage leadership on both sides of the aisle to support that open and honest debate. I know on our side we are ready for that debate. We are ready for that debate. I would hope that the Speaker and the Democrat leadership would encourage and support that debate as well. It is an incredible privilege to come to the floor of the House and share these words, Mr. Speaker. I thank my leadership for that opportunity. It is very humbling to serve in the United States House of Representatives, a body in which 10,000 or 11,000 or so individuals have served in the history of our Nation. It is a great responsibility in serving in this body, but the primary responsibility is to make certain that we do all that we can to preserve and protect our Constitution and our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest humbly that the bill that is being proposed by the majority leadership this week on the supplemental emergency war resolution is not a bill that does a service to our Nation and does credit to the work of this House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to bring forth the bill that will show that, in fact, we do indeed support the troops in harm's way.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, and I thank you for allowing or supporting the inclusion of one of my amendments. But you would agree, I hope, that the reason that the section was misidentified in the initial submission to the Rules Committee is because the text of the bill that we are considering today wasn't available until Friday afternoon, and that section numbers indeed changed; is that not correct?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for his passion for openness and honesty in our process, and I thank him for yielding me some time. I rise to oppose this rule for two specific reasons. One is because it is not an open rule. It is not an open rule. It is a violation of the assurances that we have been provided by the majority party. It is not an open rule. Having a little bit of an open rule is like being a little bit pregnant. It ain't possible. This is not an open rule. And I stand here with an amendment that was turned down by the Rules Committee. I stand here also opposing this because this rule takes fiscal sanity and it moves it into a room somewhere, a very dark room, and then locks the door and it throws away the key. I have in my hand, Madam Speaker, the report from the Rules Committee on what we are considering today. And it has the amendment that I had offered, commonly known as PAYGO, and it has the recorded vote. This is in the Rules Committee yesterday. And my amendment would have been very simple. It said: ``Would require any new spending authorized by this legislation to have a specific offset.'' Simple. And what happened on the vote? Mr. McGovern voted ``no.'' Mr. Hastings from Florida voted ``no.'' Mr. Welch voted ``no.'' Mr. Arcuri voted ``no.'' Ms. Slaughter voted ``no.'' Ms. Matsui voted ``no.'' They voted against even considering, even considering financial responsibility. So I rise to oppose this rule. This new majority has promised a fair and open process; but, Madam Speaker, I am here to tell you that what we are living in now is the land of Orwellian democracy. Because they just say something, they think it is so. Once again, this majority has blocked a vote on applying pay-as-you-go principles to new spending. We have wonderful comments from leadership on the other side. Speaker Pelosi has said, on a previous rule, when the Republicans were in charge, ``Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voices silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.'' And I support that sentiment. ``Because this is a restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote `no.' '' Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on a rule that came before the House, ``Mr. Speaker, once again this House majority is resorting to heavy-handed tactics that are designed to do one thing only, to achieve a pre-ordained result by shutting down a full and fair debate in this House.'' And that is precisely what the majority party is doing now. The new Chair of the Rules Committee said, ``If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule, not just appropriations bills. An open process should be the norm, not the exception.'' Democrat Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel said, ``Let us have an up or down vote. Don't be scared. Don't hide behind some little rule. Come on out here. Put it on the table. Let us have a vote.'' So I ask my friends on the majority side, what are you afraid of? The amendment said: ``Which would require any new spending authorized by this legislation to have a specific offset.'' What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? That is real financial responsibility. My good friend from Massachusetts said that they were waiting on a CBO scoring. Well, then the bill does require funding. In fact, what the CBO has said, that it has a price tag of nearly $1.3 billion. Maybe money well spent, but I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that it is money that we ought to find in our current budget. So this hypocrisy of the majority party is stifling, absolutely stifling. They are not the most open and fair Congress in history; in fact, they are a far cry from it. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule based on fiscal responsibility and based on the hypocrisy of the majority party claiming to provide open rules, claiming to provide real and honest debate and running away from it once again.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, soon our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be introducing their 2008 budget. What they will really be introducing is an unprecedented tax hike on the American people. Under the economic policies of the last 6 years, the American people have led this economy to over 40 straight months of economic growth, over 7 million new jobs and an unemployment rate at a near-40-year low. This is proof that Americans respond best to having more of their money in their pockets. Nevertheless, the majority party, true to form, is preparing to usher in the largest tax increase in history. That's right, the largest tax increase in history that would bring back the marriage penalty and discourage further investment and growth. This would be a huge step backwards for our economy and for our government. The American people deserve leadership that respects their hard work. Washington must stop trying to find ways to afford a larger government. As we begin the debate on the budget for the upcoming year, we shouldn't begin with a plan to grow an even more massive bureaucracy on the backs of the American taxpayer.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the House, and I rise today to alert my colleagues to a bill, H.R. 328. And I rise to alert them and to speak in disbelief, truly disbelief, at this bill that the majority is preparing to bring to the House floor. Now, it is hard to say, after some of the legislation that has been offered this year, but this is clearly the most egregious and unconstitutional bill that we have seen proposed to be brought to the floor of the House. In fact, some folks, some constitutional scholars, have said this is the most unconstitutional bill that they have ever seen. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution states unequivocally: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.'' Now, the majority has held hearings on a bill and they have passed a bill out of committee that totally disregards this portion of the Constitution. It is a bill to give the District of Columbia a seat, and a voting seat, in the House of Representatives, a clear violation of the Constitution. The Democrats have apparently taken their majority to mean that they can run roughshod over the Constitution. Madam Speaker, this is a sad and distressing state of affairs. It is really a very simple issue. The Founders of our Nation wisely determined that the House of Representatives was to be composed by Members elected by the States. Now, the last time I looked, Washington, D.C. is not a State. Madam Speaker, we are the longest surviving democracy in the history of the world and on the face of the Earth for a reason. There is a reason for that. The Founders of our great Nation, the authors of our Constitution, were brilliant individuals. People around the world still marvel at what they created in our Constitution. Now, do Democrats think that Washington, D.C. was not given a seat in the House of Representatives as an oversight? Was the over-200-year history of our Federal city's place outside of statehood the result of a lapse in judgment? Constitutional scholars have repeatedly found that the Founders did not believe it to be appropriate for the site of the Federal Government to be a State. They never wanted the seat of the Federal Government to be considered a State, clearly, because of the conflicts that creates. Congress simply does not have the authority to grant a non-state full congressional representation. But why are they doing this now? Why is the Democrat majority doing this? Well, Madam Speaker, it is because they can, because they have got the votes. What an incredible abuse of power. The Constitution addresses House membership very clearly. The legislative branch and the House of Representatives was so important to our Founders that it is the first thing discussed in the Constitution. Article I, section 1, literally, the third sentence of the Constitution reads: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by people of the several States.'' The several States, Madam Speaker. It is clear. And Washington, D.C. is not a State. Now, some may try to construe that statement to mean that the United States is the whole Nation, but the Constitution goes further to make this point even more clear. It says: ``No person shall be a representative who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.'' You must be a resident of a State. This isn't just my opinion. The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research service of Congress, filled with constitutional and congressional scholars, released a report that affirms that this bill is unconstitutional. It violates the Constitution. Madam Speaker, this is a clear power grab. Now, I believe strongly that the citizens of the District should have representation. The right to vote is a sacred one, but so is the document that every one of us takes the oath to support, uphold and defend. We can't just disregard the Constitution. It is the supreme document of our land. The options are to pass a constitutional amendment identifying the District of Columbia as a State, or to cede the land of the District of Columbia that has residents back to the State of Maryland. It is what happened in 1846 when the land west of the Potomac was ceded back to the State of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the process that the majority is employing here is completely unfounded. We shouldn't be surprised, however. This new majority has taken the liberty to throw process out the door when they took over. Now they are tossing the Constitution out the door. Madam Speaker, I will continue to honor the oath to support and defend and uphold our Constitution. It is a sacred document, the bedrock of our Nation. This new majority claims to be the most open and honest and ethical government ever. Madam Speaker, what is open about trampling on the Constitution? What is honest about trampling on the Constitution? What is ethical about trampling on the Constitution? Madam Speaker, the American people are watching, and they don't like what they see.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, there is a common misconception in Washington that simply talking about a problem is as good as solving it. However, we know that actions speak louder than words. In 34 of the last 38 years, the Federal Government hasn't balanced its own checkbook. It's time Washington stop looking for ways to afford bigger government. Yesterday, the Republican Study Committee introduced the Taxpayer Bill of Rights to restore budget accountability to Washington's checkbook, and it couldn't come at a better time. It is imperative that we prioritize America's financial responsibilities and reform the way Washington spends hard-earned taxpayer money. We can't expect different results if we keep on doing the same thing. This is all about accountability, about reducing wasteful Washington spending, about balancing the budget, about fundamental tax reform, and about adapting programs to America's changing demographics. Madam Speaker, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights isn't merely a slogan, it's a solution, a way we should all be thinking. Imagine this positive change to the way Washington spends hard-earned taxpayer money. Just imagine.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a re-vote on the Stupak amendment.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her perspective and especially bringing to light the interesting articles that we are now seeing come out in the national press. And the editorial that you and that Colonel Kline brought to us today from the L.A. Times saying, ``Do we Really Need a General Pelosi?'' And the underheading of that was ``Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it shouldn't micromanage the war.'' And, in fact, that is what we would suggest, that if the majority party believes so strongly that we ought to end our involvement in Iraq, then let us have that vote. Let us have that debate, and let us have that vote. And if that is what they believe we ought to do, then we should have that vote. I would be interested to see what the outcome would be. I suspect that we are not having that vote because the majority leadership is afraid of the outcome of that vote because it doesn't fit with what they have been telling people and with what they would like to see. So I think it is important that we do concentrate on what they are doing, and that is proposing to micromanage the war. And if I am able to bring a few quotes from some other folks to talk about this slow-bleed micromanagement of the war plan, about a week ago it was quoted in one of the local newspapers that ``House Democratic leaders said the measure, expected to put conditions on the President's use of funds . . . '' And then quoting the Speaker on March 8, she said: ``The House Democratic plan for the Iraq funding bill could force a pullout of U.S. combat troops starting on July 1, with all American units out of the country by the end of 2007.'' And then another quote from the Associated Press on March 8: ``Speaker Nancy Pelosi . . . told reporters the measure would mark the first time the new Democratic-controlled Congress has established a `date uncertain' . . . '' That is micromanagement by anybody's definition. In fact, Representative Dan Boren, a Democrat from Oklahoma, said, ``It is still micromanaging the war.'' Goodness knows that is the last place this Congress needs to be is micromanaging the war. Again, that is why we have the principles of the system in place that we have, that it is the executive branch's responsibility to conduct a war, to conduct the defense of our Nation. Again, if we in Congress believe that it is appropriate to cut off funding for that, then let's have that vote. Let's have that vote, Madam Speaker. I would welcome the opportunity to defend the action of our military currently and would welcome the opportunity to oppose that kind of vote. But I suspect the majority leadership in this House is not interested in having that vote. That would be a truthful and honest debate about what this Nation ought to do; and, frankly, we haven't seen that to date on this issue. But I encourage them to bring that forward. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and fellow Georgian, Congressman Lynn Westmoreland. Georgia has a strong history of relationship with our military and with our Defense Department, and Congressman Westmoreland represents a number of those areas. We welcome you and appreciate you joining us today and look forward to your perspective. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Maybe you could stick around and we can talk a little more about that supplemental and the slow-bleed policy. I recall the comment that was made just a little earlier, Madam Speaker, by a friend on the other side of the aisle where she was quoting a general saying there was ``no military solution'' in Iraq. And, in fact, that is true. There is no isolated military solution. But that doesn't mean that the military doesn't have a role because it is a three-pronged strategy, which is military, economic, and political. And we are striving in all those areas to make certain that that area of the world is much more stable and much more secure so that we are much more stable and much more secure. With that I am pleased to welcome my good friend Virginia Foxx from North Carolina. I thank you for joining us today, and I look forward to your perspective and your conversation on this issue. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. And I appreciate, Congressman Kline, your perspective in bringing light to one of the important fundamental principles of our Nation. And that is that the responsibility for controlling our military, waging war, rests with the Commander in Chief, with the executive branch. And as you know, our good friend Congressman Blunt from Missouri, our minority whip, Republican whip, he is fond of saying, look, when the Nation began under the Articles of Confederation, there was no Commander in Chief. And the first thing that was easy to do once the Constitutional Convention organized to try to put together a Nation that would survive, one of the first things they were able to do, almost without dissent, was to provide that the executive branch would be the Commander in Chief because you can't fight a war with 535 generals. And I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity, and I am pleased to have yielded to my good friend earlier and think that she brings into perspective some of the differences that we have in this Chamber that I would like to chat about for a little bit this afternoon. It is a great privilege to come to the floor of the House and to present another edition of the Official Truth Squad. One of the goals that we have on our side of the aisle is to bring some light, bring some truth to the discussions that we have here on the floor of the House, so important if we are going to be making decisions, when we make decisions, on behalf of the American people. I represent the Sixth District of Georgia, which is a wonderful district, all northern portion of suburban Atlanta. And from the very youngest to the very oldest, they give me great enthusiasm, and I am heartened by the opportunity to represent that district. It is one of the districts that has one of the greatest amounts of interest in and numbers of individuals who desire appointment to our Nation's military academies. One of the privileges of being a Member of Congress is the opportunity to nominate individuals who avail themselves of the opportunity and have certain accomplishments at their young age to be able to be considered for appointments to military academies. Most of us get somewhere between four and eight individuals appointed to military academies each year; I was privileged last year to get over 25 people from my district appointed to the United States military academies. When I was given the opportunity to call those folks who had been appointed, I asked my staff to put together the list, and I thought I would kind of be able to knock that out in about 1 to 1\1/2\ hours, calling those 25 or so folks who had reached an incredible accomplishment in their life. And I started down that list, and the first call was an extremely emotional call, very moving, because this individual had worked his entire life to be able to have the opportunity to serve his Nation. And so by the end of that phone call, which lasted about 10 minutes, he was crying and I was crying; and we were all celebrating his wonderful accomplishment. And I moved on to the next call, and it was basically a repeat of that first one, and I realized that it was going to take a long time to be able to make those wonderfully exciting and accomplishment calls. And I recognized that there are young men and women across this Nation who recognize and appreciate the value of service and the importance of making certain that there are members all across our society who stand up to serve, who stand up and appreciate the beauty and the wonder and the awe that is the United States of America. And they are proud to serve; they are proud to be able to attend one of our military academies and make that kind of commitment. At another end of the spectrum, I have also some advisory councils in my district, different members of our community who get together and assist me in making sure that I am formulating the kinds of proposals and policies that are consistent with that wonderful Sixth District of Georgia; and recently we met. One of the groups I have is a military and veterans group that gets together and provides information to make certain that we are addressing the kinds of issues that are of concern to military and veterans, members in the Sixth District and across the Nation. These are true heroes. They are folks kind of at the other end of the spectrum from those young men and women who have volunteered to attend military academies. But these are men and women who have served and who recognize the commitment that it takes and recognize the importance of this Congress, of this Nation stating clearly, through both word and deed, that they respect and appreciate the kind of service of our military men and women. And those folks told me recently, they said, Congressman Price, we are a little perplexed, we are a little concerned by what we hear coming out of Washington. Again, these are heroes of a past time for our United States, continued heroes, but they are concerned because they believe that the information that is being put forward and the policies that are being promoted by the new majority party here in Washington as it relates to our Nation's security are troubling to them and threaten truly our very existence as a Nation. I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the most recent proposal as it relates to our war on terror as a Nation, is a proposal that has been coined and termed ``slow bleed,'' slow bleed in terms of our efforts in Iraq. It kind of gives you just chills thinking about that term, doesn't it, Madam Speaker? The slow bleed policy that has been put forward by Members on the other side of the aisle, they are very troubled by this at home; and I am very troubled by it. And that is what the Official Truth Squad, part of our purpose is trying to bring light and truth to the debate as it goes on here in Washington. We have some favorite sayings on the Official Truth Squad. This is one of them. It comes from Senator Patrick Moynihan, who was the United States Senator from the State of New York. He said, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.'' And, Madam Speaker, we would go a long way here in Washington if we heeded this statement and belief by Senator Moynihan: everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. We hear a lot of opinions here, and it would be wonderful if the majority of them were more supported by facts. One of the facts, though, is that the majority party here has the power of the purse; and if they so desire to bleed our troops dry in their mission, which is the mission of all Americans, which is to preserve and protect and defend our Nation; if they desire to slow bleed our troops, then they have the power to do that. They have the power to do that. And that is why it is called the slow bleed policy, because it would bleed dry our troops in terms of the ability for them to defend our Nation. I quote, Madam Speaker, from Representative John Murtha on February 15 of this year when he was asked about this strategy. And he said: ``They won't be able to continue,'' they, referring to the United States troops, our military. He said, Madam Speaker: ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment.'' What a sad commentary it is, Madam Speaker, when you have the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that has jurisdiction over our military talking about a mission that our military is on to defend freedom and to defend you and to defend me, and say proudly, proudly, ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment.'' Madam Speaker, that is a sad commentary on the level of discourse and the level of involvement and the level of support that this new majority party has for our military. And then when asked just 2 weeks later, this same individual, same Member of Congress, was asked by a member of the press, Why not cut off the funding for the war? And at this point he said, ``Well, you can't. You can't go forth. The public doesn't want that. They don't want that to happen.'' They don't want that to happen. But then the Speaker of the House reaffirmed her support for Mr. Murtha's policies. The greatest amount of truth and light on this issue comes from an individual who stands tall and proud when he talks about the truth and talks about defending our Nation, Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut. When the Speaker said, ``Democrats have proposed a different course of action; over and over again we have suggested a different plan,'' then Senator Lieberman said, ``Any alternatives that I have heard ultimately don't work. They are all about failing, they are all about withdrawing. And I think allowing Iraq to collapse would be a disaster for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, and for us.'' That is a little truth, Madam Speaker, on an issue that is so incredibly important to us as a Nation and to us as it relates to the stability in the Middle East, and, yes, to the world, to world stability and world peace. I am so proud to be joined today by many of my colleagues to talk about the policies of the other side, to talk about the war on terror, to talk about defending our Nation and freedom and liberty. And the first individual to join us here on the Official Truth Squad is my good friend John Kline from Minnesota who knows of what he speaks. Colonel Kline, we are so proud to have you join us today, and I look forward to your comments.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman's comments and your perspective on it. It is chilling. Slow bleed is chilling, because it is not just slow bleed for our allies. It is slow bleed for our troops and our military. You talk about the consequences of failure. This is a list of the consequences of failure. This doesn't come from the national Republican Party or the House Republican Caucus. This comes from the National Intelligence Estimate. What it says clearly crystallizes what would happen if the majority party here enacts the slow bleed policy that is promoted by their leadership. It says: ``Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If we fail in Iraq, the Iraqi security forces would be subject to sectarian control, interference by neighboring countries in open conflict,'' which means Iran and others would pour into Iraq, ``massive civilian casualties and population displacement.'' That is what the colonel was talking about earlier happened after the conflict in Vietnam. ``Al Qaeda in Iraq would plan increased attacks inside and outside of Iraq and spiraling violence and political disarray, including Kurdish attempts at autonomy in Kirkuk.'' But the spiraling violence is again the important thing to concentrate on, because that is not our conference, that is not our caucus saying that. That is the National Intelligence. Colonel, if you would like to comment and make a few words, then I know we have Congressman Davis here.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate so much your comments and your perspective on this because you bring light to some important information. One is visiting the men and women at Walter Reed, and how moving is that experience every time we take part in that, and thank those young men and women for the work they have done in defense of our liberty and of our freedom. If anyone wants moving accounts, all they have to do is read or listen to conversations or e-mails sent back from our men and women who are in harm's way right now. I get chills every time somebody forwards to me an account by one of our brave military men and women as they describe what is going on on the ground, and the enthusiasm and the passion that they have for the wonderful work that they are doing to bring freedom and liberty to that land. You bring light to who our enemy is. I think it is important that we appreciate exactly the magnitude of this. This is a battle, a war against an enemy who is more ferocious than any we have ever faced. When I try to put that in perspective, I am reminded of the airline debacle that was stopped last August or so in Britain by good intelligence on the part of our British allies and Pakistanis and our own intelligence agents. What they did is identify a group of individuals whose whole goal was to bring down or destroy as many jumbo jet airlines flying from England or Europe to the United States at one time so they could kill more innocent civilians than were killed on 9/ 11. That is chilling enough. That is enough to get your attention. But when you appreciate that two of the people who were involved in the planning of that and involved in what would have been the execution of that tragedy were two parents who were using their 8-month-old child and the baby food for that child as the vessel for the explosive that would bring down a plane, and they were going to be on that plane with their 8-month-old child, they were going to kill themselves and their 8-month-old child in order to kill innocent civilians, Madam Speaker, that is an enemy that carries with them the ferocity that we cannot even comprehend. It is an enemy that Musab al-Zarqawi crystalizes in his quote of January 2005 when he says, ``We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology.'' Madam Speaker, it is extremely important for us as a nation to appreciate the fundamental objection and the fundamental fight that we have is against people who oppose our own freedom and our own liberty and our own democracy. Madam Speaker, it is imperative that this Congress appreciate the magnitude of the challenge that we face as a nation. It is imperative that in so appreciating that magnitude, that we recognize that facts and truth are important when we talk about this and we make certain that we as a Congress do not institute a policy that would result in tying the hands of the men, the brave men and women in our military who are defending our liberty and our freedom and our democracy. It is a privilege for each and every one of us to be able to represent our districts in the United States House of Representatives. We should do nothing to thwart the activity of those who are defending our liberty and our freedom and our democracy.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for his leadership in this area and for yielding me some time to talk about this rule and a little more expansive subject. I think what we are seeing today really demonstrates the difference between our side and our approach, the Republican approach to fiscal challenges, financial challenges, financial responsibility that we face in this Nation, and our friends on the majority side, on the Democrat side. We have had some important bills this week that we have dealt with. We have also had an opportunity to be financially responsible, fiscally responsible and accountable to the American people. Our side has chosen to propose those measures of accountability. The other side, the majority side, has chosen to ignore that. This is another example today. I live outside of Atlanta. My district is the Sixth District of Georgia. It has remarkable challenges in the area of water and water quality. I appreciate the importance of assisting State and local governments in the area of clean water. This is an important bill. It ought to be a priority of our Nation. What the majority party says, however, is that this may be a priority, but we are not going to treat it as a priority from a financial standpoint. We are going to throw money at it from a governmental standpoint and we are going to enact the kind of PAYGO proposal that the majority party loves so much, which is raise taxes and go on with the program. That is what this bill does. This is an important bill. It authorizes $16 billion in discretionary spending. It creates two new programs and continues other existing programs. There is $375 million for the creation of new Federal grant programs at EPA and $1.5 billion for State grant pollution control programs. It reauthorizes $20 million annually for some expired pilot programs to provide technical assistance in the area of water works treatment projects, and it authorizes $14 billion to provide grants to States to pay for the construction of clean water projects. These are important, important programs. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for it? Well, the majority Democrat Party proposes that we pay for it by increased taxes, which is their ``TAXGO'' policy that they have for their financial programs. TAXGO: they raise taxes, and they raise taxes because they somehow believe that when you raise taxes on businesses that it never reaches the American people. Well, Mr. Speaker, as you and I both know, corporations don't pay taxes. What they do is they cover that by charging more for their product. The American people pay corporate taxes. The American people's taxes, the American people's costs are increased when corporate taxes are increased. It is just like the other side, the majority side, believes that the money that comes to the Federal Government is the government's money. It is not the people's money; it is the government's money. And that is this clear definition that we have seen this week. So I offered an amendment to this bill that said this ought to be a priority of our Nation. But we ought to state that it is a priority by saying that there are other measures in the Federal Government program that we ought not cover because this ought to take that priority. A true PAYGO, a true pay-as-you-go proposal. The Rules Committee decided no, they didn't want to do it that way. They wanted to raise taxes on the American people. So their TAXGO policy is in full place right here with this rule that doesn't even allow, doesn't even allow the Members of the House of Representatives to even make a statement on whether they think we ought to cover this with current money. So the TAXGO policy is in place by our good friends on the majority side, on the Democrat side. This rule proves it. What has happened this week on the floor of the House proves it, as they have voted down real pay-as-you-go amendments to two of the previous bills. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I think this really points out the clear and distinct difference from a financial standpoint in this House of Representatives. I am told, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee doesn't even allow for a recorded vote anymore on these, so you can't even tell who is supportive of the rule and who isn't supportive of the rule. But as I understand it by those who were there, every single Democrat opposed my amendment, which means that every single Democrat, including the new Democrats on the Rules Committee, support a tax-and-go policy, a tax-and-spend policy. This rule is a demonstration of that. This rule approves that. This rule proves that the majority party is not interested in financial responsibility and financial accountability, because they were given the opportunity to say, yes, we believe that we ought to identify priorities and pay for them at the Federal level by making certain that we are not increasing taxes and increasing the amount of money that hardworking Americans have to send to the Federal Government. So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this rule. This is another evidence of the undemocratic side of the majority party that says, no, we ought not have a full and open debate which was promised to the American people. We ought not have a full and open debate on how we are going to pay for government programs. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to be responsible, to be financially responsible, to allow for the appropriate discussion, debate and voting on measures so the American people know who their friends are from a taxing standpoint. I believe it is the Republican side of the aisle. I would hope my Democrat friends would join us in that endeavor, and urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and bring an appropriate rule, bring a rule that allows us to debate the issues in an open and honest way and then have the vote.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise with a very simple amendment, an amendment of responsibility. As you and the House know, H.R. 700 grants $125 million for alternative water source projects. It is a program that Congress has never funded, may be a very appropriate program. For some in this Chamber, $125 million may not be very much money, but for folks in my district, and I suspect for folks around this Nation, $125 million is a lot of money. And, again, while what this bill does may be very important, it is important that we also make a statement for financial responsibility. This amendment would apply the principle of pay-as-you-go, pay-as-you- go to any new spending that would be authorized in this legislation. Very simple: If you are going to spend money for this project, you ought to make it a priority and identify an area where you desire to take that money from in order to pay for this project. It is a concept that has been embraced by many in this Chamber. In fact, many Members on the majority side embraced the pay-as-you-go project in their campaigns this past year. In fact, the New Direction for America, which was proposed by the majority party in the 109th Congress, says, ``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.'' Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. It is a wise idea. We ought to follow that. We ought to follow that in this new Congress. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I would respectfully suggest that, unless adopted, then the new direction in which we are heading is one that will take us in a direction of greater red ink and not that of financial responsibility. So I offer this simple amendment, this PAYGO amendment to H.R. 700, and I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer this motion to recommit. And I am more pleased to commend my Democratic colleagues for yesterday's recognition of the motion to recommit. They will recognize today's because it is exactly the same motion. I think with that recognition came the realization and appreciation that motions to recommit are, indeed, substantive moves and they are substantive proposals of policy by this House of Representatives. This motion to recommit is one about honesty; it is about honesty in the provision of the funds in the bill that is about to be adopted. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would reinforce existing Federal law by making it clear that none of the funds authorized under this act may be used to lobby or retain a lobbyist to attempt to influence Federal, State or local governmental officials. It would also expand upon existing law by specifically prohibiting Federal funds from being used to pay for membership in any association or organization. And, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, many of those dues rise to the sum of $48,000 to $50,000 or more. The funds should only be used for the purposes intended by Congress, namely, identifying alternative water source projects. And while associations and organizations provide meaningful opportunities for collaboration and knowledge dissemination, it would not be appropriate to use hard-earned scarce Federal tax dollars for such a purpose. Such a diversion of these funds would not only limit the amount of funds available for the actual use and construction of alternative water source projects, it could indeed constitute an end run around the lobbying restrictions since many of these associations engage in lobbying activities. In recent years, Mr. Speaker, growth in population and increasing environmental awareness is causing many communities to explore alternative water supplies through reclamation, reuse and conservation. And while the Clean Water Act construction grants prior to 1991 and State revolving loan funds since 1989 have been available for such activities, most expenditures to date have been for more traditional wastewater projects and not for enhancing water supplies through wastewater reuse and water recycling. For these compelling reasons, we need to ensure that all available resources provided through this reauthorization are used specifically for the purpose of building and improving alternative water source projects for municipal, industrial or agricultural uses in areas that are experiencing critical water supply needs. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to recognize what they recognized yesterday, and that is that motions to recommit are substantive policy motions. I urge the adoption of this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. In its current form, I am, yes, sir.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I understand this is an authorizing piece of legislation; it is not requiring the money to be spent; and that we have the Appropriations Committees to do that. But I would suggest to my colleagues that this is a matter of principle. It is a matter of principle, and it is a matter of making the statement now that we believe that, if we are going to spend money for this project and we believe that it is a priority, that we ought to find the money elsewhere in order to cover that so that we do not increase the deficit. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.