and when you go to places like afghanistan or iraq or pakistan or the west bank and -- and you see people -- bosnia, and they just can't get a legal system working. and it does not work and people are not protected in their persons from attacks and their property is not protected. contracts often aren't enforced properly, and that just demoralizes countries and it makes it very difficult for them to progress. so i'm so proud of the american legal system. it's something that we inherited. we built upon and it is the bull work for our liberty and prosperity. so we ask this question: what do judges do? do they faithfully interpret the text of our laws and constitution as written? or do they have the power to reinterpret those documents through the lens of their personal views, backgrounds and innocence is the judiciary to be a modest one applying the policies that others have enacted or can it, the judiciary, create new policies that are -- that a judge may desire or think is good? and when the correct answer to a legal case is difficult to ascertain, is a judge then empowered to remove his

when you go to afghanistan or iraq or the west bank, or bosnia, they cannot get the legal system working. people are now protected from being attacked, their property is not protected. contracts are not enforced properly, and this demoralizes the country's and it makes it difficult to progress. i am proud that the american legal system is something that we inherited and we built upon, this is part of the liberty and prosperity. what do the judges do? do they interpret the constitution as it is written, or can they reinterpret read this through their personal view and background and opinions? is it better to use the policy that others have enacted, or can the judiciary have new policies? and when the correct answer is difficult to understand, is the judge empowered it to remove the blindfold, the lady of justice, holding the scales? can they allow their personal feelings for other, outside the normal judicial evidence factors make field amid decision in the case? i will be addressing those questions in the weeks to come, i think that we first need to begin at the source, we must return to

and when you go to places like afghanistan or iraq or pakistan or the west bank and -- and you see people -- bosnia, and they just can't get a legal system working. and it does not work and people re not protected in >> and people are not protected in their persons from

and that's a pressure point now in our world that is as big a pressure point as afghanistan or iraq or any other place because it has the potential that nuclear weapons could be involved. because we don't know exactly where iran is on their development of their nuclear weapons and we certainly know they're working on it. they make no bones about it. so we've got a possible nuclear power there where there is a turmoil going on and we're sort of sitting here on -- over here being quiet about it and maybe that's the right thing to do that seems to be the president's -- the president's taking a position of kind of hands off and there certainly is a school that believes that's the right thing to do, i'm not criticizing that. but i am saying that that's the thing that every american and certainly every member of this body should be concerned about. it could be a world-changing event that comes out of ian. it could be a world-changing event for the negative. so why do i raise this? that very same day that very same day, we heard more from our long-time adversary, the north koreans. you know,

or difficult professor. of course these students who lose a parent in iraq or afghanistan will not have the financial support of their parent in this time of rising college costs and economic uncertainty. while this legislation does not provide students with the same types of support a parent could provide, i hope it will ease the financial burden of paying for college just a little bit. the legislation before us easily passed the house once. i hope for a similar result again. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. hinojosa. mr. hinojosa: mr. speaker, i wish to ask the gentleman from pennsylvania, congressman glen thompson -- glenn thompson, if he has any further speakers. mr. thompson: i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hinojosa: mr. speaker, i have no other speakers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back

neither afghanistan or iraq pose any threat, military or economic, to the united states. there are a lot of people who feel we should of been out there a long time ago. that being said, supporting the troops also when they come back home, to make sure that they have hospitals, therapy, all kinds of help that they need. the highest suicide rate per soldier of any war. but going back to the beginning of the war -- and i think "newsweek" was very fair, but i think the press, the fourth estate really fell asleep at the wheel. the wheat now see that these were not miscalculations on mistakes of intelligence but calculated lies to get us into the war from the bush-cheney administration. guest: well, i think that the debate over the pre-war intelligence is fascinating. i think the debate over the role of the press is particularly telling. and i had this conversation, as you might imagine, a lot with people. i don't know that i agree with the emergence of conventional wisdom that the press completely missed that there were questions about the case for war. you can find it too man

or they are connected to outside forces. take the invasion of iraq in 2003 as an example or afghanistan, which basically produced 9/11. we know that afghanistan, and during the soviet occupation, the americans played a very important role in working with the afghans to actually defeat the soviet occupation. once the soviet occupation was defeated, the americans cut loose and left. host: good morning. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. i was glad to see president obama speak, but i'm concerned that the message did not heard back here in the united states. one of the earlier caller was saying that she did not like barack obama because she thought he had a muslim part. it seems to me like we still do not get it over here that these are people like our fellow christians that have extremists as well. i got to know a muslim working for the audit department and he was a wonderful gentleman. he just had a different faith in may. i think we need to bridge the gap between understanding what muslims are about. guest: the caller is absolutely correct. the issue of terrorism exists in every faith. it has existed in ever

when you have a tax of one kind or another in pakistan or in afghanistan or in iraq, obviously, that grabs attention. it grabs the attention of the media. it becomes the focal point of coverage. by becoming the focal point of coverage, the entire muslim region is suddenly seen through the prism of extremism and terrorism. the reality of it is -- i do not have any numbers for how many extremists exist in any faith, but the reality of it is any faith, the majority of its adherents are people who just want to lead a peaceful life in a peaceful existence. host: dianne from new hampshire is saying that any consolatory language directed toward the muslim community would have been greeted with skepticism and derision by the right in this country? guest: it would have been greeted by derision -- greeted with derision by the right in this country. it has been greeted with derision by the right in the muslim world. that is something that was to be expected. if you hear the voices of what some muslims are saying about this speech being completely useless for exacerbating the situation or going

we had 7000 people are and i had other things to do than write books and go to afghanistan or to iraq. i wrote this book because i hope, i think that if the politicians read this book, or the children of politicians, read this book that they say we should stop these wars. i want to change something. everybody is talking about change. obama, change, yeah. let's change. and i say if a member of obama administration reads this book, he cannot say i will send another 17000 troops to afghanistan to fight more. because, you see, moore is just a word for many people. but if you go to such a country, if you realize what war is, when i went to baghdad two weeks ago i wanted to see a little iraqi girl. she lived in the poorest neighborhoods of sadr city in baghdad. she was 13 and on the seventh of april, her house was bombarded and she lost her little sister and she lost one leg. she's a beautiful girl. i brought her back to munich. she got a new prosthesis, a good prosthesis, the best one. and then she got another prosthesis just six months ago, and i wanted to see her because i bought them, h

are talking to someone who is a close friend of osama bin laden your brother is fighting afghanistan or in iraq in the marine corps uniform and your father is work is in the u.s. >> yes. a broad made to a moral and pass more than once like what you said you have two of the pfizer you'll never be allowed and. you have to show a sincere interest they understand when someone is trying to come in and get a quote. i was able to successfully convey i was in seriously interested in their agreements with the pakistani state. this individual was very close with osama, a former pilot in the pakistani air force. he would be the introduction to gazi he was a checkered past with the person to be introduced to the sheik that was the head honcho of this jihadi group that daniel pearl tried to me when he was abducted. he said of pearl i have talked to him and he said he will not meet you. end of issue. as he says to me i will go talk to gazi by say gazi is off limits i do not want to hear you're going behind my back because i told daniel pearl this and you saw what happened. i said jack plays. this is the intr

the scale of the problem in pakistan is a huge by comparison to the scale of author iraq or afghanistan. iraq is 31 million, afghanistan is 32 million people, pakistan is 173 million people with 100 nuclear weapons and army bigger than the u.s. army and al qaeda headquarters sitting there in to third of the country where the government doesn't exercise effective control. so we could do all kind of things right in afghanistan and still be completely screwed if we fail to stabilize pakistan and somehow present state collapse and extremist takeover. so i think the focus needs to bea what are we doing in pakistan and then afghanistan becomes the ad -- add job rather then the other way around. >> i feel we just scratched the surface and it's a good time to turn to the audience for questions. let me ask you to keep questions brief because we would like to take a lot. please identify yourself asking the question. do we have microphones for folks? we do? yes, please raise your hand and i will call on people as i see you. yes, please. yes. >> [inaudible] >> if you could repeat your name. >> rob

the f-22 has never been used in iraq or afghanistan. it is absolutely not necessary or useful in counterinsurgency operations. the existing 187 that we have right now is actually adequate for any single contingency that could happen in the united states of america, both civilian and military leadership of the pentagon support ending production at 187, including the president of the united states. the idea that this house will not have a chance to have a full debate on chairman frank's amendment is unacceptable. and this rule is truly flawed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i yield three minutes to my friend, the distinguished the gentleman from georgia, dr. broun. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in adamant opposition to this rule. this is one of many rules -- they do nothing but censor our side from being able to put forth amendments that make sense, that cut

the argument is we should leave afghanistan in chaos or leave iraq in chaos, i don't think that is a good argument. our national security is tied to stable countries and particularly stable countries in that region. let's say we didn't go into iraq, saddam hussein was still in power, their neighbor and hated foe iran, developing nuclear weapons, you would think iraq would be developing nuclear weapons. would that provide more stability in the region and the world or less? i don't agree with the premise that we are less secure, i think we are more secure. these countries, there are fifty million people in iraq and afghanistan, they have a constitution, they have governments, they are imperfect, every government has its imperfections, they are imperfect, their fledgling in many ways, the iraqi government has only been doing this for 3 years so they had to get their feet under them. they're doing pretty well by all reports. >> host: these concerns about the role of the military-industrial complex, your biography helps us, the board's use it on, northrop government and united technologie

chairman i can say without fear or contradiction the issues in iraq and afghanistan contract in are among the most complex ever experienced and are in a related and interdependent among numerous and changing government directive missions activities and priorities. while it is possible and certainly easier to be selected on the issues chosen for their review the value of any analysis on the current or past government contractor activities in iraq in particular must take into account several sets of realities. first, iraq contracting isn't one activity at all. it is three different subsets to support the military and military related activities, and the reconstruction of iraq and third, economic development assistance provided in iraq and afghantan. second, we must look up the time frames for the nation's i effort. the reactions to the fall of the saddam regime presented a different set on the ground actions from the work undertaken by the coalition provisional authority and different style from the more recent rapidly changing physical security environment and new set of contract and direc

we have seen more on them and we have seen iraq or afghanistan in eight years.hy is the media so interested in one country when these other countries have our men in women dying in them. this one woman cried about someone being killed in iran last week. the numbers for of iraqis and afghanistan these two are being killed are not reported -- afghanistanis being killed are not reported. do the viewers have any idea on the drum beats of other countries? places that are not run politically? host: iran, as a neighbor of iraq, is this not part of the equation? the future of israel, does this stuff all tied together? caller: you are right, but there are americans that need to be able to see not only what is going on in iran, but also israel, now that you bring it out. -- bring it up. afghanistan, the taliban, it is not that this stuff does not go on, i am just wondering why the media chooses to focus only on iran when these other areas do in fact have significance. not only our blood, but our money is spent there. host: you can go to twitter.com/c-spanwj and send us yo

understand as well as anybody, i think, that killing people is not the way to success in either iraq, afghanistan, or anywhere else that we work and that a nonlethal effect that can then give you time to sort out the situation, sort out the people would be a great advantage on the battlefield. special operations is in favor of any feasible appropriate technology. our position, though, is that those followings have a much broader application than special operations forces. we are advocates of it, we are champions for it, we are supporters and cheerleaders for it. but we have very few of those programs initiated within the special operations budget itself. >> i am embarrassed being in congress and armed services. i'm watching the discovery channel and seeing some of the new following about the heat projecting apparatus. i don't even know what to call it. very interesting. is that on the edge of being used? >> my staff is telling me it's called the active denial system. >> that's a great name for that. couldn't have named it better myself. is that in the prototype stage? is it being used in those kind o

service men mistreating detainees in iraq and afghanistan or that could be construed as depicting mistreatment would likely deal a particularly hard blow to u.s. centcom and u.s. interagency counterinsurgency neverts these key nations, as well as further endanger the lives of u.s. soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors, civilians, and contractors presently serving there, end quote. general petraeus is correct. we should stand with our troops in the field and prohibit release of these photos. we should not leave it in the hands of aclu lawyers or at the mercy of activist judges. i urge my colleagues to reject this package and insist that it is brought back immediately with senator lieberman's and graham's language to prohibit release of of these photos. finally, the senate-passed troop bill included language prohibiting release or transfer of guantanamo bay detainees to u.s. soil. unfortunately this conference report does not prohibit the transfer or release of detainees after october 1 of this year. this is a huge mistake. i fear we are already beginning to open pandora's box. we have already begu

afghanistan. a-10 the investigative study in 2009 comprised of a 15 person group of commissioners and staff that broke into three teams. one team or deny iraqand the other two and afghanistan. they conducted more than 125 meetings, usaid, the military contractors working on a range of projects. the commission continues to develop a test for research and investigation to extend and deepen its knowledge and to cope with new change in issues. our plans include many more trips to theaters of operation, additional hearings and by the government agencies, non-governmental organizations, academics and member of the contrasting community and continued liaison with congress. ghaffari conclude we would like to see a few words about the commission staff. firstly, all of the commission staff are federal employees. some more detail from agencies and services including the army, the air force department of state and defense, u.s. agency for international development, the defense contract management, the defense contract audit agency and the u.s. army corps of engineers. some have served one or more tours and duty in theater including working for the spec

just passed through the senate and house a bill that was supposed to be for afghanistan and iraq at a close to $3 billion or $4 billion goes to come from -- close to clunkers. what does that have to do with iraq and afghanistan? nothing, it has everything to do with special interests. i'm very worried about the economic impact of this spending on the future of america. it is my great concern and, frankly, our national security around the world, whether it be north korea, iran, relations with russia. there are many challenges. >> richard is annika -- host: richard is on the phone from newport. caller: i would like to ask a couple of things, really, but first, when are you going to stand up as a conservative, get some cuts in the republican party of there and stand up to these stupid people for wasting your money up there? and second,ç when are you going to pass a bill that at the end of your first term you do not get a full retirement or whatever you have been getting up there while the rest of those people out here have to work 30, 40 years just to get half of what we were getting when we were paid? guest:

ensure that members of the individual ready reserve who have served at least one tour in either iraq or afghanistan receive a counseling call from properly trained personnel not less than once every 90 days to look at emotional, psychological, medical and career needs. mr. chairman, the military personnel from the secretary on down and certainly the chairman of our committee have devoted a great deal of attention to suicide prevention, preck anything and treatment. it's important because the i.r.r. is one place where it's too easy to fall through the cracks. one of east brunswick, new jersey, enlisted in the army in 2001, attended fort bening with the 173rd airborne. he served in iraq. afterwards he sought treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder. maybe the v.a. diagnosis should have been accepted by the army. in any case after he was discharged, like other army members, he still had four years of ready reserve commitment. he was recalled back to iraq, served, returned to new jersey in may of this year, committed suicide in september of this year. his father wrote, he fell through the cracks. he

defense of our foo freedom, need be and they are willing to do that every time, whether in iraq or afghanistan or anywhere else around the globe, that a member of our armed services is killed in action, there is a grieving family a lover a wife, a husband a wife, a mother, a father, a son, a daughter, all of these, whose -- who are grieved and can never be made up. sometimes we accept that memorial day, forget about -- we sometimes except at memorial day, forget about that we don't don't think about it too much. we ought to think about it, our freedoms are dependent on it, our lives are dependent on it. none of us would be here enjoying our freedoms if it weren't for the willingness of our sons and daughters to do what they have to do to keep us safe and free. this resolution does not address all of that it simply addresses two members of our armed service, one of whom was killed, one severely wounded. but the difference is they weren't in a combat zone. they were murdered -- murdered and wounded, here at home, supposedly in a safe place. it illustrates that even here at home, not everyone is

want to know how you felt about that, and it would also appear the winners--the war in iraq and afghanistan, win or lose, sustain, with regard to the military-industrial complex, making profit off of these wars. >> host: the first question gets to the heart of a debate that you recount going on within the highest levels of the administration. >> guest: right. there was debate. it will overlay on iraq. there was certainly assistance in helping them shape the new constitution, iraq and afghanistan have new constitutions, they are considered liberal constitution's. the un helped shape the market. but they were their own constitutions adopted by their people. i remember specifically during iraqi elections, when people tried to convince the president we have got to influence the outcome of this election, iran is trying to be elected inside iraq, we are trying to influence 7 individuals we think will represent our views. president said this is their country, their constitution, we are not going to get involved. we tried that in the past and have never been successful. chips will fall where they may. gove

through the senate and the house a bill that was supposed to be for afghanistan and iraq, had a billion dollar and it's closer to 3 or 4 billion dollar cash for clunkers. what does that have to do with iraq and afghanistan? nothing. it has everything to do with the special interests. and so i'm very worried about the economic impact of this spending on the future of america. that's my great concern and, frankly, our national security around the world whether it be north korea, iran, registrations with russia -- relations with russia, in our own hemisphere, there's many challenges. >> host: we'll get to those issues in a moment. richard is on the phone from newport, north carolina. good morning, richard. >> caller: good morning, sir. thank you, senator mccabe, for your -- mccain, for your service. i would like to ask one thing -- a couple things, really, but first, when are you going to stand up as a conservative, get some guts in a republican party up there and stand up to these stupid people for wasting our money up there? and second, when are you going to pass a bill that at the end of your first term you don't get

even not counting the costs of the war in iraq, the war in afghanistan or the war on terrorism which of course have added significant billions of dollars. as for the revolving door, it occurs i don't think that is the reason for the rise in defense spending. >> host: he has led fairly easily into public service and private industry back-and-forth given the tenure of the times today, is that sort of position possible ability to do that possible? >> guest: it's possible they are trying to put additional controls about that. look, i mean, if it is a technical area certainly the experience counts. and i don't think we want to completely close the door either for those who have experience in the defense industry to come in to the government or those in government to be able to go into defense first. >> host: among the many photographs of the secretary rumsfeld with george casey and iraq and here with joint chiefs chair the former chair and here with troops also at a town hall meeting in iraq in 2005. how was he viewed by troops and the general staff? >> guest: he generally got very good b

dollars its continued to rise through this decade even not counting the cost of the war in iraq, the war in afghanistan or the war on terrorism, which of course have added significant billions of dollars. as for the revolving door, it occurs. i don't think that that's the reason for the rise and defense spending however. it fairly easily out of public service and industry and back and forth given the tenure of times today is that sort of -- is that sort of -- sort of position possible or ability to do that possible? >> guest: it's still possible. they are trying to put on additional controls about that. but, look, i mean, you know if it is a technical area, certainly to experience counts, and i don't think we want to completely close the door either for those who have experience in defense industry to come into government or those in government to be able to go into defense first. >> host: among the many photographs looks at the secretary rumsfeld with general abizaid, with george casey in iraq, and here with joint chiefs chairman peter pace, the former chair and here with troops also have a town hall mee

iraq and in afghanistan. but we have a particularly strong duty to deal with the status of people who were displaced or objects were persecution or retribution or retaliation because those individuals helped either our military or our diplomats or our a.i.d. people in terms of the conflict in either one of those countries. this is an issue that i personally was very involved with in the last couple of years. the gentleman's amendment, i think, helps to spur us to deal with some of the problems in the program now and to do more in this regard and it's certainly an amendment that if it is passed, i would want to see in the final legislation and urge its adoption. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 21 printed in part c of house report 111-143. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. berman: i would like to call up the hill amendment a

afghanistan and pakistan. he would apply from that is not necessary to form a coalition government or reconciliation of political elements in afghanistan, as general petraeus did in iraq. it seems, rather, but the goal requires only that an agreement be reached with the taliban to block allocate operations in afghanistan. my question is is it to acceptable in your opinion to have the taliban once again in charge of afghanistan if they agree to deny al qaeda safe haven in afghanistan? >> sir, i find it very unlikely that the taliban would make a critical agreement to do that i have a difficult time even speculating. that said, i think the president's intend, in my belief, is that we need to create in afghanistan, a state that would not allow the return of safe havens. in my view, it means it will have to be a government that may be a working coalition, may have some former taliban, but based upon taliban statements, right now i cannot see them being a critical -- being a credible an official part of the government. >> a report on the taliban's advances says that a administration has had to shift its strategy it to a more accelerated approach. i would be interested in k

a policy that could force them to serve in iraq where they might lose -- or they might lose their jobs. they actually called going over to iraq and afghanistan a potential death sentence. so these are state department employees, diplomats, the same ones we're asking to go to pakistan and afghanistan, which is arguably the most dangerous area right now in the entire world, we're asking them to go over the exact same people called going over to iraq a potential death sentence. i would equate this to sending diplomats to katrina-destroyed new orleans in 2005 instead of the national guard. we're going to send diplomats to louisiana. we aren't going to send national guard or emergency service, we're going to send diplomats. as opposed to giving general petraeus, as the president asked for, funding to help out in pakistan and afghanistan, we're going to send diplomats. so they can talk to taliban and talk to al qaeda, they can talk to the madmen who cut off people's heads, that's what the state department's going to do. this is the wrong move. the republicans have it right this time. give the president full authority, let him come up with a plan a

iraq and afghanistan. when a soldier, sailor, airman or marine is leaving their home to serve our country in harm's way, the last thing he or she has to worry about is paying a cell phone contract termination fee. in the last congress, legislation was passed to allow deployed service members to exit an individual cell phone contract without paying a penalty. and this amendment will extend that same protection to military personnel whose phones are registered through family plans. the amendment is supported by the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, and i urge all my colleagues to join me in easing the burden on our men and women in uniform. i yield back. the chair: the time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield at this time the gentleman from arizona, a member of the committee, one minute, mr. franks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. franks: i thank the distinguished gentleman. mr. chairman, i want to say that i support the hastings amendment because it tries to make sure that groups determined by the attorney general to

afghanistan and iraq. and in that sense actually i have over 150,000 veterans and puerto rico that believe it or not they don't have the same access to the services you have today. tricare does not apply to puerto rico just because it is a territory, if they moved to georgia or florida or new york they would get tricare. that is another issue that i am raising all the time. we are treated equally in wartime but not in peace time and especially the plight of our veterans across the country but especially in my case those that live in a puerto rico is something that is very close to my heart. but just denying those young men and women in uniform from puerto rico that may have served alongside use our that do not have the right to their commander in chief, just a mention of whether that is right, that is correct morally speaking in the 21st century in the freest in greatest country in the world. that's why i believe congress should act soon on h.r. 2499. >> host: independent line from alabama, good morning, how are you doing? >> host: good. >> caller: i am certain that puerto rico has been the of the same problem

rooney was just discussing, it was funding for our military men and women in iraq and afghanistan and in pakistan. and we added to it or have the addition to that bill would lend money or guarantee money to the international monetary fund. no connection whatsoever. and the i.m.f. funding has created a situation where we're not voting tomorrow on that bill because there are not sufficient votes to pass it by virtue of an amendment that was not germane being added to a bill. in the wyoming legislature, you cannot do that. you cannot amend a non-germane topic to a piece of legislation or it is ruled out of order. if that rule were in effect here, we would see much better legislation and see people having a better opportunity to vet that legislation, discuss that legislation and then vote with their heart rather than having to grit their teeth and vote for a couple things that are just not a good pairing. and i could give an example it pains some people on the other side of the aisle. i'm a big supporter of second amendment rights, but there was an amendment put on a credit card bill to allow concealed weapon permits in na

or doubleclick podcasts. the government appointed commission on wartime contract ing -- a hearing on government contract and in iraq and afghanistan. a final report is due in 2010. first, remarks from john tierney, chair of the oversight committee on national security. this is one hour 40 minutes. >> the quorum being present the subcommittee on national security on wartime contract income interim findings and path for relook come tort. finance consent only the chairman and ranking member of the said committee be allowed to make opening statements and without objection sword. eyes finance consent the hearing record be kept open for five business days of members will be allowed to submit a written statement for the record. without objection, so ordered. good morning. i want to thank all of you for being with us here today. as i promised you, you were there and i am here, but i did have to restrain mr. shays on that. so today the subcommittee on national security and foreign affairs is going to continue its sobersided defense spending issues. with a hearing to discuss what is becoming all too familiar issue in recent years, aways, fr

or wife back for the sixth time to afghanistan? we are eight years behind the fight because we should have never gone inside iraq. let's not make the same mistake they made during the vietnam era. thank you, mr. mcgovern, for introducing this amendment. thank you on behalf of the american people and our troops. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield now to the chairman of the armed services committee, the gentleman from missouri, chairman skelton, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. skelton: mr. chairman, i respectfully disagree with this amendment, and i respectfully oppose it. this amendment sends exactly the wrong message, focusing on an exit strategy which may well reinforce a perception among the afghans that we are not committed to protecting them from the taliban and al qaeda. mr. chairman, we have a new commander on the ground. we've added tens of thousands of jobs. we're adding hundreds of civilian experts. we should not undermine those efforts. commanders make a difference. as you know, we have general mcchrystal, who has repla

iraq and afghanistan. the iranian revolutionary guard, a state sponsor of terror. or more appropriately called the demons of democracy are killing their own people, mostly students, whose only crime is speaking out in public against these tough tyrants. as july 4 nears, the most sacred of all days of liberty, how about we invite the sons of freedom and daughters of democracy of iran for a bit of hotdog diplomacy? the youth of iran has shown more love of freedom than the world has seen in years. this would be -- there would be no better way to honor the fourth of july, our founders, our heritage than to celebrate this glorious day by opening our embassies, not to the iranian government, but to these students who desire freedom and liberty. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. braley: mr. speaker, a year ago i stood in this well is a heavy heart and asked for a moment of silence for the town of parkersbu

afghanistan, iraq. [applause] i don't know where people get this idea where i want to run things. or want government to run things. i think it would be great if the health care system was working perfectly. and we did not have to be involved at all. that would be wonderful. that is not how it has worked. we have a 50-year experiment in that. it has not worked well. i actually think that if everybody has a pragmatic attitude about this problem, they say we're all going to have to do our part. families will have to do their part by being healthier. employers need to encourage employees to be healthy. government has to do its part by making sure that those people who are working very hard and still did not have health insurance, or their premiums are getting to sky high -- too sky high, making sure insurance companies are not price gouging -, if we're doing all of those pieces, we can start bending the cost curve right now. what you'll hear in this debate over the next several weeks is that people will also say the deficit and the debt are skyrocketing. that is the reason why we can't a

foreign policy decisions working with the military to unwind or begin to unwind our deployment in iraq and to intensify our deployment in afghanistan, he did -- that also came off very smoothly. so we're only phi months -- five months in, and there are huge questions. what is going to happen with the huge building blocks of his dmes k a-- domestic agenda going forward, health care, energy, will we be able to get out of iraq on the timetable that the president has suggested? will this new deployment in afghanistan work? and will this whole new outreach to the muslim world really for the long term reorient america's relationship with that world? those are all open questions but just if you look at the beginning, it's a pretty remarkable start. and to me the most amazing thing is four years ago this guy was a state senator. african-american, his name is barack hussein obama, and when he walked into the oval office on that first day after the inaugural address and i don't know if you agree with this but it certainly was my sense from watching people in the country, there was no cog cognitive dissonance. no sense at all that this person

afghanistan and iraq. my colleagues, i support the portion of these instruction that is would require the secretary of defense to certify if the release of photographs of detainees would endanger citizens of the u.s. or members of the armed services. we send our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen abroad to protect our security. we owe it to them to make sure we do not do anything that puts them in needless jeopardy. and i also strongly support the notion that we need to endorse a higher house funding levels for defense and military construction. absolutely needed. if we can believe the administration and the congressional leadership, this will be the last supplemental bill to fund the needs of our soldiers in iraq. and may i add, their mission, those soldiers' mission, expanded mission in afghanistan. personally i find that hard to believe. this supplemental should not be considered in a vacuum. what should not be lost in all of this is that our president is proposing a defense budget that barely keeps up with inflation and specifically contains a significant cut in our ballistic missile program. at a time when north korea and iran are testing their capabilities and quite honestly testing our res

or disrupt. think of what our troops and our money has done in afghanistan as well as iraq. i think this is -- this provision itself is enough reason to vote against this authorization. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to yield the very distinguished chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on the western hemisphere, my friend from new york, mr. engel, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. engel: i thank the chairman. i especially want to thank him for his great leadership as chairman of our foreign affairs committee. i certainly support the legislation. this legislation reinvigorates the foreign affairs committee and provides a needed shot in the arm to american diplomacy. for too long we have not different our diplomats the resources they require and this bill provides a much needed boost to those serving on the frontlines around the world for our country. specifically h.r. 22410 authorizes 1,500 additional foreign service officers and

afghanistan or demands for increased transparency or account built to the i.m.f. have been rebuffed. it ensures the continued occupation, there by undermining the stated withdrawal. funds for iraq have been dedicated to bringing our troops home and the contractors home as well. it's time to end this war. no to any more funds for the war in afghanistan and war in iraq and no to any legislation if they try to tie it to war funding. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? if not, the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. kind of wisconsin for today, ms. bono mack of california for today and june 9 and 10. mr. mack of california for today, june 9 and 10. and mr. gary miller of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address this house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material, mr. paul for june 12,

i thank the chairman for yielding. 80% or more of this bill is to support the men and women and some not so young. we have set in harm's way iraq and afghanistanto fight terrorism. we passed the bill. it went to the senate. the senate amended the bill and added additional funding to the imf. that and not squeak by on by -- on partisan vote. about 25% of the republicans voted on that issue voted to include the imf. why? because what ronald reagan, president george bush in 1990 and 2008 believed that the imf itself was an important aspect in the seeking of security by the united states of america. we did not put it in that bill. it is supported by two-thirds of the indicted states senate and the president of the united states who when he met with the g-20 plant to play our part in trying to bring the security of this country has paid so dearly to achieve. our share is approximately 20%. the other members of the g-20 will be putting up 80%. they believe this is enhancing the security of their country's. what it does is to lift up the poorest nations of the world. not iran -- the last time they got money from the imf was when ronald reagan was pre