Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to support the rule and to support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, it was just 4 years ago that the Congress passed a Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, and the purpose of that legislation was to ``eliminate'' hundreds of millions of dollars of unregulated soft money and the influence that wealthy donors had on the electoral process. However, the 2004 election cycle clearly demonstrated that BCRA was unable to deliver on what it promised.

In fact, the great irony of all of this is that while soft money to political parties was eliminated, wealthy donors found a new avenue to fund their candidates and to have more influence than they had ever had under the old rules. In 2004, we saw George Soros and Peter Lewis inject more than $20 million each, each of them injecting more than $20 million into the election process. So, so much for eliminating soft money.

Overall, federally focused 527s raised and spent over $550 million. Now, by contrast, George W. Bush and John Kerry combined to spend $655 million on their entire Presidential campaigns. The numbers are strikingly similar. The only difference is the Presidential candidates had to file with and abide by the rules of the FEC. The 527s did not.

The Presidential campaigns were accountable to the voters. The 527s were not. And instead of the political parties providing key support for their candidates, 527s began to act as surrogate political parties. Essentially what happened here is the political parties were outsourced. Political parties were outsourced. The 527s ran TV ads, they operated Web sites, they ran phone banks, they mobilized the get- out-the-vote efforts, all with money not regulated by the FEC.

In fact, the 527s proved so significant that MoveOn.org actually sent an e-mail to all of their supporters after the 2004 election and said this about the Democratic Party. This is what MoveOn.org said: ``Now it's our party. We bought it. We own it, and we're going to take it back.'' So, so much for eliminating the big dollars and big money.

Often I hear my Democratic colleagues complaining about the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, another 527. Well, today, my Democratic colleagues have an opportunity to strike back. All of this activity was conducted with less oversight than when the political parties were able to accept soft money. And it is abundantly clear that something must be done. We need to do something to level the playing field that has shifted in favor of the unaccountable 527s. Right now, we have numerous groups operating under the cover of shadows, moving money back and forth in hopes of convincing voters to support a particular candidate.

Mr. Speaker, prior to my service in this House, I had the great honor and privilege of serving for 8 years as Michigan Secretary of State, and I was responsible for enforcing the campaign finance act in my State and increasing voter participation. My administration was very honored with the highest grade in the entire Nation by the NAACP for being on the forefront of campaign reform. We were honored with the Digital Sunshine Award for our program to provide voters with more information on who was trying to influence the outcome of the election process.

So I have had some experience with this issue, and I believe transparency is always the key. It is always the critical element.

I do believe that if we do not act now, the nauseating ugliness, negativity and hyperpartisanship that we saw in 2004 will only intensify in 2006 and 2008. We must protect our democratic electoral process and keep those who seek to influence our votes accountable. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, last week we finally saw the Democratic Party roll out their ideas about how we should secure America,

and they put a very heavy emphasis on how important they thought it was to support our first responders.

How ironic it was, then, on that very same day to hear allegations that a Democrat Member of this House struck a Capitol Police officer, and how disheartening to hear the response of the Democratic leader of this House. It was, she said, no big deal.

To those who might agree with the Democrats that allegedly assaulting a Capitol Hill Police officer is no big deal, I would respectfully remind them that just a few years back two members of the Capitol Police were shot and killed in the line of duty by a deranged man who was trying to attack the majority whip, and that during moments of danger and evacuation Capitol Police stand their posts while the rest of us seek to secure ourselves and the safety of others.

This is only my second term here, so the Capitol Police don't always recognize me and occasionally they do check my identity. They stop me and check my identity. No problem.

Madam Speaker, I wish to go on record as supporting the jobs that the brave men and women in the Capitol Police do to protect all of us, and let me just say to them thank you.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday congressional Democrats outlined their agenda to better secure America. I must say I was a bit surprised by what they had to say. Even though America has not been attacked on our soil since September 11, 2001, even though the vast majority of the leadership of the al Qaeda has been killed or captured, even though we have toppled two dictatorships and brought freedom to 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though funding has been dramatically increased to aid first responders, the Democrats are trying to peddle the idea that President Bush has failed to secure our Nation.

Even though it was the Democrats who gloated that they ``killed the PATRIOT Act.'' Even though it was the Democrats under the Clinton administration who gutted our intelligence operations. Even though it was leading Democrats who voted against giving our troops the funding and support they need to win the war on terror. Even though it was the Democrats who advocated a defeat and retreat strategy for Iraq.

I hope the American people will take a good look at the Democrats' plan and who is offering it, because they will see once again that it is the Republican Party that is the one that will fight to the ends of the Earth to protect America.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the more the Democrats talk down the new Medicare prescription drug program, the more the enrollments seem to go up. Democrats have been doing nothing but demagoguing and criticizing this program, yet the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced just last week that more than 27 million Medicare beneficiaries are now getting coverage and saving money on their prescription drugs.

In fact, they just announced that another 1.9 million additional beneficiaries have signed up just since February. This is wonderful news. Even the New York Times is reporting success stories from seniors who signed up for the program and are now saving hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on their prescriptions.

Mr. Speaker, this prescription drug benefit is doing something that most Democrats probably didn't even think would happen, maybe they didn't want to have happen: it is helping seniors; it is reducing their costs.

As nice as it would be to hear Democrats stop for a moment and actually admit that this program is a success, perhaps they should just keep up their futile demagoguery, because at this rate, we will be at 100 percent enrollment in no time at all.

Mr. Speaker, the first amendment guarantees freedom of the press, and with that freedom comes responsibility. But we all remember the 60 Minutes II report during the last campaign which used partisan sources and forged documents to assert that the President of the United States had not fulfilled his duty in the National Guard, a report that was proven to be false.

Well, here we go again. Recently I saw a 60 Minutes segment in which a scientist claimed that his views on global warming were being censored by the administration. Of course, they did not report that this man had received a $250,000 grant from the foundation controlled by Theresa Heinz Kerry. They did not report that this man had endorsed John Kerry. They did not report that he has served as a consultant for Al Gore nor that he had made similar claims against President Bush's father in 1989.

The first amendment gives freedom of the press, but the truth is the foundation for credibility.

60 Minutes should tell both sides of the story in a fair and balanced way, or they should simply air this disclaimer: ``60 Minutes brought to you by the National Democratic Committee.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very, very strong support of this resolution offered by my colleague from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Speaker, since September 11, 2001, our Nation has been at war against the cowardly terrorists who attacked our Nation on that horrible day. The men and the women who served in our Armed Forces have made tremendous sacrifices to make America and the world a safer place.

They toppled the Taliban and they brought freedom and democracy to 25 million people in Afghanistan. Because of that service and that sacrifice, Mr. Speaker, Afghanistan today is a partner and an ally in the war on terror, instead of the friendly host of our enemy.

For the past 3 years, the Armed Forces have been engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom. That mission has been very long, very difficult, and the sacrifices have been many. But the mission is being achieved. The Iraqi people have gone to the polls three times and are now finishing the work on establishing a Democratic national unity government.

Once democracy takes root in Iraq, freedom will have gained another foothold in a part of the world where it is so desperately needed. None of these incredible accomplishments would have been possible without the sacrifice of our men and our women in uniform.

All of our volunteer military, made up of citizen soldiers, are the best emissaries of freedom our Nation has to offer. These are men and women willing to give up their lives to spread freedom and to make our Nation more secure. And for that we owe them a debt which can never be repaid.

The least we can do as Americans is to pause to reflect on everything that they have sacrificed, for the incredible service that they have given to the cause of freedom. And so to every soldier in the Army, to every airman in the Air Force, to every sailor in the Navy, to every Marine, to every member of the National Guard or the Reserves, to every brave member of the Coast Guard, thank you.

Thank you for your service and thank you for your sacrifice. Thank you all for serving the cause of freedom. Every American should observe the moment of silence asked for by this resolution and reflect upon all of our Armed Forces and all that they have done to protect our freedoms, our liberty, our democracy. And following that moment of silence, we should also personally thank every service member that we meet in our everyday lives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, in this House, we are continually voting for increased funding for institutions of higher learning in our Nation, and it is certainly right and it is proper that we do so, because our future depends or our young people being able to receive the education that they so rightly deserve.

But what has been troubling in recent years has been attempts by many of these same institutions that receive Federal funding to restrict or to bar military recruiters from their campuses in violation of the law.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court voted in an 8-0 decision to uphold the requirement that military recruiters be given access to students

like any other perspective employer, or that institution could lose their Federal funding. This policy is very, very important to the future of our military, of our freedom, and of our democracy.

The young men and women on our college campuses should not be denied the great opportunities available to them, to so many of them in the United States military, just because some college administrator may not agree with our national policy.

We have freedom in our Nation, but that freedom is not free. And there are many young people in our Nation's colleges, in our Nation's universities who are willing to pay the price of service and of sacrifice in order to protect the freedom of every one of their fellow Americans.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution restates the policy and sends a very clear message to our Nation's colleges and to our Nation's universities. We as a Nation want to support their mission to educate our young people. They must allow equal access to our military recruiters to give those students a chance to see if serving their country is perhaps the right career move for them or the right personal choice for them.

Mr. Speaker, not one person in this Nation is drafted into military service. We have an all-volunteer military. It makes us strong and it keeps us free. Free people make free decisions. Let us let our young people continue to make theirs an informed decision.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, as has been discussed here today certainly, the Jackson- Vanik restrictions were made as an amendment to a 1974 trade bill actually to punish the Soviet bloc nations for their despicable human rights record.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Jackson-Vanik restrictions were placed on all of the former Soviet Republics, including the Ukraine. In recent years, the world has watched as the Ukraine has embraced democracy and freedom through their Orange Revolution.

The Ukraine has been a great ally in the war on terror. The Ukraine has clearly taken appropriate steps to open their society and economy and becoming an important member of the community of free nations. The Ukraine should be free of the onerous restrictions, because they have met each of the tests laid out by the law. In fact,

the Ukraine has been granted an annual waiver from these restrictions each year for nearly a decade.

Mr. Speaker, my district is home to many people of Ukrainian descent. In fact, southeast Michigan, I believe, has, if not the largest, certainly one of the largest Ukrainian populations in our entire Nation.

These people are great Americans. They are great patriots. For years they have fought against Soviet oppression of the Ukrainian people and on behalf of freedom. They now embrace democracy and freedom that has come to their homeland, and they know it is both appropriate and very necessary for this Congress to act on this issue.

It is time for us to recognize the friendship of the Ukraine as well as permanently remove them from the restrictions of Jackson-Vanik.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very, very important legislation today on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1096, which commemorates the lifetime innovations of Thomas Edison.

This legislation will ensure the preservation of Thomas Edison's laboratory in New Jersey. Edison set a tremendous example for all Americans to follow, and, through this legislation, Americans of future generations will be able to learn from the lessons he taught us.

Before Thomas Edison opened his lab in New Jersey, he called Port Huron, Michigan, his hometown. That town has done a fine job in its own right to preserve the memory of Thomas Edison, and I am proud to represent it in the House.

In 2004, Port Huron rededicated the Edison Rock as part of the 125th Anniversary of the invention of the light bulb. The event featured the actor Mickey Rooney who starred in the 1940 movie ``Young Tom Edison'', which chronicled Tom's formative years.

I think the Edison Rock is a fitting tribute--not only because it is very big and very heavy--something like 62 tons--but because, like most rocks, it is very old.

That's significant.

In order to rank the importance of Thomas Edison's achievement of the first, practical light bulb you have to go back a long, long way--

In fact, you have to go back to the very beginning--to the Bible and the Book of Genesis, where it says: ``And God said, let there be light--and there was light. ``

Of course, God meant there was sunlight--and don't get me wrong--that was a great start.

But the only problem with sunlight is that it lasts only when the sun is out.

It wasn't until thousands of years later when Thomas Edison said,-- ``Let there be light''--and finally we had light during the other half of the day.

The significance of this invention can never be exaggerated.

Electric light was the spark that ignited the Industrial Revolution and all the technological breakthroughs that followed.

America's work ethic is also part of Edison's extraordinary legacy. Although Edison was undoubtedly a genius, he never thought of himself as one. In fact, he always claimed that his inventions were the product of hard work. ``Genius is one percent inspiration, 99 percent perspiration'' was one of his most famous quotes.

Thomas Edison actually struggled for years and built more than 6,000 prototypes before he came up with the successful design for the light bulb.

He made us believe that through hard work, anything can be accomplished.

Edison gave us many gifts--the light bulb--the phonograph--the motion picture camera--as well as hundreds of other inventions that have shaped our modem world.

The phrase--``Good old American ingenuity'' describes the ``can-do'' spirit of our nation--our ability to take on any problem and come up with a solution.

Edison was the personification of American opportunity. He didn't grow up as a member of the privileged class.

He was just an average American, who through a lot of hard work and a little inspiration became one of the most famous and influential people in history.

And so he gave us many gifts--the light bulb, the phonograph, the motion picture camera as well as hundreds of other inventions that have shaped our modern world.

But possibly his greatest gift to us was his representation of the American spirit.

For when we think of Thomas Edison, we believe that anything is possible.

Edison's ability to take on the most difficult problems of mankind-- and come up with an invention that could make everyone's life better is a source of American pride.

We believe that American know-how and American ingenuity are among the characteristics that make our nation great.

That's why I'm confident in our nation.

I'm confident in our ability to do whatever it takes to assure the safety of our nation and the success of liberty.

And it's our nation that continues to bring the light of liberty to the world.

And finally, we believe that you can grow up in Port Huron, Michigan--or thousands of other communities across America--and in everyone of them you have the opportunity to reach for greatness.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today this Congress is being asked to raise the amount of money that the FEMA flood insurance program is allowed to borrow from $18.5 billion to $21.2 billion.

Now, obviously, we all understand that the disaster of Katrina was unprecedented in the history of our Nation. And our Nation responded by appropriating unprecedented funds to deal with this catastrophe. But at some point enough is enough, and today I rise to express my concerns about the fairness of this program.

I have a very difficult time allocating any additional funds to the FEMA flood insurance program because of the way that program is treating the people of Michigan. FEMA is currently going about a remapping of communities in my State that will bring thousands more of my constituents and perhaps tens of thousands across the State of Michigan into the flood plain. This will force those with federally guaranteed mortgages to purchase FEMA flood insurance.

Mr. Speaker, let me share a few numbers with you and ask you to determine for yourself whether or not Michigan needs to pay more into this insurance pool.

Since 1978, that was the year Michigan actually opted into the program, the people of Michigan have paid premiums totaling over $138 million; and in that same time, FEMA has paid outside claims totaling less than $38 million. So since 1978, as you can see through this chart, Michigan has subsidized this program to the tune of over $100 million. And the people of FEMA seem to agree.

In fact, there was an article I think last week in the Detroit Free Press which quoted FEMA spokesperson Eugene Kinerney saying this about Michigan's participation in the program. He said, ``You guys subsidize other policies in other parts of the country, absolutely.'' That is what FEMA said. So in what appears to me to be a grab for even more of our money, along comes FEMA saying, even though you have never had a flood, you live in a flood plain and you need to purchase insurance, even though the Great Lakes are at historically low levels; even though my State of Michigan has only had claims totaling 27 percent of what we have paid into the program; even though only eight other States received a lower percentage in their premiums than Michigan.

If a private insurance company tried to do this same thing, they would be hauled in front of our State insurance commissioner and have to beg to keep their license. I refuse to support any more legislation that enables this type of irresponsible management that seems to be the norm in the FEMA flood insurance program. In fact, one of my constituents who is a township supervisor in a township called Clay Township, this is a community on St. Clair River going in to Lake Huron; this is a community that is going to be hit very hard by this remap, I asked him, what do you think about FEMA remapping our area? He said, why would FEMA want to come here and raise the elevations when our water levels are at low levels? Well, they are broke, are they not?

I know this: my district is along the shore of Lake St. Clair, the St. Clair River and Lake Huron. We also have many rivers and tributaries, and they occasionally flood, but not as often as the amount of these claims paid shows.

We also look down at the water, not up like they do in places like New Orleans. We do not need any more of my constituents forced into this program, and we do not need others across the State of Michigan forced into it either.

In Michigan we are struggling economically. We have been hit by an economic hurricane of higher energy costs, low-cost foreign- manufactured goods, and competition from lower-wage States, many of which are recipients of the subsidy that the people of Michigan provide to the FEMA flood program. We have the highest unemployment in the entire Nation, and our citizens can absolutely not afford to continue to pay higher costs for insurance that they do not even use. Yet once again we are being asked to subsidize the insurance payouts to people in other States.

Before we allow this to happen, FEMA must show the methodology behind this program and show how it makes sense. I think this is an issue of basic fairness; and until that time, I will not support any expansion of the program; and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, since it has been revealed that the NSA had a terrorist surveillance program, opponents of the administration have been quick to criticize this program.

Let us try to set the record straight on this effective tool in fighting the war on terror. One Senator has charged the NSA is eavesdropping on Americans who have no indication of wrongdoing. The Senate minority leader, who has been briefed on the program, called it domestic spying.

In fact, this program is extremely limited to international communications, in which one party is suspected of links to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, like calls made by 9/11 hijackers to their leaders in Afghanistan.

Are some Democrats so confused, or do they care more about attempting to gain political advantage than protecting our Nation?

Mr. Speaker, we know our enemies place operatives within our borders who blend in and wait to strike as they did on 9/11, but they are still out there. I do not care one iota about protecting the privacy of terrorists who have been sent to this country to murder innocent Americans. It is regretful that some seek political gain at the expense of our security.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 629) supporting the goals and ideals of a Day of Hearts, Congenital Heart Defect Day in order to increase awareness about congenital heart defects, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H. Resolution 629, offered by the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), would support the goals and the ideals of a Day of Hearts, Congenital Heart Defect Day.

Today in the United States, heart disease and stroke, the basic components of cardiovascular disease, are the first and third leading causes of death for both men and women, accounting for nearly 40 percent of all deaths. Over 900,000 Americans die of cardiovascular disease each year, Mr. Speaker, which amounts to a death every 34 seconds. Even though this dangerous disease attacks those over the age of 65 most commonly, the number of sudden deaths from heart disease among people between the ages of 15 and 34 has increased dramatically.

Along with the individual effects of this vastly growing disease, there is also a widespread economic impact. The U.S. health care system continues to be hit with the cost of heart disease and stroke in the U.S. Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of permanent disability in the U.S. workforce, and there are over 6 million hospitalizations each year due to this disease. As our population ages, the cost of heart disease and stroke was projected to be $394 billion in 2005, last year, which includes health care expenditures and lost productivity from death and disability.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all Members to support H. Resolution 629 with the hope that, because cardiovascular disease is preventable, increased awareness and research could enable us as Americans to cut down on the unnecessary deaths due to this disease each year in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is especially appropriate that today on Valentine's Day, when we celebrate love and affection from the bottom of our hearts, that this House passes a resolution that seeks to provide protection from our hearts being damaged from disease. I urge all Members to support the adoption of H. Res. 629.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4152) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 320 High Street in Clinton, Massachusetts, as the ``Raymond J. Salmon Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4152.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4152, offered by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), would designate the post office building in Clinton, Massachusetts, as the Raymond J. Salmon Post Office.

On April 16, 1923, Raymond J. Salmon was born in the town of Clinton, Massachusetts. In his younger years, Ray served his country as a Technical Sergeant in the U.S. Army in World War II. In 1950, he began his political career by working for Congressman Phillip Philbin of Clinton, Massachusetts, and served as his Chief of Staff until 1970. While working on Capitol Hill, Ray managed to complete law school and be admitted to the bar in 1952.

After several years as a sole practitioner, Ray was appointed the Clerk Magistrate of Clinton District Court in 1976, and he remained in this position until his retirement in 2000.

His service in this capacity did not go unnoticed by his community. He was loved and revered by the citizens of Clinton, and he remained involved in many other community activities. He was a member of the Knights of Columbus, the American Legion, Turner Veterans, the Polish American Veterans, the Hibernian AOH Master of Ceremonies, President of the National Exchange Club, Exalted Ruler of the Clinton Lodge of Elks and President of the Clinton Democratic Town Committee.

It is an honor and privilege to be able to recognize such an unselfish and giving member of the community by passing H.R. 4152 and recognizing the efforts of such a committed individual.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I urge Members to support the passage of H.R. 4152, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1989) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, Rhode Island, shall be known and designated as the ``Holly A. Charette Post Office.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1989, offered by the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, would designate the post office building in Cranston, Rhode Island, as the Holly A. Charette Post Office.

United States Marine Corps Lance Corporal Holly Charette, a Cranston resident, was killed on June 23, 2005, while serving our country in Iraq. Charette served as a mail clerk at the Marine Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi, which is the headquarters battalion of the Second Marine Division.

Holly Charette was recognized by every soldier who had the pleasure of receiving mail from her, as she always greeted them with a smile and with a kind word. She was known for her ability to sort through thousands of letters and parcels, identifying each name with a face, never letting down those who relied on her. In fact, Holly Charette was quoted as saying, I never really thought too hard about being a mail person, but it is really an important job and people depend on me.

There are a lot of stresses involved, but it is really worth it at the end of the day. After her service in the military, Charette had planned to apply at the U.S. Postal Service, where she could continue to serve the citizens of the United States. About her future plans, she stated, It will not be the same as being a marine, but at least I am still in uniform.

I would urge all Members to come together and to honor this dedicated young woman in her efforts to serve our country. I thank Senator Reed for his diligence in bringing this important measure forward.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Members to support the passage of S. 1989, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying resolution as well, because this House must show our troops, the Iraqi people, and our terrorist enemies that we are committed to achieving victory in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of days ago, I spoke with a constituent of mine named PFC Josh Sparling. Josh serves

in the 82nd Airborne Division with the 3rd of the 504th, also proudly known as the Blue Devils. Josh was wounded by an IED while serving with his unit in Ramadi, Iraq. He is currently at Walter Reed Hospital recuperating from surgery, with doctors working literally to save his leg.

When I talked to Josh, he did not want to complain about his wounds nor the pain that they were causing him. No, this American hero wanted to talk to me about the progress being made on the ground in Iraq, and how well the new Iraqi troops performed in the field, and how committed the Iraqis were to reclaiming their country from the terrorists.

His proudest day in Iraq was when he provided security in the Iraqi election last October. He watched thousands of Iraqis singing and celebrating on their way to polling stations. It made him proud that the American military was accomplishing their mission to spread peace and hope and freedom and democracy. He was disappointed that he was not in Iraq right now with his unit providing security for yesterday's election and watching the left flank of his buddies.

Mr. Speaker, that is commitment. That is dedication, what we expect and what we get from our brave men and women in uniform. Yesterday's election was a great victory for the Iraqi people, more proof of an historic pivot in that part of the world, and now is not the time to wave the white flag just as our Iraqi allies begin the difficult business of forming a new democratic government.

We cannot redeploy troops based on political concerns instead of needs on the ground to secure victory. We must not let down all of our brave men and women in uniform who have served so remarkably. We cannot let down over 11 million Iraqis who yesterday stuck a finger in the eye of the terrorists as they stuck their finger in that blue ink. We cannot give our terrorist enemies a victory which they cannot achieve on the battleground.

We need to send a message, this House needs to send a message, today that we are committed to completing the mission. Vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying resolution.