Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have the great honor and privilege of representing the city of Dixon, Illinois. Dixon encompasses all that is good in America. It's a place that puts a great emphasis on the importance of family and friendship. Mom-and-Pop businesses are often passed down from generation to generation and its citizens continue to honor traditions from years past. For that reason, I rise today to recognize one of these long and celebrated traditions--the 40th anniversary of the Petunia Festival.

In 1830, Father John Dixon purchased land in the western parts of Illinois and soon began ferrying people across the Rock River to settle the area that would later be named after its founder. Unfortunately, in the 1950s a combination of Dutch Elm disease and major highway expansion resulted in the removal of all trees along the community's major roadways.

Nonetheless, in 1960, a small group of residents, better known as the Dixon Men's Garden Club, grew tired of the arid landscape and planted 4,000 petunias along South Galena Avenue to enhance the aesthetic beauty of the small Midwestern town. The following year, the Garden Club planted 6,000 more petunias, this time along North Galena Avenue.

Each year since, the residents of Dixon pay tribute to the Dixon Men's Garden Club by planting and caring for 24,000 petunia plants, which now extend along all major streets throughout the town.

In recent years, Dixon has received much attention for their annual Petunia Festival celebration. In fact, in 1999, the 91st General Assembly of Illinois passed a resolution declaring the city of Dixon, Illinois, the ``Petunia Capital of Illinois.'' In addition, the fun- spirited festival has earned the town national recognition and is often referred to as the ``Petunia City'' by passing travelers.

Once again, I want to congratulate the city of Dixon as it celebrates its 40th anniversary of the Petunia Festival and wish its citizens, and my constituents, all the best in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank David Obey for offering this budget amendment, even if I fundamentally disagree with it. I have great respect for Mr. Obey, and I think he makes a valuable contribution to this House. And the Obey amendment is important, because it clarifies the distinctions between the two parties.

As then candidate Ronald Reagan said to then President Jimmy Carter, ``There they go again.'' The Obey amendment is a return to the traditional Democratic philosophy of tax and spend. If the Democrats were to create their own ``Contract with America'', the first two promises would be tax more and spend more. This budget amendment raises taxes by $18 billion in the first year, more than $250 billion in ten years. These tax increases are aimed at the job creators, the entrepreneurs, the small business owners. This amendment raises taxes on these job creators by about five percent. Increasing costs on a business by five percent is the difference between success and failure.

If you increase costs on a small business by five percent, the small business owner has two choices. They can pass the cost increase onto consumers by raising prices. Or they can cut costs elsewhere. Because of stiff price competition from our competitors, the usual result is cutting costs elsewhere. That means a small business owner won't hire that extra worker.

The Heritage Foundation says that a tax cut of this size will kill 130,000 jobs in the next year. Increasing taxes now, just as the economy is ready to take off, is a cruel joke to play on Americans who need a job.

Remember several years ago, when Democrats decided to increase taxes on luxury items like yachts. The Democrats thought they were being clever. But those middle class boat builders who lost their jobs because of that tax increase didn't think it was so funny. We ended up repealing the so-called luxury tax a year later.

The second part of the Obey plan is also familiar: Increase government spending. Clearly, today's Democrats reject President Clinton's promise that the era of big government is over. We need to control spending in the Federal government. We don't need another spending spree. But by spending over $200 billion over ten years on a variety of politically attractive programs, the Obey amendment is just that: Another spending spree.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget amendment. Let's support smaller and smarter government. Let's support more job creation in this country. And let's reject this tax and spend scheme once and for all.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this important Intelligence Authorization, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

First of all, I want to congratulate Porter Goss not only for his work on this legislation, but also for his distinguished career as a servant for the people.

Everyday, Porter Goss has come to work with one thought in mind: How do I make this country a better and safer place?

Porter, we are going to miss you when you leave this House.

I had hoped that the Minority would give you the respect you deserve and work with you on this bill.

Instead, they want to play politics.

I have to hand it to the Minority. They have taken the strategy that the best defense is a good offense to its extreme.

They have no defense when it comes to their pathetic record on intelligence funding. So they try to cloud the issue by saying that we are not spending enough on intelligence.

What makes this strategy laughable is the fact that just yesterday, House Democrats voted overwhelmingly for intelligence funding in the Defense Appropriations bill.

Yesterday, the funding was just right. Today, they are simply shocked, shocked, that we don't spend enough.

Why the sudden change of heart? Politics, of course. Pure politics.

Throughout the 1990's, leading Democrats offered amendment after amendment to slash Intelligence funding. They offered amendment after amendment in an effort to hamstring the C.I.A. And the Clinton White House not only ignored the Intelligence Community, they disdained it. Bill Clinton himself rarely allowed the CIA Director into the Oval Office.

Let's not kid ourselves. The left wing of the Democratic Party has a long tradition of hostility to the C.I.A. They have never been comfortable with the world of intelligence gathering.

Even after 9-11, many in the Minority have sought to decimate intelligence funding. These same Members who today claim the pending bill is inadequate, voted against emergency supplemental intelligence funding last year.

For members of the Democratic Party to come to the House floor and say that they could do it better than Porter Goss is simply not believable.

Mr. Chairman, our intelligence community deserves better than partisan political stunts.

Without intelligence, we cannot win the war on terror.

Intelligence funding helped bring to justice Saddam Hussein and his evil sons, Qusay and Uday. And it has assisted in the death of or capture of 42 of the 55 most wanted criminals of the Saddam regime and of more than 2,700 Al-Qa'ida leaders and foot soldiers around the globe.

Perhaps most important, in the United States, nearly 200 suspected terrorist associates have been charged with crimes with the help of quality intelligence information.

We are doing the right thing with this authorization. Vote to make America safer. Vote for this Intelligence Authorization.

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Florida has made his case. And before we go to vote on this and then into final passage of this bill, I just wanted to salute the gentleman from Florida. He has many great years of service as chairman of this committee.

This is the last intelligence authorization that the gentleman from Florida will handle. He is retiring at the end of this year. We salute him as a great Member of this body and a great patriot. We thank him for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and the legacy of our Nation's 40th President, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

He was born in the small town of Tampico, Illinois, which is in my congressional district, and grew up in Dixon, another town some of my constituents call home. It was there that he learned the common-sense values and virtues that helped him reshape not only our Nation, but also the world.

When I first ran for public office in 1980, for the Illinois Legislature, Ronald Reagan was running for President. Back then people did not have a lot of faith in America and what America could do. What made him so special was his willingness to step forward at a time when the rest of the world was stepping back and remind us what made America ``The Shining City on the Hill.'' He restored our faith in America, and he made us proud to be Americans again.

His easy-going personality and a sense of humor endeared him to the people he served. His word was his bond. It was genuine. His honesty and sincerity were the foundation of his strength while working with Democrats and Republicans in both Houses of Congress.

The world struggled against communism, but our country stood tall as Ronald Reagan's perseverance led the world to freedom. As a former history teacher, I have taught students about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. I have taught them about our fellow Illinoisan, Abraham Lincoln, and I have taught them about FDR and JFK. History has now called Ronald Reagan to take his place alongside the most noble of our countrymen. Here in the

People's House, thousands of Americans will file in the Capitol Rotunda to honor the People's President.

He will be remembered as a symbol of peace through strength, but most of all we will remember him for the hope he gave to the rest of the world that freedom was possible. His grit, his sheer willpower made it possible for more people to walk in freedom today than at any other time throughout history.

Not only was he an ambassador of the American people and the American way of life, President Reagan was an ambassador of faith. He reminded us of his faith when America grieved the loss of the seven astronauts of the Challenger space shuttle. He said, ``We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning as they prepared for the journey and waved good-bye and `slipped the surly bonds of Earth' to `touch the face of God.' ''

Tonight, as we honor the man who believed America was a ``Shining City on the Hill,'' we should remember his words to the students of his alma mater, Eureka College in Illinois. He said, ``Live each day to the fullest. Live each day with enthusiasm, optimism and hope. If you do, I am convinced that your contribution to this wonderful experiment we call America will be profound.''

With Godspeed, Mr. President. God bless Ronald Reagan. God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 651) expressing the gratitude of the House of Representatives to its Parliamentarian, the Honorable Charles W. Johnson, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, after which I yield my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago Charlie Johnson, fresh out of Virginia Law School, came to work for the Office of the Parliamentarian. Little did he know that 40 years later, almost to the day, he would be announcing his retirement from that same office.

Charlie, we are going to miss you.

You have been a rock. You have advised seven different Speakers and countless Speaker pro tems on how they should rule on various parliamentary questions. You have advised thousands of Members and even more staff in how to draft their amendments. You have given us advice on committee jurisdiction, the favorite part of my job.

The Parliamentarian in the House takes on special significance, more so than any other legislative body. You

have to be exceedingly fair and judicious, and have to be seen as fair and judicious by both sides. And I know that is not always easy.

Charlie replaced Bill Brown as Parliamentarian. Bill started the process of demystifying the precedents used by his predecessor, Lew Deschler. That is a pretty good pedigree of institutional knowledge. Charlie has continued to make the Parliamentarian's office more accessible and more open to Members and staff.

Charlie is a man of many talents. He is dedicated to education and talks endlessly about his beloved Camp Dudley, a place for kids to learn about the great outdoors. He is a baseball fanatic, a southpaw who pitches batting practice for the Los Angeles Dodgers. And he has an avid interest in the English House of Commons. In fact, he is writing a book with his counterpart in London comparing our procedures with those of the Parliament.

I am sure he thinks he will get the chance to spend more time with his lovely wife Martha and his two boys, Charles and Drew, once he retires, but let us not kid ourselves. If I know Charlie Johnson, I know he will keep as active as he ever has with his many interests in many things.

I have asked John Sullivan to replace Charlie, and he has accepted the offer. John is well respected by both Republicans and Democrats and has served in the Parliamentarian's office since 1987. John is a graduate from the Air Force Academy and got his law degree from Indiana School of Law. John is an avid college basketball fan whose allegiance tends to flow to any team that Bobby Knight coaches. John is an able successor to Charlie Johnson, Bill Brown and Lew Deschler, and he will do a fine job.

Once again, best wishes to Charlie Johnson in his golden years. We wish you the best.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to all of our fallen citizens who have lost their lives defending freedom in the war against terror.

I want to thank Jim Walsh and Charlie Rangel for working together to come up with this tribute to those who have died defending freedom.

This Memorial Day, we all need to take an extra moment to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice as we remember those who are separated from their families and fighting in distant lands to defend freedom.

I especially want to call attention to the sacrifices of two of my constituents who died in the service of their Nation: Staff Sgt. Jacob Frazier and Marine 1st Lt. Timothy Ryan.

Staff Sgt. Jacob Frazier, 24, of St. Charles Township, was killed in March 2003, when his patrol unit was ambushed in Afghanistan. Frazier joined the Illinois Air National Guard in 1998, a year after graduating from Central High School in Burlington. The oldest of James and Joyce Frazier's five children, he was a wrestler, all-conference football player and a member of the choir in high school. He was engaged to be married. Frazier was assigned to the 169th Air Support Operations Squadron of the 182nd Airlift Wing of the National Guard, and had been working with U.S. Army Special Forces in Afghanistan since January 2003. He was proud to serve his country, and often told friends and family ``I'm going to hunt bad guys,''--a reference to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

Marine 1st Lt. Timothy Ryan, 30, of North Aurora, died in May 2003, when his helicopter crashed into a canal in Iraq. The son of Judith and Michael Ryan, Tim Ryan grew up with his older brother in Montgomery and Aurora, graduating from West Aurora High School. A music

major, he began playing the drums when he was in 4th grade and was a member of the marching band at West Aurora High. He attended Illinois State University, where he met his wife, Michelle. He graduated, was married, and enlisted in the Marines during a single month in 1997. Ryan joined the Marines to be a part of its drum and bugle corps, but changed course after two years because he wanted to be a pilot. He was stationed at Camp Pendleton, near San Diego, and deployed to Kuwait in February 2003.

May God bless these two men who died so that we could live in freedom. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this Budget Conference Report and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support.

I want to thank Budget Chairman Jim Nussle for his yeoman's work under difficult circumstances.

My friends, this is a war-time budget.

We are at war, a war started on September 11, 2001.

This is world war, stretching from Afghanistan to Iraq, to almost every other continent on the globe.

This war has two battlefields.

One is the foreign theater, where our troops are fighting a more conventional war, fought by our brave soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Department of Defense is coordinating this fight.

The other battlefield is here at home, where we are fighting against unknown terrorists. Our Department of Homeland Security is coordinating that fight.

This budget includes responsible increases for both Departments. It also includes 50 billion dollars for possible additional expenditures on the war. Everything else is kept at a freeze level.

To those who don't like this budget, I say this is the most fiscally responsible budget conference report we have considered on the House floor since I have been in the Congress.

Now some of our friends on the other side of the aisle don't like the modest number we include for tax relief in this budget. But they won't be satisfied until we raise taxes on every man, woman and child in America.

We keep the tax cuts in place because the tax cuts keep the economy growing. In fact, since we last met on the floor to talk about the budget, the economy has grown so quickly, that the estimates of the 10- year budget deficit have dropped by a hundred billion dollars. That is why we want to keep the tax cuts in place. To keep more people working, to keep the economy growing, to keep America strong, and to win this war. That is why we need to pass this budget.

Mr. Speaker, let's pass this budget and start the process of getting our work done for the rest of the year.

Mr. Speaker, all too often, the hard work of House staff goes unnoticed. Members of Congress thank their legislative staff when their bills pass the House, but rarely do they thank the people who make the House Floor run on a day to day basis. So today I rise to recognize someone who deserves the thanks of this entire institution: Stacy Rastauskas, the outgoing Assistant Floor Chief of the House Republican Cloakroom.

For 2 two years, Stacy has helped to run the House Floor from her desk in the Republican Cloakroom. She has been a source of invaluable information to all Members, a trusted colleague to countless House staff, and a mentor to our House pages. It is impossible to visit the Cloakroom without being on the receiving end of one of her brilliant smiles. In short, Stacy made the Cloakroom feel like home to us all.

Soon Stacy will be leaving to open a Washington office for Ohio State University. I cannot possibly thank her enough for the dedicated hours she spent as Assistant Floor Chief. It is with a heavy heart that we say goodbye and good luck. The Republican Cloakroom won't be the same without her.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our guest chaplain, Rev. Dr. Larry D. Pickens, a well-known pastor in my Congressional district. Currently senior pastor at First United Methodist Church in Elgin, Illinois, Rev. Pickens recently was named top staff executive of the United Methodist Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Affairs. In this role, Rev. Pickens will direct the Methodists' relations with other churches and work to build unity among the denomination's 8.3 million members.

A former pastor in inner-city congregations in Chicago for fifteen years, Rev. Pickens has also served as a delegate to a ``people-to- people'' seminar on the legal system of South Africa. Within the church, Rev. Pickens has spent the last four years as a member of the Judicial Council, giving him a better understanding of church governance.

Admitted to both the Illinois Bar and the South Carolina Bar, Rev. Pickens holds a J.D. degree from DePaul University College of Law. He also holds degrees from Chicago Theological Seminary, Garrett- Evangelical Theological Seminary, and North Park University.

We are honored to have Rev. Pickens with us this morning. His involvement in his community and his new role in seeking unity among all denominations underscores his devotion to doing God's work for the betterment of humanity.

Thank you, Rev. Pickens, for being here this morning to open the United States House of Representatives and for your continued service and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to congratulate and thank Law Revision Counsel John R. Miller for his 28 years of service to the House of Representatives upon his retirement on May 3, 2004. During his time as Assistant Counsel, Deputy Counsel, and Law Revision Counsel, John's dedication, professionalism, and expertise have served the House well, and his important contributions will be missed. Overall John has given 33 years of service to the Federal Government, and I know he looks forward to a well-deserved retirement.

As the director of the Law Revision Counsel staff, John has been responsible for significantly improving the procedures for preparing and publishing the U.S. Code and for making the office self-reliant, a goal which goes back to 1975. Under John's leadership, the Office no longer requires outside assistance to produce the Code, and the staff continues to improve its efficiency. For almost three decades, John has played a pivotal role in meeting the mandate of the Office to accurately reflect the intent of Congress in consolidating and codifying Public Laws. While John will shortly no longer show up for work each day, we will remember his strong legacy. The House is a better and stronger institution because of the efforts of John Miller. We wish him all the best in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, 2 months from today, American senior citizens will begin to realize discounts on their pharmaceutical medications. June 1 is when Medicare-approved prescription drug discount cards hit the streets, and savings between 10 and 25 percent on their life-saving drugs take effect.

This is a much-needed first step for seniors seeking relief on their monthly bills. These Medicare-approved discount cards are part of the new Medicare law that Congress passed and the President signed. It includes coverage of pharmaceutical costs, some new preventative care benefits, like free physical exams and better care for seniors with chronic illnesses.

To learn more, I am urging my constituents in northern Illinois to call 1-800-MEDICARE, that is, 1-800-MEDICARE, or log on to WWW.MEDICARE.gov. These two informative sources run by the Department of Health and Human Services will provide unfiltered, unfettered news seniors can use about their new drug benefits.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Nussle budget and in opposition to the various tax and spend alternatives that we have heard from the other side of the aisle.

The Nussle budget is the best alternative if you want to keep the economy growing, if you want to keep the country secure, and if you want to keep spending under control. If you want to keep the government growing, if you want to keep the tax burden rising, if you want to keep jobs flowing overseas, and if you want to make America less secure, you can find a Democratic budget alternative that is more to your liking. But, once again, as we do every year, we have two radically different visions for the future of America presented in the budget debate.

The budget is important because it is in the budget that we make the choices in how we choose to govern in this country. The Nussle budget calls for responsible government. And I guess when you talk about responsible, maybe we do talk about values and we talk about values of not spending beyond our means, and we talk about values of protecting our children's future. It says that we should not raise taxes just as the economy is finally getting its footing. It fully funds the war on terror and our homeland defense; and, incidentally, it raises homeland defense, not cuts homeland defense, 9.5 percent, so that our troops have the equipment and the training and the pay and the ammunition and the support of this Congress to keep this Nation secure.

The 9/11 Commission is now examining what happened in the days leading up to the worst attacks against America in our Nation's history. And one inescapable conclusion is that we did not invest enough money in our intelligence community in the late 1990s so that they could do the job to protect America.

The leaders of the Democrat minority voted consistently to cut intelligence spending throughout the 1990s as they voted to slash defense spending. And that anti-defense, anti-intelligence philosophy lives on in one of the Democratic alternatives that we have before us today. We will not make that mistake again. We should do everything within our power to make certain that what happened on September 11, 2001, never happens in this country again.

The Nussle budget calls for spending restraints in the rest of the budget. I think that is appropriate, and some people may even call that a value. We no longer live in the era of surpluses because of the war, because of terrorism, because of the downturn in the economy; and we do have a big deficit. We need to spend less money and this budget spends less money.

We disagree with our Democratic colleagues who by tradition want to spend more money here in Washington and raise taxes to do it. And when we say we want to cut waste, fraud and abuse, they say that we are gutting the programs that they care about the most. The Democrats do not believe that government wastes any money or that the government can become any more efficient or that higher productivity for government employees is a good thing.

They will defend the bureaucracy with every rhetorical weapon in their arsenal. We challenge the bureaucracy to do more with less. We ask them to weed out waste and fraud and abuse.

We believe that a bloated Federal Government is bad for the economy, bad for the taxpayers, and bad for the fiscal future of this Nation.

Our Democratic friends want you to believe that their tax increases will hit the richest Americans. You heard it 15 times in the last speech. Why should we not tax the million-dollar earners? Well, I will tell you who they are. The million-dollar earners are the small business owners, they are the entrepreneurs, they are the job creators, and they hit the job seekers the hardest.

When you go to my district in the Fox Valley of Illinois, it is the small business people, it is the small entrepreneurs that are creating jobs in this country. They are doing it today. We do not want to handcuff them.

The Democrats like to talk about how they help the jobless, but their budget policies will keep the jobless from getting jobs. Higher taxes kill jobs. In fact, 95 percent of the entrepreneurs who file as Subchapter S Corporations or partnerships will be hit by the Democrats' taxes, while 58 percent of small business owners would also be hit. These higher taxes would make it harder to hire that extra worker or expand that business to keep competitive with the Chinese or the Europeans.

In this economic environment, the last thing we need is a policy that kills jobs.

This is a familiar debate. The Nussle budget promotes a stronger defense, a stronger economy and a smaller and smarter government. The various Democratic alternatives promote bigger government, a bigger tax burden for America's job creators, and a bigger fiscal mess down the road.

In this debate we have heard it time and time again, it is not really a debate of policy. It is really a debate of philosophy. It is a debate that asks the question, can government spend people's money better and can government make better decisions for our children and ourselves or can people spend their money better and can people make better decisions for themselves?

Vote for the Nussle budget and vote to keep America strong and secure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my personal appreciation, and the appreciation of the United States House of Representatives, for the service of Michael L. Stern to the House as Senior Counsel in the Office of General Counsel. After more than 8 years in the Office, Mr. Stern will be moving to the other side of the Capitol to become the Deputy Staff Director for the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.

Mr. Stern has provided invaluable assistance and advice to the House and its Members, Officers, and Committees in connection with a broad range of legal matters. Many House Committees and Subcommittees, in particular, have come to rely on his expertise and guidance in connection with their investigative and oversight activities. Mr. Stern has brought his litigation skills to bear both in defending Members and other House employees and entities in judicial proceedings at the trial and appellate levels, and in responding to deposition, trial, grand jury, and administrative subpoenas. Over the years, Mr. Stern has also played a significant role in safeguarding the legal and institutional interests of the House in its interactions with other governmental entities.

I know that Mr. Stern will serve the Senate with the same level of distinction with which he served the House. On behalf of the entire House of Representatives, I thank him for his many years of service and extend to him our very best wishes for his continued success.

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

First of all, I want to say that I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He has been a leader in this Congress for a long, long time; and I have seen him in action in the Middle East and other places. He has the utmost concern for our men in uniform and respect for them and compassion for them.

However, I have to take some difference in his conclusion; and I just want to say that when we made that decision to move into, first of all, Iraq, we all made decisions based on the information we had before us, information that a previous President had, information that we had in the Senate, information that we all looked at. It was the best information that we could bring before us. I do not think anybody in this Chamber or in this town tried to deceive anybody on that information. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with him and say we tried to make the best decisions for our men and women in this country with the information that we had.

We still do not know where weapons of mass destruction are: if they are buried, if they are in a lab someplace, or where they are. But we know that the enemy at that time had the potential to make those weapons; and for all we knew, they had those weapons.

So I rise today in support of this resolution, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. This resolution is quite straightforward. My constituents back home would call it plain talk. It is common sense. It commends the Iraqi people for adopting an interim constitution. It commends our military for their brave efforts in liberating Iraq. And it affirms to the world that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. That is what it does.

It is hard to imagine that anyone in this Chamber could be against it; yet some are. Politicians sometimes behave in strange ways in election years. We all know that. And there are those who have vowed to change our national leadership no matter what it takes. But the ``no matter what it takes'' approach causes folks to do some foolish things, to cast some foolish votes.

How can anyone vote against a resolution that commends our troops as they fight a just war overseas? How can anyone defend a dictator who used rape rooms as a matter of state policy? How can anyone forget the 400,000 victims in mass graves that had already been found in Iraq, brutally murdered by the Hussein regime?

There has been a lot said in the press and even on this floor about the victory of the Spanish Socialists in last Sunday's election in Spain. Clearly, the Spanish people have a right to elect their own government. But I hope that the terrorists do not draw the wrong conclusion about that election. Europe should have learned a painful lesson in the 1930s and should never return to a peace-through- appeasement strategy. Our country, the United States of America, must never adopt a policy of appeasement. We must never let terrorists take encouragement from anything that we do on the battlefield or in this Chamber.

We all must say with one voice that we were right to rid the world of the murdering thug Saddam Hussein; that our troops did the right thing to bring Uday and Qusay and all of Saddam's brutal henchmen to justice; and that the long march to democracy that has started finally both in Baghdad and Kabul is both inexorable and inevitable.

Today, with this resolution, we start the public trial of Saddam Hussein. Let us never forget the pain that he caused countless Iraqis, his neighbors, and even his so-called friends. Let us never forget the threats that he posed to America and America's allies or his willful disregard of the 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions. And let us never say that this war was in any way unjust or illegitimate.

Every brave man and woman who sacrificed their lives, their limbs, or their blood and sweat and tears to fight the Hussein regime did so for a righteous and just cause. This is not like Vietnam. Vietnam is over. This war we fight now is a war against terrorists. It is a war against those who have attacked and killed Americans abroad and on our own soil. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist of the worst kind.

Some of my colleagues might be looking for the shades of gray in this debate, but I simply do not see the gray. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are cut from the same cloth. They are both brutal killers. They both hate America with every ounce of their being. And because we are free, we want all people on Earth to be free. And they both must be brought to justice. We have Hussein, and we will get bin Laden.

Take a stand against terrorism. Take a stand for our troops. And vote for this important resolution.