Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I think the moment is here, a moment that we have been debating over the last 2\1/2\ months and an issue that I think the American people care deeply about.

It is an historic moment, and I thought to myself this morning how will history judge what it is that we are doing on the floor of the House today. What will they write 50 years from now about the decisions that we are making here today?

When I handed Ms. Pelosi, our new Speaker, the gavel back in January, I said that the battle of ideas should be fought on the floor of the House, but as we do it, we should respect each other's opinion. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

I have great respect for Mr. Murtha and Mr. Obey, those that have brought this bill to the floor today, along with Mr. Young and Mr. Lewis, and we should respect all of our opinions and each other's opinions when we get into this difficult decision.

All of us wish that Iraq had gone better. We all wish that the mistakes had not been made and that the terrorists would not have shown up and made this a central front in our war with them.

The fact is, we are in Iraq. We are in the midst of a fight with an enemy that is just not in Iraq, that is all over the world, and we are there. You begin to think about the bill that we have before us to pay for the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. Somehow we have room for $10 billion worth of nonmilitary spending.

I don't need to go through all the details for the money for spinach, the money for the Capitol Hill power plant. That is a real emergency, things that don't belong in this bill.

But I think all of us know what the greater issue is here, and the bigger issue. That is that the ideas of our friend from Pennsylvania, to put his benchmarks in there, which are very different than the benchmarks that I proposed. The benchmarks I proposed were to measure progress, for trying to help ensure that we win. The benchmarks I see in this bill are intended to bring about failure, to bring about stumbles.

If you look at all of the handcuffs, all of the hoops and hurdles that are in here, I believe there is only one outcome, only one outcome if we support all this brings and the handcuffs, and that outcome is failure. I don't believe that failure in Iraq is an option. There is a lot riding on this.

Just think for a moment what signal, what signal this sends to our enemies. What does it say to them, we are not willing to stand behind our troops, that there is a hard deadline out there, that we are going to withdraw our troops; what signal does it send to them?

Our enemies understand what happened in Vietnam. When this Congress voted to cut off funding, we left Vietnam. We left chaos and genocide in the streets of Vietnam because we pulled the troops out and didn't have the will to win.

Our enemies know what happened in 1983 after the Marine barracks were bombed in Lebanon, and we pulled out. What did we see? Chaos and genocide all through Lebanon, and continuing to this day. Then in 1993, we decided to pull out of Somalia; left chaos and genocide in our wake that continues to this day.

Who doesn't believe, who doesn't believe that if we go down this path, we are going to leave chaos and genocide in Iraq, and we are going to tell our enemies all around the world that you can take on the United States, you can push them to the edge? At the end of the day, they will just go home.

The spread of radical Islamic terrorism is a threat to our Nation and is a threat to the free world, not just in the Middle East. They are in Asia, they are in Europe, they are in Africa. Cells are growing right here in America, people dedicated to killing Americans, killing our allies, and ending freedom and wanting to impose some radical Islamic law on the entire world.

I ask you, what are we to do, just walk away from the fight? What message does this action that we take

today, what does it send, what kind of message does it send to our allies, to people who have worked with us over the course of the last 50 years, 100 years, to bring freedom around the world, to end tyranny around the world? What message do we send to them, that we are there as long as it doesn't get too tough?

Think about what Franklin Roosevelt must have felt like in the midst of World War II when things weren't going so well either in Europe or over in the South Pacific. I am sure there was a big debate here in Congress, the same way, same time. But Franklin Roosevelt knew that the world had no choice but to stop Imperial Japan and to stop Hitler's Germany, because he knew that the consequences of failure in World War II were going to lead to more tyranny and less freedom all around the world. He didn't shrink from that challenge.

But more importantly, think about what this message sends to our troops. Our troops are on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan doing their duty to protect freedom and to end tyranny. They are there watching this debate that we are having in the House today and wondering, will Congress do its duty? Will Congress stand up and support the mission that I am in?

Think about the soldiers right this moment who are on a mission somewhere in Baghdad trying to bring safety and security to those people while this debate goes on and this vote is about to occur as to whether we are going to support what they are doing. This is an important moment.

Our forefathers, our forefathers had this moment many times before. Whether it was George Washington or Abraham Lincoln in the middle of the Civil War, when it wasn't going very well, they had a decision to make. Was failure an option for any of them? No, it wasn't.

I know this is difficult, and I know there are deeply held opinions on both sides of the aisle and amongst both sides of the aisle, but I would ask all of my colleagues, is failure an option? Do we want to give victory a chance?

We sent General Petraeus over there, 84-0, was confirmed by the Senate. The plan is under way. What this bill will do will be to undercut his opportunity at success.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am here to say to you that we have no choice but to win, because if we fail in Iraq, you will see the rise even further and faster of radical Islamic terrorism all around the world. We will see chaos in Baghdad. We will see genocide there. We will provide safe haven for our enemies. We will destabilize the moderate Arab countries in the Middle East. If anybody doesn't believe that this won't end Israel as I know it, you are kidding yourself. If you don't believe that these terrorists won't come here and fight us on the streets of America instead of the streets of Baghdad, I think you are kidding yourself.

So we have our moment of truth. We have our opportunity to do what our forefathers have done, and that is to stand up, support our troops and to win, because the outcome of failure is actually too ominous to even think about.

So I ask my colleagues today, let's not vote for spinach, let's not vote for more money for the power plant and all the other silly things in here. We all know what this bill is about, and it is about whether we have got the courage to give victory a chance, or whether we are just going to bring our troops home and give up.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, there is a motion to recommit that is under consideration on the floor at this moment. Wouldn't it be appropriate for the House to continue to finish the work on this motion before further legislative action is postponed? Because there is, in fact, a pending question before the House.

Madam Speaker, the Chair recognized the gentleman from Texas for a motion to recommit. The motion, in fact, has been debated. To stop before we complete action on that motion does not seem to be covered under the rule, as I understand it.

Madam Speaker, I am extremely proud to rise today in honor of First Class Navy Diver Timothy Alexander of Middletown, Ohio. On March 9, 2007 First Class Navy Diver Alexander was awarded the Navy Sea Systems Command Sailor of the Year Award.

The Sailor of the Year Award program began 29 years ago in order to recognize the top enlisted sailors in the United States Navy. The program provides recognition to outstanding sailors through numerous presentations, awards, and meritorious advancement to the next pay grade. Sailors are judged on their performance for the past twelve months; performance over the course of their career to date; and off- duty education, civic involvement and awards earned. Additionally, a selection board of four Command Master Chiefs question the finalists concerning Navy policies, ethics, guiding principles, and leadership. Following this long process, First Class Navy Diver Alexander was chosen as the Navy Sea Systems Command Sailor of the Year.

First Class Navy Diver Alexander enlisted in the United States Navy on June 12, 1991. Since his date of enlistment, Mr. Alexander has proudly served our Nation and protected our interests throughout the world. In June of 1992, he was a vital member of the salvage team that prevented the USS Ingersoll from sinking in the Straits of Malacca. In November of 1999, as an experimental diver, he volunteered for numerous experimental dives and was the lead technician on a groundbreaking chemical re-breather, which has been instrumental to seal operators' safety and mission success. In January of 2002 he completed several classified missions in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. These are only a few examples of many brave actions taken by Mr. Alexander throughout his long and accomplished naval career.

First Class Diver Tim Alexander is a testament to the great commitment and courage of all volunteer military. He has worked hard to further his education and training, and his efforts have been rewarded in being named the Navy Sea Systems Command Sailor of the Year. I consider it an honor to represent him in Congress.

Would the gentlelady yield?

I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentlelady from Ohio, knows I have deep respect for her and the other members of the Ethics Committee and Mr. Hastings. They do a good job on behalf of our Members, and it is thankful from the Members, but it is a very unwelcome job that you have; and we do appreciate your work.

With what the House did in early January, in terms of adopting a new ethics package, it is clear that the responsibility of the Ethics Committee has expanded significantly. Members supported that, and I think it is long overdue.

Now, we all know, and I am not going to talk about the amendment that was offered last night, but there is insufficient money in the budget for the Ethics Committee to do what we have charged them with doing.

Now, we do this with Federal agencies all the time and can look the other way. If we want Members to abide by the rules that we have adopted, we have to have an Ethics Committee that can provide services to those Members so they understand the rules, they understand the limits, what they can and can't do. The concern that we have is that because there is insufficient money for the Ethics Committee in this resolution that Members are going to be charged with living under new rules and not having the service component necessary from the Ethics Committee to carry out our job.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a couple of buckeyes who have played an instrumental role in the growth and development of the dairy industry.

During my years in Congress, I have had the good fortune of representing, Herman Brubaker. Herman is a dairy farmer in the Preble County town of West Alexandria and he is a leader in the dairy industry.

While serving as chairman of the Board of Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA), the Nation's largest dairy marketing cooperative, Herman played an instrumental role in unifying the Nation's dairy producers' efforts to work together and promote dairy consumption. For those of you unfamiliar with DFA, it is a farmer owned cooperative with 24,000 dairy farmer members in 49 states.

Herman was the President of the Board of Directors of the Strongsville, Ohio--based Milk Marketing Inc. dairy cooperative in 1998 and played an instrumental role in that cooperative joining together with cooperatives throughout the country to form DFA. His efforts were so impressive that he was chosen as the first chairman of DFA's board of directors. He held this position until he retired in 2002. Herman has also served on the National Milk Producers Federation's board of directors.

Although Herman and I have not always agreed on the details of dairy policy, I have always been impressed with his work on behalf of dairy farmers. We have had some spirited discussions and I can honestly say it has been a pleasure to serve as his Member of Congress.

I also stand to recognize Donald Schriver, who recently retired as the executive vice president of DFA is an Ohio native and a 1969 graduate of the Ohio State University. Donald Schriver grew up on a dairy farm in Lorraine County, Ohio, and has spent a lifetime within agribusiness and the cooperative business world. Like Herman, Donald was an official with Milk Marketing, Inc. when it joined with other cooperatives to form DFA. Since DFA formed in 1998, Donald has played a vital role in the cooperative's growth and development.

I thank these men for their continued support of the dairy industry. I wish them well as they enjoy their retirements.

Madam Chairman, let me thank my colleague from California for yielding, and thank him and the members of the Education and Labor Committee for their work on this bill.

Let me also say it is nice to see the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee here, formerly the ranking member during the 5 years that he and I worked together. During those 5 years, this bill went nowhere. It went nowhere for a very good reason.

Over the last 75 years, the Federal Government, State governments and the National Labor Relations Board have provided law and case history to try to bring balance between the interests of employers and the interests of the unions. If you go down through this long history, there is a very tumultuous history. But throughout this history, the challenge was to bring balance, for workers and their employers.

Over the last 25 years, there is no issue I have spent more time on during my political career than working with the employer community and the employee community, mostly represented by the labor movement.

My goal throughout this last 25 years has been to maintain this balance that

I think works for employers and their employees, and what we have here today is trying to upset that balance, taking away the secret ballot election from workers in order to make their choice whether they want to be represented or not.

It is almost beyond my imagination that this bill is on the floor of the United States House of Representatives taking away the secret ballot election. Think about this for a moment. Think about the 2008 election day, and here we are. You don't get to go into a voting booth and vote for who you want to be President in the 2008 election. You don't get to go and decide in a secret ballot who you want your Member of Congress to be. You have to show up at a town hall meeting, raise your hand as to who you are going to vote for; let your neighbors know, let your opponents know, let your employers know how you are going to cast your vote for President or for your Member of Congress.

I don't think that is what the American people expect of us. Instead of I am looking up at the voting booth, you are going to be standing up in front of God and everyone and telling everyone publicly how you voted. That is not what we want of workers.

Think about this for a moment. This is what a 1990 Federal Court decision found, and I will quote: ``On average, 18 percent of those who sign authorization cards do not want to join the union. They sign because they want to mollify their friends who are soliciting, because they think the cards will get them their dues waived in the event that the union shop prevailed.''

There was an earlier study by the National Labor Relations Board. It found that in cases where unions had cards signed by 30 to 50 percent of the employees, unions only won 19 percent of those elections. Or even when unions had cards signed by 50 to 70 percent of the workers, they won less than half of those elections.

Let's talk about what this really is all about. This bill today is not about protecting American workers. It is about upsetting the balance between labor and management.

But the real issue here is not taking care of workers, it is taking care of union bosses. We all know what is happening to the union movement in America. They represent about 8 percent of the private sector employees in the country, and that number has been dropping precipitously. This is an effort to help them get more members, to make it easier for them to sign them up and to intimidate them to sign cards. So there are no secret ballot elections. And whether they want to join a union or not, they are going to be forced to do it. That is not the American way.

My colleague from California, the sponsor of this bill, knows full well what this bill does and who it is meant to take care of and who it is meant to pay back to. It is not the American way, and that is not what should be happening in the People's House.

We, as Members of Congress, have a responsibility to do what we think is right on behalf of the American people, and I am going to tell you what I am going to do today. I am going to stand up and stand tall, and I am going to vote for every American worker and protect their right to have a secret ballot.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for yielding and thank him and all of you for, once again, to have an opportunity to come and speak on the floor on this resolution.

The resolution before us is nonbinding, but it is the first step down a very treacherous path, a path that, if followed, will endanger Americans for generations to come.

Iraq is the central front in a global war between the United States of America and radical Islamic terrorists, a war that began long before the horrific events of 9/11, a war the American people did not seek and did not start.

It is mind-boggling to consider how fanatically committed our enemies are to destroying America, even at the cost of destroying themselves in the process. Our enemies recruit young people, fill them with hate and rage, and then send them on suicide missions to kill innocent victims. We face an enemy that loves death more than it loves life.

As Americans, we cherish freedom and democracy. Ours is a way of life. Theirs is a way of death, of murder, of suicide.

The global reach of radical Islam stretches from North Africa, through the Middle East, to South Asia, to Indonesia and to the Philippines.

The other side wants Americans to believe that the war in Iraq is different from the war on terror. They even say that we are not fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, ignoring the fact that al Qaeda has made it the central front in their war against America.

According to the experts, and according to their own words, radical Islamic terrorists will never stop fighting until much of the world is under Islamic law.

In 2004, Osama bin Laden said the following about the conflict in Iraq: ``The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries; the Islamic Nation . . . and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.''

And our enemies are watching this debate, and through the Arab media we know what they are saying.

Recently, the second-in-command of al Qaeda issued a warning to moderate Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan who are working and dying to build peace and security, and he said this: ``These traitors in Iraq and Afghanistan must face their inevitable fate, and face up to the inescapable facts. America is about to depart and abandon them, just as it abandoned their like in Vietnam.''

The consequences of failure in Iraq would be catastrophic for America and the world.

Last month, General Petraeus spoke of the very real possibility of Iraq's neighbors taking sides in sectarian violence.

Failing in Iraq would jeopardize Israel and greatly benefit Iran, a nation governed by a fanatic and actively building nuclear weapons.

The battle we fight in Iraq is the biggest part of our global war, and if we leave, the fight will, in fact, follow us home. And what we will leave behind is chaos, the same kind of chaos we left behind in Vietnam, the same kind of chaos we left behind in Lebanon, and the same kind of chaos that we left behind in Somalia.

Who does not believe that we will not see chaos in Iraq, destabilizing the Middle East and jeopardizing the very safety and security of the American people?

As Americans, we are fortunate in so many ways. We have so many blessings, including a great and proud history to inspire us. Earlier this week, I talked about President Lincoln and the challenges he faced during some of America's darkest days. During the Revolution, America faced down what was then the most powerful empire in the world, with a rag-tag army. We survived a Civil War that would have permanently divided any other Nation.

After a crippling depression in the 1930s, we defeated Japanese imperialism and Hitler in Germany. We then defeated the Soviet Union and their communist empire in a test of wills that lasted for a generation.

The greatness of America is exemplified in a simple short letter about duty and sacrifice. The letter was written by Marine Staff Sergeant Daniel Clay, the husband of my former staffer, Lisa Bell Clay.

Sergeant Clay was one of 10 Marines who were killed in Fallujah a little over a year ago, and he left behind this letter to his family in case he did not come home.

In it, he said, ``What we have done in Iraq is worth any sacrifice. Why? Because it was our duty.'' He says, ``That sounds simple. But all of us have a duty. Duty is defined as a God-given task. Without duty, life is worthless.''

Our troops are not the only Americans who have a God-given task. If a noncommissioned officer can understand his duty, then certainly Members of Congress can understand theirs.

Congress has a duty to protect the American people now so that the next generation can enjoy prosperity and freedom.

Congress also has a duty to the men and women in uniform when we send them into harm's way, a duty to provide them with the full support and resources they need to accomplish their mission and return home safely.

My friends on the other side have described this nonbinding resolution as their first step. It is a first step. It is the first step in a plan to cut off funding and reinforcements for American troops in harm's way.

The next step is to micromanage the war through the budget process. To quote the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who said yesterday, ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work.''

Mr. Speaker, at this very moment American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, and it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely.

The American people will not support a strategy that involves pulling the rug out from under American troops in the combat zone by cutting off their reinforcements and forcing them to face an enemy without our full support.

This resolution is nonbinding, but it is the first step toward a tragic, unthinkable goal.

Four years ago, this body agreed that fighting this war was a worthy cause. There have been setbacks where Members on both sides of the aisle are rightly dissatisfied with the results. But this is war. We face a sophisticated, determined enemy who wants to annihilate our way of life.

We have a duty to stand and fight against those who seek to destroy America and the freedom that defines us. Our troops are committed to fighting and winning this global war. We owe them our unfailing support.

I urge my colleagues to stand with the marines, the soldiers, the sailors and the airmen and vote down this resolution. I urge my colleagues to think about our duty, our duty to support our troops, our duty to protect the American people, and our duty to leave for our kids and their kids a safe, free, and secure America. Our soldiers are dying around the world to protect us, upholding their duty. Do we have the courage to uphold our duty?

Vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding.

And I come to remember my good friend and our good friend, Charlie Norwood.

I met Charlie in October of 1994 when he was a candidate for Congress for the first time and had dinner with him one night before we went off on a 16-city tour. I didn't think it would ever end. But at dinner that night, I looked at Charlie and I asked, Why are you running for Congress?

And he said, That OSHA, that OSHA, they did this to me and did this to me.

And for every day that Charlie Norwood served in this Congress, he was all over OSHA, to have rules and regulations that met the straight- face test.

I was the chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and Charlie was one of my subcommittee Chairs for the 5 years that I was the chairman. Clearly the most difficult member I have ever had to try to manage. And whether it was the Patients' Bill of Rights, whether it was OSHA, or a host of other issues, when Charlie got that bone in his mouth, you could not get it out of his mouth. He was the most dogged, persistent Member I have ever worked with. As a matter of fact, I might even say he might be the most dogged persistent person that I have ever met with because when Charlie picked up a cause, he was never going to leave it alone until he accomplished his goal.

And I am sure that Charlie is watching over us today, wondering why the Patients' Bill of Rights isn't law. Mr. Linder just talked about it. Charlie fought about this on more occasions than you can ever imagine, as did John and a lot of other Members. But Charlie truly believed in that piece of legislation. He put his heart and soul into it.

We are going to miss Charlie around here. We are going to miss that dogged persistence that he brought to this floor every day and in the committee rooms every day.

But to Gloria and his family, our prayers are with you.

And, Charlie, may your soul rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today we begin an extended debate on a resolution criticizing the latest effort by American forces to win in Iraq.

There is no question that the war in Iraq has been difficult. All Americans are frustrated that we haven't seen more success and that we haven't seen it more quickly.

But war is never easy and almost never goes according to plan. Al Qaeda and their supporters in the region have been steadfast in their efforts to slow us down and frustrate our efforts to succeed. But because they cannot defeat Americans on the battlefield, al Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers around the world are trying to divide us here at home.

Over the next few days, we have an opportunity to show our enemies that we will not take the bait.

It is fitting that yesterday was President Abraham Lincoln's birthday. And not since the dark days of the Civil War has our homeland been a battlefield. Lincoln's leadership preserved the Union through a turbulent age that threatened to undo the American experiment. His belief in the promise of the United States, a promise enshrined in the Declaration of Independence that stated for the first time in history that all men are created equal, this is what drove him to pursue victory.

Surrounded by personal and political rivals, Lincoln could have given up. He could have recalled the Union forces and sent them home. But he didn't.

I think we need a similar commitment to victory today.

The battle in Iraq is about more than what happens there. This is one part of a much larger fight, a global fight against Islamic terrorists who have waged war on the United States and our allies. This is not a question of fighting for land or for treasure or for glory. We are fighting to rid the world of a radical and dangerous ideology. We are fighting to preserve and defend our sacred way of life. We are fighting to build a safer and more secure America, one where families can rear their children without the fear of terrorist attacks.

Lincoln famously said in 1858 that ``a house divided against itself cannot stand.'' I believe, as Lincoln did then, that we must choose sides on a very critical issue. Then it was whether we should abolish the evil institution of slavery. Today it is whether we will defeat the ideology that drives radical Islamic terrorism. Will we do what it takes to stand and fight for the future of our kids and theirs? Will we commit to defending the freedoms and liberties that we all cherish? Or will we retreat and leave the fight for another generation? These are the questions with historic implications that will be answered this week.

Many of my friends across the aisle think this is exactly what we should do, give up and leave. This nonbinding resolution is their first step towards abandoning Iraq by cutting off funding for our troops that are in harm's way.

And we know what al Qaeda thinks when America retreats from the battlefield. They think that we can't stomach a fight. This is why they haven't been afraid to strike us whenever and wherever they have had the opportunity to do so.

This war didn't start in Iraq. This war didn't start on 9/11. The war began with the Iran hostage taking in 1979, went on for well over a year. Then on October 23, 1983, the suicide attack on our Marine barracks in Beirut occurred, killing 241 American servicemen and injuring 60 others. On February 26, 1993, was the first World Trade Center bombing that killed six people and injured more than 1,000 others. On June 25, 1996, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were bombed, killing 20 and injuring some 372 others. On June 7, 1998, the Kenya embassy bombing killed 213 people and injured 5,000 more. And on June 7, 1998, the Tanzania embassy bombing killed 11 people and 68 others were injured. On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole was attacked; 17 American sailors killed, 39 other sailors injured.

We all know what happened on September 11, 2001, when 3,000 Americans died for no other reason than they were Americans.

Do we really believe that if we pack up now, if we abandon Iraq and leave the country in chaos, that our enemies are just going to lay down their arms and leave us alone?

For too long, world leaders responded to terrorism by retreating and just hoping for the best. In a post-9/11 world, this is no longer an option.

God forgive us that it took such a loss of life to open our eyes, but our eyes are open. We are engaged in a global war now for our very way of life.

Every drop of blood that has been spilt in defense of liberty and freedom, from the American Revolution to this very moment, is for nothing if we are unwilling to stand up and fight this threat.

We didn't start this war. They did. Now we have got a duty to finish it, and, for the sake of our kids and theirs, to win it.

The nonbinding resolution before us today criticizes the new strategy for succeeding in Iraq implemented by General Petraeus. It ``disapproves'' of the strategy before it even has a chance to begin. The general's goal is to stabilize the Iraqi democracy, deny the terrorists a safe haven and ensure stability in the region. It is a prudent strategy that puts the performance of the Iraqi Government front and center.

I can't guarantee that this plan is going to work. I hope it does. Republicans have put forward a complementary bill aimed at helping it succeed. But I again can guarantee you this: If we cut off our funding for the troops that are in the field and we abandon Iraq, as many supporters of this nonbinding resolution want to, the consequences of our failure will be catastrophic.

Last year, Osama bin Laden issued this warning to the United States regarding the war in Iraq. He said, ``I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.''

Now, think about this for a moment. Al Qaeda knows what the stakes are and it issued all of us a challenge. Now, tell me, what message does it send if we are afraid to meet that challenge? What message are we sending to North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and other enemies of freedom around the world? If we abandon Iraq, regional stability is going to be jeopardized. Iraq will become a fertile breeding ground for radical Islamic terrorists. Without a central government or other stabilizing force, Iraq's neighbors will be compelled to enter Iraq to protect their own interests. The consequences will be devastating and could easily lead to regional war.

If we abandon Iraq, the instability, coupled with the damning image of another American retreat, will embolden Iran and Islamic militants and endanger Israel. Iran's leaders and terrorist groups have made it clear of their intentions to wipe Israel off the map. We would be leaving a staunch ally in the Middle East with nothing but chaos and instability separating them from their greatest enemy.

If we abandon Iraq, those who seek weapons of mass destruction will know they have nothing to fear from a fearful America. Neither al Qaeda, North Korea or Iran are going to give up their quest for weapons of mass destruction if they know they are free to pursue these weapons, secure in the knowledge that America doesn't have the stomach to stop them. We will be leaving for our children, and theirs, a vastly more dangerous world.

During the Cold War, we took some small comfort in the idea of mutually assured destruction, that the Soviet Union wouldn't attack us because we could retaliate with equal devastation. There is no such comfort in a world where terrorist gangs roam free. It is the nature of our enemy to fight us wherever and whenever they can. Whether it is in Asia, in Africa or elsewhere, al Qaeda has supporters and sympathizers throughout the world. They have the ability to strike us at any time with their lethal force across the globe.

Right now, we are fighting them in Iraq. The battlefield is the most visible part in the global war against these terrorists, but it is but one part. If we leave, they will just follow us home. It is as simple as that. We cannot negotiate with them. We can't reason with them. Our one and only option is to defeat them. And this nonbinding measure before us today will only embolden them.

Now, it is important for this body to debate the important issues of our day. Last summer, the House held an extended debate on the war in Iraq and the global war on terror which gave all Members an opportunity to go on record. We worked closely with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to draft the language of that resolution, and I believe that we had a productive debate.

What we are dealing with here today isn't even a resolution to debate the war itself. It is a nonbinding resolution attacking a single strategy in the prosecution of a much larger war. ``Nonbinding'' means nonleadership. It is not accountable, and I don't think it is the right message for our troops.

This is a political charade, lacking both the seriousness and the gravity of the issue that it is meant to represent. And, as I said before, the question before us today isn't actually in this resolution. I think it is much more fundamental. The question is, do we have the resolve necessary to defeat our terrorist enemies? Will we stand and fight for the future of our kids and theirs?

As President Eisenhower once said, ``History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.'' Does Congress have the fortitude to do what needs to be done? Our soldiers do. The men and women of our military are the greatest force for freedom that the world has ever known. They are brave, they are committed and they can win this fight if we ask them to. I think the big question is, will we support them?

My colleagues, the world is watching. The question is, how will we respond

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I send to the desk a resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Washington for yielding.

I remind my colleagues that when the session started, as every session has started, we raise our right hands and we swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is our solemn obligation.

The Constitution outlines who has the right to vote here in the House. It clearly spells out that the Members from the States have the right to vote. Over the years as Delegates came to this House, they were granted the privilege of voting in the committee. That is not something spelled out in the Constitution.

I could describe what is going on here today is an outrageous grab of power by the new majority; a breach of the trust of the Members here. That is if it weren't such a silly idea.

To say to the Delegates that you can vote as long as it doesn't count, but if your vote counts, we are going to revote it, I think that diminishes the stature of the House, diminishes the stature of the Delegates, quite frankly, to say that they have a vote, but only if it doesn't count, because if it counts, there is an automatic revote under this rule that is outlined today.

I think it does demean the House. I think it undermines our responsibility to the American people. And I think that this should not be on the floor today.

The process by which this bill came to the floor, no committee hearings, a short Rules Committee hearing. We heard earlier today about the problems with the rule and how it was crafted. And here we are having this debate once again.

I was here in 1993 when this issue was brought to the House the first time. The debate was probably more rancorous then than it is today.

But it saddens me that there was no discussion about this with the minority. There was no advance notice of it until last Friday when the majority leader outlined the schedule for this week. So here we are, no opportunity to have a real conversation between the majority and the minority party about doing this.

Over the course of the last 3 weeks, and actually before that, going into December, I have done everything I can to reach out to the Speaker and the majority leader to try to work here in this House in a bipartisan way on the issues the American people care about. And it seems, though, over the last 3 weeks that more we reach out and offer our hand of bipartisanship, it is slapped away.

It happened last night up in the Rules Committee on the rule that brought this to the floor, and I am saddened by it. We have an opportunity to work together. We have an opportunity to do what the American people expect of us. But if we are going to do it together, we need to live up to our promises, and we need to live up to our commitments.

I don't think that what we are doing on the floor today helps that process at all. And so while it would be easy for me to describe this as a power grab, I could if I thought this meant something, but it means nothing. This is symbolism at its best. And in the process of creating symbolism for a few, I think we diminish our roles as serious legislators here on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding, and

make it clear that when there was a suggestion made about changing the date from the bill that had been introduced on its way to the floor, I, and my staff, believed that it was not in the best interest of the House to change this bill in the hour before it was to come to the floor. And I appreciate my colleague from Maryland, the majority leader's working with us to put the date back to where it was with the introduced bill.

But having said that, I talked last week on the floor about my concern about how the House was proceeding. I understand the Six for '06 and the need to move the Six for '06 agenda right out of the gate. But as I said on the floor last week, I would hope that we would get back to regular order.

Now, we are not on bill number six or bill number seven or, for that matter, bill number eight. I think we are on bill number nine. And as I reiterated on the floor last week, when we took the majority in 1995, there were many of my colleagues on our side of the aisle that said that we ought to treat the other side of the aisle the way they treated us. I stood my ground for months and months and months suggesting to my colleagues that, no, we should treat the minority, the then minority, the way we asked to be treated. And I think the real concern here is that what we have seen today on the floor over this bill is exactly the point we have been trying to make about going back to regular order.

The committee process in this House does work, and I think the gentleman from Maryland clearly understands that, because Members on both sides of the aisle can pinpoint flaws and problems and correct those. And then there is a Rules Committee that has hearings. There is an opportunity for Members to offer amendments, hopefully, to be made in order so that the House can work its will.

And so I would ask my colleague from Maryland, the majority leader, to just treat us the way you have been asked to be treated. My colleagues on this side of the aisle want to participate. We want to work with the majority in the best interest of the American people, and we can do that together. But the only way to do that is to go through regular order. And I think the gentleman from Maryland understands, and I thank him for his time.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that this is the seventh bill that has come to this floor that has not gone through committee, that has not had ample opportunity for amendment in subcommittee or full committee, no opportunity for an amendment on the floor on any of these bills, nor the opportunity for our side of the aisle to offer a substitute.

I am encouraged that the Rules Committee this week has organized and met, but I would note that as the Rules Committee opened, the first debate on the first rule where there was going to be a rule on the bill yesterday, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee made it clear before there were any witnesses before the Rules Committee, before there was any testimony, before there was any discussion, that this would be a closed rule, there would be no amendments, and there would be no substitute offered to the Members on our side of the aisle.

I come here today to talk to my colleagues. The gentleman from Massachusetts who is managing this rule for the majority knows exactly what I am talking about. We have had this discussion here for a long time.

I understand the need for the majority party to want to make its move, to make its first impression; and I understand the first couple of bills had to come flying right to the floor. But we are short- circuiting democracy here, and I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand that.

On the opening day, when I handed the new Speaker the gavel, the first woman in the history of our country to be Speaker, I said that the House needed to work in a more bipartisan way. Over the course of the last several years, I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the need to work in a more bipartisan way.

I said also on the opening day that we do have different ideas about how to solve America's problems and that we should cherish the differences that we have, we should debate them, that we can disagree here without being disagreeable. I also said that we should be nice.

What I didn't say is that we shouldn't be silent, and I won't be silent on behalf of our Members on this side of the aisle.

I think that there is a lot to be gained in bringing legislation to the floor that has been through the subcommittee process, that has been through the committee process, that has an opportunity for a real Rules Committee debate and an opportunity for Members on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments, to allow the minority the opportunity to offer a substitute. That is what the American people want. Our Members represent some 48 percent of the American people, and we are being silenced in this process.

I understand it is in the process. The new majority has only had the majority for 2 weeks. But I am here today to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to live up to the promises that were made, to live up to the desire to be treated fairly.

When we took control of this House in 1995, we had a lot of Members in the new majority then who said we ought to treat the Democrats the way they treated us, and I argued vociferously that that was not the right thing to do, that we should treat the new minority as we had asked to be treated. We worked and I worked to be sure that we were living up to our commitment to treat the then-Democrat minority as we wanted to be treated back in the early nineties when we were making an awful lot of noise.

Over the last year, there has been an awful lot of conversation coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they were in the minority to make things more fair.

Let me quote one of the pledges: ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

What we are asking for here is fairness, fairness in this process, so that all Members can participate in a deliberative process on behalf of our constituents. Our constituents are just as important as your constituents, and they have a right to be heard and their Members have a right to participate in this process.

So I ask my colleagues, when? When is the time going to come to live up to what you asked for, to live up to your promises, and to live up to your commitment?

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding and thank my colleague from Maryland for his comments.

I rise today in opposition to the plan being put forward that I think would bring government cost controls to a program that is widely popular and is working. We all know that, about 4 years ago, Congress passed a prescription drug benefit for seniors. In that bill, we make it clear that this benefit is to be provided by the private sector, and some 40 plans across the country are out there competing with different types of plans for seniors with different needs. And so the number of choices out there is overwhelming, but the fact is that the number of plans out there are also bringing competition; competition for better quality drugs, more access to drugs, bringing down the cost of this program by 30 percent. The program costs 30 percent less than what we thought it would cost when Congress passed it.

More importantly, some 80 percent of seniors appreciate their plan. They have a choice of their doctor; the doctor has the choice of prescriptions that they can offer to their beneficiary, to their patient; and the patient can go to their local pharmacy, they can talk to their local pharmacist, which all those choices are probably why we have an 80 percent approval rating for this program.

So what do we have here today? We have here today that says the government must go out and negotiate directly with drug companies. The fact is these 40 different plans that are operating around the country have been negotiating with drug plans over these last several years. Why do we think the cost has come down? It is that competition in the marketplace.

And I appreciate my colleagues on the other side for their ideas that the government ought to go out and directly negotiate this. It is one of those big dividing issues that we have between Members here in Congress. Some believe strongly that government ought to do it. Government ought to do it. We ought to order government to do it. While many of us believe that competition, competition and using free market principles will in the long run produce better results, lower costs, higher quality and more satisfaction among seniors. And that is exactly what we have seen with this plan.

Many people believe that the plan here would begin to look something like the plan that we have over at the Veterans' Administration where they do in fact negotiate with drug companies, although veterans that are taking those benefits have one-third the choice of drugs available to them that Medicare recipients have. I don't think there is anything we want to do today that would limit the ability of doctors to prescribe the correct drugs for their patients.

Secondly, the veterans' program in many cases requires the prescription to be delivered by mail order. Now, this is a growing move in the marketplace, but a lot of seniors want to go talk to their pharmacists, and I and many believe that the passage of this bill could lead to less choices for our seniors when it comes to where they get their drugs.

And so Republicans will offer a motion to recommit that simply says that we should not reduce the choices available to seniors, they ought to have those choices, and they should not be reduced at all; and secondly, that they should also have a choice in terms of where they get their drugs. Those are the two issues in the motion to recommit.

And so I would urge my colleagues to reject the idea of big government price controls and to support the motion to recommit that will in fact preserve choices for our seniors who rely on this very important program.