Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 490 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote Nos. 457-465, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On Nos. 457-461, ``no''; on Nos. 462-463, ``yea''; on No. 464, ``no''; on No. 465, ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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

Mr. Chairman, as usual, the next 2 days of debate on the Labor-HHS education bill will be instructive.

First, the basics. We will authorize in this bill spending of $142 billion plus for health, for education and for the American workers of this country in three major departments. This amounts to $3 billion more than we spent last year, Mr. Chairman, an increase in the discretionary spending in these 3 areas of 2.4 percent. At the same time, we are keeping it within the subcommittee allocation and the limits of the budget resolution, and I think the chairman is to be commended for that.

I have enormous respect for the leadership of this subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, certainly for the chairman, but also for my friend on the Democratic side who just spoke and for the ranking minority member.

What we will hear today amounts to sincerely held views and what it really comes down to, in the long run, is a difference in philosophy.

I have been on this subcommittee for 10 years now, the 10 years that the Republicans have been in the majority in this Congress. And each year when this bill comes up, the majority puts forward a bill that spends an amount of money over and above the last year, and our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle object to the bill based on the fact that they would like to spend more money and tax more.

When they object to the bill, Mr. Chairman, they will often say that it is not really the fault of the leadership of this committee, not the fault of the chairman of the full committee or the subcommittee; that it is the underlying budget we adopted earlier which is at fault. What they really mean when they say this is that they wish a budget had been adopted so that taxes could be higher and that Federal spending could be higher, and indeed, that is the basic difference in philosophy on the two sides of the aisle.

Beginning in 2001, when we realized we were coming into a recession, and then certainly after 9/11 and the tragedy and the cost of that event, this majority on the Republican side decided to reduce the tax burden on Americans, reduce the tax burden on families with children, reduce the tax burden on married couples by eliminating the marriage penalty, reduce the tax burden on lower income workers and on every American who pays income tax, and, yes, to reduce taxes on the job creators.

What has that gotten us during this time? What it has gotten us, according to Chairman Greenspan's testimony before the Committee on the Budget just this morning? Chairman Greenspan said, We are in a period of moderate to excellent economic growth and the shallowest recession in postwar history.

I would submit that this is the program we need, and is why we have adopted the budget and why we should adopt the bill today.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Kolbe for those words. I want to begin by agreeing with the gentlewoman from Michigan who just spoke about the bipartisan nature of this subcommittee and the product that we have come up with. Sometimes we are accused of partisan bickering on the House floor, and from time to time it is necessary to air our differences and raise our voices to bring attention to those differences in philosophy. But I just wish that the American people had an opportunity to watch my distinguished chairman and my distinguished ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and the way they work together on this very important aspect of our national security program. I want to commend them both and the full committee for the bipartisan nature of the bill.

A couple of things that I would mention about it. This bill addresses the AIDS pandemic by providing a total of $2.2 billion in global assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, as well as other very serious diseases. I think President Bush deserves to be commended for his world leadership in fighting HIV and AIDS.

Mr. Chairman, in the year 2000, Mr. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, and some people smiled about that and doubted that. I think President Bush has shown his leadership and strength in the things that he has done with regard to Afghanistan and Iraq. But when it comes to HIV and AIDS, President George W. Bush has shown the world the level of his compassion in bringing people from the conservative side of the spectrum to support his worldwide effort to combat HIV and AIDS. This is the highest level of AIDS

funding in the history of our Republic, and so I want to commend the subcommittee, but also the President of the United States for his compassionate leadership in this matter.

The bill provides an increase in foreign assistance for Israel. As we move toward a peaceful resolution to the Middle East issue, it is important for us in America to remember that Israel is our steadfast friend and ally, that they are one of the few democracies in the region, and that they are surrounded by sworn enemies. So as we try to bring the Palestinians in and we try to make everyone a little more friendly in that area, we do not need to forget the fact that Israel is our faithful ally.

The chairman mentioned that he and I have traveled together, and sometimes we do not like to talk about travel when we go back to our constituents. But I have had an opportunity as vice chairman of this committee to visit in Asia and Iraq and in Afghanistan, and, with the ranking member, in some of the poorest areas of Africa; and it is heartening, Mr. Chairman, to see the level of involvement of so many Americans. Certainly we are proud of our troops. It just takes your breath away to see the young men and women of America who volunteer to support our country in uniform. But also, when you go to Africa and you see the Peace Corps volunteers, highly educated graduates of universities who are willing to serve for very, very little pay; when you see the personnel of the USAID agency and realize the fact that they are willing to go in harm's way, though not in a military capacity, but to risk their lives in very, very hostile environments to advance the cause of the United States, and also to do some good in an altruistic way, it is absolutely astonishing. It renews my faith in the American people and in our spirit of volunteerism.

This is a balanced bill. I commend both the ranking member and the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the previous speakers on behalf of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe). Between now and conference the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) will work with USAID to determine the needs of the government of the Dominican Republic with regard to this issue and to ensure the U.S. is being as responsive as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a valuable member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 338 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for controlling the time tonight and affording us the opportunity even at this hour to pay tribute.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise and join so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in paying tribute to Ronald Wilson Reagan, the 40th President of the United States. I agree with so much of what has been said here today and throughout the Nation in the past few days about the incredible legacy of Ronald Reagan and what he left to America and to the world. Ronald Reagan will always be larger than life to millions of people around the world who were freed from the shackles of Communism because he stood firm against what he so correctly called the Evil Empire. Ronald Reagan's determination and leadership forced an end to the Cold War. His philosophy of cutting taxes and easing Federal regulations brought about one of the largest periods of economic growth in American history. And his eternal optimism and hope for a brighter day lifted the spirits of a Nation.

Much has been said about Ronald Reagan's charisma, quick wit and ability to put people at ease. He was also blessed with a great asset for anyone in public life, a sense of timing. Whether it was one of his famous one-liners or the ability to do just the right thing at the right time, he always seemed to disarm a tough national press corps or defuse a difficult political issue.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of witnessing an example of his instinctive timing and humor in 1980 in Mississippi when then-candidate Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy, came to the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, Mississippi. The Neshoba County Fair is called Mississippi's largest house party and has been the premier gathering for political speeches during the hot Mississippi summers for more than a century. Ronald Reagan's visit was the first ever by a Presidential candidate to this most celebrated political event in my home State.

One of the issues that had surfaced in Mr. Reagan's Presidential campaign was the question of his age. He was 69 years old. Some questioned whether he might be too old for the job. At the Neshoba County Fair an incident occurred which could have potentially exaggerated the issue of his age. After Mr. Reagan's speech, a local craftsman, Gary Harkins of Mississippi, presented Mr. Reagan with a rocking chair. I am sure some of the candidate's advisers and staff were horrified to think of the prospect that the one image coming from this appearance was a picture of the 69-year-old former Governor sitting in a rocking chair. But without hesitation, Ronald Reagan sat down in the chair, grabbed his wife, Nancy, by the hand and pulled her onto his lap. They appeared at that moment to be the very picture of vitality and energy. The widely distributed photograph and film footage which followed went around the Nation and nobody seeing that image thought Ronald Reagan was too old to be President.

Mr. Reagan's quick thinking probably boosted his candidacy and dispelled doubts in the minds of some voters. The incident also changed the life of Greg Harkins, the craftsman who made the rocking chair and whose fledgling business was energized by his short encounter on the national stage. Mr. Harkins soon began receiving hundreds of requests for chairs from across

the Nation and around the world. His business is still going strong today nearly 25 years later, and Ronald Reagan provided the spark for that little bit of business success. Harkins was quoted recently as saying, ``What they did was give me a foothold on something that I can be able to carry on for the rest of my life.''

Mr. Harkins represents just one small example of how Ronald Reagan touched the lives of people in ways that are hard to quantify. We may not know all of their names or their unique stories, but his fellow citizens gained inspiration from Ronald Reagan's leadership and his attitude that it really was ``morning in America.''

Whether it was a young American answering a call to public service or becoming involved in the growing conservative movement or simply taking the initiative to exercise their rights and register to vote for the first time, Ronald Reagan energized many Americans to action. They followed him because they trusted this man of principled beliefs and because he captured their imagination, and they simply liked him.

Ronald Reagan, some people said, would be limited because he was only an actor. He was perhaps the best example of an actor turned politician; but he ended up being the real thing, the true article, the genuine American; and, Mr. Speaker, I believe he will be recorded as being the greatest President of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I can remember as a young boy, going to downtown Pontotoc, Mississippi, with my parents on Memorial Day to hand out poppies.

I thought Members might be interested in a little history lesson about the origin of Memorial Day which began as Decoration Day. The facts, as I have come to understand them, are that in 1866 a group of Columbus, Mississippi, women met to decide on a way to honor the Confederate war dead in the local Friendship Cemetery.

Once the ladies arrived at the cemetery, one of the women began placing flowers on the graves of Union soldiers, too, because they also had given their lives for their beliefs.

Other women followed suit and soon all of the graves, Confederate and Union, had flowers. This generous gesture was told and retold and finally made its way to the New York Tribune where the short article was seen by a young attorney named Francis Miles Finch. He was so moved by the generosity of the Southern ladies and their Decoration Day that he wrote the poem ``The Blue and the Gray'' and it was published in the Atlantic Monthly in September of 1867.

Mr. Speaker, other towns may claim Decoration Day or Memorial Day perhaps earlier than the one in Columbus, but Columbus, Mississippi, was the first to honor former enemies. Here is what the Library of Congress said:

``Columbus, Mississippi, thus can rightly claim to be not only one day ahead of Columbus, Georgia, in its observance of Memorial Day but more generous in its distribution of the tributes of honor and mourning.''

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent Columbus, Mississippi, in the Congress, the place where Memorial Day first began.

Mr. Chairman, this is an instructive debate, and the debates that we will have throughout the day and on into the evening will be instructive because they will point up the stark differences in the two philosophies which exist here in this House of Representatives and in this Congress.

I oppose the CBC budget because it increases spending by almost $30 billion in the first year. In the face of this increased spending, it proposes to reduce the deficit. Now, how does it do that? It does so by increasing taxes by over $35.5 billion in the first year.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House for 10 years. Previous to that, in the early 1980s, I was a staffer here for the House of Representatives. I am proud to have served here in both capacities. It is okay to have differences in philosophy. That is what makes democracy count, and it is a good thing. This substitute and this debate today does point out the difference that I have seen over time.

If we look down through history and if we look at all of the debates that we will have today, basically, when the Democrats propose a budget, they propose increased spending and increased taxes. When the Republicans propose a budget, we try to hold the line on spending, as this budget does, and to have a lower tax burden on the American people; and this debate today will point that out very, very distinctly.

Now, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention, Mr. Chairman, to a couple of charts. The Republican majority, since fiscal year 1996, has certainly been generous with those Departments that we have tried to invest in: a 156 percent increase in education spending, a 109 percent increase in HHS spending, a 48 percent increase in defense spending. Then, one area that is particularly near and dear to my heart--the NIH--the National Institutes of Health, during this Republican Congress, we have doubled the investment in research and health; and then even after we did that, we increased the investment a little more. So we have, I think, been very generous. But for some people in this House, and some people in this town, there is never enough spending. I submit there is just a point where we have to draw the line, we are going to try to be reasonable in what we have spent, and being generous ought to be enough.

We are coming out of recession, Mr. Chairman. At a time when we are coming out of recession, the last thing we need to do is to do what this substitute asks, and that is to raise taxes on the American people. Please vote ``no'' on this substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for yielding me the time.

As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) noted in his statement, America's continued greatness comes from the unlimited opportunities that our freedom provides us. America is still the land of opportunity, and we must continue to remain the land of opportunity.

We have placed opportunity as the third tenet of this budget because without the first two, strength, ensuring that America is free and remains free; and without growth to remain the world's most prosperous nation with an ever-expanding economy and job market, America's opportunities would quickly diminish.

The opportunity for all citizens of this country to work their way up, to have a better life, to take advantage of all the chances and choices this Nation provides is why we are here. It is why our ancestors came here. It is also why so many from around the world continue to flock to this Nation, often risking their own lives to get here.

This budget continues our commitment to strengthen the very foundations that have provided us with this wealth of opportunity. We have also enhanced and strengthened our commitment to a host of domestic programs, including those that educate us, help our people when they are sick, help those who are unable to care for themselves or their children, and provide for those who fought for us.

First, let's take a look at Medicare. This budget fully funds for the next 5 years, by congressionally certified numbers, historic Medicare reform. Last year, this Congress and President Bush accomplished a feat that policy-makers have been struggling with for years. We have enacted legislation to strengthen Medicare and include a prescription drug benefit. It was a truly historic first step in strengthening a program which has lagged behind private health insurance since its enactment in 1965.

As a result of this action, just a few months from now, all beneficiaries will have access to a Medicare discount card that will result in 10 to 15 percent savings for the average beneficiary and up to 25 percent savings on some prescription drug costs. Low-income seniors will receive a $600 subsidy in conjunction with their prescription drug discount card.

As part of the improvements in benefits and in the way the Medicare program does business, this Congress and President Bush have also acted to expand opportunities for people to save for their own health care through health savings accounts. These accounts will allow for two very important changes: first, they will restore to consumers the ability to plan for and make their own choices about their own medical coverage; and, second, they will help to address the long-term demographic and financial problems facing the Medicare program.

With regard to Medicaid, this budget continues our commitment to preserve and strengthen both Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP, which assists individuals and families who cannot afford health care coverage.

Since 1995, Medicaid spending has grown 95.2 percent, including an 8.2 percent growth last year. Last year, we added additional funds to allow for Medicaid S-CHIP reform, to extend the availability of expiring fiscal year 2000 S-CHIP funds, and to give States the option of extending Medicaid coverage to children with special needs.

Over the next 5 years, CBO estimates that Federal outlays for Medicaid will exceed $1 trillion. With this budget, we have continued our commitment to provide for this critical program, which provides to those most in need of necessary medical care.

On the subject of welfare reform, we have further continued our commitment to assisting lower-income Americans, by funding such programs as the TANF block grants, (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), also child care funding, food stamps and child nutrition programs as well as Head Start.

The successful TANF program is reauthorized at the President's level, $16.9 billion annually for the next 5 years. Since the program was enacted in 1996, welfare rolls have declined by 56 percent, and the vast majority of those who have left welfare since 1996 have done so for work. In fact, since that time more than 3 million single mothers who have gotten off welfare have been lifted out of poverty, mostly because of increased earnings. This is the kind of opportunity that we are providing. Since 1996, funding for child care assistance and assistance to mothers leaving welfare for child care expenses has been increased by nearly 50 percent.

This budget also continues to fund HUD's three major rental assistance programs and accommodates the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP, providing $1.9 billion to assist low- income families in meeting heating and cooling expenses.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct the attention of Members to this chart with regard to education. It indicates that since Republicans took control of Congress in fiscal year 1996, the budget for the Department of Education has more than doubled. In fact, education has received an annual average increase of 12 percent sustained over 8 years. No other cabinet-level agency has grown as fast as education over this period.

Mr. Chairman, to take a look at the three large programs that now absorb about two-thirds of the agency's funds: title I funds to low- income schools have nearly doubled, Pell grant funding has more than doubled since 1996, and special education funding has more than quadrupled since 1996. In addition to increased funding, Congress also passed education reform, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This act demands results from schools in exchange for Federal dollars and works to forge a real link between education spending and classroom achievement, while focusing resources more sharply on underperforming schools.

Many on both sides of the aisle believe that accountability standards in this No Child Left Behind law represent the greatest accomplishment in a generation in terms of K-12 education, and an even more important stride than the funding increases that I have talked about. This budget also continues our commitment to provide for and strengthen those principles.

Concerning veterans, this budget increases veteran funding by $1.2 billion over the President's budget--funds that can be used for veterans medical care and medical and prosthetic research. I am pleased to say that over the past several years, we have shown a level of gratitude befitting the service of our Nation's 25 million veterans through hefty increases in funding and substantial increases in benefits and services. Since Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, great strides have been made in improving benefits for our Nation's veterans.

Now, Mr. Chairman, sometimes we come down to the floor and we get a little carried away with our rhetoric. I have heard some of my good friends from the other side of the aisle talk today about the accomplishments that we have made with regard to veteran funding and calling them shameful, saying that they constitute glaring deficiencies and that they endanger services to veterans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let's look at some of the most important improvements to our veterans programs. These are the facts: the Republican Congress expanded eligibility for veterans medical care in 1996 and in 1999. As a result, as Members can see by this chart, the number of veterans using VA medical care has increased from 2.5 million in 1995 to 4.7 million veterans today, a tremendous accomplishment for which this entire Congress can take pride.

My next chart, this chart indicates that since 1995, total spending on veterans has increased from $38 billion to $60 billion. That is a 58 percent increase compared with a 36 percent increase during the previous 10 years of Democrat control of this Congress. Is this a shameful record, I ask my colleagues? And payments per veteran have risen by 79 percent.

With regard to my final chart, this indicates that since 1995, monthly education payments under the Montgomery GI bill, named after former congressman G.B. ``Sonny'' Montgomery, these benefits have increased from $405 to $985, an increase of 143 percent. Is this a shameful accomplishment? Under the 40 years of Democrat control of Congress prior to the Republicans taking over, there was no

progress whatsoever on the concurrent receipt issue. But as a result of action taken by this Congress last year, military retirees injured in combat, while training for combat, or who are more than 50 percent service disabled are able for the first time in over a century to receive retirement benefits concurrently with veterans disability compensation.

I submit this is a proud accomplishment and far from the accusations we have received from some of our friends on the other side.

With this budget, we have continued our commitment to ensuring that those who have served our Nation with pride, valor, and dignity receive the best of America's appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent on March 10 and 11, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 45, 46, 47, 54, 56, and 57. I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call votes 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, and 53.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 58 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

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

The chairman of the full authorizing committee just made a statement that I think is very instructive. He called this motion rather meaningless. If our colleagues do not know by now, they should certainly be apprised that all of these motions to instruct that are being brought during the waning days of this session of Congress are nonbinding. They offer us an opportunity to have an hour of debate on a particular issue, and that is instructive; but even if this motion were completely binding, I do not know how we could enforce it, because it simply says that the conferees be instructed to insist on the highest funding levels possible for programs authorized by No Child Left Behind.

Now, if that means the sky is the limit, then I might have to disagree with my chairman and the chairman of the authorizing committee. We may not want to do that because I do think we should exercise some discretion in the amount of funding. But if it means we are going to do the very best we can, within the confines of the budget resolution, as our chairman has done, then I do support that concept. So I am a little torn, Mr. Speaker. On principle, should I just vote no because it is a meaningless exercise, or should I go along with my chairman and the chairman of the authorizing committee?

This, I think, is an opportunity for my friends on the other side of the aisle to try to point out to anyone who is watching that they would spend more money on education if they were in charge and that they would spend a lot more money if they possibly could. They will make that case, but I am not so sure about that contention.

The fact of the matter is when the Democrats had control of the Presidency, the House and the Senate, fiscal years 1994 and 1995, they did not fully fund their education bill. As a matter of fact, President Clinton proposed a figure for the Department of Education, and the Democrats and the Congress cut that figure by some $3 billion below the level recommended by their own President, failing to ``fully fund'' the request of their President.

During the time of Democratic control of Congress, Mr. Speaker, they funded only 20 percent of the IDEA program for fiscal year 1994.

By contrast, in the last 8 years of Republican control in the House of Representatives, Federal funds for education have more than doubled. So I think we can be proud of our record on education, Mr. Speaker, as compared to the prior 6 years under Democrat leadership where they funded Federal education programs by an increase of only 47 percent. Republicans doubled education funding. The Democrats increased funding by only 47 percent. So when it comes to numbers, we really do not have anything to be ashamed of on this side of the aisle.

I would point out to my colleagues that during these past years of Republican control, this House of Representatives and this Congress has increased title I aid to disadvantaged students by 84 percent; increased special education grants to States--that IDEA program

that I mentioned--by some 330 percent for IDEA programs; and tripled funding for reading programs during Republican rule, Mr. Speaker. We have increased Federal teacher quality funds. We have increased the maximum Pell grant by some 64 percent. We have increased Head Start funding by 91 percent under Republican control. And we have increased Federal aid to America's Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

I am proud of what we have done. Of course, raw numbers are not the only answer. The problem with much of American education is the accountability and results, and that is what we think No Child Left Behind is changing. I want to commend Chairman Regula for working across the aisle for a balanced bill that funds many competing programs. He has produced a good result. I believe the conference will do so, too. I just want to congratulate my chairman for funding education as best as we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying legislation, and I rise to observe, first of all, that there are at least four different points of view being expressed in the debate leading up to this vote that we will have either today or tomorrow.

First of all, there are those who feel that the military action against Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do and that we should stay the course.

Secondly, there are those who never supported the President's action and see no need to support him now.

Then there are those who disagree with what we did in Iraq, but also realize that we have an obligation, having gone in, to bring stability to the region.

Finally, there is at least a fourth group, Mr. Speaker, who were happy to pay for the war, to appropriate funds for the bombs and tanks and ammunition and for our troops, but who are suddenly taken by surprise to learn that we must now spend money to protect the peace.

I find myself in the first group, those who support President Bush's action in Iraq and who realize how important it is now to do what is necessary to win the peace.

I firmly believe that the United States of America did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein. It has cost us the lives and health of hundreds of young Americans, to be sure. It is costing our taxpayers billions of dollars, but it is worth the cost.

When we consider the history of Saddam Hussein, his torture and cruelty, his use of weapons of mass destruction in previous wars, his repeated defiance of the United Nations, and when we learn what has already been uncovered since our military offensive, then it becomes clearer and clearer that this Congress and this President made the right decision.

Contrary to the initial media analysis of the Iraq Survey Group on weapons of mass destruction, the report of Dr. David Kay details discoveries of dozens of WMD-related activities, including significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations, a secret network of laboratories, strains of biological organisms hidden in a scientist's home, plans and advance designs for new long-range missiles, and details of secret negotiations with North Korea to secure technology to develop ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and other military equipment. I believe these findings provide strong justification for our military action.

Finally, it bothers me to hear some of my colleagues refer to the $18 billion in Iraqi reconstruction as an outright gift to Iraq. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, whether in the form of a loan or an outright grant, these are taxpayer dollars being spent in the U.S. national interest. Some Americans will be employed using these dollars. There is an element of altruism and charity involved, to be sure, but these reasons are secondary. The principal reason we are appropriating these reconstruction dollars is that they will be used to protect our troops as long as they have to be over there and to provide electricity, water, public safety and other infrastructure so that Iraq can have stability and so that our troops do not have to go back and win this war yet another time.

Mr. Speaker, today is a day when we will be called upon to make some tough votes, votes which may not be politically popular at first blush, votes which may require some explaining, but which we are fully able to explain and justify. That is one definition of leadership.

President Bush is providing strong national and international leadership. I believe the actions he has taken and that this Congress will take this week are the best chance for a true and lasting resolution to the Iraqi situation, and, in the long run, will provide enormous dividends in our continuing struggle against world terrorism.