Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of a great American and great Oklahoman, Billy Walkabout. Mr. Walkabout was the most decorated American Indian soldier in the Vietnam War, and this weekend his family will have the great honor of laying him to rest at Arlington National Cemetery.

Walkabout, a Cherokee, joined the Army soon after graduating from U.S. Grant High School in Oklahoma in 1968. On November 20, 1968, Army Ranger Sergeant Walkabout and 12 of his fellow soldiers were on a mission behind enemy lines when they suddenly came under fire. The battle lasted several hours, during which Sergeant Walkabout was seriously injured. Despite these injuries, Walkabout continued to provide life saving measures to his wounded colleagues and help them board evacuation helicopters--all while continuing to return fire.

Because of his incredible courage and valor, Billy Walkabout received the Distinguished Service Cross, 5 Silver Stars, 5 Bronze Stars and the Purple Heart.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to be a Member of this House and to serve those great Americans like Billy Walkabout. His service, bravery and patriotism are true testaments of his character. I am proud to stand before this House in recognition of the great life and service of Mr. Billy Walkabout.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote 146 on H. Res. 239, the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 985. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the rule and the underlying bill as it is currently written. Frankly, my concerns are not about the global warming issue. It is about the ethics issue.

As a former member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I understand and appreciate the tremendously difficult job that we ask the staff and the members of that committee to face on a daily basis. It is common knowledge in this body that no one wants to serve on the Ethics Committee. It is a responsibility that no one seeks but, frankly, must be handled.

I think, frankly, everyone understands that there have been ethical lapses by some of our colleagues in the last few years. That committee has dealt with those lapses as best it could, handling a workload that is unpredictable, and it is by its very nature highly charged and occasionally and unfortunately partisan.

To do that job, the last Congress increased the funding for the committee by approximately 40 percent. Even that was probably not enough to handle the job which had been given to us by the House, but it is certainly not enough to deal with the new responsibilities that the majority has chosen to extend to that committee.

The majority party ran on a platform of ethics and made it a major issue in the last campaign, and frankly, it passed with strong, bipartisan support an ethics package as the very first act that calls, again, on Members to do more in the committee to supervise and do more.

Now the majority party is actually refusing to do what they promised; that is, they are refusing to fund the 41 percent increase in the underlying legislation that their own chairman of the Ethics Committee and the ranking member have jointly requested.

We have been able to find millions of dollars to fund the global warming effort, a select committee, a committee, frankly, that has no duties, no responsibilities, no legislative priorities, but it is an important committee, and I recognize the importance of looking at that extremely important issue. At the same time, we will not fund a committee that already has the smallest budget of any standing committee, whose responsibilities we have magnified, compounded and increased greatly.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle again made ethics a major issue in the last campaign, and frankly, they have threatened to make it a major issue in the next campaign. Fair enough. I think everybody should be scrutinized that is privileged to serve in this body, but if you are going to do that, you have to give the committee the financial resources to do the job that it is charged to do, and frankly, you have to provide the Members of this body with the services that they need to avoid inadvertently breaking the rules and becoming the target for political cheap shots, whether they are launched by one side or the other.

It is simply irresponsible to the Members of this body. I am not surprised that our friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to yield us some more time to talk about this simply because they are in an indefensible position.

Do the right thing: Vote against this hollow rule and give the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the funding it needs to get its job done.

Madam Speaker, the Congressional Record lists me as not voting on rollcall vote 115, Ms. Foxx's amendment to H.R. 800.

I had intended to vote ``aye.''

I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate over the last 2 days, really dozens and dozens of speeches, and, frankly, speeches of exceptionally high quality on both sides of the issue. I have listened particularly to the speakers who were here in 2002 when the momentous decision to go to war was actually made. Those who were opposed, I have admired because in their opposition in October of 2002 they were taking an unpopular position, but clearly one that they believed in, and I think they deserve our respect for that, even if I don't agree with that particular point of view.

Second, I have watched those who voted in favor of that tough decision, and I have watched as they have stuck to that decision because they believe the stakes are so important for the United States. They have done so even when public opinion has turned against their position. And I admire that.

Frankly, I have watched speakers who have changed their position, who were first for the war and now are opposed to it. It is easy to deride people in that position. But, quite frankly, I have watched them, and they are anguished in their opinions and their conclusions; they are sensitive, obviously, to the easy and cheap criticism of opportunism. And I particularly admire those, frankly, in my own party who have broken with their President and their party over a position that they believe in deeply. I don't agree with them, but I admire them.

What I don't admire is the Democratic leadership that has brought us a resolution which is divisive without being decisive. It orders no action. I have spoken on that at length before, and I am not going to go into it now. I want to instead focus on the issues at stake.

Like all of those elected in 2002, 2004, 2006, I was not part of the initial decision to go to war, and, frankly, I often think how fortunate I was to have been spared that responsibility. But, of course, none of us on this floor ever truly escapes responsibility.

My attitude toward this conflict reflects that of my district and, frankly, that of my father, who was a career noncommissioned officer in the United States Army. I recall once when he was talking about war, he summed it up pretty simply: When you are in it, win it.

That is what I have tried to do with my vote, my voice, my energy, since I have been elected to represent my district. I have done so because, frankly, in some areas I have seen progress. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was a good thing and I am proud that that was accomplished, and it would not have been accomplished without the valor and the professionalism of American men and women in arms.

I am pleased to have seen a Constitution formed in Iraq that is the envy of the Arab world.

I am proud to have seen three elections take place, all of which had increasingly high participation and had, frankly, higher percentages than vote in our own elections.

I was hopeful when I saw a coalition government formed that had Kurds, that had Sunnis, that had Shia, that had other elements in the Iraqi population.

I have been impressed with Iraqi forces that do stand and fight. And let's make no mistake about it: Most of the fighting and dying militarily is being done by Iraqis and they deserve our respect for that.

And, frankly, I think like all Americans, I was enormously relieved when I see actors like the late al-Zarqawi, people who would kill Americans anywhere, anytime, who are not from Iraq, being sought out with the help of Iraqis and killed far away from our shores. That is important, and that is something we should acknowledge.

I have also supported the war because I feared the consequences of defeat in Iraq. And, believe me, there are consequences to losing the war. These are real.

If we are not successful in Iraq, we will have an emboldened enemy. Not just the terrorists that we deal with, they are bad enough, but also the states that use terrorism as a tool of diplomacy. States like Iran, states like Syria, will draw comfort.

We will have demoralized friends in the region and around the world that wonder whether or not they can really count on us once we make a commitment.

We will see the death of an infant democracy, never a good thing for the lovers of freedom.

We will see a sectarian bloodbath in Iraq that will result in the death of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis.

And we will see a destabilized region in which the United States has vital interests and to which our own security is intimately tied.

I acknowledge that things have not gone in Iraq as I, certainly, and I think everybody, regardless of their position on the issue, would have hoped. There is no question that we underestimated what was required, not to defeat Saddam, frankly, that was done brilliantly, but to secure Iraq.

We have underestimated the persistence of and the difficulty the outside players would create for us. We underestimated how anxious people inside Iraq would be to settle old scores instead of to look ahead. And we have underestimated the impact of the divided loyalties of Iraqis themselves, where so often we see sect against sect, ethnicity against ethnicity, tribe against tribe.

But these difficulties and mistakes, regrettable as they are, do not change the consequences of losing in Iraq, for the region, for Iraqis, and, most importantly, for ourselves.

At this critical point, the President has offered a plan to avert defeat, and, if the Iraqis are up to the task, to turn the tide. It has an American military component, and that is what this resolution deals with.

But contrary to what I have heard on the floor, it is not a major escalation in forces. It is not an effort to allow the Iraqis to avoid the fighting. Nor is it an effort to win militarily. It is an effort to buy the time needed to create an environment in Iraq that will allow Iraqis to succeed politically. It will allow them to begin to push toward the reconciliation process and review the de-Baathification program. It will allow them to share power with one another. It will allow provisional elections to take place. It will allow oil revenue to be distributed more equitably. It will allow Iraqi units the time to train, stand up and continue to fight and fight more professionally and proficiently than they have.

The U.S. force is indispensable in achieving these measures, but it will not be and it is not intended to be decisive. What will win or lose in Iraq ultimately are Iraqi politicians: Can they put their differences aside? Iraqi soldiers: Can they fight for their country instead of against one another? And the Iraqi people: Can they put aside the differences and demand better leadership than they have received thus far from their own people.

Some will say this is a hopeless task, but our military leaders and our troops in the field don't tell us that. General Petraeus, a man whom all sides acknowledge is not only professional, capable, but is dedicated and a great patriot, tells us he thinks this is an achievable mission if he has the forces he needs to succeed. The average soldiers that I talked to from my district

and other units also tell me they believe this is doable. But they want us in Congress and in this country to have the political resolve to match their personal courage.

History teaches us that freedom is a powerful force. We should trust it. And it also teaches us sometimes it needs outside help. All of us as Americans are justly proud of the American Revolution. We often forget it took a French fleet, French army and Dutch money to finally finish the job.

Mr. Speaker, because I believe the consequences of losing in Iraq are horrible for Iraqis, for Americans, and for the cause of liberty and our friends around the world; because I think that we, the Iraqis and the Americans together, can still win; because I believe that defeat has catastrophic consequences for the United States, I urge the rejection of this resolution and support the cause that our fighting men and women are so nobly advancing in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about the challenges we face as a Nation, and to urge the Members of this House to confront those challenges honestly and forthrightly.

As I do, I remind my colleagues that this House is not a debating society. It is not a place to merely score political points or rhetorical points. It is a place where we should confront the issues that face our country and then act accordingly. This responsibility rests not just with the Members individually, but with the majority especially. We come to this floor not just to speak, opine, and orate. We come here to set policy, to legislate and, most importantly, to act.

This resolution the majority, the Democrats, put before us today presents us with a choice; but after we make that choice, nothing will happen, nothing will change. We will have chosen to state our opinion, but we will refuse to act on that opinion. Some will see this as a tragedy; some, Madam Speaker, will see it as a farce.

This resolution is not serious. It is a political ploy rather than a principled position. It is sound and fury that signifies nothing. It is a cruel joke on those who sincerely want to leave Iraq before our mission is finished, and it is an affront to those of us who wish to succeed in Iraq. But while this politically motivated resolution achieves nothing, it does have real and lasting consequences. Passing this resolution will embolden our enemies, it will discourage our friends, and it will disappoint our troops. It will raise questions about our seriousness as a legislative body to anyone who actually pays attention to our proceedings, and it will lead our enemies to question our resolve and it will leave our men and women in uniform wondering why we are sending them on a mission in which we do not believe, but lack the political courage to cancel.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and disappointed that the majority party would bring a resolution to the floor which condemns an action directed by our Commander in Chief and his military advisers yet which neither forbids that action nor offers an alternative course.

If the majority party, the Democratic Party, was being honest with their supporters and with the American people, they would have a straight up-or-down vote on whether or not to fund the initiative ordered by the President. This is the way in which we should approach our constitutionally defined responsibility in regard to war and peace.

Madam Speaker, I have often voiced my respect for my Democratic colleagues on the floor, and as individuals I do respect and admire them. However, I neither respect nor admire the manner in which their leadership has chosen to frame the issue which they now place before the House. My friends on the other side of the aisle have abdicated the responsibilities of being in the majority.

They do not want to legislate. They do not want to act, they just want to state an opinion. But they are stating it in a fashion that will lead many to question our sincerity as Members of this House and to doubt the effectiveness of the institution which we all love, and they are now privileged to lead.

Madam Speaker, the majority in this body has the responsibility to do more than just criticize. So, I ask, what is their plan? We don't know. How will they achieve a stable Iraq? They won't say.

It is time for Democrats to step up and answer these questions. It is easy to second-guess the decisions of former Congresses and the President. It is easy to reconsider one's support and the support many in this Congress and in their majority have voiced in the past of placing additional troops in Iraq. But, what is easy isn't always right and certainly not in this case.

Let there be no mistake. Our soldiers are engaged in combat this very minute. Our military commanders have voiced support for the mission that they have been asked to complete. General Petraeus, our commander in Iraq, supports the surge of forces. Indeed he says he needs these additional troops to succeed. Moreover, the declassified National Intelligence Estimate makes clear the disaster that would result from failure in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, let us consider what will happen if the Democrats are successful in undermining the mission and the objectives of the surge. What would it mean? What effect would this have on our forces? What would be the implications for our Nation and the region?

Well, Madam Speaker, at a practical level, it would certainly mean that our enemies would know they have weakened the will and resolve of the American people. They would take this as a lesson and a guide for the future. At a tactical level, it would likely increase the level of insurgent activity aimed at destroying our forces. Additionally, it would also mean that, lacking reinforcement, our current forces would be stretched even further.

Strategically adopting this resolution would undermine the credibility of the United States. It will make the region more chaotic and dangerous than it is today. I remember many Members of the majority party calling for an increase in the size of our force in Iraq not so long ago. I remember numerous statements by Members from the other side of the aisle that said the alternatives to success were too horrible to contemplate. They were right, but now those concerns seem to be no longer operative.

I am under no illusions that we face an easy road ahead in Iraq. Quite frankly, it is the greatest challenge our Nation has faced in a generation. However, the alternative to showing resolve in Iraq is defeat in the central front in the war on terror. That will be disastrous for the Iraqis, threatening for our friends in the region, and dangerous for the security of our own country.

That is why this resolution is so disturbing. Democrats want to have it three ways. They want to criticize the President's plan, offer none of their own, and then refuse to let our side of the aisle offer a proposal for consideration by this body. A nonbinding resolution is no plan for the future. It is a plan for the next election.

In the next few days, I will continue to engage in this debate and outline what I believe to be the real challenges and choices that we face, and why we must support the surge in forces. I hope that in this debate my side persuades my colleagues to reject this resolution.

But if they are not persuaded, then I hope they will have the political courage to act, as opposed to just talk; that they will legislate as opposed to just debate. I hope they will discharge their duties as a majority by laying out and enacting their strategy, as opposed to merely criticizing the President and complicating a dangerous situation faced by our forces in the field

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 6, the so-called CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. I oppose this bill because in it our Democratic friends are putting America's security and economic vitality at risk. This bill is fundamentally a tax-increasing and job-destroying piece of legislation that will result in less energy independence, not more.

Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions within this bill that I take exception to. As one of the Representatives from Oklahoma, I would focus on a particularly onerous provision that will assist in the destruction of small American producers in the domestic oil and gas industry.

In 2005, the Republicans worked for and passed legislation with substantial Democratic support creating clear incentives for domestic production of oil. That policy contributes directly to our efforts to achieve energy independence in America. Today, the Democratic Party claims the oil and gas industry has become too profitable and believes this industry needs to be reined in by burdening it with increased taxes. This conclusion is wrong, and the end result will be increased reliance on foreign oil production, less energy independence here in America, and higher prices for every American consumer.

This legislation is based on the false premise that the oil and gas industry is too profitable. In fact, according to the Census Bureau and the American Petroleum Institute: ``The oil and gas industry earned 8.5 cents on every dollar of sales compared to 7.4 cents for all U.S. manufacturing, mining and wholesale trade.'' The API further states: ``For the last 5 years, the oil and gas industry has earned 5.9 cents compared to an average for all U.S. industry of 5.2 cents for every dollar of sales.'' This is hardly greedy or out of line with other U.S. businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the negative ripple effects of this tax on one of the most basic industries in America are dire; and this will affect the whole oil and gas industry, both large and small. Eliminating this tax break is certain to increase the price of gasoline, natural gas and heating oil, as the extra costs will be passed on to consumers. Consumers should oppose it for the same reasons they oppose taxes on imported oil and gas production: it will raise prices. Moreover, it will discourage domestic energy exploration, extraction, production, and refining, thereby making America more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas. And it will harm State and local economies as smaller producers are forced to shut down marginal wells. Oklahoma has roughly 70,000 wells producing less than 10 barrels of oil a day, and these will be among the first wells to close down due to unsustainable costs in this tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 will have profound and long-lasting harmful effects on our economy and our security. Overall, this bill takes our country in the opposite direction than the one in which we need to go. H.R. 6 is nothing more than a ploy by the Democratic Party to create political sound bites at

the expense of sound energy policy. Frankly, I hope my Democratic friends from energy-producing States do not feel compelled out of blind partisan loyalty to vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to praise a truly good man. With the passing of President Gerald Ford, the House of Representatives lost its most distinguished alumni, and America lost a great patriot who always placed his country's good ahead of his own political interest. Gerald Ford was a man of absolute integrity and profound personal decency.

Much has been said about President Ford's distinguished career in the House and as President. Many will rightly recall his absolute integrity and his profound personal decency. To build upon those remarks, I would like to share some of my personal interactions with Gerald Ford. I had the honor of meeting and working with former President Ford on many occasions after he left office. I found him to be the same man in private that he was in public--decent, honorable, and self-deprecating in his humor and observations. He was shrewd without being devious and wise without being complicated.

Madam Speaker, President Ford had genuine connections to and affection for Oklahoma and Oklahomans. He told me on several occasions that he became Vice President and ultimately President because of the late Speaker Carl Albert of Oklahoma, who supported his nomination for the Vice Presidency. He always remembered that Oklahoma was one of only two Southern States that he carried in 1976. Indeed, once while making this point to me, he recalled the exact margin of victory--13,266 out of over 1 million cast.

Madam Speaker, during a memorable 1976 campaign stop in Oklahoma, President Ford said, ``It's great to be in Oklahoma, the home of Will Rogers, who never met a man he didn't like, and the Oklahoma Sooners, who never played a team they couldn't beat.'' I later told him that single line won Oklahoma for him. ``Well,'' he responded, ``talking college football is pretty good politics in a lot of places. You might try it if you're ever campaigning in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or just about anywhere in the South.'' It is still one of the best pieces of advice I ever got from a practicing politician.

President Ford paired his intelligence with empathy and his candor with modesty. He was as politically astute as he was personally decent, something that all too many people forget. He was absolutely loyal to his party while still approaching politics in a pragmatic and bipartisan manner that made genuine political compromise possible. The House was all the better because of his character, and so too was our country. When speaking to the Congress, the President said with his usual humility that he was a Ford, not a Lincoln. Today, only the best among us might be able to call themselves Fords.

We will all miss him very much, Madam Speaker, and I strongly urge support of H. Res. 15.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1053 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert tabular and extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of resolutions reported by the Rules Committee on the same day. The rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII and applies a special waiver to any resolutions reported this legislative day.

Mr. Speaker, it is of the utmost importance for the House to pass this rule and move the debate along so that important legislation may be considered before the House adjourns. Legislation that may be considered under this same-day rule may include the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act and the Port Security Act and other measures brought to the floor through a special rule reported by the committee. This rule will provide the House the flexibility and ability to move the remaining legislation in a timely and efficient manner so that we can adjourn this legislative day.

To that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to just disagree with my good friend from Massachusetts on his characterization of the accomplishments of this Congress. As a matter of fact, if you start ticking off the record, it is pretty impressive: bankruptcy reform, class action lawsuit reform, a transportation bill that put more money into our infrastructure than any transportation bill in American history, significant energy legislation passed last year, dealing with the entitlement spending problem, an across-the-board budget cut.

All of those are genuine accomplishments. Pension reform, bill after bill after bill. Some of them bipartisan, some of them, frankly, passed without the cooperation of our friends.

And, frankly, to criticize us for minimum wage, when in this House we have voted on and passed the minimum wage increase and passed, along with it, a reform of the death tax and tax extender bills that are important, I think is somewhat disingenuous.

That legislation passed with a majority vote on this floor; and, frankly, a majority of the other body favored that legislation. Our friends on the other side of the aisle used their friends on the other side of the rotunda to routinely block progress. Even when the majority of the United States Senate agrees with the will of this House, as was the case with the minimum wage, with ANWR, and another piece of legislation with the tax extenders, with reform of the death tax, an obstructionist minority of Democrats on the other side keep a bipartisan majority from actually reaching the magic 60 vote level that is required in moving legislation forward.

We are not responsible for that. Frankly, I am proud of what we have moved through the floor here.

I also want to disagree with my good friend on the Medicare measure that he discussed in his remarks. Quite frankly, it is something that I think our good friends on the other side of the aisle are embarrassed that they did not support. It was the largest expansion of spending for senior citizens and entitlement spending since 1965. Since 1965.

Now the argument that the Democrats advanced that night, and I was here, was it is not enough. They were not willing to vote for something that was the largest increase in almost 40 years. It simply was not enough. And I think now that tens of thousands of seniors are getting health care that in the past they were not able to get, and that our friends on the other side had nothing to do with that accomplishment puts them in the position where they feel like they have to take away from the achievement that they could have been part of but rejected the opportunity to participate in.

Finally, let me just conclude my observation that there are only two times when we get criticized from the other side of the aisle. That is when we do something and when we do not.

Day after day, and particularly morning after morning this week, we have heard demands from the floor or from the well of this body on the floor that we have up or down votes on issue after issue after issue. Now when we are bringing important issues for up or down votes, issues that in many cases have been dealt with for months through the committee process, we are dealing with conference reports or providing an up or down opportunity, we are criticized for that. So I suspect we are going to be criticized regardless of what we do.

What I am pleased with is the record of accomplishment that this Congress has to offer to the American people in issue after issue. My only regret is that, frankly, our friends on the other side of the aisle have so often chosen to obstruct rather than participate, in my opinion, constructively in this process.

I hope that that changes ahead. Frankly, there have been times when it has been different on this floor. I would hold the pension reform bill out as an example of that. I would also point out on things like the PATRIOT Act, where we had 40 odd of our friends from the other side participating; tort reform, where 70 odd of our friends participated on the other side; there have been many instances of bipartisan reform cooperation. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it has diminished as we have moved forward in the Congress and moved closer to November.

I hope on the other side of November that will change. But I, for one, am very proud of this Congress and what it has accomplished; and I look forward to working with our friends on the other side of the aisle so we can accomplish more in the months that remain in this Congress and, frankly, in the next one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) to file a conference report.

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

I want to take a moment to respond to my good friend from Massachusetts. We simply, I guess, see the world differently. The reality is most of the legislation that comes to this floor that passes is bipartisan, passes with at least a bipartisan vote. It is my friends on the other side who so often find themselves in lonely partisan isolation, less frequent on this side of the aisle.

Again, I could go issue after issue, whether it is tort reform, the PATRIOT Act, bankruptcy reform, the transportation bill, defense bills, there are overwhelming bipartisan votes.

Frankly, I think our friends at this point are more interested in problems than solutions. They simply do not want to run on them. They want to create the impression that the Congress has been neither productive and is overly partisan. That is something we are going to have to agree to disagree on.

I also want to again remind my friend, on the Medicare bill, it is this side of the aisle that provided tens of millions of seniors with prescription drug coverage for the first time ever, and I think if my friend checked the polling reports or checked the rates of satisfaction he would find that it is very, very high. I personally think our friends are disappointed in themselves for not having participated, not having worked with us.

Many times our friends want to negotiate, but they also tell us what is nonnegotiable before we sit down to negotiate. They certainly did that during the Medicare situation. They certainly did that when the administration wanted to discuss Social Security earlier last year: these are the things we will not talk about; now, let us sit down and talk. That is not a negotiation in my opinion.

Finally, I want to remind my friends, when they move on education spending, I would be delighted to debate the record of this Congress and frankly this administration in the area of funding education. The largest increase in spending for education at all levels has occurred during the Bush administration, over 50 percent since 2001. It is this party that has delivered time and time and time again when it came to funding.

Finally, last point, my friend made the point that the minimum wage would pass quote ``if.'' It did pass. This is the point. It came to this floor and passed. It went to the United States Senate. Over half, 57 of our Senators out of a body of 100 of the other body, were in favor of that legislation. It was a minority that blocked the passage of the minimum wage and a minority in the United States Senate. I regret that. We still have time before the Congress is finished to deal with that, and I hope that we do after the election.

I think there are some that would rather have election issues than have a solution. I think when you offer a compromise solution, we had many Members in this body who did not want to raise the minimum wage. We had many Members in this body that did want to raise it. We had also Members that wanted to reform the death tax, those that did not. Most of us on both sides of the aisle were in favor of the extenders. That was actually a very finely crafted compromise that had something for everybody. Our good friends wanted everything for themselves, but nothing for anybody else in terms of the compromise.

I think we have put on this floor a fair bill, a bill we can be proud of. I am very proud to be able to go home and say I voted for a minimum wage increase; when it came to the floor of the House, I voted to reform the death tax; and I voted to extend some important economic tax incentives and a reduction. I wish more of the Congress could, but the majority of us actually can go home and say that.

The majority in the United States Senate can say it. It is the obstructionist minority in the other body that chose not to participate in the compromise with us, but again, there is still time left in the Congress. We will be back here in all likelihood in November and December. I hope that opportunity on the other side of the election will lead us to be able to pass significant compromise legislation. Frankly, I trust that it will.

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

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

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

I want to just note for the record I am delighted to finally hear something good about Wal-Mart coming from the other side because generally that is not what we hear, but I agree with my good friend. It is a great company and not just a great Arkansas company, but a great American company.

I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very proud when I had the opportunity to vote to give tens of millions of seniors drug coverage for the first time in the history, I did.

I am very happy and very proud that when I had the opportunity on this floor to vote for an increase in the minimum wage, I did.

I am very happy when I had the opportunity to vote for, first, the elimination and then the reform of the death tax so small business people and farmers can keep their properties, I did.

I am very glad when the PATRIOT Act came up for reauthorization I had the opportunity to vote to make our country safer and stronger, and I did.

I am very glad I had the opportunity to vote for liability reform for medical cases, and when the opportunity came to vote on the floor, I was pleased to do so.

Finally, when I have had on a number of occasions the opportunity to vote for measures that would increase the energy independence of this country and hold down the escalation of gasoline prices, I have done that. I am very pleased that I had an opportunity to do so.

I think what we are hearing today is unfortunately regret that so many of our friends on the other side of the aisle did not vote for those things when they had the opportunity; and rather than simply express their disagreement, they are simply trying to denigrate the work of the Congress, which has been productive and good for the American people.

So I am pleased with the record of Congress and look forward to going home to talk about it and look forward, again, to the balance of the Congress after the election.

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

I am prepared to close when the gentleman is.

Mr. Speaker, I know we are not at Halloween yet, but we must be getting close, because we have to scare the American people on issue after issue after issue.

Frankly, most of the measures that my good friend talked about, if they were brought up, would have to be brought up under the very same closed rules he so often voices his concern about.

We are told this Congress somehow operates differently than the others. I simply want to provide for the information of our body some information provided to me by the Congressional Research Service. Same day rules during the last week of session during the final three Democratic Congresses, the Hundred First, the Hundred Second and the Hundred Third, totaled six. Same day rules under the last three Republican Congresses, the Hundred Seventh, the Hundred Eighth and the Hundred Ninth, totaled five. Basically, the body operates about the same way procedurally that it has operated throughout most of its history and certainly throughout its recent history.

I also want to remind my friends who talk about the minimum wage that they had the opportunity to vote for a minimum wage increase. I voted for it. I certainly am happy that I did. I wish more of my friends had. A majority of this body did. Indeed, a bipartisan majority. A bipartisan majority of the United States Senate favored it.

It was my friends' friends on the other side of the rotunda that decided not to enter in and allow that increase to take place because they wanted a perfect bill from their perspective. They didn't want to compromise. They didn't want to give and take. They didn't want to have some discussion. Frankly, what they wanted is what they got, or what they believe they got, which is a political issue for the November elections.

I am hopeful that after the elections are over we can come back here and actually have a discussion and come to a compromise solution, such as was crafted on the floor in this body.

Our friends talk to us a lot about education. I think they should. They probably ought to thank President Bush for being the best friend education ever had. It is President Bush who came up with No Child Left Behind, and it was President Bush who has recommended throughout his tenure over a 50 percent increase in Federal funding of education.

My friends are concerned about the cost of tuition. So am I. I just had a son who graduated. I am very grateful. But, quite frankly, most of that problem is at the State level, where we have State government after State government running enormous surpluses, yet not passing some of that surplus on to higher education institutions and to their own students.

The reality is that after coming in with a recession beginning in 2001, followed by September 11, something that all of us on both sides of the aisle recognize as a dastardly and disastrous event, this administration and this Republican Congress has gotten the economy moving again and has accomplishment after accomplishment to run on. I am not surprised that our friends on the other side see it differently or want to obscure it, but I have profound faith in the good judgment of the American people to understand fiction and understand fact and know the difference between the two.

Mr. Speaker, today, in closing, I want to reiterate the importance of passing this rule. This rule allows us to move forward, pass the necessary legislation, and to do the business of the American people. It is interesting how we have heard complaints by the other side of the aisle that this is a do-nothing Congress, yet at the same time the other side wants to slow down the process today to prevent important bipartisan legislation from being passed. It wants, in effect, to do less, not more.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is no surprise that I intend to vote for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1062 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and attach tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a special rule for consideration of H.R. 5122, the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 5122 and the underlying legislation. Today, we are at a critical juncture. The conference report for the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act is before us. This legislative companion to the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill authorizes and provides critical legislative language for full implementation of our defense policies.

Let us be clear: This is an excellent piece of legislation, a good bipartisan package that represents the best work of the House Armed Services Committee. Recognizing that, I would like to personally thank both the gentleman from California, Chairman Hunter, and the gentleman from Missouri, Ranking Member Skelton, for delivering a package that I am sure almost all of us can support.

Mr. Speaker, having served on the House Armed Services Committee and currently being a member on leave of absence from that committee, I know how closely the members of that committee work together to achieve a bill that is bipartisan, that is good for our servicemen and women and that is good for increasing the security of our country.

Mr. Speaker, this year, the Armed Services Committee produced a bill that contains several major legislative initiatives and funding impacts. Among them are an additional $70 billion in supplemental bridge funding to support the war on terror's operations costs; personnel expenses and procurement of new equipment; additional funding for force protection needs in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, including up-armored Humvees, Humvee IED protection kits and gunner protection kits, IED jammers and state-of- the-art body armor; a 2.2 percent pay raise for all members of our Armed Forces; and an increase of 30,000 personnel for the Army and 5,000 personnel for the Marine Corps to help them sustain their required missions.

The bill blocks the Department of Defense proposed TRICARE Prime, Standard, and Select Reserve fee increases. The bill authorizes grants and loan guarantees to U.S. shipyards to approve their efficiency, cost effectiveness, and international competitiveness. The bill fully funds the immediate Army and Marine Corps shortfalls for replenishing supplies and replacing equipment in the amount of $17.1 billion for the Army and $5.7 billion for the Marines.

Mr. Speaker, more importantly this legislation directly supports our servicemen and -women in the field and on deployment. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are dependent on us passing this legislation that contains so many changes in legislative language.

Mr. Speaker, a bumper sticker we often read says: ``I support our troops.'' Today we have that opportunity and responsibility. We could support our troops and improve the security of our Nation in a way that other Americans cannot. We can offer our vote in support of this legislation as 60 of 61 members of the House Armed Services Committee did when they initially passed the bill.

This is not a controversial proposition. This is something we should be proud to do, regardless of our perspectives and different positions on the war in Iraq. All of us are proud of our troops. All of us are committed to them and commend them for their courage and their professionalism, and all of us will do everything we can to increase their safety and effectiveness.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not also note that the Afghan and the Iraqi people also deserve to be commended for their efforts in our common struggle. During this war, the citizens of both these countries have held elections, written constitutions, and formed permanent governments. Afghan and Iraqi citizens are watching what we do here today. They require and request our continued support as they move forward in their efforts to build new and better countries. The passage of this rule and underlying legislation is an important sign that this country and Congress will keep its commitments. Afghanistan and Iraq are striving to create a future of hope and promise. We can play an important role in helping them do that here today.

Mr. Speaker, many may wish to raise policy issues in this debate. Some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are superfluous to providing for the needs of our men and women in uniform. And I welcome that exchange, if indeed it occurs.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we should focus on what should count. We have committed hundreds of thousands of our service men and -women to fight terrorism and advance the cause of

freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe them our full support in the battles they wage on behalf of the American people and the cause of liberty. This rule and the underlying bill represent the efforts of Congress to keep that solemn commitment to the sons and daughters of America. Mr. Speaker, to that end, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may care to consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who does so much to make sure that we operate in an orderly and expeditious fashion in this Congress.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may care to consume to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter, from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

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

Today, in closing, I want to reiterate the importance of passing this rule. This rule allows us to move forward and pass necessary legislation and do the business of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly again want to thank the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and also the ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). They have worked together on this legislation and presented us with a truly model bill and one I think they adjusted during the legislative process to meet the needs of American men and women who are serving under very difficult circumstances to protect this country.

I particularly appreciate the fact that they made sure that these deserving individuals got a pay raise, that they made sure that the people who defended the country in the past were not subjected to unnecessary fee increases in the Tricare system, and they worked hard to shift funds towards force protection and the protection of individual American soldiers. And, at the same time, they addressed the very, very serious and critical needs of the Army and Marine Corps in terms of additional personnel and additional equipment.

I think the chairman and the ranking member can be exceptionally proud of their efforts, and I think all of us can appreciate the bipartisan spirit that the members of the House Armed Services Committee acted in, and I am sure when we vote later today we will have a strong vote in support of the legislation.

Obviously, it comes as no surprise that I intend to vote for the rule and the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1042 and ask for its immediate consideration

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert tabular and extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The rule provides 2 hours of debate, with 80 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, and 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

Additionally, it provides that the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the underlying bicameral compromise legislation. This critical legislation ensures that we align the procedural protections for captured terrorists with our Constitution. In doing so, we are extending unprecedented legal and procedural protections to enemies who provide no protections to their captives and victims, and who have neither signed nor operate by the Geneva Convention.

To further ensure American Security and to ensure that terrorist detainees are not released to once again wreak havoc, it is necessary to move this legislation and develop a clear set of standards for military commissions.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, time is of the essence in moving forward with this legislation. These commissions will provide an important tool for our servicemen and women in obtaining operationally sensitive information from terrorists captured on the battlefield. However, the reform of the tribunal system to ensure certain procedural rights for these terrorists will also provide an impetus and an opportunity for those currently in our detainee system to cooperate more fully.

Mr. Speaker, as I know you are aware, the underlying legislation was developed after intense negotiations between both the legislative and executive branches of government. Furthermore, its development has been supported by senior Members of both parties and has largely received bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. Indeed, I predict once the legislation is actually presented, it will be passed by a strong bipartisan majority in this House.

Indeed, when an earlier, stronger and more restrictive version of this same bill moved through the House Armed Services Committee, it passed by a vote of 52-8, with one member voting present. This strong bipartisan majority on the primary committee of expertise and jurisdiction should be taken as a sign of its importance and the support for moving forward with the prosecution of those terrorists who, if set free, would resume killing American civilians and our servicemen and women as a matter of course and a tactic of terror.

Mr. Speaker, today we may well hear several concerns about the way in which the bill was brought forward to the floor. As we all know, when you can't win a debate on the merits of a piece of legislation, process attacks are the best way of slowing down and obstructing progress of that legislation. But the fact remains that within the last 2 weeks, both the House Armed Services Committee and the House Judiciary Committee passed legislation even stronger than the legislation we are voting on today. Since then, bicameral negotiations have resulted in even more modifications to the underlying legislation ensuring even more rights for the terrorists accused of war crimes. But, Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence. We must move this legislation to the President's desk. It does much to enhance America's security and to create an equitable system for prosecuting terrorists captured on the battlefield.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would like to speak to what protections the underlying legislation provides to those who would like to kill Americans. It provides: The right to counsel, provided by the government at trial throughout the appellate process; an impartial military judge; a presumption of innocence; a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the right to be informed of the charges against the accused as soon as practicable; the right to service of charges sufficiently in advance of trial to prepare a defense; the right to reasonable continuances; the right to peremptory challenge against members of the commission and challenges for cause against members of the commission and the military judge; witnesses must testify under oath; judges, counsel, and members of the military commission must take an oath; a right to enter a plea of not guilty; the right to obtain witnesses and other evidence; the right to exculpatory evidence as soon as practicable; the right to be present in court with the exceptions of certain classified evidence involving national security, preservation of safety or preventing disruption of proceedings; the right to a public trial except for national security issues or physical safety issues; the right to have any findings or sentences announced as soon as determined; the right against compulsory self-incrimination; the right against double jeopardy; the defense of a lack of mental responsibility; prohibitions against unlawful command influence toward members of the commission, counsel, or military judges; it requires a two-thirds vote of members for conviction, three-fourths vote required for sentences of life or over 10 years, and unanimous verdict required for the death penalty; it requires a verbatim authenticated record of the trial; cruel or unusual punishments are prohibited; treatment and discipline during the confinement the same as afforded to prisoners in U.S. domestic courts; the right to review the full factual record by the convening authority; and the right to at least two appeals, including a Federal article 3 appellate appeal.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, all these protections that we are willing to provide terrorists are the very same protections that they ignore when beating, mutilating, and killing our civilians and servicemen. These terrorists have no respect for the rule of law. They are not signatories to the Geneva Convention. They do not fight in uniforms, and they kill innocent civilians of all faiths and all nationalities routinely, yet we are willing to grant to them substantive legal protections that I honestly believe go beyond the actual requirements of the Geneva Convention.

With that said, I would urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just quickly want to note, I am very proud of my country. I am proud that we extend protections to our adversaries that they do not extend to us. I am proud that in the few cases where there are transgressions, those are vigorously prosecuted and exposed by this country. So I have great pride in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the

gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, my good friend, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say quickly for the record I think we are operating by the Golden Rule. I wish our opponents were. I wish they extended to American soldiers the same rights that they are given under this legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, my fellow Rules Committee member, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, today in closing, I want to again draw the attention of Members to the strength of the underlying bicameral compromise legislation, H.R. 6166. We have had a vigorous and good debate on the rule which I believe will help convince the House to support this vital measure.

I honestly believe when Members sit back and consider the underlying legislation carefully, they know we must move forward and pass both the rule and the bill. This is not an issue that we can take lightly, and we must act to enhance and secure America's security by providing the proper legal tools for our forces.

I believe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have spoken against this measure are very sincere and are very honorable in their intentions. But I want to conclude by adding a personal perspective on this particular issue. I had an uncle who served in the United States Navy during the Second World War.

He was captured in the Philippines in 1942, did the Bataan Death March, served throughout the war, first in the Philippines and then in the mainland of Japan as a prisoner of war.

During that process, he suffered enormous abuse. The first speech I gave on the floor of this House when I was privileged to serve was in support of a resolution that was presented in a bipartisan fashion that we would hold the then-Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein accountable for their treatment of any American POWs that might fall into their hands.

And, frankly, when we had the discussion on the Armed Services Committee about Abu Ghraib, I was probably as tough as anybody certainly on my side of the aisle in pointing out where I thought we had had inconsistencies, shortcomings and failures, and that those needed to be corrected.

But I have also had the opportunity, serving in this body, to go to Guantanamo and to talk to our interrogators and talk to our guards and talk to them about the nature of the enemy with which we deal. I need to remind my good friends, we are not dealing with criminals. We are dealing with terrorists.

We are not dealing with people who have broken our law, we are dealing with people that want to kill our citizens. We are dealing with an enemy that is very unlike any we have confronted before in the history of our country.

These are not uniformed combatants in the service of a foreign country; these terrorists are not uniformed; they are not under the supervision of legitimate governments; they do not recognize the Geneva Convention; they do not extend to the prisoners that they take of all faiths, of all nationalities, any rights, any privileges, any protections whatsoever.

We can be enormously proud as Americans that we have not stooped to that standard, that this legislation has been carefully crafted and negotiated, ensures the rights, ensures protections, sets up standards. And I have no doubt that our courts, our military, our judicial system, our legal system, will hold anybody who violates those rights to very high standards, as indeed we have done in the past.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very good rule and a very good bill. It offers us the opportunity for an up-or-down vote, which, as the chairman of the Rules Committee pointed out earlier, we have heard a great deal about this morning, the need for up and down votes and clarity. We have got that here.

Mr. Speaker, I predict at the end of the day we will have an exceptionally strong bipartisan vote in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for the rule and the underlying legislation--and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1037 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert tabular and extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 5631, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. Speaker, when the Rules Committee met on Monday night, it reported a rule that waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. Additionally, it provides that the conference report be considered as read.

Today, I rise to support the rule for H.R. 5631 and the underlying legislation. This piece of legislation is a hard-fought compromise between the House and the Senate. The required give and take in this case is a tremendous example of the dedication that Members of both bodies of Congress and both political parties have when it comes to supporting our troops in the field.

Mr. Speaker, many said we could not be at this point today. Many expected compromise could not be reached. I am pleased to say this has not been the case.

Furthermore, the underlying legislation also provides the continuing resolution for the government to remain in operation until November 17. This represents a great compromise and maintains the lower funding levels from either the House or Senate from the previous year or the fiscal year 2006 current rates. H.R. 5631, in short, represents good, bipartisan, bicameral work.

Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of the underlying legislation is to secure and improve the defense of our country. To that end, the underlying legislation provides for several critical needs for our forces. First, its overall level of funding provides $377.6 billion plus $70 billion in the fiscal year 2007 bridge for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Additionally, a full $17.1 billion is provided for the Army for the purpose of resetting and refurbishing the force. This is particularly critical at a time when the Army clearly requires and deserves additional funds to fulfill the many complex and dangerous missions it has been called upon to undertake.

Other critical expenditures in this legislation includes significant dollars for the Army's future combat systems, the Navy's shipbuilding program, and aircraft research and development and procurement by the Air Force.

Rather than focusing on the specific numbers, however, I want to address the fundamental reasons for the underlying legislation and the challenges that it attempts to address.

Mr. Speaker, today we are at war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and are embarked upon the greatest military rebuilding effort in a generation. While our forces are stretched, they are doing a magnificent job. There is no doubt of their dedication, professionalism, and commitment to the missions we have asked them to fulfill. Frankly, we ask more of them than anyone should have to give; yet when we do, they always exceed our expectations.

Mr. Speaker, our combatant commanders and the administration have been very open during the multiple oversight hearings about the challenges they foresee in what they refer to as the long war. It is not a war that can be fought and won by force alone. It is one that requires military action, but also reconstruction, stabilization, and the fostering of democratic concepts and structures of government in areas and among peoples who have been subjected to dictators and totalitarian regimes for decades.

This task is neither simple nor easy. However, it is necessary for the security of our country. When the American people are asked to support our troops in the field, they always respond with the generosity and commitment required of them. Historically, however, Congress and the President have not always funded the military in peacetime at levels necessary to adequately protect us from future threats. I believe that many of the challenges we face today come from underfunding our military during the 1990s.

Mr. Speaker, today we may hear that the force is stressed. We may hear that we don't have enough troops. We may hear about excessive deployment rates. We may hear about increasing levels of stress on military personnel and their families. In large measure, I accept these assertions as true, but they are issues that have grown out of an historical reluctance to see the world for what it is, a very dangerous place.

At the end of the first Bush administration in 1992, we were left with a military that was much larger and could have sustained operations in the

current environment for a much longer period of time. During the 1990s, many of the forces we wish we had today were RIF'ed, disassembled, retired and transferred in pursuit of the so-called ``peace dividend.''

If there is one thing we should learn from this experience, it is that the military is like life insurance: it is expensive, and no one wants to pay for it, but it is there for a specific purpose and to be used when the situation requires.

We have clearly seen what the misguided decision to reduce our forces from 15 divisions and then down to 10 divisions has meant for the Army. It has resulted in a force that is burdened, strained and stretched by our historically naive decisions.

Mr. Speaker, the road out of this situation is not easily traveled. It is one that will require the sustained commitment and support of the administration and both Houses and both parties in Congress. This bill is a step in that direction. It is a step toward achieving our objective in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a step toward building a future for us that can meet America's changing security needs. This is an ongoing process.

However, Mr. Speaker, some today may try to make the underlying legislation out to be more comprehensive than any bill can possibly be. They will argue it should be the final answer, a cure for all problems. This is not, and, indeed, this can never be.

The defense of our country requires a constant vigilance born of necessity. And the funding, sizing and transformation of our military forces is by necessity an evolutionary process. One appropriations bill will not meet all of the challenges or solve all of the security needs of our country. However, this bill is a real substantive and incremental step in securing our future.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriators have forwarded us a bill that is substantial, sound, and needed.

It is a robust vote of confidence in our servicemen and prioritizes the funding on ongoing operations. It is one that I believe we should support. And after all is said and done here today, I am convinced that this bill will indeed receive an overwhelming bipartisan vote of support in this House.

To that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to make a couple of points in response to my good friend from Wisconsin's observations. First, on the bridge fund for appropriations for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, I just want to note for the record, it is considerably higher than it has been in the past, $70 billion, I believe, as opposed to $50 billion. That is a significant increase.

Also, that bridge fund allows us to frankly adapt to changing conditions on the battlefield. The reality is battlefields do not move in budgetary cycles, or wars do not.

And, finally, it keeps us from building in a lot of expense of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq into the permanent base. We think it has been a good procedure to move forward with in this conflict. In terms of the cuts my friend mentioned, let me just say again for the record, if we check each year, we actually spend more money than we do the year before, and on more things.

We have many, many choices to make, many, many tough decisions to make. The most important priority for government is always the defense of its citizens and the operation of its military. I would actually argue, I would probably agree with my friend, we should have been spending more there, we should have spent more there during the 1990s.

In every other area of government, the reality is, including education, you mention No Child Left Behind, our expenditures are considerably higher than they were just a few years ago, and they continue to grow every year.

So while we would all like to do more, the reality is we have increased the expenditures considerably. Some would argue too much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I actually came here to debate the defense budget, but I am happy to respond to a number of points that my good friend from Maryland made.

Let me first say I appreciate his recognition for the outstanding work the Republican Congress did in the final 4 years of the Clinton administration balancing the budget and dragging our friends across the aisle kicking and screaming to that laudable thing.

Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt my friend. I would like to finish my remarks if I may.

Not only did I appreciate the recognition that the budget was balanced with a Republican Congress, I also would ask my good friend simply to recall the situation this administration inherited, a recession that began literally within weeks after the President took office, followed by the shock of 9/11, which sent this economy, we think, into a tailspin.

We had 3 consecutive years of reduced revenue by the Federal Government, the first time since the 1930s that that would happen, and frankly something that I would not blame on any party. I simply think it was an incredibly unfortunate confluence of events with a growth era that had run its course, and was coming down, hit by a dastardly attack that I know we all agree was a great tragedy in American history.

Given that, I think the policies that the President pursued and this Congress supported of cutting taxes, reviving the economy, beginning to create jobs and now increasing the amount of revenue available to us were indeed the right course. And indeed the budget deficit has gotten progressively smaller as those policies have kicked in and been allowed to work.

The challenge in front of us now is coming again to the spending restraint that we found in the bipartisan fashion during the 1990s. I would just point out to my good friend that I very seldom see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle come here and tell us we need to spend less money. They usually propose more money on almost every piece of legislation than we propose.

Ergo, I suspect that means taxes need to go up, because they not only want to cover the current deficit, they want to spend beyond the current spending levels or higher than current spending levels. So on that we are simply going to have a debate and disagree.

I am happy about this legislation. As my good friend from California mentioned, we had wonderful bipartisanship in the conference. We have a product that we can both be proud of. I think both parties and all Members are doing the appropriate thing for the men and women that are serving us in uniform. I look forward to continuing the discussion.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

Well, again I want to thank my friend, in a very back-handed, but I think very obvious fashion thanking that Republican Congress which was actually in control of the purse strings. And I will leave it to the American people to decide who they want as the next President of the United States.

But you have made a very eloquent case, in my opinion, for the continuance of a Republican majority in Congress, because that is when spending control was actually achieved. I thank my friend.

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

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

Again, I came here largely to talk about the defense bill, but I want to discuss some of the points my good friend from Ohio made. While I respect him, I respectfully disagree.

Frankly, the administration, this government, never claimed we went to Iraq because of 9/11. We claim we went there because they repeatedly violated U.N. resolutions and they were pursuing activities, as indeed they were, to get themselves out of sanctions, and they expelled weapons inspectors from their country. Every intelligence agency in the world believed they were pursuing weapons of mass destruction; and, indeed, the reality is we probably simply caught them early in the process, rather than later in the process.

I think my friend's comments are based on the unstated but very real premise that this war is somehow better off if Saddam Hussein was still in Baghdad. That is simply an assertion or an opinion that I reject. I have been to Iraq six times, as many of my colleagues frankly on both sides of the issues have been numerous times, and I simply remind my friends what Saddam Hussein and Baghdad meant: two regional wars that more than 1 million people died in; twice close to nuclear weapons, once in 1981, once in 1991; 270-odd mass graves in Iraq.

I have been to Iraq. Nobody in Iraq wants Saddam Hussein back. Nobody in Iraq, at least of any significant numbers, would tell you that they lived in a good era, and everybody in the region I think would tell you that the region is better off without him.

That does not mean that we have an easy situation that is confronting us. Indeed, it is very difficult and I would acknowledge that up front, but I think it calls for perseverance. I think an immediate withdrawal would be a disaster for the region and, frankly, would endanger people, thousands of whom have placed their faith and their confidence in the United States of America.

I am extraordinarily proud, as I know each and every Member of this body is, of the men and women that wear the uniform of the United States and do the tough job that we ask them to do. I think in the long view of history people will look back on this and say they did a very important job very well for this country and, like their fathers and grandfathers before them, for the region in which they were deployed, because where they go, democracy has followed.

Democracy certainly was not going to break out on its own in Iraq, nor was Saddam Hussein going to wither away on the vine in Iraq, in my opinion.

So I respect the decision that the President and the administration made, that this Congress on a bipartisan basis supported, dozens of my friends on the other side of the aisle voting in favor of giving the President the right to use force; half, I believe, of our friends in other body on the other side of the aisle voting for the President to have the option to use force and go into Iraq.

That is something we ought to remember as we have this debate. We did not go to war on a partisan vote. We went to war on a bipartisan decision.

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

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

I want to differ with my good friend from New York on something. I actually never mentioned President Clinton. You did. I talked about the 1990s, and I think there were mistakes in terms of size in our force by a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. I say this as somebody who was very pleased to serve in my first term on the Armed Services Committee where Members on both sides generally found themselves out of step with the majority on this body on the floor and the administration and wanted to do more. So I do not think this was a partisan mistake. I think this is a bipartisan error in judgment and a mistake about the way the world is, and I think my remarks reflected that.

In terms of talking about whether or not the President told us the truth, I think the record is very clear that he did tell us the best intelligence estimates that we had. And I suspect that most members of the Intelligence Committee, if you look at the committee and go back and look at how they voted on a bipartisan basis, you will find there was considerable bipartisan consensus that that was indeed the case.

Fair enough to say that there is now evidence that the judgment was wrong. I think that is legitimate to bring up and discuss. What concerns me is, quite often, because we now disagree with the judgment, we have to attack the motives of the people who made the judgment at that time. I disagree with that. I think the motives were good motives. We can argue about whether or not the decision was correct, but I do not think the President of the United States deliberately misled this body, nor did this body deliberately mislead the American people in the war. That is my opinion and my view of it.

In terms of not caring about the war on terror, I would submit that is simply not the case. We can disagree about tactics, we can disagree about methods, but the fact that this country has not, thank goodness, and I always knock on wood when I say it, suffered another attack since 9/11, something that nobody on 9/12 would have predicted, is not an accident. It has happened because millions of Americans, thousands of people in uniform, our intelligence system, our border people and, frankly, people in this body have made tough and good decisions to try and keep this country safe.

Now, could it be safer? I will quote the President. We are safer, but we are not safe. I think that is the record, but the reality is we are considerably safer today they than we were on 9/10, the day before, when we had no earthly idea the danger that we were facing and had not taken the preparations in my opinion that we should have taken to deal with it.

I don't judge people harshly for that. People make mistakes, and it is easy to have 20-20 hindsight and be a Monday morning quarterback. But I do give credit when the record shows that somebody has succeeded, and I would tell you, in my opinion, this President, this administration, and, frankly, this Congress has by and large done the right things to keep the country safe over the last several years.

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

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

I simply want to respond to a number of the points my good friend made. First, let me for the record go back and remind people of all the statements that we could line up here of one American leader after another, of both political parties, who told us that Saddam Hussein had active weapons of mass destruction and was actively pursuing those programs.

It was this Congress, under President Clinton, that passed legislation that made it the object of American policy in 1998 to remove him from power because we thought he was a very dangerous person. So I do not think you can say everybody knew that that wasn't the case. Quite the opposite, in my opinion, is true. Most people saw him as a danger.

In my opinion, they were correct. They may not have had an exact count of what he had available, but I think given his record of having used chemical weapons against his own people, of having launched the wars, of having tried twice and come close twice, according to our people, in acquiring numeral weapons, they were right, particularly in light of 9/11, to be very skeptical and very concerned.

Second, I will ask our colleagues to take somewhat of the long view here. If this were 1954-55, we could all get here and say, gosh, wasn't Korea a terrible thing; it is a dictatorship, 50,000 American lives, what a waste. The reality is, if you look at Korea today, the sacrifices, the decisions made by a Democratic President, Truman, I think worked very well. There is a democracy there. It is secure. Thank goodness we made the tough decisions in that part of the world. I think Iraq will look the same way down road.

Finally, I want to deal with my friend's concern about the war in Iraq

has made us less safe or has stimulated terrorism. I have not had an opportunity to read, obviously, the classified document, which I understand today is now going to become available to all of us, so I want to preface my remarks by noting that I want to read what they actually said. But I do want to offer this observation. To say that somehow that Iraq has fostered Islamic terrorism and that Afghanistan somehow wouldn't have is just counterintuitive to me. If Iraq did it, and we were in Afghanistan alone, which nobody seems to debate, we would still have that same force running through the Islamic world, that same stimulus. It is a reaction, I think, to us legitimately defending ourselves in the case of Afghanistan. It would occur just as surely as it has in Iraq.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate my friend's observation, and I would be happy to deal with it, but I think that comment can be handled on your side and I look forward to the discussion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today, in closing, I again want to draw the attention of the Members to the strength of the underlying legislation, H.R. 5631. We have had a vigorous and good debate on the rule and the underlying legislation today, which I believe will help convince the House to support this vital appropriations measure.

Much of our discussion today, frankly, is not centered on the legislation or the rule; it is focused on the conflict in Iraq. I, for one, simply want to state for the record that I think the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, and I think most of the positions that my friends on the other side of the aisle take sort of ignore the question, is the world better or worse off without him. I think it is better, and it took American action to do that.

I think it is better that there is a democracy in Baghdad; that people have gone in much higher percentages in their population to the polls on three occasions, under difficult situations, than frankly our citizens will go to the polls this November.

I think it is better that that government is actually pluralistic, that represents all the different elements in the country. And I think long term there is more hope in Iraq, and it is a better model for the future in the Middle East than Iran, which simply is neither democratic nor peaceful in terms of its neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation takes critical and incremental steps in funding not only the warfighters' needs of today but the future needs of our warfighters as well. Today, our Nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines require and rely on the passage of this legislation. And despite the vigorous debate we have had today over Iraq, I have no doubt that that legislation and this funding measure will receive strong bipartisan support in this House. I am very confident that this House will not let them down.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is no surprise that I intend to vote for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during three votes. Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 455, on ordering the previous question, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 456, on agreeing to H. Res. 1015, I would have voted ``aye''; and rollcall vote No. 457, on agreeing to H. Res. 942, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of September 18 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment, and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment, to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 12 noon on Tuesday, September 19, 2006. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services, which is expected to be filed tomorrow, Friday, September 15.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format, and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4893, a bill amending section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Mr. Speaker, I know this bill has been forged in the cauldron of Indian country, and speaking from experience, I know Native American passion can be as powerful as any constituency in America. That is why I rise, first and foremost, to voice my utmost respect for the chairman of the Resources Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who has attempted to address casino-style gaming outside tribal reservations in a fair and balanced fashion. I particularly want to thank him for working to accommodate many of my concerns in particular areas of this bill. Frankly, I wish we had had the opportunity to continue our discussions on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman is a tremendous ally of Indian country and anyone who doubts this to any degree need only to look to his record and to his committee's priorities. He has always had nothing but the best interest of tribes in mind from a policy perspective, and he understands their issues as well as anyone in Congress. Unfortunately, on this issue we simply disagree.

The Resources Committee has crafted this bill with the best of intentions. I recognize its members are trying to address a complex challenge. However, as the only enrolled member of a tribe in Congress, the Chickasaw Nation, I take my obligation to defend the concept of tribal sovereignty very seriously. This bill, however well-intentioned, in my opinion violates and erodes the sovereignty of all American Indian tribes. As a result, tribal governments in my State and all across the country have urged me to oppose this legislation. And most tribal organizations, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has pointed out, also oppose the legislation.

Our Constitution recognizes three types of sovereign entities beyond our own country: First, foreign governments; second, the States; and third, Indian tribes. Existing law requires that to enter into gaming activities, tribes must negotiate agreements with the Federal Government and the State government.

Under this bill, for the first time in United States history, Indian tribes would be required to negotiate directly with local governments in order to engage in lawful activity. That diminishes the power of tribes and raises local governments to the level of sovereign entities.

This is wrong for two reasons. First, local governments are not sovereign units. They are the creation of State governments and it is the responsibility of State governments to look after their interests. Second, it is the responsibility of State governments to negotiate for and represent the interests of local governments in their dealings with tribes. To shift this burden from the States to the tribes is both wrong and irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, as currently written, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act works. It has provided tribes the opportunity to recapitalize, diversify their economies, and raise their voices in national politics. It reinforces the tribes' constitutional right to negotiate as a sovereign entity with the Federal Government and with State governments, and it protects the interest of local governments by ensuring they work with their State governor and legislature in the State compacting process.

Mr. Speaker, all things considered, I see no upside in subjecting tribes to local governments. Therefore, I see it as Congress' responsibility to continue the tradition enshrined in the Constitution, embedded in our laws, and reinforced by countless judicial decisions, and that is to preserve and protect Indian sovereignty. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4893