Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill on substance and in adamant opposition of the process. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the substance of this bill. It has two distinguished cosponsors, one in the majority party, one in the minority party. The underlying substance is eminently fair, and we are not going to ask for a rollcall vote. If it passes on a voice vote, so be it. But having said that, I want to say in the strongest possible terms how extremely disappointed, and I mean extremely disappointed, that we have a bill that is in two committees of jurisdiction, the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the bill had not even been introduced, had not even been introduced until this morning. There was no bill number. Now, when you put a bill on the Suspension Calendar, theoretically the majority party, the chairman or chairmen or chairwomen ask the ranking member of the minority party if there is any problem with the bill. If there is not, then they approve it. Then the Speaker of the House or the majority leader of the House calls the minority leader of the House and says, ``We want to put this bill on the Suspension Calendar.'' And you do it. Now, we have a bill before us that was not even introduced until the House convened this morning. There has been no hearing, there is no record, there has been no phone call. Chairman Dingell did not call me yesterday, he did not call me this morning. I don't know if Chairman Rangel called Ranking Member McCrery. I do know that Nancy Pelosi or Steny Hoyer did not call John Boehner. So we are now in a situation, we have a little extra time, let's introduce a bill and pass it in the next 30 minutes. We did not do that when we were in the majority. Now, this is a good bill. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Johnson deserve accolades for seeing a flaw in the current Social Security law, the Medicare law, and rectifying it. That is not the issue. The new majority campaigned on a platform of fairness and openness. Is this fair? Is this open? This happens to be a good bill. What if it weren't? What if it weren't? The only two Members that really know anything about it are the two cosponsors, and thankfully they are both decent, honorable men, and we have read the substance of the bill and it is okay. But this is not the way the House of Representatives should be run. It is just wrong, W-R- O-N-G, wrong. So I support the substance of the bill, but I am adamantly opposed to the process. I hope this thing goes on a voice vote. If it is a rollcall vote, I am going to vote ``present'' and express, when I see Mr. Dingell, in the strongest possible terms how upset I am about the process.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Did he call Mr. McCrery?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. No, Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume briefly. We support the underlying concept of the bill, and, as I said, if it passes on a voice vote, we won't ask for a roll call vote. I do stand by what I said, though, in terms of the committee process. We've got two bills on the suspension calendar from the Energy and Commerce Committee. Neither bill had a legislative hearing. Neither bill had a markup at subcommittee or full committee. Neither bill was introduced in its current form as of 2:45 yesterday afternoon. Both bills are on the floor today on the suspension calendar. That does call into question whether we even need an Energy and Commerce Committee, given that everything apparently comes to the floor without going through the committee process. But we support the underlying principles of this bill, and we certainly support the patriotism and courage of the two sponsors. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the minority sponsor of this piece of legislation, the Honorable Sam Johnson of Plano, Texas.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. One minute remaining. Then we have one speaker left. I yield the balance of the time on the minority side to the distinguished minority whip, who is a member of the committee, on leave, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, with the Cardoza amendment, the Congress expresses its support for efforts like the $1 billion interoperability program to be implemented by NTIA. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is deeply concerned about the ongoing inability of our first responders to communicate with each other in times of emergency. This public safety interoperability problem has gone on for far too long, which is why the Energy and Commerce Committee is playing a stronger leadership role in setting the policy direction through its communications jurisdiction. I will put the rest of my statement in the Record, Mr. Chairman. But we do support the Cardoza amendment, and I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding some time. Mr. Chairman, with the Cardoza amendment, the Congress expresses its support for efforts like the $1 billion interoperability program to be implemented by the NTIA. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is deeply concerned about the ongoing inability of our first responders to communicate with each other in times of emergency. This public safety interoperability problem has gone on far too long, which is why the Energy and Commerce Committee is playing a stronger leadership role in setting the policy direction through its communications jurisdiction. Our Committee authored a section in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that set a final date for the DTV transition that will transfer 24 MHz of spectrum to public safety. To help first responders communicate on this spectrum efficiently, the DTV legislation also established the $1 billion Public Safety Interoperable Communications grant program to leverage NTIA's extensive telecommunications and spectrum policy expertise. To improve interoperability throughout the Nation, Congress directed the NTIA to identify and fund forward-looking, spectrum-efficient, cost-effective and timely solutions. That program was designed to be separate from other programs, with its own criteria, and its own metrics for success. Until our existing, disparate public safety networks can communicate together, we will not truly be equipped to respond to a natural or man-made disaster.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the work of the Energy and Commerce Committee in making certain improvements to H.R. 493. In particular, I note the inclusion of information on embryos, fetuses, and adopted children. I further note a clear statement that nothing affects claims processing and quality improvement activities and related items. Finally, I am happy that there is a provision for covered entities already subject to regulations governing personally identifiable health information. The primary author of the House bill, Ms. Slaughter, has stated: ``GINA prohibits group health plans and health insurers from denying coverage to a healthy individual or charging that person higher premiums based solely on a genetic predisposition to develop a disease in the future. Furthermore, it bars employers from using an individual's genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement or promotion decisions.'' That is the focus of this legislation. I expect the relevant Federal agencies will interpret this bill in light of the primary focus. GINA is a very complicated bill with a number of definitions capable of counterproductive readings. We have tried to improve the bill to reduce these problems. In the spirit of these efforts to improve the legislation I support its passage from the House and look forward to work in Conference.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Deal and Congressman Inslee for expediting consideration of this specific piece of legislation. As I have pointed out earlier on the House floor after notification of Congressman Norwood's passing, he wrote me a letter the last day he was in Washington before he flew home to Georgia, and this particular piece of legislation was the primary issue in that letter. It is very, very heartwarming, and I am very grateful that the majority would move this piece of legislation as quickly as they have done. I want to thank them sincerely for doing that. As has been pointed out, this piece of legislation will be called the Charlie Norwood Living Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act, and it is in honor of Congressman Norwood, the late Congressman from the Tenth District of Georgia. There are over 78,000 Americans who need kidney transplants. The average wait is over 4 years. Paired donation can create greater access to kidney transplants. A paired donation consists of a transplant candidate and an incompatible living donor who are matched with another similar pair so as to enable two transplants that would otherwise not occur. The legislation before us today clarifies the ability to perform paired transplantations through the National Organ Transplant Act, or NOTA. This legislation clarifies that paired donations are not considered a valuable consideration. This legislation has received the strong support of all the major transplant organizations, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American Society of Transplantation, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, the National Kidney Foundation, the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology, the Cedars Sinai Health Systems, Johns Hopkins, and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons. As a consequence of the legislation that Congressman Norwood and Congressman Inslee have crafted, we assume that at least an additional 2,000 organ transplants a year will occur. That is truly a gift of living that will keep on giving for many, many years to come. This legislation, unfortunately, will be the last of many great pieces of legislation that Congressman Norwood helped to pass when he was a colleague of ours in this body. He was a true statesman and sincerely a warm, personal friend of mine. I will miss him greatly. Before I yield back, I want to tell a story about Charlie and then read something into the Record. Congressman Norwood always considered himself to be very prepared. He was always ready for almost any contingency. The night that we voted the Medicare Modernization Act part D prescription drug benefit on this floor will be a time that will long be remembered because it was such a close vote and it took so long to get it passed. Charlie and myself and three other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee on the Republican side had been a part of a group to craft an alternative program for the part D prescription drug benefit. Some of our alternative program was in the final legislation, but not all of it. As a consequence, Charlie was listed as a ``lean no.'' He was in reality a ``hard no,'' but he listed himself as a ``lean no.'' As we all know, when the climactic vote occurred, there weren't enough yeses on the board to pass it. So I went to one of the senior leaders of the majority party, I am not going to say which one, but I went to one of the senior leaders and I said, ``I think we can get Charlie Norwood to vote for this bill.'' They said, ``No, you're not going to get Charlie to vote for the bill.'' I said, ``I think we can, if you'll talk to him.'' So I went to Charlie and I said, ``Would you talk?'' Charlie said, ``I don't want to talk to anybody. I'm going to vote against the bill.'' I went back and forth. I finally arranged a meeting back in the Republican cloakroom where Charlie would discuss this particular piece of legislation. Now, he had been a no, no, no, no, no for the last 2 weeks. So when I finally got the two parties together, Norwood immediately pulled out a list from his pocket. Now, he is deceased, so whatever the statute of limitations is has expired. And this Congressman, who had been a lean no, lean no, lean no, had a list of 10 things, 10, that if the senior leadership on the Republican side would consider, he would consider voting for the bill. Ten. Obviously, that discussion didn't go too far, so he ended up voting no. But he was prepared, and he had a list of things. Now, in that same sense of being prepared, Mr. Inslee has already put into the Record Congressman Norwood's statement on this bill. Isn't that amazing? I am going to read it into the Record. This is the floor statement in support of this bill by the late Congressman Charlie Norwood of the 10th District of Georgia. ``Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also offer a sincere thank you to Ranking Member Barton, Chairman Dingell and Mr. Inslee for all of their help moving this bill. Committee staff, including Katherine Martin, John Ford and Peter Goodloe should be acknowledged for their aid as well. A special thank you to Nick Shipley with Mr. Inslee's office who worked with J.P. from my staff from day one as a tireless advocate to get this bill into law. ``It has been said that common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are and doing things as they ought to be done. Well, let me tell you how things were being done. For years, people missed or were delayed in an opportunity to have a life-saving kidney transplant simply because a member of the executive branch couldn't grasp the true intent of the National Organ Transplant Act's valuable consideration clause. The valuable consideration clause was meant to outlaw the buying and selling of organs, which everyone agrees is proper. ``Now, there are two types of transplant donors, living and cadaveric, or deceased. As a lung transplant recipient, I benefited from the latter, but in the case of the first, a friend or a relative wanting to spare their loved ones from death or dialysis graciously offers to give up one of their kidneys. Regardless of the method, both patient and donor must be biologically compatible. ``In recent years doctors discovered that by using the simple database methods that we use in our everyday lives and business, a paired donation could take place with these living donors. ``In the process of a kidney paired donor transplant, a pair consisting of a kidney transplant candidate and an incompatible living donor is matched with another such incompatible pair to enable two transplants that otherwise would not occur. ``Now, I'm just an old country dentist, but isn't this just common sense? I want to give to someone, but I'm not compatible, but I can give to another patient. Their willing, yet also incompatible, friend can give to my loved one. As a result, two people live; two more slots are opened on the list for even more transplants to take place. Common sense, Mr. Speaker. ``However, instead of every single transplant center undertaking this commonsense approach, some folks were denied the chance to be cross- matched and, instead, their loved one suffered and even died while awaiting a transplant. ``73,652. That is roughly the number, Mr. Speaker, of people waiting for a kidney transplant. I can't imagine looking at any of those people and telling them `I am sorry, some bureaucrat 10 years ago inspired fear around the simple process to save you today, so you will have to languish on the list and hope for the best.' ``I will tell you what: That is hogwash. Times have changed. Paired donation is saving lives today and will save even more once we get this bill done. H.R. 710 has the support of every major transplant organization, from the United Network for Organ Sharing, who will manage the national list, to the surgeons who will perform the transplants, to the patient advocates to the hospitals. ``In fact, a study published in the Journal of Transplantation predicts a 14 percent increase in the live kidney donor transplants performed each year if paired donation were allowed. Moreover, for each patient who receives a kidney, Medicare will save $220,000 in dialysis costs. ``In fact, Johns Hopkins just did a five-way paired donation where five people were saved instead of being put on the waiting list. Now imagine the good a national list will do. Thousands will be saved through simple common sense. Paired donation is the way things ought to be done. ``How often can we stand in this well on this floor and know what we are doing will save the government money, improve patient quality of life and save lives? Not too often, Mr. Speaker. I can testify to that. ``What the bureaucracy has failed to correct, this Congress will now step up and take care of, unfortunately for all of those who have not been able to benefit, not a minute too soon. ``I yield back the balance of my time.'' That is the floor statement of the late Congressman Norwood on a bill that, at the time he prepared this, he wasn't sure would get to the floor. Yet because of his tenacity and preparedness and the willingness of Mr. Dingell and Mr. Inslee and Mr. Pallone and Speaker Pelosi, the bill is on the floor. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. I do intend to ask for a rollcall vote and let us leave a living legacy of life for the late Congressman Charlie Norwood. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I, unfortunately, can only yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I close, since we have painted Charlie Norwood to be such a saint today, I have got to kind of get a little bit truer picture of him. In the Energy Policy Act debate of 2005, there was a provision in the bill that was not controversial in the overall part of the bill, but it was very controversial in certain areas of the country. One of those areas was in Charlie's area of the southeast. I had been working with him all through the debate to try to get him to help me forge a compromise on this particular issue, and he agreed that the compromise was the best public policy, but it wasn't the policy that his region supported. So he was in a difficult position of agreeing with me, the chairman, on what the good public policy was, but knowing that that was not a vote that he would be supported in taking for his region. I went round and round with him about how to convince him to support this particular item in the bill, and he just flat couldn't do it. But I finally got him to agree that, at the critical moment, he would not be there to vote against it. In other words, he would be absent, meeting a constituent or something, and he just couldn't be there. He and I agreed on this, and our staffs had worked it out so that when the time came to vote, Mr. Norwood would not vote ``no,'' which would make me happy, but he wouldn't vote ``yes'' either, which would have made me even happier. He just wouldn't vote. So, sure enough, the critical moment came, and the vote occurred. True to his word, Charlie Norwood was not around, but as soon as I gaveled the vote, he burst into the room, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, could I be recorded. I said, no, the vote has already expired. He said, what kind of hogwash is this and just raised holy cane, purely for theatrical purposes, but you know, the point had been made. So his constituency felt justified in his support, and I felt justified in he didn't vote against me, and yet he had upstaged his chairman, but in some cases, that was Charlie Norwood. We rise in support of this bill. It does save money. It saves $30 million or $40 million the first year and I think $400 million to $500 million over the 10-year scoring period. So we are going to work with the majority to find a way to put these savings to use so, once again, Congressman Norwood not only is doing a good thing, providing a gift to the living, but this piece of legislation, if it becomes law, will also save the taxpayers money. I would strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, could I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes to tell one last Charlie Norwood story.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Georgia delegation, Congressman John Linder.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another distinguished member of the Georgia delegation, Jack Kingston from Savannah.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Before I yield to Dr. Gingrey, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his excellent leadership and his willingness to expedite this process. It is because of John Dingell that this bill is on the floor this afternoon. We on the minority are very appreciative of that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey). (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, on Monday, March 5, 2007, I was unable to fly to Washington, DC. As a result, I missed votes on this day. I ask that my statement be placed in the appropriate part of the Record to reflect how I would have voted on the following rollcall votes, had I been present. Monday, March 5, 2007: ``Yea'' on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 390-0 (Roll No. 119). H.R. 995: To amend Public Law 106-348 to extend the authorization for establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor veterans who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. ``Yea'' on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 390-0 (Roll No. 120). H.R. 497: To authorize the Marion Park Project, a committee of the Palmetto Conservation Foundation, to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia, and its environs to honor Brigadier General Francis Marion.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to thank Congressman Graves for his gracious allocation of time. I rise in strong support for H.R. 584, a bill to name the Department of Education headquarters in Washington, D.C., as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Federal Building. I am proud to be the primary Republican sponsor of this legislation, and I believe that all the Republicans in the Texas delegation have also cosponsored this particular piece of legislation. I commend Mr. Green of Texas for being the primary sponsor of the overall bill and his tireless work on this. He has worked on it for a number of years now, and it is good to see that it has finally come to fruition. I never had the privilege to meet the late President Lyndon Baines Johnson. I wish I had. I am a great admirer of his in many ways, not so much some of the policies that he pursued, but I am a great admirer of the enthusiasm and the tenacity with which he pursued those policies. In my first campaign for Congress in 1984, I read the first Caro book, ``Path to Power,'' the first installment of that, and required all my campaign staff to read that book; because President Johnson, when he ran for Congress in the 1930s in the middle of the Depression, he made it a motto of his that he would literally search out the voters of his congressional district one by one, whether they were in the fields plowing or in the stores working or at church socials or wherever. He went where the people were to spread his message. And I took that to heart, and numerous times traveled hundreds of miles to meet with small groups and in a few cases one or two people just so I could have an option. On one occasion, I went and met with a gentleman at 6 a.m. because he didn't think I would show up at 6 a.m., and so he said meet him at 6 a.m. when he opened his business. And I was there at 5:45. On another occasion, a banker in Houston couldn't see me. I waited in his waiting room from 4 o'clock in the afternoon until 8:30 that evening, and finally, in exasperation, he agreed to see me and, before I left, had given me a substantial contribution and agreed to let me use his name on my steering committee. Those were both things that I got from the way President Johnson ran his campaign. In terms of his policies, the two bills that he supported that became law that had the greatest impact on my life were the creation of the White House Fellows program in 1965. I was a White House Fellow in 1981 and 1982. That is a program that President Johnson established to bring young Americans to Washington for a year to work in the Cabinet agencies, and then either go back to their areas or to stay in Washington. And so far, there have been about, I believe, 700 young Americans have gone through that program. Texans like Henry Cisneros come to mind, a former White House Fellow. Colin Powell is a former White House Fellow, Senator Sam Brownback in the other body is a former White House Fellow. But it had a tremendous impact on my life and led me for the first time to think about trying to become a Member of this body. Another program that President Johnson established was the Head Start program. And in the summer I believe of 1964 or 1965, when that program was established in Waco, Texas, my mother became a Head Start assistant at Brooke Avenue Elementary School in Waco, Texas, at a time when my family was in need of financial income, and so she decided to work part time outside the home and went to work at a Head Start program; and, because of that, became a school secretary and spent her career in education. The impact on me that summer was, I was the oldest child, and it forced me to learn to cook, learn to clean and learn to take care of my three younger brothers and sisters. I will never forget the day that my father showed up for lunch and I had been trying to make gravy. To this day, that gravy is still in the pan because it would not come out of the pan when you turned it upside down. That was my one and only attempt to learn how to make gravy. And my father said, ``From now on, son, if you need to make gravy, ask your mother to do it or ask me to do it, but nobody can eat what you are trying to make.'' So thanks to President Johnson, I never had to learn to cook, because that was one of the few times I even attempted it. So I rise in strong support of this piece of legislation. President Johnson was a great President, he was a great American, and he was obviously a great Texan. And there are still people in Washington today that are effective in the political arena. People that come to mind that are still active in Washington, Jack Valenti who was for many years the president of the Motion Picture Association of America who came to Washington with President Johnson, and an attorney named Harry McPherson who is still active in his practice, he, too, was involved with the President. Some of the former members of this body, the late Jake Pickle, the late Jack Brooks, were LBJ proteges. And then former Governor of Texas, John Connelly, a good friend of mine who helped me politically when I was getting started, is another protege of Lyndon Johnson. So I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill with Congressman Green. I think it is right to honor President Johnson with this building. He wanted to be known as the ``educational president'' and did many, many things to bring forth public education for our citizens.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 556 the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthening Transparency Act of 2007. I want more foreign investment in America, not less, but I do not want the kind that threatens our security. CFIUS exists to make the distinction, and we need to know that it's doing a good job. We don't automatically fear foreign investors here in America. The money provided by foreign investors creates jobs, growth and opportunity here at home. I just want to ensure the investment we attract does not jeopardize national security. H.R. 556 provides consistent criteria with appropriate discretion and will improve the review process without impairing our ability to attract significant and needed foreign investment. Mr. Chairman, I fully support the legislation before us. Importantly, it provides for mandatory review of foreign-government controlled transactions and any transaction that affects national security. Additionally, it provides clear and consistent review criteria for all other commercial investments, it adds the Secretary of Energy to the Committee, and it makes the Secretary of Commerce a co-vice chair of the Committee. Most important, it adds transparency in the process for Congressional oversight and establishes new reporting requirements many of us feel are essential to this process. I support H.R. 556 and urge my colleagues to approve the measure.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I attended the Charlie Norwood funeral today in Augusta, Georgia. He was a veteran of Vietnam. I think it is ironic that because he was a veteran, we saw at the beginning of the funeral the honor guard walk in carrying the flag of the United States Army and the flag of the United States and all the battle ribbons on that flag, that as 70 to 80 of the Members of this body were showing respect to Charlie and his family, we were having this debate on another war. The resolution before us is a sham resolution. It is nonbinding. I have voted on resolutions of war and peace in my time in this Congress. I voted on the first gulf war resolution back in the early nineties when we thought that there might be tens of thousands of body bags coming back with our troops in them. I voted on the first resolution supporting our President in this war after 9/11. Remember 9/11? We had more American citizens killed in one day in the Twin Towers and in the Pentagon than we have had in all the years that our troops have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't demean their sacrifice. I have attended three funerals in my hometown of young men who have been killed in the line of duty in this current war. This nonbinding resolution tries to have it both ways. It says at the first, in part A, we support the troops and in part B, we don't support our President's decision, the Commander in Chief, to send these reinforcements. Well, if it's nonbinding, why have the debate? I think it's commendable that we are having this debate. I wish it would have had some meat on it. Let's put a real resolution on the floor. But the Republicans weren't offered an alternative, so we have to vote for or against a nonbinding resolution that has it both ways in the resolution. I don't think that is very becoming to this Congress. But when the time comes, I am going to vote ``no'' because I believe as Thomas Jefferson believed, and if you go to his monument not too far from here and look up around the ceiling, Thomas Jefferson says, ``I have sworn upon the eternal altar of God unending opposition to all forms of tyranny over the mind of man.'' This Islamic terrorist campaign is a direct attack on our democracy. It is a direct attack on our tolerance. We need to support our President. We need to vote against this nonbinding resolution. And then if we want to have a real resolution, let's bring it to the floor and have that debate. I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 63. This nonbinding resolution serves only to degrade and demoralize the troops currently engaged in forward operations and those additional troops President Bush has called upon. This is not a call for a new direction in Iraq nor is this a call for a new course of action. This is a political distraction and a call to our enemies around the world by showing a lack of resolve and fostering the idea of uncertainty towards support and funding for the men and women of our Armed Forces. Speaker Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have charged that the previous policy did not work, the new policy will not work, and yet amongst all this rhetoric my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not have a constructive alternative to put forth. Instead they offer legislation that if enacted would fuel the call for setting timelines and the withdrawal of our troops. To leave before the job is finished would leave our country in a weaker position globally and leave the Middle East without any hope for democracy to ever take hold. The extremists that oppose us are against freedom and we are right to be engaged in the fight for democracy and tolerance. The stakes are high and our enemies know this. They are not going to quit, but if we pass this resolution it will be the first step in signaling that we will. It is right to support the President as he lays out his plan for securing Iraq and is in our national interest. The necessary framework for democracy has been established and the labor of our brave troops has produced many measurable results. A constitution was written by the Iraqis resulting in democratic elections where nearly 12.5 million people braved the threat of violence to cast their votes. A fair criminal trial was held for Saddam Hussein, the country's former dictator, who denied that right to his own people. I urge my colleagues to let the Iraqis lead and give democracy a chance. Establishing a secure Iraq, a thriving democracy and a noticeable reduction in crime will pave the way for numerous infrastructure improvements. Sustainable achievements in the reconstruction effort include the building of more than 5,000 schools, the training of more then 60,000 teachers, the training and equipping of 323,000 police and military forces, the vaccination of 98 percent of Iraqi children, the ability of more than 7 million people to access phone service, the repair of nearly all of Iraq's railway stations, the restoration of electricity output and oil production to near prewar levels and the increased availability of clean water and sanitation. The milestones that have been reached are a testament to why we should not abandon our presence in Iraq. Progress is being made and we must continue to support our troops and Iraq's democratic government. The President's call for more troops is a decision not made in haste. It is made with careful consideration and thoughtful advice from his commanders both at home and in the field. The additional troops will work with Iraqis to solve serious challenges and to find ways to curb future outbreaks of violence. To achieve success in combating those serious challenges it is important that America stands with Iraq so they can defend their own soil, create a sound economy and govern themselves effectively. The President understands the consequences of failure in Iraq, something this resolution proves the Democrats do not comprehend. I have been to the funerals of men and women from my district that lost their lives in this war. I have pinned medals on the chests of the brave men and women from my district who returned home safely. Visiting with families at home and troops in Iraq I have seen first hand the effects this war has on Americans. This resolution serves to discredit the memories of fallen soldiers, the efforts of those still fighting, and to embolden our enemies. If we remember, our enemies attacked us on September 11th and instead of living in fear and leaving ourselves open to more attacks we chose to take the fight to them. In the time since, there has not been another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. That is a testament to the fight our men and women are waging to protect the freedoms we so richly enjoy. I remain committed to supporting our forces serving abroad and ensuring they have the funding they need to complete their mission. Some of my colleagues misguidedly stand to dismiss our efforts in Iraq. I stand with the resolve of former President Thomas Jefferson who said, ``I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.'' We must not stand divided and turn our backs on those fighting for democracy where tyranny threatens to reign. We must be steadfast and support them in every way we can. We can not let the difficulty of the task diminish our support for the troops and the cause for which they are so diligently fighting. We must not let this frivolous resolution pass.