John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

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

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

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I am extremely proud to rise today in honor of First Class Navy Diver Timothy Alexander of Middletown, Ohio. On March 9, 2007 First Class Navy Diver Alexander was awarded the Navy Sea Systems Command Sailor of the Year Award. The Sailor of the Year Award program began 29 years ago in order to recognize the top enlisted sailors in the United States Navy. The program provides recognition to outstanding sailors through numerous presentations, awards, and meritorious advancement to the next pay grade. Sailors are judged on their performance for the past twelve months; performance over the course of their career to date; and off- duty education, civic involvement and awards earned. Additionally, a selection board of four Command Master Chiefs question the finalists concerning Navy policies, ethics, guiding principles, and leadership. Following this long process, First Class Navy Diver Alexander was chosen as the Navy Sea Systems Command Sailor of the Year. First Class Navy Diver Alexander enlisted in the United States Navy on June 12, 1991. Since his date of enlistment, Mr. Alexander has proudly served our Nation and protected our interests throughout the world. In June of 1992, he was a vital member of the salvage team that prevented the USS Ingersoll from sinking in the Straits of Malacca. In November of 1999, as an experimental diver, he volunteered for numerous experimental dives and was the lead technician on a groundbreaking chemical re-breather, which has been instrumental to seal operators' safety and mission success. In January of 2002 he completed several classified missions in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. These are only a few examples of many brave actions taken by Mr. Alexander throughout his long and accomplished naval career. First Class Diver Tim Alexander is a testament to the great commitment and courage of all volunteer military. He has worked hard to further his education and training, and his efforts have been rewarded in being named the Navy Sea Systems Command Sailor of the Year. I consider it an honor to represent him in Congress.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Would the gentlelady yield?

Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentlelady from Ohio, knows I have deep respect for her and the other members of the Ethics Committee and Mr. Hastings. They do a good job on behalf of our Members, and it is thankful from the Members, but it is a very unwelcome job that you have; and we do appreciate your work. With what the House did in early January, in terms of adopting a new ethics package, it is clear that the responsibility of the Ethics Committee has expanded significantly. Members supported that, and I think it is long overdue. Now, we all know, and I am not going to talk about the amendment that was offered last night, but there is insufficient money in the budget for the Ethics Committee to do what we have charged them with doing. Now, we do this with Federal agencies all the time and can look the other way. If we want Members to abide by the rules that we have adopted, we have to have an Ethics Committee that can provide services to those Members so they understand the rules, they understand the limits, what they can and can't do. The concern that we have is that because there is insufficient money for the Ethics Committee in this resolution that Members are going to be charged with living under new rules and not having the service component necessary from the Ethics Committee to carry out our job.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a couple of buckeyes who have played an instrumental role in the growth and development of the dairy industry. During my years in Congress, I have had the good fortune of representing, Herman Brubaker. Herman is a dairy farmer in the Preble County town of West Alexandria and he is a leader in the dairy industry. While serving as chairman of the Board of Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA), the Nation's largest dairy marketing cooperative, Herman played an instrumental role in unifying the Nation's dairy producers' efforts to work together and promote dairy consumption. For those of you unfamiliar with DFA, it is a farmer owned cooperative with 24,000 dairy farmer members in 49 states. Herman was the President of the Board of Directors of the Strongsville, Ohio--based Milk Marketing Inc. dairy cooperative in 1998 and played an instrumental role in that cooperative joining together with cooperatives throughout the country to form DFA. His efforts were so impressive that he was chosen as the first chairman of DFA's board of directors. He held this position until he retired in 2002. Herman has also served on the National Milk Producers Federation's board of directors. Although Herman and I have not always agreed on the details of dairy policy, I have always been impressed with his work on behalf of dairy farmers. We have had some spirited discussions and I can honestly say it has been a pleasure to serve as his Member of Congress. I also stand to recognize Donald Schriver, who recently retired as the executive vice president of DFA is an Ohio native and a 1969 graduate of the Ohio State University. Donald Schriver grew up on a dairy farm in Lorraine County, Ohio, and has spent a lifetime within agribusiness and the cooperative business world. Like Herman, Donald was an official with Milk Marketing, Inc. when it joined with other cooperatives to form DFA. Since DFA formed in 1998, Donald has played a vital role in the cooperative's growth and development. I thank these men for their continued support of the dairy industry. I wish them well as they enjoy their retirements.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, let me thank my colleague from California for yielding, and thank him and the members of the Education and Labor Committee for their work on this bill. Let me also say it is nice to see the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee here, formerly the ranking member during the 5 years that he and I worked together. During those 5 years, this bill went nowhere. It went nowhere for a very good reason. Over the last 75 years, the Federal Government, State governments and the National Labor Relations Board have provided law and case history to try to bring balance between the interests of employers and the interests of the unions. If you go down through this long history, there is a very tumultuous history. But throughout this history, the challenge was to bring balance, for workers and their employers. Over the last 25 years, there is no issue I have spent more time on during my political career than working with the employer community and the employee community, mostly represented by the labor movement. My goal throughout this last 25 years has been to maintain this balance that I think works for employers and their employees, and what we have here today is trying to upset that balance, taking away the secret ballot election from workers in order to make their choice whether they want to be represented or not. It is almost beyond my imagination that this bill is on the floor of the United States House of Representatives taking away the secret ballot election. Think about this for a moment. Think about the 2008 election day, and here we are. You don't get to go into a voting booth and vote for who you want to be President in the 2008 election. You don't get to go and decide in a secret ballot who you want your Member of Congress to be. You have to show up at a town hall meeting, raise your hand as to who you are going to vote for; let your neighbors know, let your opponents know, let your employers know how you are going to cast your vote for President or for your Member of Congress. I don't think that is what the American people expect of us. Instead of I am looking up at the voting booth, you are going to be standing up in front of God and everyone and telling everyone publicly how you voted. That is not what we want of workers. Think about this for a moment. This is what a 1990 Federal Court decision found, and I will quote: ``On average, 18 percent of those who sign authorization cards do not want to join the union. They sign because they want to mollify their friends who are soliciting, because they think the cards will get them their dues waived in the event that the union shop prevailed.'' There was an earlier study by the National Labor Relations Board. It found that in cases where unions had cards signed by 30 to 50 percent of the employees, unions only won 19 percent of those elections. Or even when unions had cards signed by 50 to 70 percent of the workers, they won less than half of those elections. Let's talk about what this really is all about. This bill today is not about protecting American workers. It is about upsetting the balance between labor and management. But the real issue here is not taking care of workers, it is taking care of union bosses. We all know what is happening to the union movement in America. They represent about 8 percent of the private sector employees in the country, and that number has been dropping precipitously. This is an effort to help them get more members, to make it easier for them to sign them up and to intimidate them to sign cards. So there are no secret ballot elections. And whether they want to join a union or not, they are going to be forced to do it. That is not the American way. My colleague from California, the sponsor of this bill, knows full well what this bill does and who it is meant to take care of and who it is meant to pay back to. It is not the American way, and that is not what should be happening in the People's House. We, as Members of Congress, have a responsibility to do what we think is right on behalf of the American people, and I am going to tell you what I am going to do today. I am going to stand up and stand tall, and I am going to vote for every American worker and protect their right to have a secret ballot.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for yielding and thank him and all of you for, once again, to have an opportunity to come and speak on the floor on this resolution. The resolution before us is nonbinding, but it is the first step down a very treacherous path, a path that, if followed, will endanger Americans for generations to come. Iraq is the central front in a global war between the United States of America and radical Islamic terrorists, a war that began long before the horrific events of 9/11, a war the American people did not seek and did not start. It is mind-boggling to consider how fanatically committed our enemies are to destroying America, even at the cost of destroying themselves in the process. Our enemies recruit young people, fill them with hate and rage, and then send them on suicide missions to kill innocent victims. We face an enemy that loves death more than it loves life. As Americans, we cherish freedom and democracy. Ours is a way of life. Theirs is a way of death, of murder, of suicide. The global reach of radical Islam stretches from North Africa, through the Middle East, to South Asia, to Indonesia and to the Philippines. The other side wants Americans to believe that the war in Iraq is different from the war on terror. They even say that we are not fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, ignoring the fact that al Qaeda has made it the central front in their war against America. According to the experts, and according to their own words, radical Islamic terrorists will never stop fighting until much of the world is under Islamic law. In 2004, Osama bin Laden said the following about the conflict in Iraq: ``The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries; the Islamic Nation . . . and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.'' And our enemies are watching this debate, and through the Arab media we know what they are saying. Recently, the second-in-command of al Qaeda issued a warning to moderate Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan who are working and dying to build peace and security, and he said this: ``These traitors in Iraq and Afghanistan must face their inevitable fate, and face up to the inescapable facts. America is about to depart and abandon them, just as it abandoned their like in Vietnam.'' The consequences of failure in Iraq would be catastrophic for America and the world. Last month, General Petraeus spoke of the very real possibility of Iraq's neighbors taking sides in sectarian violence. Failing in Iraq would jeopardize Israel and greatly benefit Iran, a nation governed by a fanatic and actively building nuclear weapons. The battle we fight in Iraq is the biggest part of our global war, and if we leave, the fight will, in fact, follow us home. And what we will leave behind is chaos, the same kind of chaos we left behind in Vietnam, the same kind of chaos we left behind in Lebanon, and the same kind of chaos that we left behind in Somalia. Who does not believe that we will not see chaos in Iraq, destabilizing the Middle East and jeopardizing the very safety and security of the American people? As Americans, we are fortunate in so many ways. We have so many blessings, including a great and proud history to inspire us. Earlier this week, I talked about President Lincoln and the challenges he faced during some of America's darkest days. During the Revolution, America faced down what was then the most powerful empire in the world, with a rag-tag army. We survived a Civil War that would have permanently divided any other Nation. After a crippling depression in the 1930s, we defeated Japanese imperialism and Hitler in Germany. We then defeated the Soviet Union and their communist empire in a test of wills that lasted for a generation. The greatness of America is exemplified in a simple short letter about duty and sacrifice. The letter was written by Marine Staff Sergeant Daniel Clay, the husband of my former staffer, Lisa Bell Clay. Sergeant Clay was one of 10 Marines who were killed in Fallujah a little over a year ago, and he left behind this letter to his family in case he did not come home. In it, he said, ``What we have done in Iraq is worth any sacrifice. Why? Because it was our duty.'' He says, ``That sounds simple. But all of us have a duty. Duty is defined as a God-given task. Without duty, life is worthless.'' Our troops are not the only Americans who have a God-given task. If a noncommissioned officer can understand his duty, then certainly Members of Congress can understand theirs. Congress has a duty to protect the American people now so that the next generation can enjoy prosperity and freedom. Congress also has a duty to the men and women in uniform when we send them into harm's way, a duty to provide them with the full support and resources they need to accomplish their mission and return home safely. My friends on the other side have described this nonbinding resolution as their first step. It is a first step. It is the first step in a plan to cut off funding and reinforcements for American troops in harm's way. The next step is to micromanage the war through the budget process. To quote the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who said yesterday, ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work.'' Mr. Speaker, at this very moment American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, and it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely. The American people will not support a strategy that involves pulling the rug out from under American troops in the combat zone by cutting off their reinforcements and forcing them to face an enemy without our full support. This resolution is nonbinding, but it is the first step toward a tragic, unthinkable goal. Four years ago, this body agreed that fighting this war was a worthy cause. There have been setbacks where Members on both sides of the aisle are rightly dissatisfied with the results. But this is war. We face a sophisticated, determined enemy who wants to annihilate our way of life. We have a duty to stand and fight against those who seek to destroy America and the freedom that defines us. Our troops are committed to fighting and winning this global war. We owe them our unfailing support. I urge my colleagues to stand with the marines, the soldiers, the sailors and the airmen and vote down this resolution. I urge my colleagues to think about our duty, our duty to support our troops, our duty to protect the American people, and our duty to leave for our kids and their kids a safe, free, and secure America. Our soldiers are dying around the world to protect us, upholding their duty. Do we have the courage to uphold our duty? Vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding. And I come to remember my good friend and our good friend, Charlie Norwood. I met Charlie in October of 1994 when he was a candidate for Congress for the first time and had dinner with him one night before we went off on a 16-city tour. I didn't think it would ever end. But at dinner that night, I looked at Charlie and I asked, Why are you running for Congress? And he said, That OSHA, that OSHA, they did this to me and did this to me. And for every day that Charlie Norwood served in this Congress, he was all over OSHA, to have rules and regulations that met the straight- face test. I was the chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and Charlie was one of my subcommittee Chairs for the 5 years that I was the chairman. Clearly the most difficult member I have ever had to try to manage. And whether it was the Patients' Bill of Rights, whether it was OSHA, or a host of other issues, when Charlie got that bone in his mouth, you could not get it out of his mouth. He was the most dogged, persistent Member I have ever worked with. As a matter of fact, I might even say he might be the most dogged persistent person that I have ever met with because when Charlie picked up a cause, he was never going to leave it alone until he accomplished his goal. And I am sure that Charlie is watching over us today, wondering why the Patients' Bill of Rights isn't law. Mr. Linder just talked about it. Charlie fought about this on more occasions than you can ever imagine, as did John and a lot of other Members. But Charlie truly believed in that piece of legislation. He put his heart and soul into it. We are going to miss Charlie around here. We are going to miss that dogged persistence that he brought to this floor every day and in the committee rooms every day. But to Gloria and his family, our prayers are with you. And, Charlie, may your soul rest in peace.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Florida for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today we begin an extended debate on a resolution criticizing the latest effort by American forces to win in Iraq. There is no question that the war in Iraq has been difficult. All Americans are frustrated that we haven't seen more success and that we haven't seen it more quickly. But war is never easy and almost never goes according to plan. Al Qaeda and their supporters in the region have been steadfast in their efforts to slow us down and frustrate our efforts to succeed. But because they cannot defeat Americans on the battlefield, al Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers around the world are trying to divide us here at home. Over the next few days, we have an opportunity to show our enemies that we will not take the bait. It is fitting that yesterday was President Abraham Lincoln's birthday. And not since the dark days of the Civil War has our homeland been a battlefield. Lincoln's leadership preserved the Union through a turbulent age that threatened to undo the American experiment. His belief in the promise of the United States, a promise enshrined in the Declaration of Independence that stated for the first time in history that all men are created equal, this is what drove him to pursue victory. Surrounded by personal and political rivals, Lincoln could have given up. He could have recalled the Union forces and sent them home. But he didn't. I think we need a similar commitment to victory today. The battle in Iraq is about more than what happens there. This is one part of a much larger fight, a global fight against Islamic terrorists who have waged war on the United States and our allies. This is not a question of fighting for land or for treasure or for glory. We are fighting to rid the world of a radical and dangerous ideology. We are fighting to preserve and defend our sacred way of life. We are fighting to build a safer and more secure America, one where families can rear their children without the fear of terrorist attacks. Lincoln famously said in 1858 that ``a house divided against itself cannot stand.'' I believe, as Lincoln did then, that we must choose sides on a very critical issue. Then it was whether we should abolish the evil institution of slavery. Today it is whether we will defeat the ideology that drives radical Islamic terrorism. Will we do what it takes to stand and fight for the future of our kids and theirs? Will we commit to defending the freedoms and liberties that we all cherish? Or will we retreat and leave the fight for another generation? These are the questions with historic implications that will be answered this week. Many of my friends across the aisle think this is exactly what we should do, give up and leave. This nonbinding resolution is their first step towards abandoning Iraq by cutting off funding for our troops that are in harm's way. And we know what al Qaeda thinks when America retreats from the battlefield. They think that we can't stomach a fight. This is why they haven't been afraid to strike us whenever and wherever they have had the opportunity to do so. This war didn't start in Iraq. This war didn't start on 9/11. The war began with the Iran hostage taking in 1979, went on for well over a year. Then on October 23, 1983, the suicide attack on our Marine barracks in Beirut occurred, killing 241 American servicemen and injuring 60 others. On February 26, 1993, was the first World Trade Center bombing that killed six people and injured more than 1,000 others. On June 25, 1996, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were bombed, killing 20 and injuring some 372 others. On June 7, 1998, the Kenya embassy bombing killed 213 people and injured 5,000 more. And on June 7, 1998, the Tanzania embassy bombing killed 11 people and 68 others were injured. On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole was attacked; 17 American sailors killed, 39 other sailors injured. We all know what happened on September 11, 2001, when 3,000 Americans died for no other reason than they were Americans. Do we really believe that if we pack up now, if we abandon Iraq and leave the country in chaos, that our enemies are just going to lay down their arms and leave us alone? For too long, world leaders responded to terrorism by retreating and just hoping for the best. In a post-9/11 world, this is no longer an option. God forgive us that it took such a loss of life to open our eyes, but our eyes are open. We are engaged in a global war now for our very way of life. Every drop of blood that has been spilt in defense of liberty and freedom, from the American Revolution to this very moment, is for nothing if we are unwilling to stand up and fight this threat. We didn't start this war. They did. Now we have got a duty to finish it, and, for the sake of our kids and theirs, to win it. The nonbinding resolution before us today criticizes the new strategy for succeeding in Iraq implemented by General Petraeus. It ``disapproves'' of the strategy before it even has a chance to begin. The general's goal is to stabilize the Iraqi democracy, deny the terrorists a safe haven and ensure stability in the region. It is a prudent strategy that puts the performance of the Iraqi Government front and center. I can't guarantee that this plan is going to work. I hope it does. Republicans have put forward a complementary bill aimed at helping it succeed. But I again can guarantee you this: If we cut off our funding for the troops that are in the field and we abandon Iraq, as many supporters of this nonbinding resolution want to, the consequences of our failure will be catastrophic. Last year, Osama bin Laden issued this warning to the United States regarding the war in Iraq. He said, ``I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.'' Now, think about this for a moment. Al Qaeda knows what the stakes are and it issued all of us a challenge. Now, tell me, what message does it send if we are afraid to meet that challenge? What message are we sending to North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and other enemies of freedom around the world? If we abandon Iraq, regional stability is going to be jeopardized. Iraq will become a fertile breeding ground for radical Islamic terrorists. Without a central government or other stabilizing force, Iraq's neighbors will be compelled to enter Iraq to protect their own interests. The consequences will be devastating and could easily lead to regional war. If we abandon Iraq, the instability, coupled with the damning image of another American retreat, will embolden Iran and Islamic militants and endanger Israel. Iran's leaders and terrorist groups have made it clear of their intentions to wipe Israel off the map. We would be leaving a staunch ally in the Middle East with nothing but chaos and instability separating them from their greatest enemy. If we abandon Iraq, those who seek weapons of mass destruction will know they have nothing to fear from a fearful America. Neither al Qaeda, North Korea or Iran are going to give up their quest for weapons of mass destruction if they know they are free to pursue these weapons, secure in the knowledge that America doesn't have the stomach to stop them. We will be leaving for our children, and theirs, a vastly more dangerous world. During the Cold War, we took some small comfort in the idea of mutually assured destruction, that the Soviet Union wouldn't attack us because we could retaliate with equal devastation. There is no such comfort in a world where terrorist gangs roam free. It is the nature of our enemy to fight us wherever and whenever they can. Whether it is in Asia, in Africa or elsewhere, al Qaeda has supporters and sympathizers throughout the world. They have the ability to strike us at any time with their lethal force across the globe. Right now, we are fighting them in Iraq. The battlefield is the most visible part in the global war against these terrorists, but it is but one part. If we leave, they will just follow us home. It is as simple as that. We cannot negotiate with them. We can't reason with them. Our one and only option is to defeat them. And this nonbinding measure before us today will only embolden them. Now, it is important for this body to debate the important issues of our day. Last summer, the House held an extended debate on the war in Iraq and the global war on terror which gave all Members an opportunity to go on record. We worked closely with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to draft the language of that resolution, and I believe that we had a productive debate. What we are dealing with here today isn't even a resolution to debate the war itself. It is a nonbinding resolution attacking a single strategy in the prosecution of a much larger war. ``Nonbinding'' means nonleadership. It is not accountable, and I don't think it is the right message for our troops. This is a political charade, lacking both the seriousness and the gravity of the issue that it is meant to represent. And, as I said before, the question before us today isn't actually in this resolution. I think it is much more fundamental. The question is, do we have the resolve necessary to defeat our terrorist enemies? Will we stand and fight for the future of our kids and theirs? As President Eisenhower once said, ``History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.'' Does Congress have the fortitude to do what needs to be done? Our soldiers do. The men and women of our military are the greatest force for freedom that the world has ever known. They are brave, they are committed and they can win this fight if we ask them to. I think the big question is, will we support them? My colleagues, the world is watching. The question is, how will we respond

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Washington for yielding. I remind my colleagues that when the session started, as every session has started, we raise our right hands and we swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is our solemn obligation. The Constitution outlines who has the right to vote here in the House. It clearly spells out that the Members from the States have the right to vote. Over the years as Delegates came to this House, they were granted the privilege of voting in the committee. That is not something spelled out in the Constitution. I could describe what is going on here today is an outrageous grab of power by the new majority; a breach of the trust of the Members here. That is if it weren't such a silly idea. To say to the Delegates that you can vote as long as it doesn't count, but if your vote counts, we are going to revote it, I think that diminishes the stature of the House, diminishes the stature of the Delegates, quite frankly, to say that they have a vote, but only if it doesn't count, because if it counts, there is an automatic revote under this rule that is outlined today. I think it does demean the House. I think it undermines our responsibility to the American people. And I think that this should not be on the floor today. The process by which this bill came to the floor, no committee hearings, a short Rules Committee hearing. We heard earlier today about the problems with the rule and how it was crafted. And here we are having this debate once again. I was here in 1993 when this issue was brought to the House the first time. The debate was probably more rancorous then than it is today. But it saddens me that there was no discussion about this with the minority. There was no advance notice of it until last Friday when the majority leader outlined the schedule for this week. So here we are, no opportunity to have a real conversation between the majority and the minority party about doing this. Over the course of the last 3 weeks, and actually before that, going into December, I have done everything I can to reach out to the Speaker and the majority leader to try to work here in this House in a bipartisan way on the issues the American people care about. And it seems, though, over the last 3 weeks that more we reach out and offer our hand of bipartisanship, it is slapped away. It happened last night up in the Rules Committee on the rule that brought this to the floor, and I am saddened by it. We have an opportunity to work together. We have an opportunity to do what the American people expect of us. But if we are going to do it together, we need to live up to our promises, and we need to live up to our commitments. I don't think that what we are doing on the floor today helps that process at all. And so while it would be easy for me to describe this as a power grab, I could if I thought this meant something, but it means nothing. This is symbolism at its best. And in the process of creating symbolism for a few, I think we diminish our roles as serious legislators here on behalf of the American people.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding, and make it clear that when there was a suggestion made about changing the date from the bill that had been introduced on its way to the floor, I, and my staff, believed that it was not in the best interest of the House to change this bill in the hour before it was to come to the floor. And I appreciate my colleague from Maryland, the majority leader's working with us to put the date back to where it was with the introduced bill. But having said that, I talked last week on the floor about my concern about how the House was proceeding. I understand the Six for '06 and the need to move the Six for '06 agenda right out of the gate. But as I said on the floor last week, I would hope that we would get back to regular order. Now, we are not on bill number six or bill number seven or, for that matter, bill number eight. I think we are on bill number nine. And as I reiterated on the floor last week, when we took the majority in 1995, there were many of my colleagues on our side of the aisle that said that we ought to treat the other side of the aisle the way they treated us. I stood my ground for months and months and months suggesting to my colleagues that, no, we should treat the minority, the then minority, the way we asked to be treated. And I think the real concern here is that what we have seen today on the floor over this bill is exactly the point we have been trying to make about going back to regular order. The committee process in this House does work, and I think the gentleman from Maryland clearly understands that, because Members on both sides of the aisle can pinpoint flaws and problems and correct those. And then there is a Rules Committee that has hearings. There is an opportunity for Members to offer amendments, hopefully, to be made in order so that the House can work its will. And so I would ask my colleague from Maryland, the majority leader, to just treat us the way you have been asked to be treated. My colleagues on this side of the aisle want to participate. We want to work with the majority in the best interest of the American people, and we can do that together. But the only way to do that is to go through regular order. And I think the gentleman from Maryland understands, and I thank him for his time.

Mr. BOEHNER

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

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that this is the seventh bill that has come to this floor that has not gone through committee, that has not had ample opportunity for amendment in subcommittee or full committee, no opportunity for an amendment on the floor on any of these bills, nor the opportunity for our side of the aisle to offer a substitute. I am encouraged that the Rules Committee this week has organized and met, but I would note that as the Rules Committee opened, the first debate on the first rule where there was going to be a rule on the bill yesterday, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee made it clear before there were any witnesses before the Rules Committee, before there was any testimony, before there was any discussion, that this would be a closed rule, there would be no amendments, and there would be no substitute offered to the Members on our side of the aisle. I come here today to talk to my colleagues. The gentleman from Massachusetts who is managing this rule for the majority knows exactly what I am talking about. We have had this discussion here for a long time. I understand the need for the majority party to want to make its move, to make its first impression; and I understand the first couple of bills had to come flying right to the floor. But we are short- circuiting democracy here, and I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand that. On the opening day, when I handed the new Speaker the gavel, the first woman in the history of our country to be Speaker, I said that the House needed to work in a more bipartisan way. Over the course of the last several years, I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the need to work in a more bipartisan way. I said also on the opening day that we do have different ideas about how to solve America's problems and that we should cherish the differences that we have, we should debate them, that we can disagree here without being disagreeable. I also said that we should be nice. What I didn't say is that we shouldn't be silent, and I won't be silent on behalf of our Members on this side of the aisle. I think that there is a lot to be gained in bringing legislation to the floor that has been through the subcommittee process, that has been through the committee process, that has an opportunity for a real Rules Committee debate and an opportunity for Members on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments, to allow the minority the opportunity to offer a substitute. That is what the American people want. Our Members represent some 48 percent of the American people, and we are being silenced in this process. I understand it is in the process. The new majority has only had the majority for 2 weeks. But I am here today to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to live up to the promises that were made, to live up to the desire to be treated fairly. When we took control of this House in 1995, we had a lot of Members in the new majority then who said we ought to treat the Democrats the way they treated us, and I argued vociferously that that was not the right thing to do, that we should treat the new minority as we had asked to be treated. We worked and I worked to be sure that we were living up to our commitment to treat the then-Democrat minority as we wanted to be treated back in the early nineties when we were making an awful lot of noise. Over the last year, there has been an awful lot of conversation coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they were in the minority to make things more fair. Let me quote one of the pledges: ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' What we are asking for here is fairness, fairness in this process, so that all Members can participate in a deliberative process on behalf of our constituents. Our constituents are just as important as your constituents, and they have a right to be heard and their Members have a right to participate in this process. So I ask my colleagues, when? When is the time going to come to live up to what you asked for, to live up to your promises, and to live up to your commitment?

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding and thank my colleague from Maryland for his comments. I rise today in opposition to the plan being put forward that I think would bring government cost controls to a program that is widely popular and is working. We all know that, about 4 years ago, Congress passed a prescription drug benefit for seniors. In that bill, we make it clear that this benefit is to be provided by the private sector, and some 40 plans across the country are out there competing with different types of plans for seniors with different needs. And so the number of choices out there is overwhelming, but the fact is that the number of plans out there are also bringing competition; competition for better quality drugs, more access to drugs, bringing down the cost of this program by 30 percent. The program costs 30 percent less than what we thought it would cost when Congress passed it. More importantly, some 80 percent of seniors appreciate their plan. They have a choice of their doctor; the doctor has the choice of prescriptions that they can offer to their beneficiary, to their patient; and the patient can go to their local pharmacy, they can talk to their local pharmacist, which all those choices are probably why we have an 80 percent approval rating for this program. So what do we have here today? We have here today that says the government must go out and negotiate directly with drug companies. The fact is these 40 different plans that are operating around the country have been negotiating with drug plans over these last several years. Why do we think the cost has come down? It is that competition in the marketplace. And I appreciate my colleagues on the other side for their ideas that the government ought to go out and directly negotiate this. It is one of those big dividing issues that we have between Members here in Congress. Some believe strongly that government ought to do it. Government ought to do it. We ought to order government to do it. While many of us believe that competition, competition and using free market principles will in the long run produce better results, lower costs, higher quality and more satisfaction among seniors. And that is exactly what we have seen with this plan. Many people believe that the plan here would begin to look something like the plan that we have over at the Veterans' Administration where they do in fact negotiate with drug companies, although veterans that are taking those benefits have one-third the choice of drugs available to them that Medicare recipients have. I don't think there is anything we want to do today that would limit the ability of doctors to prescribe the correct drugs for their patients. Secondly, the veterans' program in many cases requires the prescription to be delivered by mail order. Now, this is a growing move in the marketplace, but a lot of seniors want to go talk to their pharmacists, and I and many believe that the passage of this bill could lead to less choices for our seniors when it comes to where they get their drugs. And so Republicans will offer a motion to recommit that simply says that we should not reduce the choices available to seniors, they ought to have those choices, and they should not be reduced at all; and secondly, that they should also have a choice in terms of where they get their drugs. Those are the two issues in the motion to recommit. And so I would urge my colleagues to reject the idea of big government price controls and to support the motion to recommit that will in fact preserve choices for our seniors who rely on this very important program.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, a bill to expand taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research. I support stem cell research with only one exception, research that requires the killing of human life. Taxpayer-funded stem cell research must be carried out in a way that is ethical and in a way that respects the sanctity of human life. Fortunately, ethical stem cell alternatives continue to flourish in the scientific community. Earlier this week we learned that amniotic non-embryonic stem cells may offer the same research possibility as stem cells obtained through the destruction of human embryos. We have also seen stem cells from noncontroversial sources, like umbilical cord blood, be used to treat humans afflicted with more than 70 afflictions. I think we need to be funding the research that shows the most promise. I am deeply disappointed today that Democrat leaders have pressed ahead with this vote, rather than having hearings and markups where breakthroughs like amniotic fluid cell research could have been fully examined. This research offers the potential for a new consensus approach to the difficult issue of stem cell research, and I am disappointed that the Democrat majority was not willing to allow time for this new development to be thoroughly examined. We all know what is going to happen with this bill. This bill is going to move through the House. It will move through the Senate and go to the White House, where it was vetoed last year, and it will be vetoed again. We have a bill that has been introduced by Mr. Bartlett from Maryland and Mr. Gingrey from Georgia that says, let's put more funding into amniotic stem cell research. This is a bill that I think the Congress can support, the House, the Senate and the White House, that really will provide new breakthroughs in medical science. But that isn't going to be allowed today, and it is not going to be on the floor today. Instead, we are going to go through a political exercise that will get us nowhere. And for that, I am deeply disappointed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and I ask unanimous consent that they be allowed to control that time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Not as yet.

Mr. BOEHNER. I will.

Mr. BOEHNER. That is correct.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the resolution honoring the life of former President Gerald R. Ford. Gerald Ford served America with great distinction--first in the military, then as a Member of the U.S. House, and later as Vice President and President of the United States. After faithfully serving his Michigan constituents for 25 years in the House, he was called to serve all of the American people in the White House when his country needed him most. The Watergate crisis was one of the most difficult times in our nation's history, and President Ford's unflinching leadership helped heal a nation and restore the American people's faith in their government. His decision to pardon President Nixon was a controversial and difficult move that drew a great deal of criticism. But in hindsight, I think most Americans would agree it was the right decision, the honorable decision, and reflected President Ford's good judgment and straightforward approach. Throughout the ordeal, President Ford earned our affection and respect. He will be remembered for the integrity, character, and grace he exhibited in his work and throughout his life. As public servants we owe a huge debt to those who have served before us, and we owe President Ford a debt of gratitude for the enormous contributions and sacrifices he made on behalf of his country. I am humbled to serve in the same elected leadership post he occupied for eight years during his tenure in the House. Our thoughts and prayers, and those of a grateful nation, are with Betty and the Ford family. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, Leader Hoyer, my distinguished colleagues, welcome to you all. I would particularly like to welcome our new colleagues. It is an honor and a privilege to serve in this great institution, and I would like to thank you in advance for the sacrifices and contributions you will make to this body during your time here. As colleagues, we owe a huge debt to those who have served before us. I would be remiss if I did not mention the enormous contributions of one of my predecessors, Gerald Ford. Former President Ford served in the House over 25 years, including 8 of those years as Republican leader from 1965 to 1973. He served his Michigan constituents and the American people with great distinction not just here in Congress, but as Vice President and as President of the United States. The thoughts and prayers of this House and those of a grateful Nation are with Betty and the Ford family. This is an historic day. In a few moments, I will have the high privilege of handing the gavel of the House of Representatives to a woman for the first time in American history. For more than 200 years, the leaders of our government have been democratically elected, and from their ranks our leaders have always selected a man for the responsibility and honor as serving as Speaker of the House. Always, that is, until today. It is sometimes said the Founding Fathers would not recognize the government that exists here in Washington today. It has grown in size and scope far beyond anything they could ever have imagined, much less endorsed or advocated for our future. But today marks an occasion that I think the Founding Fathers would view approvingly. And my fellow Americans, whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent, today is a cause for celebration. Today also, of course, marks a change in the House majority. Twelve years ago, some of us stood proudly in this Chamber as our former colleague, Dick Gephardt from Missouri, handed the gavel to the Republican Speaker, Newt Gingrich from Georgia. There were some great achievements during those 12 years that followed, and we are fortunate that the man who was the driving force behind many of those achievements will continue to serve with us: The gentleman from Illinois, Denny Hastert. There were some great achievements during those 12 years that followed; there were also some profound disappointments. If there is one lesson that stands out from our party's time in the majority, it is this: A congressional majority is simply a means to an end. The value of the majority lies not in the chance to wield great power but in the chance to use limited power to achieve great things. We refer to the gavel that I am holding as the Speaker's gavel; but like everything else in this Chamber, it really belongs to the American people. It is on loan from the real owners. This is the people's House; this is the people's Congress. Most people in America don't care who controls it. What they want is a government that is limited, honest, accountable, and responsive to their needs; and the moment a majority forgets this lesson, it begins writing itself a ticket to minority status. The 110th Congress will write the next chapter in American history, but the American people will dictate it. Today, the Democrat Party assumes the challenge and opportunity of majority power in the people's House. Republicans will hold the incoming majority accountable for its promises and its actions, but we also want to work with the incoming majority for the good of our Nation that we were all elected to serve. Fundamentally, democracy is a battle of ideas. The battle of ideas, I believe, is healthy and is important for our Nation. But it is also a battle that can take place respectfully. Republicans and Democrats can disagree without being disagreeable to each other. Sometimes what people call partisanship is really a deep disagreement over a means to a shared goal, and we should welcome that conversation, encourage it, enjoy it, and be nice about it. It is now my privilege to present the gavel of the United States House of Representatives to the first woman Speaker in our history, the gentlewoman from California, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the chairman and ranking minority member of each standing committee and each subcommittee be permitted to extend their remarks in the Congressional Record, up to and including the Record's last publication, and to include a summary of the work of that committee or subcommittee.