Tom Cole

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 639 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for a couple of quick remarks. First, I share the gentlewoman's concern about allegations of torture and misbehavior of any kind, and I am pleased that this legislation contains compromise language worked out between the President and Senator McCain that I think will take care of any concerns. We know that, frankly, any instances of misbehavior, whenever they have been identified, and I can say this from having sat in numerous hearings on the Armed Services Committee, have been dealt with swiftly and severely by the appropriate authorities on our side. We do not ever condone torture. As for spying and those conversations, I think the President has been well within his power, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11, to keep up an appropriate level of surveillance on people who wish to do harm to the United States of America. This body has been informed about that. The ranking members and chairmen of the intelligence committees have been kept apprised of this, according to what I have been told at least. And finally, on process, we quite often get hung up on this. I hope we spend at least some time talking about the merits of this very important bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway). (Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported the rule for consideration of House Resolution 639. Mr. Speaker, 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 today to urge support of the rule for H. Res. 639 and the underlying bill. Normally in these situations, Mr. Speaker, we focus on matters such as force levels, military capabilities, procurement, pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform, and budgetary concerns, and of course, in the course of this debate and debate on the underlying bill we will. Before we do, however, I think we ought to reflect on the nature, the mission and the morale of our current military forces. The United States military is the most remarkable, capable and multifaceted armed force in the history of the world, but it is much more than a proficient military force designed to protect our country. It contains our finest and our most dedicated citizens, it embodies and exhibits our best ideals and traditions, and it projects our values as well as our power around the world. We should always remember that the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States are all volunteers. They represent every race, every ethnic group, every geographic region, every shade of political opinion in this country. Their mission is not just to defend our country but to spread and defend freedom around the world. While they are feared by our enemies, they are respected by our friends and seen as a source of protection and assistance in time of need and disasters by people all over the world. Their recent performance in the tsunami and the Pakistani earthquake disasters are an indication of that. Our men and women embody the best of who we are as a people. This was brought home to me when I visited the 101st Airborne in Mosul in October of 2003. I had the occasion to talk to a gentleman who was on the city council of that dangerous and troubled city, and while we were having our discussion I pointed out that his city was one of the most ethnically diverse in Iraq. It had Kurds, it had Sunnis, it had Shiites, it had Turkmen, it had other groups in that country. I asked the question, which is still pertinent today, how can you get all these different groups to work together. He answered in a rather unusual way. He said first, you did in your country and you have given us an extraordinary example of how it can be done; we see it in your military, again, every religion, every race, every ethnic group, both genders, cooperating for a common purpose. That is what I want for my people, what you demonstrate in your military. This remarkable force is once again engaged in defending our country, confronting our enemies and extending freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq and other troubled spots around the world. This mission, as the President noted earlier this evening, is dangerous and difficult. Yet we are succeeding as we have seen in historically unprecedented elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the morale in the forces, despite the challenges they face, is high. Reenlistment rates, as reported in the Washington Post today, are among the highest in our history, and those rates are often even higher among units involved in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Speaker, our job here in this Congress is to make sure that this magnificent armed force of dedicated Americans has the equipment, the training and the capabilities to defend our country and accomplish their very many important missions. I believe this bill accomplishes that important mission and keeps faith with the men and women in the uniform who have volunteered to defend our country. There are many highlights in this bill. It appropriates $97 billion for military personnel and fully funds the pay raises that have been promised for next year. It adds $123.6 billion for operation and maintenance, $76.5 billion to procurement, $72.1 billion for research development test and evaluations, and over $50 billion in emergency wartime appropriations. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this bill directs the expenditures of vast amounts of money. Frankly, I wish the bill were even more generous in that regard as I believe we need to expand the size of our forces in the years ahead. However, it is important to note and for the American people to realize that our military is by any measure a bargain. It consumes only a fraction of our national wealth, and that fraction has declined dramatically over recent decades. President Eisenhower and President Kennedy served our country with great distinction at the height of the Cold War. Military consumed almost 9 percent of the national wealth and 50 percent of the Federal budget. Ronald Reagan began to rebuild the military in the 1980s, another critical juncture in the Cold War. It consumed only 6 percent of our national wealth and about a third of the Federal budget, and today, even in the difficult time of war, it consumes only 3.6 percent of the national wealth and about 18 percent of the Federal budget. This suggests our military, by historical standard, is more efficient and less burdensome than at any time than at least 1940. Mr. Speaker, this Defense Appropriations Act also contains a number of items which, while not usually found in such legislation, are nevertheless important to our security and the welfare of our Nation. These include the prohibitions that allow for the drilling of oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, where there is an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil. This measure will generate billions of dollars of revenue for the Federal Government. It is critical to the energy security of America, and it is favored by bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress and by the President. Another item in this bill is over $3.7 billion set aside to deal with the avian flu preparedness initiative. That is only half of what the President requests, but it is enough to get things moving and enough to give Congress the time to come back and more fully consider this appropriation in next year's session. There is also hurricane disaster relief for troubled and distressed Americans along the gulf coast, $29 billion in all of reprogrammed and additional funds. Finally, there are offsets in this bill, $23 billion plus, for FEMA disaster relief fund reprogramming, $8.5 billion across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending except in Veterans Affairs, and over $1 billion in other rescissions. Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule and a good bill, and it deserves the support of this House of Representatives. To that end, I urge the support of the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I rise today to explain my vote against a democrat motion to instruct conferees on December 14, 2005. Although President Bush and Secretary Rice have made it clear that under no circumstance will the United States use torture, I am also sympathetic to Senator McCain's wish to establish a clear set of rules to govern interrogations of persons under the detention of the Department of Defense. With this said, I don't believe it is beneficial to instruct conferees on an issue that is already under negotiations between the White House, Senator McCain and the United States House of Representatives. These negotiations could yield a much more favorable outcome than what Senator McCain originally requested and it also undermines the legislative process. However, if no compromise is agreed to, I would support the McCain language as our policy toward torture.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 614, on suspending the rules to agree to H. Con. Res. 196. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Act included a provision authorizing the Bureau of Reclamation to work in cooperation with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District (COMCD), and local entities to initiate a Water Supply Augmentation Feasibility Study at Lake Thunderbird near Norman, Oklahoma, and appropriating $300,000 to the Bureau to initiate this study. Unfortunately, due to current fiscal constraints and the difficult decisions that had to be made in light of these constraints, the conferees were forced to remove this provision in the final conference report. Mr. Speaker, since its construction in 1965, Lake Thunderbird has served as a reliable source of municipal and industrial water for three communities in my district, including Norman. Preliminary findings by the OWRB and the City of Norman indicate that the City's water demands will exceed its current combined supply from groundwater and Lake Thunderbird within 5 years. In fact, since 1988, Norman has exceeded its proportional allocation 12 separate years. Today, all projections show that the annual allocation afforded Norman will always be exceeded without additional supplies being made available. It is anticipated that the two other communities served by Lake Thunderbird may also need additional water in the future. Appraisal level studies initiated by the Bureau of Reclamation in Fiscal Year 2003 support the need for additional water supplies to meet the region's future needs. This provision was included in the Senate bill to enable the Bureau of Reclamation, in partnership with the OWRB, the COMCD and its member cities, to initiate a more in-depth feasibility-level study of alternatives to augment the water supplies of the COMCD and its member cities. I look forward to working with the Chairman and the Bureau of Reclamation to identify any unobligated balances within the Bureau's budget that may be released to initiate this study.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1894, the Fair Access Foster Care Act of 2005. This legislation makes a technical change to current law, which will allow foster care maintenance payments to any public or private agency that assists families who care for foster children. This will allow for-profit agencies to operate on the same footing as all other such agencies, but States will continue to decide which agencies to use based on their best judgment about what is in the interest of the children and the families they serve. The Fair Access Foster Care Act will ease the administrative costs to States that already elect to work with nonprofit agencies, allowing the focus and the money to be concentrated on what really matters. Speaking for my own State, in Oklahoma there are 15 agencies that provide therapeutic foster care. Five of these agencies operate under a for-profit business model. Mr. Speaker, I will again note that this legislation does not require any State to contract with for-profit agencies. Individual State agencies charged with the oversight of custody children will continue to create their own rules for licensing child-placing agencies within the State. This legislation is identical to legislation I authored, H.R. 3008, so I am very grateful that this legislation was scheduled for consideration. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my gratitude to the gentleman from California (Chairman Herger), the gentleman from Washington (Ranking Member McDermott), and also to the staff of the Ways and Means Committee for guiding this bill through the legislative process. And finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my thanks to my friend, Dr. Laura Boyd of Norman, Oklahoma. Dr. Boyd and I belong to different parties and have even been on the opposite sides of each other in various campaigns over the years, but we have always had the ability to work together across the aisle when it counted. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Boyd did a commendable job in raising awareness of this issue, and she was an effective proponent for this needed change in the law. She is a very big reason why we are at this point today. I urge the Members to support the passage of this bill, S. 1894.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I respect the opinion of my good friend from Florida, but I think there was oversight. But I would actually agree with his fundamental point in the sense that I think oversight is more effectively done by the elected representatives of the people, by the appropriate people who are responsible for implementing the solution. I do not think we should take that model and follow it again here. I also would suspect that the situation between a deliberate attack on the United States and a natural disaster are very different. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of quick points, and then I will reserve the balance of my time. I would disagree very strongly with my good friend from Florida about the 9/11 Commission. There were, in fact, many investigations in this Congress about the tragedy that took place on 9/11, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence amongst them. We did actually do oversight.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily control the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 439 and in support of the underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker, the minority objects to House Resolution 437 on the basis that the bipartisan committee it creates will be inherently unbalanced and unfair. One suspects they believe it will be unfair largely because while they will have full rights of representation on the committee in question, they will inevitably be the minority on any panel that fairly represents the composition of both the House of Representatives and the other body. It would be easy and entertaining to lampoon the consistency of the so- called Party of the People rejecting a committee composed of the elected representatives of the American people in favor of one made up of individuals who are both unelected and unaccountable to the voters of this country, but I will avoid that temptation. Frankly, there are deeper issues here. The first is our faith as individuals in the efficacy of democracy itself. As the minority in this House for 11 years, I fear my friends on the other side of the aisle have lost their faith in the American people, because of the choices they have made at the ballot box in recent years. Having served as a member of a seemingly permanent minority in the Oklahoma State Senate earlier in my career, I understand the frustration on which that sentiment is based. However, as adherents to the ideals of democracy, we should trust that over time the people will get it right and that if our views are sound, they will prevail. In the meantime, our job is to argue our point of view in the court of public opinion and accept the outcome at the polls when the verdict is rendered. The second issue at stake here is the wisdom of empowering people who are neither elected nor accountable to perform the task our Constitution assigns to the elected representatives of the American people. Frankly, I share the sentiments Winston Churchill famously voiced when he said ``democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried.'' Mr. Speaker, it is fundamentally unsound and undemocratic to turn over the function of congressional oversight to a group of individuals who have neither been elected by the people nor accountable to the people for their actions or recommendations. Appointing a commission is the easy way out. It is a way for us, the representatives of the people, to avoid our responsibilities. Its members, however expert and well-intentioned, did not design or create the agencies and processes we wish to examine in connection with Hurricane Katrina. We did. Similarly, they will not be responsible for reforming these agencies or finding the solutions to our current problems. Those duties belong to the elected representatives of the American people. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle often complain there is insufficient congressional oversight. This is our chance to exercise that oversight, and the voters will surely hold all of us accountable for how well we do the job. My fellow Members, let us have faith in the American people, our democratic institutions, and ourselves. Let us do the job we were elected to do, rather than hand it off to those who were neither asked nor chosen by the American people to govern their affairs. I urge support of House Resolution 439 and the underlying House Resolution 437.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 25, 2005, I was unavoidably detained on official business overseas. I respectfully request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 417: ``Yes'' (On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.J. Res. 59); Rollcall No. 418: ``Yes'' (On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 181); and Rollcall No. 419: ``Yes'' (On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 376).

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on June 30, 2005, I was unavoidably detained during a vote on H. Res. 344. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 316.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, on June 22, 2005 I was unavoidably detained during votes on H.R. 2985. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: on Rollcall vote No. 299, I would have voted ``nay''; on Rollcall vote No. 300, I would have voted ``nay''; on Rollcall vote No. 301, I would have voted ``nay''; on Rollcall vote No. 302, I would have voted ``nay''; on Rollcall vote No. 303, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 315.

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My main purpose here, obviously, was to focus on the bill and the rule for the bill, but I want to discuss some of the concerns that my good friends on the other side of the aisle have. Frankly, I do not doubt their patriotism for a minute, and I welcome the discussion and debate. I think it is a very good one and a very important one for the national purpose. But I think we ought to go back and recall a little bit the situation in Iraq. We ought to remember who and what Saddam Hussein was. This was brought home to me very dramatically on my first visit to Iraq in October 2003. I have since gone back on three additional occasions, plus to Afghanistan. I was talking with a young American soldier. At that point we, like every other intelligence service in the world and most people in the world, thought there were WMDs in significant quantities in Iraq, although I do hasten to point out the capacity to acquire and to develop those was still very much there and Mr. Hussein was still working himself out of U.N. sanctions and placing himself in a position to do that. So I still think we were right to have acted early. But this young soldier that I was visiting with, I asked him: We've been here a considerable amount of time. We've not found the quantities of WMDs we expected. Do you think it was a wise decision to come? He was quiet for a moment and looked at me and he said: Yes, sir, I will tell you regardless, and I still think they had the capacity, but regardless I think it was a good decision to come. I said: Why? And he answered my question with a question of his own. He said: Sir, have you ever been to a mass grave site? I said: No, I haven't. He said: I have. He said, Until you've seen hundreds of wailing women as bodies are coming out, one after another, trying to identify, is that a father, is that a son, is that a husband, is that a brother, you don't know what terror really is. He said: My question is why the whole world wasn't here 10 years ago. That is a very interesting question to ask. Because we of all people had the ability 10 years previously to have done that. We had just won a war with Saddam Hussein, we stopped at the border, and we actually urged people on the other side to rise up, and they did. And 50,000 of them were killed by Saddam Hussein and neither we nor our coalition allies did anything to help. So I think looking at what was going on in Iraq, looking at the 400,000 deaths, looking at the 263 identified mass grave sites and looking, frankly, at our responsibility to have done something when, indeed, for a decade we did nothing is something that we ought to think about and, frankly, something that the whole world ought to think about. Just 2 weeks ago, or last week, actually, the New York Times ran an article on another mass grave site that had been located, was being frankly explored, if that is even the appropriate term, in preparation for Saddam Hussein's trial, and in that there were 2,500 people, almost all of them women or children, some of them as young as 3 or 4 years of age. That is the type of thing that American intervention in Iraq stopped. My friends on the other side say, Well, are there any signposts? Any hope? I think that is a very legitimate question to raise, too, because there is no doubt this has been a rough road that we have walked down and no doubt, and I think my friends are appropriate when they raise this, that it has not gone as predicted and as planned and it has been a very, very difficult process. But I think we ought to stop and look at the Iraqis on the ground and see what they are doing, the fact that a constitutional government has been established or is being established, the fact that 8 million people came out to vote under the most difficult of circumstances, the fact that we have elections scheduled for October and again for December of this year, an extraordinary achievement by very brave Iraqis under very difficult circumstances to set up what we most need in that part of the world, which is a functioning democracy. That would not be possible without the sacrifice and the service of the brave men and women of the United States military. That is one of the things they are accomplishing. Their first accomplishment, of course, is to make us more secure. I think it is always legitimate to ask, are we more secure or less secure as a result of the war in Iraq? I would argue we are more secure. I would argue that anybody that believes somebody like Zakawi would not be busy trying to kill Americans someplace in the region or in the world probably is missing the point. Our troops are engaged there and are engaging an enemy that, left otherwise free to operate, would be busy trying to kill other Americans as they demonstrated pretty dramatically on 9/11. I would also argue that over time the best way to transform the region is exactly the one that the President suggests, that is, to establish a functioning democracy. I have a lot of faith in the Iraqi people. I have met the political leaders there. I saw the courage of people going out. I talked to a young soldier on the way back just after the elections actually in March of this year who had been wounded at Mosul. I asked him: Were you there for the elections? He said: Yes, sir, I was. It was the proudest moment in my 15 years of service to my country. I was never so proud of my unit, my Army or my country for what we accomplished. And, frankly, I was enormously proud and impressed with the Iraqi people who came out and demonstrated their determination with our help to establish a free society. So I think we should have this discussion. I think it is a good discussion for us to have. But I think we should remember the horror that was there before the Americans intervened, the process that is under way that will not only improve the lives of the people in Iraq but is essentially the manner in which we hope someday to be able to leave a self-governing and free country. It is not going to be an easy task. It is not going to be a simple task, but it is a noble task and it is one I think that the men and women engaged in it that wear the uniform of the United States can be extraordinarily proud of and, frankly, something that all of us can be grateful to them for accomplishing and running such great risks to achieve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. We have had an excellent and interesting discussion here this morning on the issue of Iraq, and we will continue to have those discussions undoubtedly as we move forward. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to again draw the attention of Members to the strength of this piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it was not discussed very much during the course of our exchange. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2863 takes many important steps forward in reforming the procurement and acquisition systems of the United States military, and increasing its end strength, and providing $45.3 billion in supplemental ``bridge funding'' for the war on terror. Mr. Speaker, it must also be noted that this legislation would not have been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the members of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations and the members of the full committee. As evidenced by their hard work, this is a bipartisan bill that the vast majority of the House will undoubtedly agree is a good product. Mr. Speaker, no legislation is perfect, and, as I said in my opening statement, the defense appropriation bill takes important steps in an ongoing process that does not end; that is, the defense of our country. However frustrated some may be with particular aspects of H.R. 2863, it undoubtedly moves our military in the direction it needs to evolve and enhances the security of our country and the well-being of our men and women in uniform. Therefore, I, once again, urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying concurrent resolution.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to differ with an underlying assumption that has been made by a number of my friends on the other side of the aisle, which is that we are somehow paying an extraordinary amount of our national wealth for defense. I would actually argue quite the opposite. In 1959 and 1960, at the height of the Cold War, this country spent 50 percent, 50 percent, of the entire Federal budget on defense, almost 9 percent of the gross national product, an enormous sum of money. 1980, fast forward, Ronald Reagan, we are spending about 6 percent of the Gross National Product and about one-third of the Federal budget on defense. 1990, 4.8 percent of the gross national product and a significantly lower percentage of the Federal budget. Today, about 3.7 percent of the national wealth and about 18 to 19 percent of the total Federal budget. I could make a pretty good argument that either, one, we are very efficient because we are actually defending the country for considerably less of its national wealth than we have done at any period in the postwar period; or we need to be doing more. I would argue toward the latter, actually. I think we should be doing more, and I think this bill is a step in that direction. The second assumption that I want to disagree with is that we are somehow less safe today because of the Iraqi war. That is asserted, never demonstrated. The reality is, I think, if you asked most Americans on September 12, 2001, did they expect other incidents inside the domestic confines of the United States, they would have said yes, and they would have expected them in rather short order. It is a little short of miraculous that we have not had that horrific incident occur again. It could occur at any moment. As the President has said repeatedly in recent months, America is safer; America is certainly not safe. But I would argue, again, the engagement of the enemy a far distance away from the United States and in a method that keeps them tied down has actually contributed to the security of our country. This excellent piece of legislation will enable our military to continue to do the outstanding job it is doing. Again, on that piece of legislation, at least, I am delighted there is bipartisan unity.

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have great respect, Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their passion and their commitment, but I think they are make a fundamental mistake in their argument about Iraq. I think what they want is a timetable, not a strategy. We have a strategy. It is called getting an elected government up and operational that can defend itself. We have made important steps along the way in succeeding in that strategy. We have turned over power to the Iraqis. The Iraqis have had an election. They have an elected government that, as we debate here, is debating there about the constitution that they want to have, that they want to live under, that they want to put in front of their people to approve of in October, followed by scheduled elections in December for a government. I remind my friends that while they call for an exit strategy and a date certain, our friends in Iraq want exactly the opposite of a date certain. Repeatedly, the elected leaders, the elected leaders in Iraq, the people who have the voice, the mandate of the people behind them, have said, Our biggest fear about the United States is that they will not stay the course, that they will quit and run. I tell the Members that some of the most surprised people that I met when I was in Iraq came in two categories when I was there in March after the elections. First, I met with a group of the newly formed United Iraqi Alliance, basically a group of Shia and other people who are now the majority. And we were visiting about the political process there, and one of the individuals I was visiting with, now a leader in the government, made the point that, We were not sure that you would actually allow free elections to occur, and you did, and we are astonished and pleased and committed to staying the course. So our next question is, will you stay here and help us against the people that want to take us back to the era of Saddam Hussein, back to that regime, because we are going to need your help in this transition process? That is a very legitimate question. Do we have the political will to stay while the people that are elected put together the government that they need to succeed? So we are going to see that in the course of the coming time. But I think we should be more understanding that there is a strategy and that there is a process under way that is producing good results for the Iraqi people, that is giving them actually a government for the first time that they choose. I also met with a group of Sunnis who were dissidents, who were not particularly supportive of the process, and in the course of our discussion, a number of them made the point, We made a big mistake. We should have participated in the last elections. The situation in the country would be different. We would be at the political table. We would be in a position to affect what is happening. But we also did not have faith that the United States was serious about democracy. But we look at the outcome of the election, and we understand that indeed you were, and we intend to participate as we move forward. I think the gentleman from Florida made a very good point. We need to recognize that most people in Iraq are on the same side we are. Most people in Iraq want a democracy, and most people believe that our presence there is important in ensuring that that process take root and actually succeed. I think if we stay the course, frankly, in time we will be very pleased with the result, but, more importantly, we will have restored faith. My friends on the other side of the aisle say people question our intention about staying long term. I can tell them from my personal experience it is exactly the opposite. They doubt our willingness to stay. I would suggest that setting dates certain would sound more like a surrender strategy than an exit strategy, more like we can count on at this particular point that the Americans will not be here anymore. That is a nice thing to know if one happens to be in the insurgency. It is also a pretty worrisome thing if one happens to be part of the forces of democracy. At that point whether we have succeeded or not, whether or not the government is able to deal with the insurgency on its own, the Americans are saying, sayonara, we are out of here, good- bye. That is a catastrophic mistake. That, in my opinion, would undermine the sacrifice, the effort, and the service so far. So, again, I welcome the debate. And I hope at some point in the discussion on the rule we can get back to this excellent piece of legislation, which I think really is important, and where, frankly, there is bipartisan unity in terms of the things we need to do to move our military forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).