Tom Cole

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 806 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out simply for the record that this bill was reported out of committee by a 60-1 margin, a very strong bipartisan indication of support and appreciation for the main points in the bill. As to the point on missile defense, I think the activities in Iran and certainly North Korea indicate that we would be prudent to think about developing missile defense. So I am very pleased with the bipartisan nature of this legislation. Frankly, I suspect most Members will vote for it in the end. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Rhode Island's bipartisan remarks about the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her recognition of the National Guard. I share her admiration and appreciation for that splendid service. I certainly appreciate her remarks and the bipartisan way in which we arrived at a common agreement on end strength, and also appreciate her praise for the committee's strong bipartisan work on TRICARE, while recognizing she would prefer to go a little bit further. But I think we certainly went much further in both those areas than the original administration proposal. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I want to take this opportunity to remind our Members that this rule and the underlying legislation is not about us or our interests. It is fundamentally about the long-term interests of our Nation, the security and stability of our military, and the welfare of our deployed servicemen and women. Mr. Speaker, no generation undertakes a war lightly. Certainly, the World War I and World War II generations and the Cold War generations did not do so, and it is clear that historically there is always dissent. That is good and it is American. However, the previous generations understood that if they were not firm in their commitment, unwavering in their support for the troops and sure in their convictions, America would be the worse for future generations. Mr. Speaker, we face the very same challenges as these previous generations. Today is the day that we must support our forces to secure the peace for our progeny and to spread freedom around the globe. Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate at this particular moment in our history to have men like Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Ike Skelton heading and cooperating so closely on this very important committee, one in which whatever our differences may be, we come together as Americans to support those Americans who defend our freedom and who put themselves in harm's way for our benefit. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. It is critical for America, for the cause of freedom, and for the success of the brave men and women who proudly wear the uniform of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the House report for H.R. 5122, the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. Mr. Speaker, the rule is a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. Additionally, it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. It waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. Furthermore, it provides that the amendments printed in the report accompanying the resolution may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, and the rule provides that after disposition of the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion and no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except by a subsequent order of the House. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 5122 and the underlying legislation. This important legislation takes a number of dramatic steps to better the lives of our servicemen and women, increase our defense capabilities, and more aggressively conduct operations in the generational global war on terror that is now under way. It is a bill that fundamentally addresses many of the transformative challenges for the future and provides many of the interim steps to meet those challenges. Mr. Speaker, as a member on leave from the House Armed Services Committee and a member of the Rules Committee, I firmly believe that this legislation takes the appropriate and necessary steps to better secure America's security and more successfully prosecute the war which we were drawn into on September 11, 2001. To fully appreciate the significance of H.R. 5122, one most understand the four long-term challenges that we face in the 21st century security environment. Briefly put, these challenges are, first, responding to the dramatic procurement holiday we took in the 1990s; second, responding to the operational demands for the transformation of our forces; third, responding to the operational and strategic demands for increased end strength; fourth, shaping our military for a generational war, the global war on terror. Mr. Speaker, these challenges are not options. They are requirements that the Armed Services Committee must address on a continuing basis. I am happy to report that there is a bipartisan agreement that the committee has done precisely that in H.R. 5122. The gentleman from California, Chairman Hunter, and the gentleman from Missouri, Ranking Member Skelton, have worked in a good, bipartisan way to bring forward a legislative package that we may all be proud of. Now it is important that we collectively, as the House, support our deployed servicemen and women by supporting the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that this legislation responds in a dramatic way to all the long-term challenges that we face. Being specific, the underlying legislation increases the procurement accounts by approximately $9 billion over fiscal year 2006 and effectively replenishes several historically underfunded accounts. Mr. Speaker, this legislation also takes dramatic steps forward in transforming the nature and the structure of our operational forces by funding the Brigade Combat Team conversions for the Army, addressing the needs of the Navy's future shipbuilding program and increasing the end strength of the Army by 30,000 soldiers and 5,000 Marines to the Marine Corps to better support the war on terror. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation takes dramatic steps to better ensure our long-term success in the global war on terror. Specifically, this legislation includes a $50 billion allocation of supplemental funding to support ongoing war-related costs and procurement of replacement equipment. It significantly increases personnel protection efforts with respect to improvised explosive devices and authorizes support for shipyards to maintain the long-term operational success and stability of the shipping industry critical to all of our services. Also, the underlying legislation supports troop morale and welfare by ensuring a 2.7 percent pay raise and blocks the Department of Defense's proposed TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Standard fee increases and zeroes out copayments for generic and formulary mail order prescriptions for military beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, over the next 2 days, we will hear arguments in favor of specific amendments that do not relate to our four long-term challenges, nor do they address the subject matter of the underlying legislation in any real way. We will also hear arguments attacking the executive and our progress in the war on terror. Those discussions are appropriate, but they do not really relate to the purpose of this legislation. I would caution those who would like to politicize the defense authorization bill that this legislation is absolutely essential to our servicemen and women deployed overseas in a wartime deployment. The operational situation will not change through continuing attacks on the choices that we collectively as the House have made in the past. Our focus should be to advance our Nation's and our servicemen and women's interest by providing them with the tools they require to be successful. The underlying legislation does just that. Mr. Speaker, additionally, some Members may want to engage in debate that is essentially tangential to the issue at hand. What we must remember is that this bill is a finely crafted piece of legislation that attempts to bridge the policy and political divide to do what is best for our servicemen and women. Fundamentally this legislation moves us in the proper direction. No bill is perfect. However, this bill is a very good piece of legislation that increases our security, assists in prosecuting our global war on terror, protects our troops and enhances the lives of our servicemen and women. Mr. Speaker, to that end I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 806.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend an important community in Oklahoma's Fourth Congressional District. It is often said that the media in general does not run enough positive news, and I am afraid that this is especially, and unfortunately, the case for American Muslims. Many have associated the terrible events of September 11, 2001, with the millions of law-abiding, good-hearted Muslims in the United States. I wish to set the record straight about those decent Americans who work to make their communities and our Nation a better place to live, work, and worship. A poll conducted in 2004 uncovered some troubling numbers, Mr. Speaker. Those consulted were asked to give the first thought that came to their minds upon hearing the word, ``Muslim.'' Two-thirds had a neutral reply: ``religion'' or ``mosque,'' to give two examples. A little less than a third, 32 percent, had negative replies: ``violence,'' ``hatred,'' and, I am sorry to say, epithets unsuitable for polite company. Only two percent of respondents had comments considered positive. Numbers the following year, 2005, were more promising. Negative comments had fallen six percent to total 26 percent. Positive comments had tripled from two percent to six percent. Still, the sum of positive comments is far too low for such a vibrant community. Further, these numbers mean that the negative comments outnumber positive comments by a little more than four-to-one. Mr. Speaker, these numbers were as startling to me as they were to the many Muslims I know, respect, and represent. My home state of Oklahoma has a dynamic and growing Muslim community. Given public perceptions of the faith by Americans at large, much of their activity is directed at educating the public about themselves and their beliefs. Education about the Muslim community is clearly important as less than half of Americans claim to be ``very knowledgeable'' or ``somewhat knowledgeable'' of Islam. I am pleased to report that in my home state of Oklahoma, Muslim groups are among the first to respond in times of crisis. Oklahoma's Muslims gave generously to the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, to earthquake victims in Turkey, and to those who suffered from the tsunamis along the Pacific Rim. They came to help when Hurricane Katrina struck, adopting and helping resettle displaced families. Three days after September 11, 2001, these men and women hosted a blood drive for victims in Washington and New York. Oklahoma's Muslims also do much within our state. They host a free medical clinic in my state and often pay bills and rent for the needy. They adopt highways and contribute to public libraries, reach out to students and to other faiths. They host T-ball teams and Scout troops. In short, they are valued members of our communities. Like all Americans, Oklahoma Muslims want good schools for their children, talk over the dinner table about how to pay the bills, and want to balance their work with their home life. The values and common interests that they share with their fellow Oklahomans far outweigh any differences in matters of faith. I urge my colleagues, and my fellow Americans, to get to know their Muslim neighbors next door. They help make America the vibrant, tolerant country it is. After all, whatever one's faith, in this land of liberty we are all Americans.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment and thank my friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly Mr. Miller and Mr. Berman, for working with us; and, of course, my friends on this side of the aisle, Mr. Lungren, whose leadership has been so critical on this, Mr. Flake, and, of course, Mr. Hastings, chairman of the Ethics Committee. This really is a moment where we have come together and thought about what is best for the institution instead of trying to score political points against one another. I think we have taken a dramatic step. I agree very much with my friend, Mr. Miller. This offers the opportunity for real scrutiny and a real look at the entire travel issue; and I look forward to working with Mr. Berman and Chairman Hastings on the Ethics Committee, to come back with a scheme that both sides can have confidence in and the American people can have confidence in. In conclusion, I thank the chairman, Mr. Dreier, and certainly the Speaker. This would not have happened without their help and without their active cooperation so we could resolve what was a knotty issue. They, too, deserve a great deal of credit for working in a bipartisan manner and allowing this to come about.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Mayor Eddie O. Reed, who is retiring as Mayor of Midwest City after many years of public service. In this country we are fortunate to have public servants of Mayor Reed's caliber. All too often we take such individuals for granted. Most of the rest of the world is not so lucky, so I take this opportunity to praise a man who as Mayor of Midwest City has been an excellent public servant who has made life better for his community and its people. Eddie Reed has been Mayor of Midwest City since 1993. As Mayor, he has improved public safety, city streets, and drainage in Midwest City. Indeed, building on the work of his father, who also served as Mayor of Midwest City, Eddie Reed has transformed his city, making it an engine of economic growth in our state. All of his many successes have resulted from his skill at building partnerships and bringing people together. Mr. Speaker, under Mayor Reed's leadership, many quality of life improvement projects have been completed. These include the Marion C. Reed Baseball Complex, the new Senior Citizens Center opened in 1999, and the renovation of the John Conrad Regional Golf Course. Mayor Reed has also improved Midwest City's infrastructure including a new water tower, a widened Post Road between SE 29th Street and 15th Street, and a reconstructed intersection at East Reno and SE 15th Street. Perhaps the most important accomplishment of Mayor Reed's, over the course of his distinguished career, was his successful role in the BRAC process. The importance of his work in protecting Tinker Air Force Base, and the impact that has for the economy of Midwest City and for all of central Oklahoma, simply cannot be overstated. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by giving the Mayor the highest compliment anyone can ever give a public servant: After 13 years as Mayor, Midwest City is in even better shape at the end of his term than it was at the beginning. That is the best monument to his achievements. I wish him and his wife, Julie, the best in their new life.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill. And I want to first, Mr. Chairman, commend you. I have watched this process unfold in front of us as we have worked, as you and the Speaker committed we would, through regular order, through five different committees, over 4 months, entertaining dozens of amendments. I have watched you struggle with the numerous amendments we had, and yet try to get them down to a manageable level, things that actually counted and made a difference in the legislation that let us debate things. I have watched as you and the Speaker and others have tried to craft a bill that moved us forward, and indeed this bill does move us forward. After all of the smoke and all of the rhetoric and everything is said, the real basic question is simply this: Will we be better off with or without this bill? There is no question we will be better off with this bill. We will be more transparent, we will have more reporting by lobbyists, stricter supervision, higher penalties for those who transgress, whether they be those amongst us or others in the lobbying and the political community. We have a measure of campaign finance reform that could be triggered by this legislation. And indeed as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this is simply the first step of a long journey. And it is very important. I appreciate the way that you have dealt with the dilemma of having some who want to go further than we are able to go, and actually enact legislation, and those who do not want to do anything at all. And it is always easiest to take one of those two positions, because you are always right. You never have to answer for anything. But at the end of the day, the Speaker and the chairman have to craft a package that will pass and will put them in a position to negotiate with the Senate. I think they have done that. I also wanted to highlight just briefly an amendment that may come up later in this debate, which is indeed bipartisan in nature, and which I think takes us in the right direction in appropriately regulating private travel, something that has been an abuse, and where I have had the good fortune of working with my friends across the aisle, Mr. Miller, Mr. Berman. I had the opportunity to also work with Mr. Hastings and Mr. Lungren, and we think we have crafted an amendment that everybody in this House can be pleased with. That would not have happened without your help, Mr. Chairman, and without your support. Let me conclude by saying, I am very proud to have worked with my friend, the chairman on the Rules Committee. I appreciate his support as we have worked through difficult issues. I know we are at the beginning of a long debate. I am very confident at the end of the day we will have a legislative package that will be a marked improvement.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the 527 Reform Act. This legislation will strengthen our political parties while subjecting 527s to the same regulations as other actors under our campaign finance system. One of the most important provisions in this bill is the elimination of the limit on expenditures coordinated between party committees and candidates. That limit as it currently exists is unquestionably one of the worst features of our campaign finance system. It creates a needless barrier between parties and their candidates. The first step towards a better, cleaner campaign reform system that places candidates in control of their own campaigns is repealing of that provision as this bill does. Mr. Speaker, political parties, other than perhaps the candidates themselves, are the most accountable actors in our campaign finance system. They have to answer to their members, to their donors, to the media, and most importantly of all, to the voters. Their activities are disclosed and well documented. National parties in particular seldom violate either the letter or the spirit of the law. They are responsible participants in the political process, unlike many 527s. Additionally, parties serve a very useful role in our political process. One essential thing they have historically done is to rechannel factions of narrow special interests into broader, more public-spirited coalitions. Although not foreseen by our Founders, it is impossible to imagine the success of our democracy without the vital role parties have played. As Clinton Rossiter, the scholar of American politics, once put it, No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, and no politics without parties. Past efforts at reforming the campaign finance system often have had the unintended consequence of weakening political parties. The understandable desire of citizens to influence the outcome of elections does not go away with campaign restrictions. Instead, the money they contribute sometimes flows from candidates and parties to unaccountable actors like 527s. This bill will help impede that process. In 2004, after the passage of the McCain-Feingold bill, there was more money in politics than ever before, with just 25 wealthy individuals accounting for $146 million raised by 527 groups to influence that year's elections. That is not removing big money from politics. That is the manipulation of the political process by a wealthy elite. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word to those who spoke so eloquently in favor of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. If that law was not intended to limit the influence of money from unaccountable actors like 527s, then what was its purpose? And yet, many who voted for the McCain-Feingold bill will today vote against reforming 527s. That is, to put it politely, inconsistent. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase a fine American, many of the opponents of 527 reform are effectively saying: ``I voted for campaign finance reform before I voted against it.'' Today, the supporters of the McCain-Feingold bill have an opportunity to pass real reform in a bipartisan way. McCain-Feingold supporters can choose between the principles they profess to hold or they can vote for what many believe is to their own short-term, partisan political advantage. And if they vote for the latter, after previously claiming to vote for the former, they will set off a political finance ``arms race'' that will flood the American political system with tens of millions of dollars from a few fabulously wealthy individuals. That is an outcome we should all seek to oppose. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on March 30, 2006 for rollcall vote No. 80, I was unavoidably detained. If I had been present, on rollcall vote No. 80, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of S. 2120. Although I acknowledge there is merit to the original intent of this bill, I am unable to ignore the harm it may cause for the small business dairy industry in light of recent developments. As this industry is an integral economic contributor to my district, and indeed Oklahoma as a whole, it would be negligent of me to endorse this bill and rely on good luck to protect my constituents. Mr. Speaker, the dairy industry is complex and there are many legitimate competing interests. With this in mind, I commend my colleagues in both bodies of Congress who diligently worked to build a rare consensus while crafting this bill. I have no doubt in my mind that the original intent of this bill was narrow in scope, focused on regulating aspects of the milk industry in certain western states. In addition, I have no doubt that the crafters of this bill believed they were protecting smaller dairy farmers, processors, and producer- handlers outside of those states from falling under similar regulations in the future. However, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of Agriculture acted before Congress, issuing a final rule on February 24, 2006, establishing similar regulations as would be established by S. 2120. I must admit Mr. Speaker, this begs the question: Why is it necessary for Congress to now duplicate what has already been legitimately addressed by the USDA? I fear the only outcome may be to codify this regulation, thereby inherently suggesting that Congress will endorse similar such regulations in the future. This is a precedent which I can not support. I believe in our government's regulatory process Mr. Speaker, and as such, I believe there is no longer any need for Congress to act upon this particular issue. Had the USDA not taken this action, I also have no doubt I would have felt much more comfortable with this bill. Mr. Speaker, S. 2120, although originally well-intentioned and carefully crafted to insulate dairy farmers, processors, and producer- handlers outside of these particular western states from unintended consequences, has been outdated by the regulatory actions of the USDA. Should Congress pass S. 2120, it may only serve to set a dangerous precedent which could severely harm an important part of America's dairy industry in the future.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma

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. I yield 20 seconds to my friend.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I came here this morning, obviously, to debate the rule. But as is so often the case in rules debate, we move on to the bill itself and some of the larger purposes. And I am always content and happy to have that debate. I think it is an important discussion for the American people to hear. My good friend from Massachusetts, from the other side of the aisle, mentioned that essentially things are worse in Iraq. Worse than what? And worse than when? Worse than having Saddam Hussein in power? I think not. I would much rather have him where he is, in a courtroom, in jail, and no longer launching regional wars that claimed over a million lives. Worse than 423 mass grave sites that have been uncovered since the arrival of coalition forces in Iraq? I think not. Worse than 400,000 Iraqis killed in the decade before the liberation of Iraq? Again, I think not. I think that we sometimes, on this floor, act as if we are doing a favor to the people of Iraq by leaving. I think that is dangerously misguided logic. I do not think it is a favor. I do not think that it is a favor to the people in Iraq. That is not what their duly elected representatives have asked us to do. They, by the way, are running enormous risks for their own freedom. They rose up to try to get their own freedom in 1991. We didn't do, in my opinion, what we should have done then. I have been there five times. I see more and more Iraqis doing more and more things for themselves, and I see no one that asks the United States to leave precipitously. I also would disagree with my good friend on the issue of whether or not our interests are involved in this. I think they very much are involved in Iraq. I think that victory is an extraordinarily important thing for this country to secure. I think staying the course, or remaining and staying with our friends that are fighting now, in part because we are there, is a very important message to send to the region.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I want to address several of the points of my good friend from Massachusetts. First, in terms of going into war without the information and without the debate. I was not in Congress when that decision was made, and, frankly, I looked back and have read the debates very carefully, watched the debates at that time, and know that, frankly, everybody that was voting voted on the best information they had available at that time. Frankly, I remind my good friend that we were operating with a CIA that was run by a President Clinton appointee, that he was pretty adamant in terms of there were WMDs there. That was the shared opinion of every other intelligence agency in the world. And, again, I don't question the motives of the decision that was made. I would also add this. For me, the more compelling figure is not what we found before we thought we were going, but what we found after. I go back to those mass grave sites and I go back to those tens of thousands of people that were killed. And, frankly, I go back to a level of American responsibility for allowing that to persist, in my opinion, after 1991. I relate to my friend a story that I heard on my very first visit to Iraq, when I was talking to a young American sergeant. It was becoming evident at that point that the stockpiles we thought were going to be there weren't there. There was dual-use technology, and perhaps the potential to recreate something. No question Saddam Hussein was working his way out of restrictions, but what we thought was there, wasn't there. And I asked this young sergeant who had risked his life in the drive to Baghdad what he thought, given that information. And he first gave me sort of a nice stock political answer and said basically what I said: Well, we don't know. We are still looking. And I said, but we haven't found any. And he looked at me, and I will never, ever forget what he said when I said, so, was it worth it? And he answered my question with a question. He said, sir, have you ever been to a mass grave site? And I said, no, I haven't. He said, I have. He said, you haven't seen anything until you see bodies coming out of the ground and hundreds of family members trying to identify them and wailing. And I have seen that, and I wonder why the whole world wasn't here 10 years ago. That is a good question for us to ask ourselves inuring the course of this debate. I also want to address my friend's point about a commission in two ways. First, by making the point that there is a good deal of oversight that goes on in this process. I used to serve on the House Armed Services Committee. I still do. I have a waiver on that committee now. But that committee, I can assure you, is very thorough in its oversight. I think appropriations has an oversight function. But, finally, and more importantly, I think on this particular piece of legislation, both sides of the House often ask for an open rule, and anything germane to this piece of legislation, this supplemental appropriation, can be brought here. I think that is a very good thing. Now we are being told we not only want things that are germane to one of the largest spending bills and one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will deal with this year, we want things that are not germane. We want waivers granted. And, by the way, we are being told that by both sides of the aisle. This is not an exclusive demand. I think it is a misdirected demand. I would like to see us move back toward more open rules, more regular order, and I think this rule is a step in that direction.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 725 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to note again for the record, while we are going to have discussions of many things here today, this is an open rule, any Member of the majority or the minority is free to bring an amendment to matters that are germane to the bill. This is as democratic on the floor of this institution as it ever gets. And while many will be, on both sides, disappointed that they didn't get to attach nongermane items to this particular bill, I think we are well served in this House by moving through regular order, which is an argument that we all make from time to time very vigorously on both sides of the aisle, but particularly the minority side. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first reply to my good friends, the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Texas, who spoke earlier about their concern about the rule. I remind them both, and as I will remind repeatedly everyone on this rule, we have an open rule today. If my friends on the other side of the aisle have something they object to, for instance they could strike title II of this particular bill, and, frankly, it would go right back to committee, so there is no need to bring down the rule. The mechanisms are in place, the processes are in place for the House to work its will. I would also remind my friends on both sides of the aisle that this bill ultimately, not the rule, but the bill itself, is ultimately about providing for the needs of American forces in the field in combat today, now. We can debate whether the war was wise, whether it is conducted well, at our leisure. They need what they need immediately, and we should respond to their needs, regardless of what our opinions are where the war is concerned or regardless of what our opinions are in terms of procurement or spending. And I say the same thing with respect to our fellow citizens along the gulf coast. They need help now. This House has responded generously twice already in supplementals. This is the third one. We will be back here again without a doubt dealing with that item. I do not think for procedural questions, particularly when we have an open rule, we should risk slowing down things that our troops in the field need or that our fellow citizens in need along the gulf coast require. My good friend from Wisconsin, and he is my good friend, made the point which I do not want to leave uncontested that this, quote, President had engaged in the worst military blunder in American history. That is a remarkable statement, considering the Vietnam era where we had Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson commit us to a war. The fact is this war has the lowest casualty rate in American history, and the stakes are enormously high. Were we to lose in this particular endeavor, there is no question that our enemies around the world would gather strength. It would be seen as a victory for terrorists; it would be seen as a lack of will on the part of the United States. I think the stakes here are worth it. I have been to Iraq on five occasions, and one can always be critical of specific things. I do not think you can be critical of our forces in the field. Their performance is brilliant. And, honestly, let me say a word here on behalf of the Iraqi people. We did ask them to rise up in 1991, and we did not do a thing. Thousands of them were slaughtered. Now we have come again. We have helped them liberate themselves from one of the worst tyrants certainly in the history of their country and certainly in regional history, and they have asked our help to stay and work through a difficult process. They have demonstrated their bravery again and again and again in three different elections where they came out to vote under very difficult circumstances. They demonstrate their bravery in the field in their commitment and their willingness to take on an increasing range of responsibility. Even when I am occasionally frustrated with politicians in Iraq, as I sometimes am frustrated with ourselves in this body, I stop and remember they are exceptionally brave people. My colleagues and I may worry about losing an election. Most of us do not worry about losing our life by engaging in a political process to make our country free. I think when people make that kind of sacrifice in the pursuit of democracy and freedom, they deserve the support of this body among all bodies in this world and certainly this country. Let me add, frankly, one other point on Katrina. I know many of my colleagues have had the opportunity and taken the opportunity to go down and visit the gulf coast. Personally, I certainly have done that; and I would just tell all my friends that have concerns about the expenditure of funds in that particular area, and sometimes I do as well, go look at the damage. It is massive. It is massive. Again, we had a very critical and I think very good report issued by a special committee of this body, chaired by my good friend, distinguished chairman of the Government Reform Committee, Tom Davis, that was unstintingly critical. I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle, unfortunately, they did not participate in that. They chose to think it would be a sham, and clearly it was not. There are mechanisms and means for us to look at and learn the lessons of Katrina and apply them and let the chips fall where they may in the process. Rejecting the rule will bring down the underlying bill and, in my opinion, is not one of them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.