David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I think the gentleman from Massachusetts makes a very important point. We have seen resolutions since September 11, 2001 pass unanimously and enjoy strong bipartisan support. I would recommend that my colleagues look at the resolutions that were passed year after year since September 11, 2001, and recognize that in those resolutions we talked about the different tools and the things that have been utilized to ensure that we win the global war on terror. We want this to be bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, I will predict that when this resolution is voted on, that it will enjoy strong bipartisan support

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has announced that it may meet the week of September 4th to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of the bill H.R. 503, to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 11 a.m. on Wednesday, September 6, 2006. A copy of the form used for submitting amendments to the Rules Committee is on the back of this letter. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as introduced on February 1, 2005. Members are also encouraged to submit an electronic copy of the amendment either via the committee's web page (http:// www.rules.house.gov/amendment_form.asp) or by e-mailing an electronic copy of the amendment to rules.amendments@mail.house.gov. Anyone e- mailing an electronic copy of an amendment should include the bill number and amendment sponsor in the subject of the e-mail, as well as a copy of the summary in the body of the e-mail. Electronic submission of an amendment does not relieve a Member of filing the amendment with the committee as explained above. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House. If you have any questions, please contact me or George Rogers at extension 5-9191.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that is just plain wrong. That is just plain inaccurate. If you look at, again, the standard of living and quality of life in Mexico, it is substantially greater today than it was before the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. DREIER. I would say to my friend, obviously we want to do everything that we can to see the standard of living and quality of life for that underclass that she refers to, as she leaves the floor, as I am trying to engage in this colloquy with her. I will say that I believe that our policies have played a big role in enhancing the standard of living and quality of life, and I am not going to be satisfied until every single one of those individuals does, in fact, see their quality of life improve. I believe in that economic liberalization and creating economic opportunity, which we have done for so much of Mexico, through the existence of the----

Mr. DREIER. I believe that these policies are very important for the United States and the world.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend. MS. KAPTUR. You know, it is amazing how two people can live in this world and view it so differently. The exploitation of Mexico's rural countryside is a continental sacrilege. The reason we have all this illegal immigration to our country is NAFTA wiped out the struggling poor of Mexico's countryside. Does the gentleman have no conscience for them?

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker. May I reclaim my time?

Mr. DREIER. Could I reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker? Am I in control of my time? She is claiming that I am somehow exploiting the underclass of Mexico.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I will correct him by saying that I take a back seat to the Speaker pro tem, Mr. Kolbe, who unfortunately is going to be leaving at the end of this Congress. I have been very pleased to work with him on a wide range of issues dealing with trade globally, and appreciate his stellar service. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I want to associate myself, my remarks, with my Democratic colleague, Mr. Moran, underscoring the fact that this is a very important bipartisan issue. We as Republicans within the Republican leadership, are reaching out to Democrats who share our vision of pursuing our very, very important goal of free trade overall and this very important agreement with Oman. Now, my colleague from Vermont was speaking earlier about the fact that unfettered free trade has, in fact, jeopardized the livelihood of Americans, it has helped the very rich and hurt the middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth. One has to look at the overall policies of the United States of America and look at the economic policies pursued by this administration and this Congress. We have to realize the fact that we have minority home ownership at an all-time high. We have unemployment at a 4.6 percent rate. The first quarter of this year, we saw gross domestic product growth at 5.6 percent. We have seen inflation, based on the projections outlined by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke, yesterday, tempering. We are seeing predictions for strong economic growth. And, Mr. Speaker, it is due in large part to our pursuit of breaking down barriers to expand the opportunity for greater trade and for job creation right here in the United States of America. Now, this agreement that we are going to be facing today, which I am very pleased will enjoy bipartisan support, as I said, is an agreement that I believe really transcends the simple economic questions that we face today, the economic questions of important job creation in the United States. But the vote that we face today is a very important geopolitical question. Now, my friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran) talked about the strategic importance of Oman. My friend from Texas (Mr. Conaway) earlier talked about the fact that Oman was the first gulf nation to host an Israeli Prime Minister. We have talked about the fact that over the past many decades, we have seen a very important relationship that has existed between Oman and the United States of America. And one of the things that is important to note is that we, with huge bipartisan numbers, put into place the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Speaker, this agreement is by every account an even stronger, better agreement from the perspective of worker rights and the other issues that are raised by so many, better than the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. Now, as I talk about the geopolitical issue, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to note that one of the things that we as an institution are doing on a regular basis is encouraging the building of democratic institutions around the world, political pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination. And, frankly, we have as an institution been, I think, doing a great job in helping emerging and reemerging democracies. A year ago this spring, Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi put into place a great new commission, which I am privileged to chair, and our colleague from North Carolina, David Price, serves as the ranking minority member on. It is a bipartisan, 16-member commission. The Speaker pro tem is a member of our commission. And what we have done is we have said we need to take new and reemerging democracies around the world and help them build their parliaments. Now, as we look at the geopolitical importance of this issue, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that we just, 2 weeks ago, had our commission in Lebanon, and we just, days before the attack by Hezbollah against the Israelis, the kidnapping of the IDF troops, military, we were on the tarmac in Beirut, having just come from meetings with the Lebanese Parliament. There are parliamentarians in Lebanon and many other parts of the world who are hoping very much to be able to build those parliaments, to establish their libraries, to put into place a committee structure that will allow for adequate oversight of the executive branch, and to do many of the things that we have a tendency to take for granted around here. Now, we know that Oman isn't an American-style democracy; we recognize that. A lot of people have been critical because of it. But the fact of the matter is, we need to do all that we can to help those countries that are moving towards the rule of law, and Oman is clearly one of them, living with a rules-based trading system, and other countries in the region that are seeking to stand up in this global war against Islamofascism to do all possible to help us. Mr. Speaker, economic liberalization is a very important part of that goal. I can't think of a more important vote after, as Mr. Moran said, the debate we had last night on the resolution that we are going to be voting on before too terribly long, supporting the State of Israel and their action and their right to defend themselves. And now this agreement really goes hand in hand with our quest to take on those who want to do in our way of life, who want to undermine opportunities for freedom. This is a very good agreement. It is a good rule that, under the standard structure that we have, allows for its implementation. So Members should vote ``yes'' on the previous question when that vote comes forward, and they should vote ``yes'' for the rule and ``yes'' on final passage for the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me begin by saying I have the utmost respect for my friend from Ohio. I greatly revere her passionate commitment to her goal. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we share the same goals. Those goals are to improve the quality of life for the middle class and those struggling working Americans here in the United States of America and in other parts of the world. I think that we just have a slightly different view. You know, the gentlewoman pointed her finger at me and began engaging in very, very strong language about the North American Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I believe that the North American Free Trade Agreement has been an overwhelming success. Today we enjoy a third of a trillion dollars, with a capital T, in crossborder trade between Mexico and the United States. As President Bill Clinton said when he was eulogizing Lloyd Bentsen, the former Treasury Secretary and Senator from Texas, he said, were it not for the North American Free Trade Agreement, this very serious problem that we have of illegal immigration would be much, much worse today than it is. Now, if one realizes that in Mexico we have a burgeoning middle class, a middle class that is today larger than the entire Canadian population, and it is continuing to grow, those areas that have benefited most greatly from the North American Free Trade Agreement in the northern states of Mexico have seen tremendous booms in their standard of living.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my very good friend, the distinguished majority whip, for yielding time, and I congratulate my friend from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for having shown his very strong commitment to the U.S. Constitution. As we all know, the specificity is Article III, section 2. As I was talking to a friend of mine in Los Angeles yesterday, he was asking, what are you bringing up in the Rules Committee today? When I told him that we were bringing this measure to deal with the Ninth Circuit Court's decision, basically throwing out the use of ``one Nation under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, he, like most people, was horrified. He said, let us look at the natural extension of the Ninth Circuit Court's decision. Well, for starters, in the County of Los Angeles, Mr. Chairman, we have already seen the removal of the cross from the seal of the County of Los Angeles. It seems kind of silly, and there obviously is a lot of outrage in southern California about that. But then one must conclude that the natural extension of this, when we have dealt with the seal of the County of Los Angeles, let us look at some of the cities in California: The City of Angels, Saint Francis, San Francisco, San Diego, another saint. I found that my city that I reside in, the city of San Dimas, is the name for the reformed saint of thieves, San Dismas. But one must come to the conclusion that if we are going to continue down this road, that the west coast would become what many in the country probably already believe it is, and that would be the lost coast, and I find that to be a very troubling sign, that we are moving in the direction to overturn that wise decision that was made by the United States Congress in the 1950s when President Eisenhower was here. I think that we should realize that common sense needs to be applied when we look at an instance like this. The Ninth Circuit Court in California clearly overreached, Mr. Chairman, and as we look at how far they could go, I find the direction to be very, very troubling. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last week, we celebrated the 230th anniversary of the revolutionary declaration that gave birth to our country. All of us here, and Americans from coast to coast, fan recite the first ``self-evident truth'' proclaimed in that historic document. That ``all men are created equal.'' Mr. Speaker, given this truth, it is one of our Nation's great tragedies that a struggle for equality had to take place at all. And more tragic still that it led to so much suffering and bloodshed. The United States fought a civil war to abolish the heinous system of slavery. The United States ratified the 15th Amendment in 1870 to prohibit denying the right to vote on the basis of race or color. Yet, inequality persisted. Jim Crow laws perpetuated the most unequal treatment of blacks, and disenfranchisement of blacks at the voting booth was commonplace. Without mercy, subjugation by race continued in many parts of the country. Out of tremendous hardship and unjustness rose a powerful and peaceful force for civil rights in the 1960s. These American heroes included Martin Luther King Jr. and our colleague from Georgia, John Lewis. Their cause--forcing our Nation to live up to its founding ideals--moved millions and gained strength despite racism, threats and murder. Mr. Speaker, on March 7, 1965, Mr. Lewis led 600 people in a peaceful protest in Selma, Alabama. Their plan was to march to Montgomery. As many of us can recall with disgust and shame, they didn't make it. And in their blood and courage was borne the national call for the 1965 Voting Rights Act--to once and for all correct 95 years of failure to uphold the 15th Amendment. Today, we will honor the civil rights movement, we will honor our God-given right to be treated equally and we will protect the most basic exercise of our democracy by extending the Voting Rights Act. This is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that received nearly unanimous support at the Committee level. I want to thank the leadership, both Republican and Democrat, and Chairman Sensenbrenner for their work to ring this to the floor. While there would be every reason to hope and expect that this extension would not be required 41 years after the original, the Judiciary Committee, in their hours of hearings, found that the bill was needed--and needed to be updated. To protect minority voters, H.R. 9 upholds and strengthens the ``pre- clearance'' provisions for districts to change their voting rules. And it allows jurisdictions that have demonstrated lawful and fair voting practices to become ``uncovered'' by the VRA. Today we will also have the opportunity to vote on an amendment that would support our common language by printing ballots in English. This is a worthwhile debate to have. It is in no way contradictory to the intent of the bill. Basic comprehension of English is a requirement of citizenship for immigrants and essential to reach for and achieve the American dream-- whether someone was born here or not. I am proud to represent Americans of many, many national origins in my home state of California. But we are all united by our freedoms, our government and our language. It only serves to reinforce our unity and our common bonds to have our ballots printed in our national language. I want to make very clear that for anyone who might need help in the voting booth, it is lawful and encouraged to have someone assist you. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that today's proceedings on the floor will not devolve into members casting aspersions on the motives of one party or the other. The progress we have made on civil rights over the last four decades has been significant. If we are to confront inequalities that lie before us--and if we are to confront the inequalities that lie ahead of us--we must remain united and we must remain bipartisan. I can assure members who might harbor any doubts, there is nothing less than a total commitment on behalf of the leadership on this side of the House to pass H.R. 9--to ensure voting rights for every single American, from Maine to California. To suggest otherwise is offensive and divisive. While we labor to share the right of voting with millions around the globe so they can know a life of liberty and equality, it is our duty to protect the voting rights of our own citizens. President Lyndon Johnson, in his moving and powerful address to Congress just 8-days after the brutality at Selma, said: ``Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right. There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to ensure that right.'' Mr. Speaker, we will uphold that duty today. I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the day after President Bush gave his stirring address right here to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, The New York Times editorialized, and I quote, what promises to be a long and painful fight against a ruthless enemy. Mr. Speaker, this was true then, and it remains true today. So it goes without saying that any information and any intelligence exposed to the enemy directly hinders our prosecution of the war and directly threatens the safety of Americans. By relying on illegal leaks of classified information to publish the details of our government's program to track terrorist financing, some of our country's biggest newspapers, led by The New York Times, have imposed their interpretation of the, quote-unquote, public interest on a public whom I am confident to say would much rather be safe than be all-knowing. Let us be clear, those very newspapers that spilled barrels of ink about the government not connecting the dots before September 11, 2001, are now making it much harder to collect, much less connect, the dots today. Mr. Speaker, by all accounts, this was a legal, effective and narrow program that nabbed high-value terrorists. There were no reported abuses by the program, and there was no compelling reason to publish it, which is cause for serious concern. If officials leak information on programs such as this and newspapers print it, what won't be leaked and what won't be printed? The case was made to newspapers by Democrats, Republicans, and people inside and outside of the administration that publication of this story would expose a critical program. Our former colleague, Lee Hamilton, and his cochairman of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, were very clear. They were among those people who made the case. Mr. Kean said in an interview with Byron York, there are a number of programs which we are using to try to disrupt terrorist activities, and you never know which one is going to be successful. We knew that this one already had been. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that we send this very strong message that this behavior cannot continue.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to my friend from Arizona for raising one of the issues that he and I have worked closely on over the years. As the Reading Clerk stated and as my friend from Arizona stated, this is the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center. Mr. Chairman, 43 percent of the goods coming to and from the consumers and workers of the United States of America come through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. One of the most important centers for trade, planning and strategic meetings has been held at the Fairplex. It doesn't fall in my district. It is not in my district. It is in the district of my very distinguished colleague, Mrs. Napolitano. But I will tell you, as we look at our quest of trying to open up new markets for U.S. goods and services all around the world and as we look at ensuring that American consumers can have access to the best quality product at the lowest possible price, the utilization of this trade and convention center is critically important. But, Mr. Chairman, I have got to tell you that, as important as the issue of global trade is, I was really struck when last December I had the opportunity to listen to a friend of mine who happened to be at the Fairplex Trade and Convention Center, where it had taken place 2 weeks before that, unfortunately, of the eight planned voting sites for the Iraqi people who are here in the United States of America, looking forward, on December 15, to having the access to a voting station, one of those had, unfortunately, closed down. And what happened? The people at the Fairplex Trade and Convention Center came forward, and literally at the drop of a hat, they were able to provide the chance for Iraqis who were in this country on December 15 of last year to exercise that right to vote. Their ability to be on the frontline to participate in the global war on terror is something that I think is vitally important. I was listening on the phone as applause went up every single time that a ballot was placed into that voting box, and it was a great moment for us. And as, in the last 2 weeks, we have gotten word of the establishment of the completion of that cabinet with the defense and interior ministers there, it reminded me again of those votes that were cast at the Fairplex Trade and Convention Center that falls not in my district but in the district of Mrs. Napolitano. This particular earmark is there helping us in the global war on terror and helping us remain competitive globally. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Georgia for yielding and for his superb management of this very important appropriation bill that is coming forward. I also want to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for the hard work that he has put into this very important measure. It is a bipartisan bill that I know enjoys broad support. I know that the topic of discussion is the issue of increasing the minimum wage. I would like to say for the record, as I did in the Rules Committee last night, that I am a strong proponent of seeing the minimum wage increase. I want to see every American's opportunity increased, and I believe that the policies that we have put into place, not providing some sort of guarantee, I mean, States have minimum wage rates. My minimum wage rate in the State of California is substantially higher than the Federal minimum wage rate. There are some States that have a lower minimum wage, and I think it plays a role in the standard of living. But I am one who has traditionally been concerned about the notion of mandating from the Federal level an increase in the minimum wage. I know that that is the issue that is going to be talked about time and time again. An argument is propounded by many that we somehow are more interested in the rich than we are in those who are trying to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder. Nothing could be further from the case. We believe very strongly in ensuring opportunity for every single American. We want to make sure that there is opportunity out there, and there have been a wide range of empirical studies done, Madam Speaker, that show that if we look at the impact that it has on small businesses and on a wide range of other entities out there, it can be inflationary and, in fact, it can cost jobs. Now, I know a lot of people try to dispute that and say that it hasn't happened, but I think that realizing we have a 4.6 percent unemployment rate, as has been said time and time again by the President and others, it is lower than the average for the last four decades, we have a strong, growing economy today and I would not want to take any action whatsoever that could potentially impinge on the economic growth that we are enjoying. And we want to see everyone's wages increase. We want there to be greater opportunity for people to improve themselves. So, regardless of what arguments you might hear to the contrary, we are passionately committed to that. Some of us just have difficulty with having the Federal Government mandate it. I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Wolf, and Jerry Lewis, who chairs the full committee, for this work product; and I want to talk about one particular issue that has been very important to me for the last 12 years. Back in 1994, Madam Speaker, we established something known as SCAAP. That is kind of an intriguing acronym that is out there. It is known as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. The idea behind that is the fact that the Federal Government has the responsibility for the security of our Nation's borders. We all know that. We have had a raging debate that has gone on in this body and in the other body. We are hoping very much that we are going to be able to come up with a measure that focuses first on border security, which is what we did in the House bill, but as we look at the things that were included in that measure, increasing border fencing, criminalizing those who would allow their property to be used for tunneling under the border, a wide range of things, we also have to recognize that there is a real problem that exists in this country today and that is there are many people here illegally who have committed crimes, and in light of the fact that they have committed these crimes, they have been incarcerated throughout the country. In my county alone of Los Angeles, and I represent both Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, the great sheriff, Lee Baca, who was just reelected a few weeks ago, he is in Los Angeles County, and Sheriff Gary Penrod in San Bernardino County, they have come to me regularly and said that it costs millions and millions and millions of dollars for the incarceration, of criminal justice of people who are in this country illegally who have committed crimes. In fact, Sheriff Baca has told me repeatedly that it costs $150 million a year in Los Angeles County alone. Now one of the things that we have done over the past 6 years, we have been able to provide roughly $1 billion to the State of California for the reimbursement. Again, we don't cover all the costs, but it is, I believe, important for us at the Federal level to step up to the plate and realize that security of our borders is a top priority, and if there are people who are in here illegally committing crimes and a cost is thrown onto the shoulders of State and local governments, we should provide this reimbursement. Last year, I was privileged to work with our colleague, Jim Kolbe, and we coauthored an amendment that increased by $50 million the funding level for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to $405 million. What we have done this year, and I take my hat off to the distinguished members of the Appropriations Committee who have worked so hard on this, we have actually seen the committee itself come up with a level of $405 million. Again, that is not enough, Madam Speaker, but it is, I believe, a very important step to say to those who are taking on this responsibility at the State and local levels that they should be reimbursed. We have to secure our borders. We have to do everything that we possibly can to bring an end to the problem of illegal immigration. As we continue to work on that, it is absolutely imperative that we do all that we can to make sure that the Federal Government takes its responsibility. So this is an open rule that we have, and I believe it is very appropriate. It has funding for important measures. Another issue that is very important to me is the fact that when it comes to space research, we have been able to improve the quality of life for people all over this country and around the world. One of the greatest centers of that operation happens to be the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which is part of the California Institute of Technology. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is in Pasadena. I am proud to say the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is in La Canada- Flintridge. I jointly represent that area with our colleague Adam Schiff. When I look at this bill, I am very pleased that recognition of the importance of that facility and the programs there is included in it. So this is a good bill. I am strongly supportive of it and believe the rule will allow for a wide-ranging debate. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet this week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006. The bill was ordered reported by the Committee on Resources on June 21. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 28, 2006. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Committee on Resources, which is available on the Web sites of both the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Rules. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Branson for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. As my colleague knows, we have been focusing on the issue of accountability, transparency and greater disclosure as we look at the challenge of trying to put into place lobby and ethics reform which passed in this House with bipartisan support. We are still working with the Senate on that. And the notion of oversight is something that is a very important constitutional responsibility that we have. This measure that the distinguished majority whip has pursued is, I believe, very important in recognizing that greater transparency and disclosure is important. I do appreciate his commitment to ensure that as information comes forward, and his experience for 4 years as a college president demonstrates, that we will not, in fact, have to have a greater degree of transparency on what will be disclosed as to what is existing on the walls of those college dormitories. But I do believe that the American people should have an opportunity to gain access to as much information as possible when it deals with the awarding of these grants. I thank Chairman Davis and Mr. Davis and Mr. Waxman and all who have been involved in this and believe that it very importantly gets right at our core constitutional responsibility. I think this is a very, very helpful measure, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday and Friday, the House conducted a very important debate on the global war on terror. The resolution in question, H. Res. 861, honored the sacrifice of our soldiers and reaffirmed our commitment to victory in that global war on terror. I am very heartened that the House Republicans were joined by nearly a quarter of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 42, to be exact, voting in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, it was a spirited 10-hour debate, and over the course of it I heard some criticisms that I believe deserve a response. Many in the minority objected to the resolution and the forum for its consideration. They contended that the resolution was hollow, and it did not allow for a meaningful debate on the war. With such antipathy for the process and the resolution, one would have expected the Democratic leadership to ask for a vote on the previous question on the rule so that they could, in fact, amend it. In fact, they didn't. Or they might have offered a specific official substitute resolution which I, on several occasions over a 2-day period, said we would have considered making in order. But, Mr. Speaker, they did neither. In fact, as I said, for over 2 days, I asked the Democratic leadership for an alternative. I was told that nothing would be forthcoming. While individual Members such as Mr. Abercrombie did offer their own alternatives, the minority on the Rules Committee chose not to submit any of them as the official Democratic substitute. Unfortunately, many Members chose to make this a debate about process, rather than the real issue at hand. After listening to the debate, I know why. The minority party has no clear position on how to win the global war on terror and prevail in Iraq. When it comes to the biggest challenge of our generation, they are not of one mind. Some agree with House Republicans that it is absolutely essential to stay in Iraq until we achieve victory. Unfortunately, the majority of Democrats favor retreat in one form or another, whether it is the vague policy of redeployment or outright and immediate withdrawal, as the Out of Iraq Caucus has called it. This is a dangerous approach, Mr. Speaker. While perhaps intended to comfort our country in the midst of a truly devastating and trying struggle, it would serve chiefly to comfort the enemy. We know that two decades of tepid responses to attacks on our citizens and our interests in Lebanon, Somalia, New York City, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania, Kenya and Yemen only emboldened terrorists. We will not make the same mistake again. Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi people, its security forces and its government are not naive. Nor are we. Despite recent progress such as the killing of al Zarqawi and the completion of the Iraqi government's cabinet, calm is not just around the corner. The terrorists are unyielding. After all, their stated aim is to drive coalition forces out of the country and establish a territory-hungry, terrorist-friendly extremist state. They have openly declared that the United States does not have the will to see the fight through. They understand the significance of this battle, and so must we. We must accept nothing but total engagement and commitment as we help Iraq stabilize herself and become an ally in the war on terror. We cannot fulfill our mission, honor the sacrifice of our troops and move forward in the war on terror by backing away from its central battlefield. In a region where democracy has the potential to become more than a hope, we cannot abandon its best hope. Mr. Speaker, if we leave prematurely, and Iraq is allowed to become a lawless territory, sympathetic to terrorists, and brutal to its own people, the safety of the world and the security of the United States of America would be directly threatened. On September 11, 2001, we saw exactly what could happen when such conditions were allowed to exist in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that some criticized the forum for our debate. As one Member described it, the 10 hours would be like a glorified special order. But make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, our words matter. For proof, look no further than Zarqawi's bombed-out safe house. In the rubble, a copy of Arabic Newsweek was found. Our enemies, the enemies of peace and freedom, are listening, they are reading, and they are waiting for signs of weakness and timidity in the face of their brutality. With a vote in support of H. Res. 861, we gave them no such thing, and their kidnapping of our men and women will only strengthen our resolve. While there are significant differences between the majority and the minority on how to win the global war on terror, I am proud of both the process followed for conducting this debate and the overwhelming bipartisan vote to support our troops and complete the mission in Iraq.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California, Mr. Brian P. Bilbray, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest, and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, since March 4, 1789, when the United States Congress was established, 11,792 individuals have had the opportunity to serve as Members of the United States Congress. During that period of time, a grand total of 29 have left this institution and come back representing a different district. Five of our sitting colleagues now fall among those 29: Mr. Inslee; Mr. Cooper; Mr. Paul; our California colleague Mr. Lungren; and now the gentleman who is here to work and ready to make sure that we stop the problem of illegal immigration, deal with the global war on terror, and make sure that we succeed in growing our economy, our colleague, Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my good friend from Oklahoma, who has spent so much time and energy focused on our Nation's security, and it is very appropriate that he manage this rule, which is primarily dealing with that issue. When we think about the developments that have taken place just within the last week in Iraq, the summit, the meeting that was held at Camp David today with President Bush, we all know, as the President said today, that we have difficult, tough days ahead. We know that we are going to likely see retaliatory action taken by those who would be sympathetic with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the butcher who was responsible for countless beheadings, the attack on the United Nations meeting, the bombings at the wedding that took place in Jordan. We can go down that litany of heinous acts perpetrated by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. But we have to realize that the action that was taken last week was, in fact, a blow to the issue of terrorism, which is one with which we have to deal with on a regular basis, and daily we have to deal with this. I remember in a meeting with President Bush a couple of months ago when he looked over to a few of us and said every single morning when he wakes up the first concern that he has is the threat of a terrorist attack on the United States or our interests in any other part of the world. I think that this supplemental appropriations bill, which is designed to deal with that issue, is a very, very good and important step. We also know that dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, one of the worst natural disasters that our Nation has ever seen, needs to be addressed, and this bill is designed to do that. The reason that I really wanted to stand here is to say that this kind of leadership could not have taken place were it not for the actions of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Lewis. We have really seen a revolution take place within the Appropriations Committee. That revolution is focused on the need to vigorously pursue fiscal responsibility while at the same time pursuing our Nation's priorities. Chairman Lewis has done an absolutely phenomenal job at doing just that. We have seen a reduction in the number of so-called earmarks. We have also seen, and the report just came out today, that as we look at the economic growth that has taken place we are also seeing a slowing in the rate of growth of Federal spending. That is because of this appropriations process. A lot of people say why isn't George Bush out there exercising his right to veto legislation? Well, we all know where we began with this supplemental appropriations bill, slightly below the $92 billion level. We know that our friends in the other body said it would be $109 billion. We saw President Bush make it clear that he would veto any legislation that went beyond that level that he had requested, and we now have seen, because of the leadership of Chairman Lewis, the House and the Senate go through this conference process. I watched some of it last week. It was on television. We were able to see Chairman Lewis prevail in ensuring that we would pursue a fiscally responsible supplemental appropriations bill. You know, we don't always win here in the House of Representatives when we are dealing with our friends in the other body. But Chairman Lewis has done just that. I believe we owe a great debt of thanks to him for the leadership that he has shown there. We also need to note that right upstairs in the Rules Committee now we have a hearing, as we proceed, with the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, D.C. appropriations bill. We are looking at trying to get as much of our appropriations work done as we approach the July 4th break. We are on a path towards doing that, having passed out of this House a number of important appropriations bills, many of which have seen, as I said, this dramatic slowing in the rate of growth of Federal spending. Time and time again, we see in the media, and we hear reports, people are saying, oh, Republicans are spending huge amounts of money. I see my friend from Wisconsin here, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and his interests were just represented very well upstairs in the Rules Committee when our colleague, Mr. Olver from Massachusetts, proposed an amendment that was modeled after the amendment that Mr. Obey has recommended on a regular basis, that being a tax increase for those who are at the highest ends of the economic spectrum and, in turn, expending, and we have figured it roughly, $26.1 billion in total through the appropriations process that we have so far. Now, one of the things that Chairman Lewis has done is he has been very insistent on keeping that spending level down, but, again, meeting our priorities. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to extend congratulations to him. I look forward to seeing passage of this conference report, with strong bipartisan support, so that we can continue winning the war on terror, so that we can continue dealing with those victims of this horrible tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, so that we can, in fact, have that additional $2.3 billion that was provided to ensure that we are taking every step that we possibly can to prevent the threat of avian flu and for the other items that are in there. So I would simply again extend congratulations to Mr. Lewis and our colleagues, and I look forward to strong bipartisan support with this measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my very good friend from Fort Lauderdale, who serves so ably on the Rules Committee, that I don't believe that we are stingy at all. I think the American people are very, very generous. I know my friend has been involved in providing leadership in a wide range of areas internationally, and he has had a commitment to dealing with many of these issues. I think that the United States of America has demonstrated its generosity, not only through its foreign assistance package, but also through the eleemosynary activities of so many Americans who are voluntarily involved. I think of the wealthiest person in the world, Bill Gates, who has stepped forward to deal with the AIDS in Africa crisis. He voluntarily has done many, many things to help deal with this issue. So I would say a resounding no, we are not stingy when it comes to this issue. We are, I believe, very cost effectively, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the important needs that are out there. And my friend raised the issue of the percentage of the gross domestic product what is being done, and of course, what is brought to mind for me is another issue, and that is, in fact, that we have seen a great reduction in our Federal deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product. It is now below 2.6 percent of the GDP. And I think that our growing economy will again put dollars in the pockets of Americans so that they will be able to voluntarily deal with many of these needs that exist in other parts of the world. So I thank my friend for his question, and I thank again the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules for his leadership on this and a wide range of other foreign policy initiatives, and again congratulate my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations for his fine work.