Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as we end our congressional session for the month of April, I think it's very important to have an honest conversation about taxation in America.

The United States Constitution clearly states in article 1, section 8, that:

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes,

duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for

the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Unlike in Great Britain, the Framers bestowed this power to a Congress directly representative of the people. Men, religious men like Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, were taught the ideals that all men and women are created equal and that there is no divine right of a King's rule.

Moreover, our Framers believed in the social contract, an intellectual device used to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their government. The social contract our Framers envisioned was one in which a legitimate government was defined by government operated and derived from the consent of the governed. In other words, the government envisioned by our Framers would be answerable to those that elected them through regular elections.

One of the most famous social contract thinkers, John Locke, believed if a government were to abuse that relationship, the governed had the natural right to overthrow their leaders.

Our Framers lived under the rule of King George III, a ``man of a small mind,'' according to one British historian, at a time when ``republicanism,'' defined as the protection of liberty through the rule of law, was sweeping across the British Empire. The British Empire, extending to the Americas, ruled by King George was one where high taxes without representation was the rule of law and where dissension was met with a noose.

Following on the heels of the Molasses Act, where a tax was imposed on all molasses sold within the Colonies, set to expire in 1763, the British Parliament passed the Sugar Act in April of 1764. The following year, Parliament passed the Stamp Act, stating that all printed materials within the Colonies needed to be on taxed and stamped paper from London.

In response to the Stamp Act, the American Colonials formed the Stamp Act Congress, held in New York. In 1765, this assembly was seen as the first true collective dissension shown towards the British Crown in colonial history.

What followed throughout the rest of the century, Mr. Speaker, that was a lesson in the early beginnings of American exceptionalism.

Learning from their lesson of taxation without representation, a viewing gallery was built in our first House of Representatives so that any citizen may bear witness to the decisions made on their behalf.

Following the American Revolution, very few taxes were enacted and imposed on the American people, such as modest taxes on alcohol, sugar, and tobacco to pay for the simple workings and infrastructure of government.

The War of 1812 brought on new taxes on luxury goods, such as gold and jewelry. After on-again, off-again taxes for the next half century, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1862, under the tutelage of President Abraham Lincoln.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment replaced a large excise tax from alcohol that was repealed after Prohibition and that provided the government with revenue to fund the First World War, thus making a Federal income tax permanent. But after the war was over and Prohibition was repealed, was this tax still necessary? Did the creation of a permanent income tax contradict the previous taxes we saw in our early history?

At the time, a very controversial amendment, the 16th Amendment, had been cited in multiple Supreme Court cases, most significantly in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad and in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company. The Court ruled it was never the intent of Congress to place a direct tax on the American people. Mr. Speaker, that's a decision we now see being debated again in the Supreme Court with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

These direct taxes, such as a direct tax on property ownership, were seen to be apportioned for the States to decide. Since its induction, we have seen a mass exploitation of the income tax. No longer is the Tax Code used simply to pay for the workings of government. Today, we see tax dollars wasted on such egregious projects as $150,000 to the Institute of the Museum and Library Services funds for an American Museum of Magic in Marshall, Michigan; $175,000 in National Institutes of Health funds for the University of Kentucky to study how cocaine enhances the sex drive of Japanese quail; and a National Science Foundation grant of $198,000 to the University of California at Riverside for research on whether using social media makes one happy.

But, Mr. Speaker, why are we here today?

We are here because millions of Americans have just filed their Federal taxes. I wonder how many of those Americans actually understand their taxes. How many of those Americans have to pay someone hundreds of dollars who can understand the seemingly unending wail in thousands of pages of Tax Code? As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the American people know that even some of our colleagues here on Capitol Hill, in this very body, have had some issues with the Tax Code, to include our own Secretary of the Treasury. Most alarming might be the fact that the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Shulman, has claimed that he uses a tax preparer.

This is simply ridiculous. There are serious ramifications of a Tax Code that is over 67,000 pages. How many small and large business owners are not hiring because they are constantly being told they're not paying their fair share of taxes and cannot predict how much they will pay in the future? Mr. Speaker, I reject this progressive mantra that we need to raise taxes so that the government can waste more hard- earned American taxpayer dollars. So now is an absolutely important time to go back and examine our Tax Code, move away from the progressive Tax Code system and simplify it for the American people. Milton Friedman famously quipped:

If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara

Desert, in 5 years there would be a shortage of sand.

President Obama has increasingly upped his rhetoric of class envy by suggesting that higher-income taxpayers are avoiding their responsibility in not paying their fair share. Instead of resorting to manipulative rhetoric, pitting one working American against another, the President and Congress should work together to enact pro-growth economic policies to help put Americans back to work.

One of the biggest reasons our economy continues to struggle is that employers, both large and small, are filled with uncertainty. They look to Washington only to see more government spending, the desire for more taxes, and more government regulations on the horizon. Washington spending has been out of control for years, Mr. Speaker--and Republicans and Democrats certainly could have done more in the past to stop it--but the spending binge that has occurred under President Obama is truly unprecedented. President Obama's proposed tax hikes that are buried in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, increasing regulation, government intervention into the private sector, and skyrocketing debt have created economic uncertainty, thus freezing investment and hiring.

The solution for reviving our economy is straightforward: cut wasteful government spending and remove the unnecessary tax and regulatory barriers that cause the uncertainty that prevents employers from hiring Americans. Understand that you cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator with higher taxes. Job creators know that historic debt levels will lead to historic job-destroying tax increases. If we raise taxes on the very people that we need to grow and invest in our economy and hire new workers, our economy will continue to spiral. If we do not have economic growth, we will never balance the budget.

Nearly 75 percent of America's small businesses, the economic engine of growth, pay their taxes through their owners' personal individual incomes. Half of those small businesses would suffer from a higher tax burden under the President's proposed tax increases. Those proposed tax increases will limit their ability to hire more workers and invest. Raising taxes on small businesses, where a majority of Americans go to work every day, will not put American families back to work. Instead, these tax increases will hamper the ability of these job creators to keep workers on their payrolls, expand their businesses, hire new employees, and invest. These tax increases will hurt economic recovery and growth because they suppress incentives to save and invest at a time when investments and capital are desperately needed to recover our economy.

Mr. Speaker, since moving into the White House just over 3 years ago,

President Obama has been spending millions of dollars campaigning around this great Nation, pushing a so-called Buffett rule. The President claimed that the Buffett rule would stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the President continues to mislead the American people. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation stated that the Buffett rule would only raise $46.7 billion over the next 10 years, reducing our deficit by less than .4 percent. In other words, the so-called Buffett rule would only raise enough revenue to keep the Federal Government's lights on for 11 days.

Just a couple of weeks ago, the President was in the congressional district that I represent, touting his political divide-and-rule gimmick that would collect almost $47 billion through the year 2022; but when you look at the comparison of the $7 trillion in Federal budget deficits that will come in that exact same period, we are not making progress. Clearly, we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C. and not a revenue problem.

Mr. Speaker, the President should stop trying to score these cheap political points and should work towards solutions that will actually solve our Nation's debt crisis. His claim that the Buffett rule is something that will get us moving in the right direction toward fairness would be more convincing if he took other steps in that direction, too. Three years into his Presidency, President Obama has not introduced a plan for comprehensive tax reform, arguably the most important vehicle for fixing the Nation's finances and for boosting long-term economic growth.

When you look at the progressive Tax Code system that we have in the United States of America, we hear a lot of talk today about fairness, fair share, economic equality, and shared sacrifice. Well, one of the things that we must understand is that the top 1 percent of wage earners in the United States of America are paying close to 40 percent of Federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of wage earners in the United States of America pay close to 58 percent of Federal income taxes. The top 25 percent of wage earners in the United States of America pay 86 percent of Federal income taxes. Mr. Speaker, to make matters worse, a large percentage of wage-earning households--about 47 percent--are paying absolutely nothing in Federal income taxes.

I would also like to speak to the other side of that equation, which is how we are using the Tax Code as a weapon for behavior modification.

One of the things we have to be very concerned about is all of the new taxes that will kick in with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from January of 2013 out to January of 2018.

One of those taxes even includes a real estate tax, as well as an insidious tanning tax. At a time when the housing market is still in free-fall, why would the President tax people for purchasing or selling their homes? It is not only unfair, but it is immoral to leave these types of policies as our legacy to our children and grandchildren.

Also within this new government takeover of health care is the federalization of student loans, and we just voted about keeping those loan rates for our college students at 3.4 percent, not realizing that the Federal Government has now taken over the management of college loans. This completely cuts out any competition to help lower student loan interest rates. The federalization of these loans has done nothing but drive up interest rates on our young people. President Obama himself even said that this will do nothing to help solve the problem of ever-increasing college tuition costs.

This equates to a tax on the American Dream of higher education, which is so crucial to success. Unfortunately, the economy and job market that the Obama administration is fostering is just pouring salt on an open wound, Mr. Speaker. Not only will recent graduates see themselves paying higher interest rates on their loans, they will also enter a job market that is seeing some of the highest unemployment rates for recent graduates in our history. Nearly half of all recent college graduates cannot find jobs after graduation.

Mr. Speaker, at the rate we're going, our children will be the first generation to not live a better life than their parents. This is simply unacceptable. What is the President's response to this crisis? He introduces his fiscal year 2013 budget that would spend an incredibly obscene $47 trillion over the next ten years; higher taxes on individuals to pay for increased government spending; higher taxes on small businesses that will stifle new jobs; and higher taxes on investors to ensure our innovation lags behind the rest of the world.

The President's planned tax increases seem designed to demonize the so-called ``rich'' and use them as a propaganda tool to score political points. But the fact is next year, unless changes are made to the Tax Code, Americans will be subject to the largest tax increase in our Nation's history. If the Obama-Bush tax cuts expire, a typical family of four in south Florida with a household income of $50,000 per year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes each year.

Mr. Speaker, seniors who count on dividends and investments to cover expenses during retirement will have to pay higher tax rates, even if they have a modest income. Children of farmers and small business owners who wish to continue the legacy of their parents will find it increasingly difficult to do so as the death tax exemption will shrink from $5 million to $1 million. Further, inherited assets exceeding that amount will be taxed at a maximum rate of 55 percent, with a 5 percent surcharge on estates over $10 million. Investors will be battered with a capital gains tax increase from 15 percent to a top-level maximum of 25.8 percent. Seniors who rely on those dividend returns will also be hammered. Stock dividends currently at 15 percent will be taxed as ordinary income at a top rate of 43.4 percent.

Mr. Speaker, the President is also going after our military families. If he were to have his way, all military families would see their TRICARE health care fees triple above the current rates that they are already paying, all while leaving civilian unionized health care completely untouched.

Mr. Speaker, why? Why is the President targeting some of the most vulnerable groups in our society like our young people, seniors, and those who have risked their lives to protect our freedoms? This certainly isn't right. This certainly is not fair. It is, Mr. Speaker, downright immoral.

In the last few months, we've heard a lot about this fairness from the President, especially when it comes to the so-called ``rich.'' In President Obama's own message about his proposed budget for fiscal year 2013, he says everyone must shoulder their fair share. But how does the President define fair when 47 percent of wage-earning households paid zero Federal income taxes while the top 25 percent paid 86 percent?

Does President Obama think it's fair that our children and grandchildren will be burdened with debt because of his unprecedented reckless spending, because Washington currently borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends? Does the President think it's fair to pile another $47,000 of debt onto every household in the United States of America over the last 3 years? Is it fair for every American to have a $50,000 debt obligation on them right now? Does the President think it's fair to use college students as props for these campaign-style rallies, without explaining how his bad policies will leave them in deeper debt? Does the President think it's fair to force hardworking American taxpayers to subsidize a wealthy person's purchase of a hybrid luxury car just because it fits his idea of American energy? Does the President think it's fair to hand out millions of tax dollars to politically correct solar energy companies that then go bankrupt? We've seen five so far. Does the President think it's fair to tell thousands of workers they won't have jobs because he blocked the Keystone XL pipeline to solidify the support of far-left radical environmentalists? How does the President feel about the fact that 3 years of his policies have left us with more people on food stamps, more people in poverty, lower home values, higher gas prices, and higher unemployment? Is this fair, Mr. Speaker? That's why we must simplify this Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, this great constitutional Republic simply needs a flat tax. A flat tax would dramatically reduce

the ill-effects of our progressive Tax Code. Perhaps more important, it would reduce the Federal Government's power over the lives of taxpayers and get the government out of the business of trying to micromanage the economy.

The major features of a flat tax include a single flat rate. All flat tax proposals have a single rate that is usually less than 20 percent. The low flat rate solves the problem of high marginal tax rates by reducing penalties against productive behavior such as work, risk- taking, and entrepreneurship. It has an elimination of special preferences. A flat tax proposal would eliminate provisions of the Tax Code that give preferential treatment on certain behaviors and activities. Getting rid of deductions, credits, and exemptions also helps to solve the problem of complexity, allowing taxpayers to file their tax returns on a simple form.

There should be no double taxation of saving and investment. Flat tax proposals would eliminate the Tax Code's bias against capital formation by ending the double taxation of income that is saved and invested. This means no death tax, low or perhaps no capital gains tax, no double taxation of savings, and no double taxation on dividends. By taxing income only one time, a flat tax is easier to enforce and more conducive to job creation and capital formation.

There are two principal arguments for a flat tax: growth and fairness. Many economists are attracted to the idea because the current tax system with its higher rates and discriminatory taxation of saving and investment reduces growth, destroys jobs, and lowers incomes. A flat tax would not eliminate the damaging impact of taxes altogether, but by dramatically lowering rates and ending the Tax Code bias against saving and investment, it would boost the economy's performance, especially when compared to the current Tax Code.

Under a flat-tax system, I believe in only three taxable deductions: a child tax credit, a mortgage interest tax deduction, and a charitable contribution deduction.

Mr. Speaker, we want families to have children, and we want children to have homes. Most importantly, we want Americans helping Americans. This system would end the class warfare rhetoric perpetrated by President Obama and eliminate many, if not all, special interest loopholes that have been created over decades of Tax Code manipulation.

Look at other countries around the world that have implemented and are in the process of implementing the flat tax. Economic growth increases, unemployment drops, and we see more compliance with the tax law.

Nations such as Estonia and Slovakia are widely viewed as role models since both have engaged in dramatic reform and are reaping enormous economic benefits. Since instituting the flat tax, Estonia has thrived and become a member of the European Union.

The flat tax was implemented in 1994 at 26 percent and has since fallen to 21 percent of income. From 2001 to 2007, Estonia's economy grew by an average of 9 percent per year, which, as we just saw with our recent GDP growth statistics for the first quarter of 2.2 percent, we are severely lacking. In 2003, its unemployment rate was in excess of 12 percent. Just 5 years later, only 4.5 percent of its population was without jobs. Compare that, Mr. Speaker, to the anemic GDP growth of the economic recovery under President Obama.

I think the most important thing we have to come to understand is that this time in history truly does belong to the American people. The money, the resources belong to the American people.

The liberal, progressive approach that one should give more money to the government in order to better society is a flawed approach and, please, Mr. Speaker, tell me where a social, egalitarian, welfare, nanny state has ever been successful in the world. Thomas Sowell once said:

Liberals seem to assume that, if you don't believe in their

particular political solutions, then you don't really care

about the people that they claim to want to help.

I do not believe that I can spend the money of over half a million people I represent in south Florida any better than they can themselves. We should be coming up with ideas of how to keep more money in American pockets to invest in our economy instead of propaganda- esque divisive rhetoric separating the American people for the spoils of politicians.

Let's start treating the American people as adults and find our own integrity and character, Mr. Speaker. The key thing that has to accompany this is that we must reduce the size and scope of government as well because as we start to focus more on Main Street, as we start to focus more on the hardworking American taxpayers and what is truly best for them, then we can have that investment at their level; we can have the growth at their level.

When President Obama talks about increasing investments in government, I must simply inquire: What is the rate of return?

We grew the bureaucracy of education, and the standards of education in the United States of America dropped. We created the Department of Energy, and still we are not energy independent. We bail out private sector industries yet experience the slowest economic recovery in U.S. history.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that I came to the United States Congress is to begin enacting sweeping reforms that show the American people that we are serious about turning this economy around and that we're serious about creating the right type of policies that set the conditions of job creation. We're talking about economic freedom for the American people as opposed to economic dependency upon government. This incredible, exorbitant system that we have is complex to the point where it is causing more pain for the American people and causes them to not have the freedom that they deserve nor faith in any of us.

Mr. Speaker, I reject the notion that fairness comes from wealth redistribution. True fairness rewards merit, creating the conditions for economic success and achieving your goals. That is the American way, to promote individual industrialism to honor the entrepreneurial will and spirit of our countrymen.

Mr. Speaker, a simple question: Why did your ancestors come to this country? Did they come to get a fair system of forced income redistribution?

The government cannot and never will save our country nor our economy. Unless we let our children earn their successes, we will hand them a country in decline, one where they will need to rely on government for their success. It is immoral to pull the ladder of success out from under our children's feet like this.

And how can I explain this to my children, my two daughters, Aubrey and Austen? How would you explain this to your children, Mr. Speaker?

We have never done less with America in our history, and I believe here in Washington, D.C., we need to try doing a lot more with less of the resources of the American people.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let us show the American people that we stand steadfast and loyal to this constitutional Republic and to the preservation of a legacy of liberty, freedom, and democracy for subsequent generations. To all others who would stand contrary to those simple beliefs, well, Mr. Speaker, in the words of the great philosopher, Mr. T, I say that ``I pity the fool.''

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

I thank the kind colleague of mine from New York (Mr. Reed).

Mr. Speaker, as a field artillery officer in the United States Army, I learned a thing or two about weaponry. Our success on the battlefields of Desert Storm and Desert Shield depended on choosing the correct artillery for each specific objective, whether it was halting the enemy's forward progress, diminishing the strength of its forces, or completely destroying its capabilities.

Although he has never served our country in uniform or risked his life to defend its freedoms and liberties on distant shores, it seems President Obama understands a thing or two about weaponry as well. But in the President's case, Mr. Speaker, the current weapon of choice is tax policy, and the enemies are small businesses, investors, entrepreneurs, and corporations, who seemingly are deemed undesirable. In short, these are the economic engines of our Nation.

The President's planned tax increases seemed designed solely to demonize the rich and use them as a propaganda tool to score political points. But the collateral damage of these policies will spread far and wide into the heartland of America. After all, the 160 percent increase in Federal cigarette taxes put in place in 2009 by President Obama and his administration, certainly affects those earning far less than $250,000, despite his promise not to raise their taxes.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, next year, unless changes are made in the Tax Code, Americans will be bombarded with the heavy artillery of the largest tax increase in the Nation's history, causing massive economic injury and destruction.

To begin with, if the Bush-Obama tax rates are allowed to expire, the current tax brackets of 10 to 35 percent will rise to 15 to 39.6 percent. Other tax provisions scheduled to disappear that will hit ordinary Americans include the American Opportunity Tax Credit--up to $2,500 per student for qualified college costs, a tax exclusion for forgiven mortgage debt, and a tax credit for employer-provided child care.

Children of farmers, as my colleague from Georgia talked about, and small business owners who wish to continue the legacy of their parents will find it increasingly difficult to do so, as the death tax exemption will shrink from $5 million to $1 million. Further, inherited assets exceeding that amount will be taxed at a maximum rate, Mr. Speaker, of 55 percent, up from 35 percent, and a 5 percent surcharge on estates over $10 million.

Investors will be battered with a capital gains tax increase from 15 percent to a maximum of 25.8 percent. Seniors who rely on their dividend returns will also be hampered. Stock dividends, currently 15 percent, will be taxed as ordinary income with a top rate of 43.4 percent. That's 39.6 percent income tax plus a 3.8 percent tax on investment income proposed in the President's health care law.

In the last few months we've heard a lot about fairness from the President, Mr. Speaker, especially when it comes to wealthier people. In President Obama's own message about his proposed budget for fiscal year 2013, he says everyone must shoulder their fair share. But how, Mr. Speaker, does he define fair when 47 percent of wage-earning households pay zero Federal income taxes, while the top 25 percent of wage-earning households pay 87 percent?

Besides, the spending proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget is far beyond what the revenue base can support. It would be mathematically impossible to increase taxes on the Nation's highest earners to close the future trillion dollar-plus deficits if spending continues as President Obama has planned.

And according to a report by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the highly touted Buffett rule would raise a paltry 30 to $40 billion over the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, during that same timeframe, President Obama's budget would create nearly $7 trillion in new debt, which means the Buffett tax would lower that debt by less than half a percent. This is clearly not sound fiscal policy. It's the misguided policy of economic fairness, and it is just as Frederic Bastiat stated in his essay, ``The Law'': It is legal plunder under the

guise of benevolence and misconceived philanthropy.

While the President has some understanding of the destructive capability of his tax policy, he demonstrates little understanding of battlefield strategy, because those who are on the receiving end of an artillery barrage seldom stay in place.

When businesses and individuals are being bombarded with higher tax rates, they will simply change their behavior. Investors will shift money from taxable to nontaxable investments. Total economic activity slows, as there is less incentive for employees to work extra hours, while smaller, potential returns mean investors and venture capitalists are less willing to shoulder risks. All taxpayers have a greater incentive to shield their income.

Obviously, President Obama is no student of history either, Mr. Speaker, for if he were, he would know revenues increased under Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and yes, George W. Bush, at least until the 2007 financial crisis, when tax rates were reduced.

But increasing tax revenue does not appear to be the President's strategic objective. If it were, he would be recommending policies to help increase the revenue base by optimizing the regulatory and tax environment to encourage businesses to invest, grow, and hire.

The House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, has passed 26 bills to do just that, but they currently languish on the desk of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who will not bring them up for vote in the Senate.

Instead, President Obama seems determined to punish and wipe out economic success in this country, leveling tax weapons of mass destruction on all taxpayers. This is a battle our Nation can ill afford to lose. We must reform our Tax Code, and we must restore the conditions for economic success for all our citizens because truly, they are taxed enough already.

Mr. Speaker, unleashing the individual industrialism and entrepreneurial spirit of Americans does not come from capital consolidation in Washington, D.C. The American people do not want more Solyndras and GSA boondoggles.

The American people want economic security, which comes from this body becoming responsible stewards of their tax resources, not taking more from them based upon divisive, socioeconomic rhetoric.

The American people, Mr. Speaker, want a constitutional republic, not a socialist, egalitarian, welfare nanny state. The American people want an economic future so bright that they will have to wear sunglasses.

I just want to say you are absolutely right, and I thank you for yielding an additional minute.

It is truly the choice between two futures: it is a future of economic freedom, or a future of economic dependency. It is a future that talks about the entrepreneurial will and spirit and the individual industrialism of the American people or collective subjugation. I think that the American people will make the right choice in November 2012.

I want to thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Reed), and I want to thank my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy) and the previous colleague, Mr. Duncan, my freshman class president, my brother from Georgia, and also my colleague from the great State of Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

Mr. Speaker, very simply, the Supreme Court has begun to consider the legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also referred to as ObamaCare. The High Court will pore over article I, section 8 of the Constitution to determine the meaning behind the words:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,

duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts, and provide

for the common defense and general welfare of the United

States, to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among

the several States and with Indian tribes.

The 2012 Supreme Court must now determine whether the Founders had any intention of mandating the behavior of private enterprises and American citizens. To me, Mr. Speaker, the answer is obvious-- absolutely not.

Our Nation was founded on the Declaration of Independence. Freedom of choice and a free market are at the core of our Nation's soul. A governmental mandate for the behavior of individuals and private enterprises is anathema to what our Founders intended. The prospect of having an unelected panel of bureaucrats determining fundamental decisions about our individual health is perhaps the most personal and intimate intrusion into our lives.

This concept is absolutely absurd and dangerous law, which surely ranks with the grievances laid down 236 years ago in the Declaration of Independence. Grievances such as:

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate

and pressing importance unless suspended in their operation

until his assent should be obtained, and when so suspended he

is utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither

swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their

substance.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction

foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws,

giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation; for

imposing taxes on us without our consent; for taking away our

charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering

fundamentally the forms of our governments.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, each and every day I carry this Declaration of Independence and Constitution right here next to my heart. Because in January of 2011, Florida Federal District Judge C. Roger Vinson ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional, stating ``never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company essentially for life just for being alive and residing in the United States.''

If the government has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a transaction, it is not hyperbolic to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted, just as my colleague from South Carolina articulated so well.

Today, this prediction is being attempted before our very eyes. With ObamaCare, insurance companies will be forced even to provide contraceptive products free of charge.

But, Mr. Speaker, why just contraception? Will the government next force insurance companies to provide surgical procedures free of charge? Where does it end? Perhaps supermarkets will be compelled to offer apples and carrots free of charge to ensure children have access to healthy food.

Beyond exerting oppressive control over individuals and private enterprises, ObamaCare circumvents the foundation of our own legislative structure.

At the heart of the Affordable Care Act is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, made up of 15 unelected officials appointed by the President to one simple purpose: to reduce Medicare spending. The IPAB will be tasked with and given the authority to reduce costs to the government by, among other things, limiting reimbursements to doctors. It doesn't take a brain surgeon, Mr. Speaker, to recognize that this will lead to more physicians leaving the Medicare system, reducing access to care for our seniors, and limiting available treatments.

But this isn't the most frightening part. Any recommendations that the IPAB automatically brings forth becomes law. The only way around this unprecedented amount of power for Washington bureaucrats is an act of Congress with a three-fifths supermajority in the Senate. In other words, the unelected IPAB, appointed by the President, essentially becomes its own shadow legislative body.

The fundamental structure of our government with three co-equal branches and a careful system of checks and balances is being usurped. Our freedoms and liberties are being chipped away bit by bit. Our country is being transformed step by step, incrementally, into a centrally planned, stringently controlled, bureaucratic nanny State.

What I find most frightening is that a portion of our populace willingly dons these shackles and like lemmings will march this great constitutional Republic off to its own demise.

Perhaps some Americans are simply unaware of the exorbitant monetary cost of this governmental behemoth. But numbers don't lie, Mr. Speaker, and they are dangerous: $1.76 trillion from the American taxpayers to pay for ObamaCare over 10 years, nearly double the $940 billion that was forecast when the bill was signed into law. As a previous Speaker said, ``We have to pass the bill in order to find out what is in it.''

Fifty-two billion in new taxes on businesses as employers are forced to provide health insurance, $47 billion in new taxes on drug companies and medical device-makers, costs that will surely be passed down to patients, particularly our senior citizens.

Families earning more than $250,000 a year will see more taxes as ObamaCare adds a new tax to investment income, including capital gains, dividends, rental income, and royalties; 16,000 new IRS agents; 159 new government agencies and bureaucracies; $575 billion in cuts to Medicare.

Insurance premiums are expected to increase 1.9 percent to 2.3 percent in 2014 and up to 3.7 percent by 2023 because ObamaCare adds a premium tax on health insurers offering full coverage.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unworkable and destined to fail. One need only look back a few years ago to the last Big Government program with the word ``affordable'' in it. Our colleague from the other side, Barney Frank, brought forth the National Affordable Housing Act, and it, in less than a decade, managed to demolish the housing market, weaken financial institutions, and wipe out the net worth of millions of Americans.

What makes anyone, Mr. Speaker, think government intervention in health care will be successful?

ObamaCare is unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is anti-constitutional. It violates those great, inalienable rights that Thomas Jefferson said do not come from man, they come from our Creator--of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It violates our individual sovereignty. And most certainly it is probably one of the most awful pieces of American policy.

Mr. Speaker, I pray that after next week's Supreme Court decision--or whenever it comes--that this Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act becomes the most short-lived piece of legislation in American history.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the history of the world, there has always been conflict between nations and among people. Wars have been fought to conquer land. Wars have been fought to acquire resources. Wars have been fought to spread ideas.

What is constant is that with each succeeding battle, both the tools and the techniques of warfare have progressed. From the earliest days of using rocks and sticks to the advancement of bows and arrows to flintlock and then automatic weapons, to TNT, atomic and nuclear bombs, man has continued to find ways, new ways of inflicting greater destruction on each other.

My father served in World War II. My older brother served in Vietnam. I, myself, served in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom, and my nephew continues to serve in the United States Army and has already been deployed to Afghanistan twice.

The only thing we know for sure is that the enemies my nephew has faced and will face in the future are altogether different from the enemy my father found in Europe and my brother found in Southeast Asia. Unlike any conflict this Nation has ever undertaken, from Lexington and Concord to Gettysburg and Antietam, from Belleau Wood and the Marne to Normandy and Iwo Jima, from the Chosin Reservoir to Khe Sanh, to the Persian Gulf, this 21st century battlefield is not defined by columns, fronts, uniforms, or borders but, rather, about one ideology against another.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about this 21st century battlefield, one that is vastly different from any we have faced before. If we are not as prepared to fight in this new virtual environment as we would be to fight in unfamiliar physical surroundings, it will be just as likely to effect our downfall as the jungles in Indochina were to the colonial French troops.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear the United States Congress, the media, and Americans are truly focused on the dire economic situation here at home, and I share those concerns.

I also recognize the importance of not turning our backs on the principal obligation vested in us as elected leaders to protect and defend the United States of America against enemies, foreign and domestic.

The wars that my father and brother fought in and the Cold War we were engaged in when we first put on those uniforms 30 years ago, all of them were clearly defined. We knew our enemy. We knew his tactics. We knew his weapons and the uniform he wore. We even, at times, Mr. Speaker, laid down our arms temporarily to observe religious holidays like Christmas and Tet. But with the advent of the 21st century battlefield, that paradigm no longer exists. If we are going to achieve our objectives, we must be ready to adapt to changing circumstances. We cannot

simply understand our enemy; we must define it.

In 2012, more than 10 years after the Twin Towers fell in the city of which you, Mr. Speaker, represent, there is still a debate in this country about whom we're fighting.

So today, let us set aside political correctness in order to fully define the enemy we've been at war with for decades, since years before commercial airliners slammed into the Pentagon, crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, and took the lives of over 2,000 citizens in New York.

Let me be perfectly clear: the free world is not engaged in a war on terror. Terrorism is a tactic, Mr. Speaker, and no nation or coalition of nations can go to war against a tactic.

For instance, the United States was not engaged in a war against the Blitzkrieg or the Kamikaze in 1941 through 1945. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are indeed our enemy, but we are not at war with al Qaeda or the Taliban. They are simply the regiments and battalions of the ideological army to which they belong.

The United States was not at war with the 12th German Panzer Division or the 55th Japanese Infantry Regiment from 1941 to 1945. In fact, before the rise of al Qaeda, the terrorist group that had inflicted the most damage on the United States was Hezbollah. And let us never forget the loss in the Beirut bombing of those 240-some-odd marines. Today, Hezbollah has evolved into a highly capable military force, albeit one without state or uniform. So capable, in fact, they have armed missiles within striking distance of every city in Israel. Yet several American Presidential administrations have failed to clearly identify Hezbollah as an enemy.

Until we as a Nation are able to correctly and openly identify our enemy, we will continue to put our men and women on the ground in harm's way without a clear mission for success.

On this 21st century battlefield, we are not fighting against a single organization, a single leader, or a single nation. We are, Mr. Speaker, fighting against a radical Islamic fundamentalism which knows no country, recognizes no borders, and wears no uniform. It is Islamism, a theocratic political totalitarian ideology, no different from Nazism, fascism, and communism, which threatens the free world. Our enemy does not distinguish between combatants, be them lawful combatants, unlawful combatants, or even noncombatants, as required by the Geneva Convention. Our enemy does not distinguish between military and civilian targets.

So, Mr. Speaker, how do we understand the complexities of this global conflagration in which we are engaged, and how do we make the changes necessary to defeat it? With the appropriate strategic level of perspective, because we will never lose at the tactical level on the ground because the United States has the best soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen the world has ever known. But without the correct strategic and operational goals, we'll be on the proverbial hamster wheel. No matter how much effort we exert, we will not make forward progress.

So, now that we have defined the enemy, we must develop strategic imperatives.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are three strategic imperatives: to engage, to deter, and to strike. We must clearly, then, identify specific strategic level objectives, and there are four.

First, Mr. Speaker, we must deny the enemy sanctuary. The number one asset our military has is its strategic mobility. When that is curtailed by a focus on nation-building or occupation-style warfare, we eliminate our primary advantage and, worse, turn our military forces into targets, because this enemy truly indeed has no respect for those borders and boundaries. Therefore, we must be willing to take the fight directly to him.

Second, we must interdict the enemy's flow of men, material, and resources. We have to cut off the enemy's ability to fund, supply, and replenish his ranks. As my colleague just spoke, our own energy independence is a vital part of that goal.

Third, we must, Mr. Speaker, win the information war. Unfortunately, the enemy is far more adept at exploiting the power of the Internet, broadcast media, and dissemination of powerful imagery. In addition, I fear that there are some in our media who now see themselves as an ideological political wing. If we cannot fully utilize information as a resource and part of our national power, we will lose this battle, if not our country.

The great example of this occurred during the Tet Offensive, when the North Vietnamese used information to their benefit against a superior American fighting force. Despite their own troops being badly depleted in the attack, our enemies were able to paint the outcome as a devastating loss for the United States. A former Vietcong Minister of Justice, Truong Nhu Tang, would later write:

It is a major irony of the Vietnam War that our propaganda

transmuted this military debacle into a brilliant victory,

giving us new leverage in our diplomatic efforts, inciting

the American antiwar movement, and disheartening the

Washington planners.

Today, the Islamic fundamentalist enemy collectively portrays themselves as the victims of imperialism. Just as the Axis and Communist powers defined the free world as aggressors in order to cover up their crimes and designs for global domination, totalitarian Islam seeks to replicate the exact same strategy.

The now-deceased Osama bin Laden incited violence against Americans by invoking just such language when he said:

U.S. soldiers only fight for capitalists, usury takers, and

the merchants of arms and oil, including the gang of crime at

the White House. Under these circumstances, there will be no

harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests

of socialists in the fight against the crusaders.

Mr. Speaker, fourth, as far as strategic objectives, we must cordon off the enemy and reduce his sphere of influence. We have to shrink the enemy's territory and not allow any political, cultural, educational, and financial infiltration into the United States.

What happened with Major Malik Nadal Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas, should not have been possible in this country. We must not turn a blind eye to a bold enemy who is telling us exactly what he wants to do and who is willing to bring the battle to our doorsteps.

Furthermore, for us to classify this jihadist attack as workplace violence defies sanity.

It is important that we must not hamstring our troops through the rules of engagement. Let us trust our men and women who are fighting for the preservation of this great constitutional Republic, and that includes our domestic law enforcement.

These should be our goals: deny the enemy sanctuary, cut off his flow of resources, use information to our advantage, and reduce his sphere of influence.

We must recognize that Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars but combat theaters of operation. It is up to our elected leaders and strategic- level military officials to identify and agree on the correct goals and objectives.

Beyond identifying the enemy and defining our objectives in kinetic battle, we must also understand and recognize the truly nonkinetic conflicts of the 21st century battlefield. One need only review the collapse of the Soviet Union to understand great nations can be toppled economically as well as militarily.

In fact, one country paid particular close attention to the fall of the Soviet Union, and that was China. In fact, China's efforts to modernize its economy were taken explicitly from the playbook of Lenin during the period of the New Economic Policy.

Lenin sought to place market mechanisms in a Communist economy to preserve the rule of the party and modernize this war's industries. It also sought to deceive the West into believing that communism had been weakened and was, therefore, a less formidable opponent.

China, Mr. Speaker, has been mimicking this tactic for decades. It's time that we took notice. Currently, the United States is providing a great economic advantage to China by allowing them to have an incredible trade surplus and hold nearly 30 percent of our debt. We must recognize that China is not using that advantage to improve the standard of living of its citizens. Instead, it is taking its economic edge

to the 21st century battlefield. Within 10 years, the world's largest blue-water Navy will fly not under a United States but a Chinese flag.

Why is that important?

Because no matter how technology changes in the future, the Earth's surface will still be covered 70 percent by water. All of the great civilizations--from the Venetians, to the Romans, to the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, English, and the Japanese--understood that the power and reach of a nation is extended not through a great army but through a strong navy. In 1990, the United States possessed 570 naval war vessels. Today, we have 285--projected to go even lower. If we cannot protect the sea lanes of commerce, we leave ourselves vulnerable, not just militarily, but economically to a power in China that continues to seek world communism as its ultimate goal, irrefutably so.

Mr. Speaker, I could spend the entire Special Order talking about China, because I believe, in this century, China could become the premier dominant nation in the world. And while the relationship between China and the United States is based on mutual needs at this moment, I am concerned for the day when China realizes this relationship is more of a hindrance than a need, and we always need to prepare if that day is to come.

As a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, who served during the initial battles of that conflict, I am proud to be among the more than 1 million Americans who served in Iraq. What my fellow comrades in arms achieved in that country is nothing short of historic. Together, we defeated one of history's most tyrannical dictatorships and replaced it with what could be a free and democratic Muslim government. American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines beat back a radical Islamic insurgency and helped create what we hope for--an ally and partner in freedom.

I will never forget those with whom I served and those who served after I left that battlefield. I will always remember the sacrifice borne by so many servicemembers and their families. However, I have to question the motives of President Barack Obama in announcing a full withdrawal of American forces in October of 2011. Did the President press the commanders on the ground before making that decision? What kind of message does our sudden withdrawal send to our allies, such as the Kurds in the northern part of Iraq? Do they feel abandoned yet again? My fear is that political expediency drove that decision, not recommendations from the military leadership, not a strategic understanding of the 21st century battlefield.

For over 10 years, our Nation has been on the offensive against Islamic totalitarianism, radical Islamic terrorism, and specific individuals who want to harm our country and kill our citizens. Ten years ago, a band of thugs declared war on the United States, our fellow Americans, and our way of life. The last decade in Afghanistan has seen peaks and valleys, triumph and tragedy, unspeakable horror and unimaginable bravery during our long and difficult march towards victory.

While a decade may seem like a long period of time, we must remember that our enemies have been at war with our way of life for nearly a generation. From Beirut to the Khobar Towers, from the USS Cole to the first bombing of the World Trade Center, from the total destruction of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to September 11, we must never forget that we did not choose this fight--the fight chose us.

While we may not have executed this combat operation perfectly--but then no war ever has been--we cannot pretend that radical Islam does not exist. The killings of Osama bin Laden and other radical terrorist leaders are significant victories. However, the fight continues. There is evil in this world that must be confronted lest our Nation sees more of its citizens maimed and killed in acts of terror.

I will continue to urge our President and his administration, my colleagues on Capitol Hill, and our congressional leadership to pressure Pakistan to crack down on terrorists within their borders. A particular concern is the Haqqani network, which is responsible for so much violence and bloodshed. I urge our leaders on both sides of the aisle to finish what was started in this part of the world.

Ten years after September 11, it remains absolutely vital to our national security that we succeed in Afghanistan. And how do we define ``success''? We cannot grant the enemy another opportunity to use that country as a home base for planning strikes against our Nation. Deny the enemy sanctuary. Unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan, as we have done in Iraq, without considering the ground situation or the advice of top military advisers, would be absolutely reckless. Allowing Afghanistan to revert to its previous condition under Taliban control overturns the progress made so dearly by our forces, and it creates new threats to all Americans and this world.

Let me be clear. If we exit without delivering a crushing blow to the Taliban and other extremists therein, they will bring the fight to us. And while I believe the men and women serving in Afghanistan are performing bravely, above and beyond, it is vital that they are given all the tools necessary to succeed. We must ensure that they have the proper equipment, the proper weapons systems, a clearly defined mission, but, most importantly, flexible rules of engagement that do not needlessly put their lives at risk.

Mr. Speaker, recently Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in the United States, delivering remarks that reinforce that the State of Israel is a bright light in a dark ocean of tyranny and oppression. Israel must be allowed to defend itself from external and internal aggression. The Israeli people must be allowed to continue to build within their own borders, and Jerusalem must be recognized, irrefutably, as the Nation's only capital. Furthermore, the United States must stand by Israel's side in the face of a United Nations which clearly views the State of Israel through a lens tinged with anti-Semitic hatred, which, unfortunately, we just saw played out in France.

Anything less than full support for Israel and its citizens at the United Nations by the United States Government is simply unacceptable. I am concerned that Israel, America's strongest and most loyal ally in the Middle East, has become more isolated and vilified since Barack Obama became President than ever before in its existence, and I believe the United States Congress has a solemn duty to ensure that the homeland of the Jewish people remains as such.

The United States and Israel share the common bonds of freedom, liberty, and democracy, and the right to worship in the name of any religion as you see fit. We share a common enemy, though, in radical Islam, and we have both seen our citizens murdered by these terrorist thugs. We are, indeed, each other's greatest ally, for without the United States Israel would not exist, and without Israel the United States would soon fall.

Today, the bonds between us must be stronger than ever because those bonds are threatened as never before. Israel, Mr. Speaker, is a small country surrounded by enemies. The United States, however, is a large country being infiltrated by the same enemies. Like us, the Israelis seek only to be one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all. And as the Bible makes clear in Leviticus, chapter 25, verse 10, our purpose is ``to proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.''

The bottom line is this: our Judeo-Christian faith heritage calls us to duty to stand beside the modern-day State of Israel. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we discuss Israel, we must discuss the Palestinian Authority. It is quite simple. No entity that aligns itself with a group that calls for the complete and total destruction of another country should ever be granted statehood.

I will never support funding for the Palestinian Authority or the recognition of a Palestinian state as long as they are reconciled and connected with Hamas. Further, I have cosponsored House Resolution 394, to support Israel's right to annex Judea and Samaria, if the Palestinian Authority continues to press for the unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.

A United Nations-recognized Palestinian state could place Israelis under the sovereignty of a group that actively seeks their destruction. This is

unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and in the absence of a negotiated peace agreement, Israel has the right to protect its citizens living in Judea and Samaria by annexing those territories.

There cannot be peace without a growing peace party. Now more than ever is a time to stand with our ally Israel. And thanks in large part to the so-called Arab Spring of democratic revolutionaries, Israel is beleaguered and surrounded by hostility on all sides. The Israeli Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, was almost seized. And Turkey, once a prominent ally, has even shown intimations of threatening Israel with war. All the while, Hamas terrorists in Gaza fire rockets into Israeli cities on a pretty much daily basis.

There is a realistic chance that many European countries will recognize a Palestinian state. Russia is already offering enthusiastic support for a declaration of statehood. And last year, President Obama expressed his hope for such an outcome. The Palestinians are now using that support as part of their media campaign.

Even the Democrat Party is opposing Congresswoman Ileana Ros- Lehtinen's commonsense legislation, House Resolution 2829. This bill seeks more transparency and accountability within the United Nations, an organization that allows countries like China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and others to control the Human Rights Council.

The bill also requires steps to be taken to dismantle terrorist infrastructures and arrest terrorists, control Palestinian security organizations, and end the incitement of violence and hatred in the Palestinian media, educational institutions, and mosques. And most importantly, it requires the United Nations to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

I am pleased to support this legislation and commend my Florida colleague, the chairwoman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for introducing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: there is no greater threat to Israel and the United States today than the development of nuclear weapons by Iran. President Obama has tried to take the diplomatic route when negotiating with Iran, but that is an effort that has indisputably failed. Iran has twice sent their warships through the Suez Canal within the last year in a blatant message to Israel. And recently, an Iranian defense official threatened to send warships to the east coast of the United States of America.

I believe Iran poses a genuine threat to democracies around the world. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spouts hatred against freedom of speech and religion everywhere while opposing his own people at home. Further, he denies the Holocaust ever happened and has stated that anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.

Iran continues to push for nuclear weapons and has the capability to enrich uranium. It remains a state sponsor of terrorism and has aided internationally recognized terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. Hezbollah, along with organizations like Hamas and al Qaeda, is committed to seeing the destruction of the democratic freedoms that we treasure, along with the State of Israel in its entirety.

As a Member of the United States House of Representatives, one of my objectives is to protect the safety and security of Israel. A stable Israel is important to a stable United States, and Iran is a constant threat to that stability. We must stop lying to ourselves about Iran, for we are barreling toward a point at which we won't be able to prevent that nation from acquiring nuclear weapons without a massive military strike. It must not come to that. Iran is merely months away from producing sufficient weapons-grade uranium for a 15-kiloton bomb, a development which will put American naval vessels and the Strait of Hormuz at risk.

As you know, I have spent a lot of my adult life in uniform, some of it on that field of battle in Iraq. Those of us who fought in Operation Iraqi Freedom knew that our enemies received considerable assistance from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many of the terrorist thugs who targeted American troops in that combat operation, just as many of those who target our troops in Afghanistan today, received guidance, training, weapons, money, and an untold number of explosives that have killed or terribly maimed so many of our Nation's finest, our comrades. We knew it without a doubt. We knew it because the components of those bombs bore irrefutable proof of Iranian manufacture. Yet to this day, most Americans are unaware of the support the Iraqi insurgency received from the Iranians.

Iran declared war on the United States of America nearly 33 years ago and has waged that war ever since. The Iranian war against America is not limited to our troops. Indeed, as we have recently learned from the Attorney General and the director of the FBI, the Iranians are prepared to kill American civilians right here in Washington if they happen to be in the same place at the same time as an intended target of assassination.

Our dealings with Iran are not a partisan political matter. A failure to respond to their murderous attacks is a national failure, not a failure of one party or another or one leader or set of leaders. This is a war, whether we decide to fight it or not.

They are waging war against us; yet our public discourse rarely, if ever, bothers to mention that fact. Every so often, someone will remind us that Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism; but even that does not encapsulate the truth of the matter. They are killing us every single day.

If you want to see what the consequences of an Iranian victory would look like, just observe what life is like for the citizens of Iran. Anyone who voices opposition to the government or complains about the oppressive treatment of the Nation's women is arrested, tortured, and often killed. Independent newspapers have long since been silenced. Access to the Internet is blocked or filtered with the same technology used in the People's Republic of China.

The Washington Post editorialist writing about the Iranians' feverish efforts to construct atomic weapons put it very bluntly when they wrote:

By now, it should be obvious that only regime change will

stop the Iranian nuclear program, and only regime change will

stop the Iranian war against America. Only regime change will

bring an end to the mullahs' global dream.

The Washington Post thinks that sanctions can help, provided they are serious sanctions that strike at the heart of Iran's financial system. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem supporting such an effort, but I doubt that that will be enough because sanctions are only effective when a regime cares for its people.

Iran is a theocracy. An acquisition of a nuclear weapon will enable them to achieve their goal, the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.

We have another, even more powerful, weapon to aim at the Islamic dictatorship of Iran: the Iranian people. And it's time to use it. There can be no doubt that the people of Iran are yearning for new leaders; 2\1/2\ years ago, millions of them took to the streets to protest against election fraud and to call for an end to the Islamic dictatorship. There can be little doubt that, unlike so many of the uprisings in the Muslim world, the overwhelming majority of the Iranians do not want radical jihadist overlords. They want a separation of mosque and state, with the mullahs in the mosque, not running the state.

Of all the opposition movements in the Muslim Middle East, the Iranian one is the closest to us, the only one that surely wants to be part of the Western world. So why, then, Mr. Speaker, has the Iranian opposition movement not been explicitly endorsed by our government? Why do the President and the Secretary of State continue to talk about reaching an agreement with the Tehran regime? Why does the President not say that Ahmadinejad and Khomeini must go? If Qadhafi had to go and Mubarak had to go and Assad must go, why not the Iranian terror masters?

Since the President and the Secretary of State are unwilling to spell it out, I will offer my assistance. Ahmadinejad and Khomeini have to go, along with their evil henchmen. We need clear language from our leaders that states, Down with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which, Mr. Speaker, represents a clear and present evil in our world. We, hereby, call for a free Iran, and we are willing to support an effort

by the Iranian people to liberate their country.

President Ronald Reagan recognized the threat of inaction, and he laid out a road map on how to confront evil in our world three decades ago. First, tell the truth. Tell it often. Tell it everywhere. The truth is that Iran is in the clutches of evil people who kill Iranians and support the killing of Israelis and Americans every day and who will kill even more, if and when they get nuclear atomic bombs and warheads.

The truth is that we have tried to reach some sort of reasonable agreement with them for more than 30 years. The truth is they don't want it. They want to destroy us. And that's what they mean when they chant, ``Death to America.''

Second, our leaders and representatives must call for the release of political prisoners being persecuted in that country, to include the Iranian Christian minister being threatened with execution. When our diplomats attend international conferences, they should arrive with lists of victims in Iran, and they should read those lists. It's harder for totalitarian regimes to kill people with names than to slaughter faceless victims.

Third, we should broadcast the facts to the Iranian people. They need to know that we stand with them. They need to know what's going on inside their country. This is based on our experience during the Cold War when it turned out people inside the Soviet Union knew more about events in London and Paris and Washington than inside their own borders. That's why Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty were such potent instruments of peace. Our broadcasts are often jammed by the Iranian regime. We must defeat their censorship.

Finally, we have to track down the killers of Americans and bring them to justice. The world must know anyone that takes an American life will be targeted and taken out in any country on the planet. Those who kill our citizens will not find safe haven in Iran.

Mr. Speaker, a majority of the America media did not feel it was important to report that Iranian President Ahmadinejad visited Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Nicaragua this past January. President Ahmadinejad threatened almost 200 years of precedent established by the Monroe Doctrine when he declared that ``from now on, Latin America will no longer be in the backyard of the United States.''

President Ahmadinejad is assisting Hugo Chavez with missile sites and has joked with that South American dictator about pointing a warhead at the United States. And, Mr. Speaker, there are Hezbollah camps in South America. Chavez himself has offered to send troops to fight with the Taliban and has reportedly funded al Qaeda. President Ahmadinejad has recruited the Mexican drug cartels for an attempted assassination of a Saudi ambassador in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, President Ahmadinejad's sphere of influence is not limited to the Middle East. He is entering our hemisphere and showing the influence that he has in this region. And that goes back to our fourth strategic objective.

President Obama seems to be uninterested in the principles of the Monroe Doctrine because, after all, he did take the wrong side in Honduras, and he has laughed it up with Hugo Chavez.

Mr. Speaker, the Syrian government, meanwhile, is continuing its vicious crackdown on innocent Syrian civilians seeking only freedom and democracy. According to available figures, almost 10,000 Syrians have lost their lives and thousands more have been injured. Many more have been forced to flee. The International Atomic Energy Agency also recently concluded that the secret Syrian facility destroyed by Israel in September of 2007 was ``very likely a nuclear reactor'' based on a North Korean model capable of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons.

The Syrian government has become a conduit in Iran's arming of Hezbollah Shiite forces in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. They have provided a safe docking station for Iranian warships, and they possess an arsenal of chemical weapons and missiles that I fear could end up in the hands of terrorists with which they are associated.

The threat posed by the Assad regime to the United States, to our allies, and the Syrian people is stark and growing. The time to increase pressure on that regime is now. That is why I joined other Members of Congress in sending a letter to President Obama requesting that he implement additional sanctions on Syria. The people of that country deserve a government that represents their aspirations and respects their basic human rights. It is clear that Bashar al-Assad is not willing to implement genuine reforms and that he lacks the legitimacy to lead the Syrian people.

The United States and all responsible nations must hold the regime accountable and the brutality must end. Additional sanctions would show the Syrian people that we stand with them in their struggle for democratic freedoms while also making it clear to the Syrian regime that it will pay an increasingly high cost for its gross violations of human rights and dignity, which is why, Mr. Speaker, UNESCO should expel Syria and strongly condemn them, and not repeatedly attack Israel. But, however, we must realize that there's an interesting turn in Syria with the Iranian and Russian presence evolving.

Mr. Speaker, it was not too long ago the American people watched a transition in Egypt, with this administration claiming we were witnessing a new dawn of democracy. Today, instead we are witnessing the nightmare of one of the greatest threats to the stability in the Middle East, a new Egyptian government under the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian Parliament is now controlled by a majority of radical Islamists, and the Muslim Brotherhood is turning Egypt into a radical Islamic state. The Muslim Brotherhood also maintains active ties to Hamas, a terrorist organization that openly calls for the destruction of Israel.

Of course, America should stand with the Egyptian people. However, if the radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood are left unchecked in that country, the security of the citizens of Israel, Egypt, and the United States all will be in jeopardy.

On July 19, 2011, I wrote a letter to the House Committee on Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon on the troubling revelation of a possible U.S. military sale to the government of Egypt. It stated in my letter:

It has come to my attention that the Defense Security

Cooperative Agency notified Congress on July 1, 2011, of a

possible foreign military sale to the government of Egypt for

125 M1A1 Abrams tank kits for coproduction and associated

weapons, equipment, and parts, training, and logistical

support.

America must continue to stand with the Egyptian people and encourage them to build their own democracy with new political parties and freedoms. However, we must exercise caution with regard to military sales and support to the Egyptian government until a government is formed absent of the radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood that would maintain an active peace with Israel.

Speaking of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote to you directly from a former Supreme Guide of the International Muslim Brotherhood. In December of 2005, Mohammed Akef said:

The Brotherhood is a global movement whose members

cooperate with each other throughout the world, based on the

same religious world view--the spread of Islam until it rules

the world.

Three years ago, a court found a Muslim charity right here in the United States guilty of funneling millions of dollars to the terrorist group Hamas. That was the Holy Land Foundation trial. The Council of Islamic Relations, CAIR, was named as an unindicted coconspirator. That case included testimony that Hamas' parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, planned to establish a network of organizations to spread the militant Islamist message right here in the United States. In its own ``Explanatory Memorandum'' for North America, the Muslim Brotherhood stated that its strategic goal is to establish an Islamic center in every city in order to ``supply our battalions.''

Through its various front organizations in the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood is succeeding in cultural ``whitewashing'' to eliminate all references to Islamist terrorism in our public discourse. After the 9/11 Commission identified ``Islamic terrorism''

as a threat in this country, the Muslim Public Affairs Council recommended the United States Government find other terminology. As a result, the FBI Counterterrorism Lexicon and the 2009 National Intelligence Strategy included not a single reference to Islam, Muslim, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, or Hezbollah.

Furthermore, after Major Nidal Hasan's attack on Fort Hood, the Department of Defense Report used the terms ``violent extremism'' and ``Islam'' only once in a footnote. Again, that incident was officially classified as workplace violence.

Mr. Speaker, we must also be concerned about North Korea. I was stationed in North Korea in 1995 along the demilitarized zone. I stood on the 38th parallel and looked through the barbed wire and landmines. And there, Mr. Speaker, you can see a repressed Nation. I saw for myself what a ticking timebomb that country can be. Sooner or later, North Korea will either implode or it will explode. The situation in North Korea most closely resembles a street gang, where the leader of the gang is killed and a young guy must step up.

In that instance, it is critical for the newly appointed ``top dog'' to establish his credibility by proving himself. And today, North Korea is ruled by a 28-year-old appointed four-star general.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it took me 22 years to become a lieutenant colonel. You can begin to understand how dangerous a situation is brewing just west of the Sea of Japan. The tactics do not change, and the game is getting tired. Anytime North Korea finds itself in need of money, it saber rattles with the threat of a secret nuclear arms program. It has fired artillery onto the South Korea island and sunk five South Korean Naval vessels.

Again and again, the international community responds with misguided attempts to ``buy'' the country off. Threaten to go nuclear and get funding in exchange? I call that international extortion. The DPRK newspaper, Nodong Sinmun, and other mouthpieces for the Workers' Party of Korea sensed this policy of weakness and referred to the disbursement of food and aid as ``tribute.'' If there's one thing we've learned, it's that the North Koreans cannot be trusted to voluntarily disarm. They are playing our country and the entire Western world for fools. Sooner or later, we'll need to step up and stand up to this simmering menace just a few hundred miles from Japan.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, if we miss this opportunity to recognize the 21st century battlefield--and understand, we did not talk about Africa, we did not talk about Somalia, and we did not talk about our own border security. I thank my colleague from Indiana for speaking about energy independence. But if we miss this opportunity for understanding what this battlefield truly is, to understand the threats and to lay out a strategic vigil for victory, we will lose the opportunity to ensure that our children and grandchildren of America will have a secure future.

As a country, we must roll up our sleeves and devise a roadmap for security. We must be mindful of the wise words penned by Sun Tzu in the book ``The Art of War'' more than 25 centuries ago:

To know your enemy and to know yourself and to know your

environment, in countless battles, you will always be

victorious.

If we do not understand this simple maxim, we face dark days ahead indeed. And that shadow could not only fall on this country, but on the entire world. Because no matter what our detractors may think, we are that beacon, we are that lighthouse. We are, as President Ronald Reagan said, ``the shining city that sits upon a hill.''

For the sake of our Nation and of all nations that seek freedom for their citizens, we must be prepared to fight on this 21st century battlefield, and we can settle for no less than victory upon it.

Mr. Speaker, those of us who have served in battle are the last to desire it. But as John Stuart Mill once wrote:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The

decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling

which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

Policymakers and those of us here in Washington, D.C., should heed the wise words of George Santayana:

He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

I will always stand by the men and women of the Armed Forces, and I am proud to represent them as a combat veteran in the United States Congress. I will always continue to protect our Nation, as I once did on the battlefield, and as I am now honored to do in this, the people's House, steadfast and loyal.

And I yield back the balance of my time.

Well, thank you, my dear colleague, Dr. Burgess of Texas, for allowing me to be here and talk about the reform of our Tax Code.

When you sit back and you look at the progressive Tax Code system that we have here in the United States of America, we hear a lot of talk today about fairness and fair share and economic equality and shared sacrifice. But one of the things we have to come to understand is, when you look at the top 1 percent of wage earners in the United States of America, they're paying close to 40 percent of the Federal income taxes. When you consider the top 5 percent of wage earners in the United States of America, they're paying close to 58 percent of those Federal income taxes. The top 25 percent of wage earners in the United States of America pay 86 percent of the Federal income taxes.

But of course now we're coming to understand that you have a large percentage of Americans--some say it's between 47 to 49 percent--that are paying absolutely nothing in Federal income taxes. It kind of reminds me, my dear colleague, of that movie, ``Ben-Hur,'' when Judah Ben-Hur was sent off to be on the Roman galleys. Of course the commander came down and he said very simply, ``Row well and live, 41.'' Of course we remember that beating.

Well, what happens on that Roman galley if only 25 percent is rowing? That's the situation that we have here in the United States of America. We will never get to ramming speed. We will never fully recover this economy so that we can have the capital that is necessary out there, so that Americans can be able to pay for these exorbitant gas prices, so that small business owners can expand their business.

So I think that now is the time to do exactly what you are talking about: Look at fundamental Tax Code reform so that we can eliminate things such as the death tax; we can eliminate things such as the dividends tax, which a lot of the seniors that I represent down in south Florida and pre-seniors, they depend upon those dividends. Why are we having these exorbitant taxes upon tax?

So I think that this is a great opportunity to have this conversation. I am so honored that you allowed me to stand here and spend some time with you this evening.

You bring up a great point, Representative Burgess. When you look at the fact that we have a Tax Code that is some 67,000 pages--as a matter of fact, the American people know that even some of our colleagues up here on Capitol Hill in this very body, the House of Representatives, have had some issues with the Tax Code, also to include our own Secretary of the Treasury has seemingly had some issues with the Tax Code and the confusing nature of which it exists. So, you're right, I think it's an absolutely important time that we go back and we examine this Tax Code, maybe move away from this progressive Tax Code system and simplify it for the American people.

As you know, if we can bring those rates down, if we can lower the deductions, if we can get rid of a lot of the loopholes on the personal income tax side and also the corporate tax side, think about what we can do for generating economic growth here in America.

And if I can, my colleague.

I'd like to talk about one of the things you just mentioned, how we are using the Tax Code as a weapon for behavior modification. You just brought up exactly one of the things we have to be very concerned about is all of the new taxes that will kick in in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from January 2013 out to January of 2018. One of those taxes even includes a real estate transaction tax.

Now, why would we tax people for going out and selling homes and purchasing homes?

Those are the types of hidden things that you find in that bill, and that's why we need to come back and simplify

this Tax Code so that we don't have politicians using it for a certain ideological agenda.

But there's another unintended consequence that I see occurring down in our district because of this very complicated Tax Code. Now, you have many different shady typed of operators out there that are talking about how they will help prepare that Tax Code.

You know, when you drive by and you see the person spinning the arrow, or dressed up like the Liberty Bell, or something of that nature. And now we're finding that many of these places are rampant with tax fraud, that people are not getting their tax returns back.

Now think about, just as you have recommended, a simplified Tax Code. Think about what is happening with tax fraud that is targeting our seniors so that now you have people that are going trying to file their tax form and they are finding out that someone has already done it under their presumed identity. If we could simplify this, a lot of those unintended consequences would not be happening.

One of the pieces of legislation that we are currently considering is how do we spur on capital for our small businesses. Now, think about what you are recommending, Dr. Burgess, where you look at the personal income tax rate. And right now we have this progressive Tax Code system. What if we were to flat tax that out? One single rate?

Think what that would do for small businesses who operate from that personal income tax rate, subchapter S and LLCs. Think about the fact of how they go from being at the top end, maybe 35, 38 percent of that bracket. Now we bring it down a little bit lower, like you suggest in 1040.

What happens with that capital now we've put back in their pockets? What can they do with those small businesses? What can they do with providing the right types of benefits for their employees? What can they do to expand that business?

That's why what you're bringing up is one of the critical things we have to look at if we are truly going to turn around the economic situation here in America.

You're absolutely right. Our constituents back in south Florida--and of course we get a lot of email from all across the country, and, hopefully, we'll get some of that email tomorrow after this Special Order--but they understand a single flat rate.

All flat tax proposals have a single rate, and usually that single rate is less than 20 percent. That low flat rate solves the problem of a high marginal tax rate by reducing those penalties against productive behavior such as work and risk-taking and entrepreneurship.

Also, you eliminate a lot of those special preferences because flat tax proposals would eliminate provisions of the Tax Code that bestow preferential tax treatment on certain behaviors and activities. Guess what? It reduces that influence of lobbyists up here that you already talked about.

When you get rid of deductions or lower those deductions, credits, exemptions, and other loopholes, that also helps to solve the problems of complexity, allowing taxpayers to file their tax returns on that one simple form. That's why H.R. 1040 is a great step forward.

Thank you once again, dear colleague. You bring up a great point when you talk about your after years, your retirement years.

But I think another thing we need to be considering is: How do we spur on investment in the United States of America? How can we spur on innovation and ingenuity? When you look at the flat tax, then you can get rid of double taxation of savings and investment, because flat tax proposals would eliminate the Tax Code bias against capital formation by ending the double taxation of income that is saved and invested.

This means that we get rid of the death tax. We can get rid of capital gains tax. Definitely, we can reduce it. Most importantly, we get rid of the double tax on dividends.

By taxing income only one time, a flat tax is far easier to enforce and more conducive to the one thing that we need in the United States of America right now: job creation and capital formation. It's all about having the right type of tax policies that emanate out of this body, the House of Representatives, and that's why we have to get behind your proposal.

You're absolutely right.

When you think about last year, our GDP growth over the four quarters of about .4 percent, 1.0 percent, 1.3 percent, and the revised number in the last quarter of 3 percent, that's why, once again, economists will tell you that the two principal arguments for a flat tax are growth and fairness, which you just brought out.

They are attracted to this idea because the current tax system, with exorbitantly high rates and discriminatory taxation on savings and investment, reduces growth; it destroys jobs and it lowers incomes. A flat tax would not eliminate the damaging impact of taxes altogether; but by dramatically lowering rates and by ending the Tax Code's bias against savings and investment, it would boost our economy's performance, especially when we compare it to the present Tax Code.

I think, Dr. Burgess, my dear colleague, if you look at where flat taxes have been instituted, you've seen GDP growth in those countries. So what holds us back from doing something that is just common sense?

You're absolutely right.

I think the most important thing we have to come to understand is that this time belongs to the American people. The money, the resources, belongs to the American people. Let's give them the option to do what is best for them in their lives--the option of going to a flat tax or staying in the current progressive Tax Code system with the options of the mortgage interest tax deduction, the child tax credit, charitable contributions, as we reduce those deductions.

But let's start treating the American people as adults. The key thing that has to accompany this is we have to reduce the size and scope of government as well because, as we start to focus more so on Main Street, as we start to focus more so on the hardworking American taxpayers and what's best for them, then we can have that investment at their level. We can have the growth at their level.

One of the things that really does trouble me is that when you drive around Washington, DC, you see a lot of construction cranes. Business is good up here, which means that there are fewer pockets of the hardworking American workers, that there are fewer pockets of the small business owners; and this is the means by which we unlock that entrepreneurial spirit that will grow this economy.

So that's why I hope that, in this Congress, which is one of the reasons I came here, we do those big reforms that show the American people that we're serious about turning this economy around and that we're serious about creating the right type of policies that set the conditions for job creation.

Thank you so much to my colleague from Texas, Dr. Burgess, and I think the seminal argument is this: We're talking about economic freedom for the American people, as opposed to economic dependency upon government. This incredible, exorbitant system that we have, it is complex to the point where it is causing more pain for the American people and causing them to have the freedom that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of Black History Month, I rise to acknowledge the Republican Party's proud and storied history of standing up for the rights of African Americans.

The first black Members of Congress served during Reconstruction, and they were all Republicans. They won their seats, despite fierce threats of violence against black voters by groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and were successful only as a result of the firm support they received from the Republican Party.

One of these Members was Josiah T. Walls, a slave who earned his freedom through service to the Union in the Civil War. He settled in Alachua County, in our sunny State of Florida, and was repeatedly elected to Congress at-large.

In some ways, Mr. Speaker, I carry the torch of Josiah Walls. You see, in 1876, the Democrats contested his election and had him replaced midterm with one of their own. No black Republican would again be elected from Florida to this House until November 2, 2010, when the voters of that State entrusted me to be their Representative.

On my desk in my office, there is a book called ``Capitol Men,'' and it is a biography of those first black Members of Congress. I stand where Josiah Walls and the other early black Republican Members of Congress once stood--Hiram Revels of Mississippi; Benjamin Turner of Alabama; Jefferson Long of Georgia; Robert DeLarge, Robert Brown Elliott, and Joseph Rainey, all of South Carolina. They were the ones who carried that first torch for my colleague, Tim Scott.

They would have stood here urging support for policies of equal opportunity for all. Mr. Speaker, I stand here this evening to recognize their legacy.

The Republican Party has always been the party of freedom. Today, we understand that our principles are best served when we act as stalwart advocates of free markets. But historically, Republicans understood that the value of every human life is diminished when any human life is made to work against its will.

Free markets are characterized by the free exchange of goods and services--and by the free exchange of labor for compensation. You see, Mr. Speaker, without free people, there can be no free markets.

Where men are not free, freedom does not reign. And so the Republicans have always been the party of free men, of individual freedom. It was President Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Grand Old Party, who signed the Emancipation Proclamation and brought about the freeing of the slaves. For many, this is the beginning and the end of the Republican Party's role in advancing equal rights. But that understanding misses the myriad ways our party went on to better the lives of Black Americans and cheapens the many contributions that later generations of Republicans made to the cause of freedom.

It was, in fact, Republicans of their day who worked to pass the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th Amendments, securing for African Americans deliverance from slavery, equal protection under the law, and the right to vote.

Each of these accomplishments did its part to cement the fundamental freedoms all Americans enjoy today. None of them could have gotten off the ground without GOP support. Take the 13th amendment, for example. At Abraham Lincoln's request, the Republican National Committee Chairman Edwin Morgan made abolishing slavery an official part of the party's platform in 1864. At that year's national convention, he opened with a statement on the topic. He said:

The party of which you, gentlemen, are the delegated and

honored representatives, will fall far short of accomplishing

its great mission unless among its other resolves it shall

declare for such an amendment of the Constitution as will

positively prohibit African slavery in the United States.

The 14th Amendment was no different. A little known fact about that law that granted Black Americans citizenship, with all the rights and privileges thereof, is that every vote in favor was cast by a Republican and every vote against was cast by a Democrat.

In 1968, when the Democrat-controlled legislature of New Jersey voted to rescind its ratification of the 14th Amendment, it was the State's Republican Governor who vetoed that attempt.

Mr. Speaker, it was the Republican-controlled 39th Congress that established the Buffalo Soldiers, a fighting force of six regiments of Black American troops. They would soon become known for exhibiting the ``courage of a cornered buffalo'' in battle while posted to the frontier. In peacetime, they gained renown for being the finest horsemen the Army had to offer. And in 1907, the 10th Cavalry Regiment of Buffalo Soldiers was sent to the United States Military Academy at West Point to teach the cadets riding skills and mounted drill.

Mr. Speaker, think about that for a second: the commanders of their day were so confident in the ability of the Buffalo Soldiers that they entrusted them with the training of the next generation of Army leaders. And it was the Republicans who made that happen.

It was the Republicans who passed the 15th Amendment, as well. For once, the story is true that not every Republican supported it. A few abstained, saying the measure did not go far enough. It was the Democrats who voted against the 15th Amendment, and when it passed anyway, it was the Democrats who resorted to the use of poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation and other pernicious practices in an effort to keep Black Americans from exercising their right to vote. This was something that my grandparents and my parents experienced growing up in south Georgia.

It was a Republican by the name of Senator Charles Sumner who got the equal rights movement on its feet. A fierce abolitionist and leader of the ``Radical Republicans''--sounds very familiar when they start talking about Tea Party Republicans--Senator Sumner wrote and shepherded the first ever civil rights bill through Congress. It was a Republican President, the great General Ulysses S. Grant, who signed it into law the same day that it passed. And that comprehensive bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, would become the blueprint for every subsequent piece of civil rights legislation to come before Congress despite the fact that it was struck down by a backward-looking court.

It was the Republicans who first called for racial justice in the Armed Forces, not only allowing Black Americans to serve their country, but welcoming them to serve their country alongside their white brothers.

It was a Republican judge named Elbert Tuttle who time and again ruled in favor of civil rights and who went on

to order the University of Mississippi to admit its first ever Black college student. It was a Republican Supreme Court Justice who authored the decision in Brown v. Board of Education that recognized racial segregation for what it was: a violation of the United States Constitution.

And when a school district in Arkansas refused to integrate, it was a Republican President, Dwight David Eisenhower, who sent in the 101st Airborne Division to escort the Little Rock Nine to class. However, it was a Democrat Governor in Orval Faubus, you may recall, who had tried to use his National Guardsmen to prevent them from enrolling.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans were unfazed by the many Democrats, including John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who criticized President Eisenhower's decision. Meanwhile, it was the Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the first civil rights act of the 20th century and the Republicans who managed to pass it nonetheless.

The law established a Civil Rights Division within the Justice Department and authorized the Attorney General to request injunctions against anyone attempting to deny a person's right to vote. It was written at the behest of President Eisenhower after a long drought of civil rights bills under Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and President Harry Truman.

It was a Senate minority leader, Everett Dirksen, a Republican, who helped write the first Civil Rights Act of 1964, widely regarded as the most influential of them all. And in recent years, it's been the Republican Party that has fought to prevent African Americans from being trapped in a permanent underclass through dependence on government handouts.

In the 1990s, it was the Republican-controlled 104th Congress that passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. Then- Democrat President Bill Clinton signed it only after reluctantly having vetoed it twice.

This reform changed the face of welfare, ensuring that recipients who were able to work would be required to seek employment. No longer would government checks be seen as an entitlement. No longer would States have a financial incentive to add as many names to their welfare rolls as possible. Finally, there was an alternative to the cycle of poverty caused by years of misguided Democrat policy. And it's been Republicans who have continued to fight for the underprivileged communities, even as we're painted as the party of the white upper class.

In 2004, another Republican-controlled Congress under the leadership of Republican President George W. Bush signed an omnibus bill that included a voucher program for school children right here in the District of Columbia. Instead of being shackled to the failed public school system, thousands of students were able to use the first Federal Government vouchers to escape high-performing private schools.

Mr. Speaker, what Republicans have long understood is that poor communities are best served when they're empowered to care for themselves. The more they come to rely on government checks, the less they learn to rely on their own ability and ingenuity.

Our party firmly believes in the safety net. We reject the idea of the safety net becoming a hammock. For this reason, the Republican value of minimizing government dependence is particularly beneficial to the poorest among us. Conversely, the Democratic appetite for ever- increasing redistributionary handouts is in fact the most insidious form of slavery remaining in the world today and does not promote economic freedom.

Time after time, the GOP has stood strong as leaders on issues of conscience. Even when the positions we've taken have been unpopular, we've held the line and ultimately brought about liberty and justice for all. From eliminating slavery, to securing full citizenship and voting rights for African Americans, to calling for desegregation even in the most hostile bastions of the Deep South, to implementing school choice in poor communities, to helping black families break out of the cycle of welfare dependence, Mr. Speaker, Republicans have been on the front lines of the fight for equal rights and individual manifest destiny since our party's founding under Lincoln.

So, too, has the party led on issues like reducing the size of government, streamlining the Federal bureaucracy, and returning power to the States. These positions didn't always garner the most popular support at the time. It's easier to convince a person that a government should be doing something for them it currently isn't than to convince a person the government shouldn't be doing something for them it currently is.

But real visionary leaders don't retreat from fights. It is said that one evening, as George Washington sat at his table after dinner, the fire behind him flared up, leading him to move his chair away so as not to end up getting burned. When someone called George Washington out, saying a general ought to be able to stand the fire, he responded that no general should ever be taking fire from behind.

That is the essence of integrity and conviction--the willingness to stand for what you believe at all times, alone if need be, without the option of retreat, no matter how tough the slog ahead may be, and to do so with the faith that eventually it is possible to transform a losing fight into a winning one.

For inspiration, we need only to look to the former slave and Republican, Frederick Douglass. Having found his way to freedom through education and hard work, he could have been forgiven for retiring from the public eye, but he didn't back down from the work still to be done. Instead, he made himself one of the most stalwart champions of not just the antislavery movement, but the women's rights movement as well. He wasn't content to lend his political capital to causes that would benefit him. He knew what we know, that injustice anywhere is an affront to the human spirit.

To free African Americans from the bonds of slavery was only the first step for Frederick Douglass, and he would not be satisfied until he helped liberate women from the bonds of misogyny as well. In those days, Douglass could count on the Republican Party to be his ally in the fight. Today, we remain no less dedicated to the cause of freedom.

So therefore, Mr. Speaker, with a core belief in the supremacy and the sovereignty of the individual and the unconditional dignity of every human life, the Republican Party is, always has been, and forever shall be the party of equality of opportunity.

Happy Black History Month.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and stand alongside four United States Army Veterans on a mission to raise awareness for our Wounded Warriors.

All residents of South Florida, Sgt. Larry Maroto, Sgt. Katrina Taylor, Staff Sgt. Lewis West, and Staff Sgt. Stephen Murphy are enduring a 101-mile walk from West Palm Beach to Homestead, as our brothers in arms endure injuries from a distant war.

``101'' is a symbolic number for these Warriors, as they all served in the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army. Known as the ``Screaming Eagles'' the 101st Airborne Division was renowned during World War II and its role in Operation Overlord, the D-Day landings on June 6, 1944 in Normandy, France, and action during the Battle of the Bulge near the city of Bastogne, Belgium.

The 101st Airborne is one of the most highly decorated units in the United States Army.

Although our Military Warriors bear harsh conditions away from home and from the love of their friends and family, many Wounded Warriors find the return home can be even more harrowing. The Wounded Warrior Project, of which these Veterans are walking to support, seek to help injured veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars transition to civilian life.

My heart is always with my fellow comrades in arms and their families who are serving in Afghanistan and across our globe. Their sacrifice, courage, and patriotism are the lifeblood of our great nation. These Veterans' commitment to our brothers and sisters in uniform reminds us all why America is the greatest and most exceptional nation on the face of the Earth.

I believe that the United States Congress can learn a lot from these Veterans. They do not know personally all of the people they are helping with the money raised from this walk. They do not care whether they are Republicans or Democrats. They care that at the end of the day, they did their best to help their fellow brothers and sisters.

I truly commend these Veterans for their unwavering service to our nation and to our Wounded Warriors. May they rendezvous with destiny on their mission.

Steadfast and Loyal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, last week we voted to have a 1-year extension of a payroll tax holiday. Last week we voted to have a 1-year extension of unemployment insurance with reforms. Last week we voted to have a 2- year extension of the Sustained Growth Rate for Medicare recipients and the doctors that provide that care.

Last week we voted for certainty, and we voted to restore confidence. We voted for a measure that was paid for, that will have no detriment or negative outcomes to Social Security. Last week we voted for job- creating policies and a bill that had 10 to 12 Obama-approved provisions.

We are not afraid to vote. And if you don't want to accept this measure, then continue to vote ``no,'' just the same as our colleagues from across the aisle last week voted ``no.'' They voted ``no'' against what President Obama wanted; they voted ``no'' against what Senator Harry Reid said he wanted; they voted ``no'' against what Senator Chuck Schumer said he wanted.

The Senate sent us back a 2-month extension which is irresponsible and cannot be implemented, and it reflects abject incompetence.

I urge all of my House colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to disagree with the irresponsible Senate amendment and move to conference. Or do we just want to continue to see the American people suffer?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my friend and constituent, Rick Case, who will be celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Rick Case automotive in early 2012.

Rick discovered his true passion at an early age, selling used cars in high school from the front yard of his family home in Akron, Ohio. In 1962, he opened his first dealership, Moxie Motors, in Akron, followed by Sharp Used Cars in Barberton, Ohio in 1963.

Rick Case is as excited today about his business as he was 50 years ago and aggressively seeks opportunities to grow the Rick Case Auto Group which currently encompasses 15 dealerships in Ohio, Georgia and Florida and employs more than 900 people.

Recognized as leaders in the auto industry, Rick and Rita Case have received numerous awards; including National Dealers of the Year by USA Today, Time and Sports Illustrated magazines, the American International Automobile Dealers Association and the National Automobile Dealer Association. Most recently Rick and Rita Case were the 2011 recipients of the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year Award. Additionally, in 2012, they also became the first couple to ever win the American International Automobile Dealers Association David F. Mungenast National Lifetime Achievement Award.

Beyond running a successful business, Rick and Rita Case founded the Rick Case ``Bikes for Kids'' program in 1962 and have collected and donated more than 100-thousand bicycles to children in need in their community.

As Rick celebrates this incredible milestone, I am proud to support him here on the floor of the House of Representatives, and am honored to call him a friend.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it's very important that, as we draw to the close of this first session of the 112th Congress, we come back and we do what I believe is a yearly review or an assessment.

Mr. Speaker, today, the 8th of December, was the target adjournment day that the leadership of the new majority of the United States House of Representatives hoped would mark the end of the first session of the 112th Congress. Yet today we are short of completing some of the most important work that we must accomplish.

As we enter the final days of 2011 and approach the end of this first session of the 112th Congress, I must take the time to offer an apology to the citizens of the 22nd Congressional District of Florida and to all my fellow citizens across this great Nation. It is not because we have not changed the conversation here in Washington, D.C., but because I would have hoped our exertions would have been as a collective body a bit greater. Failure to pass a balanced budget amendment was a great disappointment and an example of a lack of exertion.

When I was elected to the House of Representatives in November 2010, I was one of over 80 new Members that you, the American people, sent to the House of Representatives, entrusting each one of us to come to Capitol Hill and work diligently--and differently than our predecessors--on the critical issues our country was facing during these challenging times. Record high unemployment; a quickly growing debt; out-of-control spending that leads to budget deficits year after year; a spiraling foreclosure rate around the country, and specifically back in our district in south Florida; businesses shutting their doors, due in part to increasing uncertainty provided by the government from crushing regulations issued by Federal agencies in Washington, D.C., and the list goes on.

Friends, neighbors, colleagues, and our fellow citizens all believed our Nation was on the wrong track, and we were concerned for our future. Many of them felt our country's best days were in the past and that our future looked bleak. Each of them wanted our Federal Government to take a different course of action.

Mr. Speaker, I spent the majority of my adult life--22 years--serving in the United States Army, never having been elected to public office. I have dedicated my career to serving our great Nation. But unlike many of those whom I serve with here in Congress, I am not a career politician. I have led soldiers in combat on foreign battlefields, and was ready to go to our Nation's Capitol and lead from the front on this new battlefield. I understood that where my political experience would fall short, my military training would enable me to serve my constituents well in the Halls of Congress, because in the military we were taught a simple principle, Mr. Speaker, and I think you know it well: We work until the mission is complete. And on election night of 2010, I knew that I was embarking, along with my new colleagues, on one of the most challenging missions that I would ever face.

The leadership of the new majority in the House of Representatives created a calendar for the first session of this Congress, and as a newly elected Member of this body, I provided my assessment, stating that I believed the schedule did not provide the necessary days on Capitol Hill to address the pressing issues our Nation faced. Now, 1 year later, unfortunately, it seems I was correct. On the eve of the holiday season, the United States Congress is dealing with some of its most important issues, all while pressed against the desire to be home and with our families and loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I, along with you, spent many holidays away from my family and friends while serving our country in the Armed Forces. Every time I was away from home during the holiday season, as well as I'm sure you did, I proudly put on my uniform and did my duty on behalf of the American people. And while I may not wear the uniform of the United States Army any longer, I am proud to put on my new uniform of a suit and tie and spend this holiday away from home, once again putting our country first so that we may finish

the job our constituents entrusted us to do.

Now, I don't want people to think that I am not happy about certain things, because I am truly pleased that the regular order has been established here and returned to the House floor. The American people are able to see vibrant debate on the pressing issues and legislation is developed by Members and cleared through committee. We are slowly seeing a move away from megabills. Yet these so-called omnibus bills do a disservice to the American people because, rather than allowing elected representatives to vote ``aye'' or ``nay'' on certain provisions, these bills create a bill that includes hundreds of provisions for passage.

During the first session in the month of April, I was able to bring to the House floor H.R. 1246. This bill cut $35.7 million of wasteful spending in the form of printing and reproduction at the Department of Defense. What was so important about this legislation is that the vote was 393-0, meaning that we were able to get unanimous support from both Republicans and Democrats.

The American people expect their elected to work together to deal with the issues of our Nation. However, Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed over 900 days without the United States Senate passing a budget. That's 900 days. When the House of Representatives did our job and passed a budget on the 15th of April 2011, Democrats continued to use it as a political weapon since it finally addresses the exorbitant mandatory spending that is bankrupting our country and leaving critical programs like Social Security and Medicare on an unsustainable path.

Americans continue to struggle with 9 percent-plus unemployment for over a year. In south Florida, it is even higher. But instead of debating the 20-plus bills passed by the House, many bipartisan, that address the anemic jobs situation in which we are stuck, these bills languish on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's desk while President Obama continues to try to convince the American people that this is a ``do-nothing'' Congress. It is indeed a ``do-nothing'' Senate.

One of the most important and constitutionally mandated functions of the Congress is to fund the Federal Government each year before the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1. This year, of the 12 funding bills, the House completed six of those bills and the United States Senate only completed one. Congress did not finish conferencing any appropriations bills to be signed by the President by the October 1 deadline. This means that once again we had to pass continuing resolutions to prevent a shutdown of the Federal Government.

I wrote the chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations suggesting that appropriations bills should be considered on a priority-based tiered system. I presented several questions, such as what he believed should be considered priority bills and whether or not certain appropriations bills should cover a 2-year period in order to provide more certainty in the marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, in the military something that continues to fail means that it is broken. And when something is broken, it must be fixed. Our fellow citizens understand that the path we are on is broken and they also understand it is time to fix it. Therefore, we must focus on structural reforms to our legislative and appropriations process.

Over the course of my first year in office, I have been asked numerous times why we refuse to compromise and why can't we just get something done. Mr. Speaker, I find it very funny that no one talked about compromise in regard to a $2 trillion health care law or a $1 trillion stimulus package or cap-and-trade or Card Check. But my answer is simple: The House of Representatives has tried to work with the Senate and President Obama; yet they refuse to listen to the will of the people. Tabling the cut, cap, and balance piece of legislation during the debt debate is a prime example. Instead, they wish to remain on the same path that has proved to be a failure year after year. They refuse to believe that we need major structural reforms. They did not heed the message of the American people of November of 2010.

And while Washington, D.C. has a budget deficit, the leadership deficit is even more disconcerting. Mr. Speaker, leaders take responsibility; and rarely do they take credit, a simple lesson that was taught to me as a young captain in the United States Army. A strong American leader would not take the misfortunes facing the American people and leverage it for political gain. And the facts speak for themselves.

Since January of 2009, more than 2 million Americans are unemployed, close to 26 million are underemployed. National unemployment has been at or above 9 percent for 28 straight months, at or above 8 percent for 34 straight months. And it is double that in the black community.

Average gas prices have gone from $1.83 to over $3.45. The Federal debt has gone from $10.6 trillion to over $15 trillion, with 3 straight years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits. And the debt per person, Mr. Speaker, has gone from $34,000 to $48,000.

Food stamp recipients are up by 41 percent. Americans in poverty up 16 percent, with an increase of 6.4 million Americans. The Misery Index is up 65 percent, and nearly 48.5 percent of Americans are on some form of government aid.

Home values are down 11 percent, and health insurance premiums are up 23 percent, from $3,354 to over $4,000. United States global competitiveness is down from first to fifth in the world.

We currently borrow 42 cents on every dollar, a dollar which soon, thanks to the insidious monetary policies emanating from the Federal Reserve, may not any longer be the default currency of the world.

Yet with these abysmal statistics, all we hear from the big megaphone of the White House is that we need to tax people--particularly certain people--more. We hear about extending a payroll tax holiday, which is nothing but a Band-Aid approach that only provides a very short-term impetus. What no one is telling the American people, especially our seniors, is that the constant use of payroll tax breaks continues to erode the funding of Social Security, which for the first time this year was running at a deficit.

When combined with the unemployment situation, we are speeding up the demise of Social Security in America. At some point, there must be structural tax and unemployment reform; and we must incentivize our job creators.

America is suffering, Mr. Speaker, from crony capitalism in which the government is picking the winners and the losers in the free market, using our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. We have an Obama administration which believes it is the preeminent venture capitalist in our Nation. Episodes such as Solyndra and MF Global should cause us all grave concern.

You see, American exceptionalism is not constrained by class or caste. There are income levels in our country; but sound economic, tax, and regulatory policies enable our citizens to transit those levels because America is about equal opportunity and not equal achievement, where liberal progressives believe that they are the arbiters of fairness.

There is no leadership emanating from the White House. Instead, we have policy by election-cycle sound bites where the purpose is just to get reelected.

Too many politicians are now focused on manipulative and deceitful rhetoric and not developing visionary, pro-growth economic policies for America. The obvious goal, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, is to create more victims in America, an America of dependency, not individual independence.

Therefore, our Nation is truly at a crossroads. There is an ever- widening ideological chasm of what we are going to become as a Nation: Shall America continue as a constitutional Republic led by men and women of courage, conviction, and character? Or shall America become a bureaucratic nanny state, ruled by manipulative deceivers seeking their own political gain?

Is America truly that shining city that sits upon a hill, Mr. Speaker, or will that light be forever extinguished? The choice lies before the American people. I hope that they will choose wisely because our children and our grandchildren are watching, as well as our enemies abroad.

But, Mr. Speaker, for America I say this: fear not, for the Guardians of America's Honor shall ensure that the greatest days for this constitutional Republic lie ahead.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, December 9, 2011, at 11 a.m.

I want to thank my colleague from Virginia, and I want to say that I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 2, which is the balanced budget amendment.

The United States of America has just topped $15 trillion in debt; $4.4 trillion of new debt has been added.

In Greece we see a debt to GDP ratio of 128 percent. Mr. Speaker, in Italy it's 120 percent debt to GDP ratio. The United States of America is now at 101 percent debt to GDP ratio. It is about time now that we start to make a decision. Are we going to be fiscally disciplined? Are we going to have fiscal responsibility? Are we going to continue to bankrupt the future of our children and grandchildren because we were sent here to be elected officials, sent here to be leaders and we're afraid to make the tough decisions?

Historically, we have shown that we are not going to make those tough decisions. Now, I've only been here for 11 months; but I will tell you that right now we have to do something different, and it has to start now. Or else what do I say, Mr. Speaker, to my two daughters, 18 and 14? Am I going to say to them that I did not have the courage to stand here today and make the right decisions in order to ensure that they have a bright and prosperous future in the United States of America?

It is not about raising taxes. In fiscal year 2011 we saw a 6.5 percent increase in revenues in the United States of America; yet we still had a $1.3 trillion deficit, which follows on the heels of a $1.42 trillion and a $1.29 trillion deficit.

Now is the time for a balanced budget amendment. If not now, then when, when we hit $20 trillion in debt?

Mr. Speaker, I think that each and every one of us here today, when we cast our vote, there needs to be that little yellow Y next to our names because if it's a red N next to our names, we're telling the American people that we're not willing to stand up and make the hard decisions, we're not willing to make ourselves fiscally responsible. And I think that's absolutely reprehensible.

Mr. Speaker, former Secretary of State William Henry Seward said this: ``I do not believe human society, including not merely a few persons in any State, but whole masses of men, ever have attained or ever can attain a high state of intelligence, virtue, security, liberty, or happiness without the Holy Scriptures; even the whole hope of human progress is suspended on the ever-growing influence of the Bible.''

Today I'd like to recognize my pastor, Pastor Scott Eynon, and Community Christian Church for the service that they give to the community of south Florida and for their missionary work in Haiti as well as in Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Florida Atlantic University (FAU) as it marks the 50th Anniversary of its establishment in 1961. FAU is Florida's fifth largest public university.

Through the last five decades, FAU has pursued a mission of delivering top-quality higher education, research, creative activities and civic engagement. Today FAU provides a national model of excellence in serving students across a very large geographical region through a well-developed distributed campus system.

From its humble beginning on an abandoned World War II-era United States Army airfield in Boca Raton, FAU has expanded to include campuses and sites in Davie, Fort Lauderdale, Dania Beach, Jupiter, Port St. Lucie and Fort Pierce.

The university is currently serving a record-high student body of more than 29,000 individuals including the founding class of the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, America's newest medical school.

FAU takes special pride in the fact that its student body ranks as the most racially, ethnically and culturally diverse among the 11 institutions in Florida's State University System. Forty-six percent of students classified as minority or international.

In the last 50 years the university has awarded degrees to more than 120,000 alumni. The University and the alumni is a strong engine of economic growth and FAU generates an estimated $2 billion annually in its six-city service region.

FAU's 10 distinguished colleges offer students the opportunity to pursue more than 170 degree programs on the undergraduate and graduate levels. The students are taught by a faculty of 1,500 skilled and dedicated men and women who possess expertise in their fields and a true passion for passing on their knowledge to the next generation of leaders. Areas in which FAU has earned national recognition include ocean engineering, marine science, business, accounting and public administration.

Long recognized as an outstanding teaching institution, FAU is now claiming a place among America's great research universities. FAU researchers are at work in a host of essential areas, ranging from discoveries in the life sciences to new engineering technologies.

In 2010, the United States Department of Energy awarded FAU's Center of Excellence in Ocean Technology the broader designation of the Southeast National Marine Renewable Energy Center. Researchers at this interdisciplinary center are working to address our nation's energy needs through the development of technology to generate energy from Florida's strong offshore currents. FAU is ranked as a ``High Research Activity'' university by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

While FAU excels in the sciences, FAU is also a vibrant center of the arts showcasing faculty and student presentations of many kinds, including lectures, plays, concerts and exhibitions. The university also recognizes its role in the community by offering South Florida's retired citizens the opportunity to take a wide variety of interesting classes through the FAU Lifelong Learning Society which happens to be the largest and most successful program of its kind in the nation.

FAU's students, alumni, faculty, administrators and staff can take pride in all that their university has accomplished during its first 50 years as they look forward to even greater achievements in the next decades to follow. This institution is an asset of great value to all Americans and to all Floridians deserving recognition and commendation during their Semi- centennial.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Florida Atlantic University (FAU) as it marks the 50th Anniversary of its establishment in 1961. FAU is Florida's fifth largest public university.

Through the last five decades, FAU has pursued a mission of delivering top-quality higher education, research, creative activities and civic engagement. Today FAU provides a national model of excellence in serving students across a very large geographical region through a well-developed distributed campus system.

From its humble beginning on an abandoned World War II-era United States Army airfield in Boca Raton, FAU has expanded to include campuses and sites in Davie, Fort Lauderdale, Dania Beach, Jupiter, Port St. Lucie and Fort Pierce.

The university is currently serving a record-high student body of more than 29,000 individuals including the founding class of the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, America's newest medical school.

FAU takes special pride in the fact that its student body ranks as the most racially, ethnically and culturally diverse among the 11 institutions in Florida's State University System. Forty-six percent of students classified as minority or international.

In the last 50 years the university has awarded degrees to more than 120,000 alumni. The University and the alumni is a strong engine of economic growth and FAU generates an estimated $2 billion annually in its six-city service region.

FAU's 10 distinguished colleges offer students the opportunity to pursue more than 170 degree programs on the undergraduate and graduate levels. The students are taught by a faculty of 1,500 skilled and dedicated men and women who possess expertise in their fields and a true passion for passing on their knowledge to the next generation of leaders. Areas in which FAU has earned national recognition include ocean engineering, marine science, business, accounting and public administration.

Long recognized as an outstanding teaching institution, FAU is now claiming a place among America's great research universities. FAU researchers are at work in a host of essential areas, ranging from discoveries in the life sciences to new engineering technologies.

In 2010, the United States Department of Energy awarded FAU's Center of Excellence in Ocean Technology the broader designation of the Southeast National Marine Renewable Energy Center. Researchers at this interdisciplinary center are working to address our nation's energy needs through the development of technology to generate energy from Florida's strong offshore currents. FAU is ranked as a ``High Research Activity'' university by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

While FAU excels in the sciences, FAU is also a vibrant center of the arts showcasing faculty and student presentations of many kinds, including lectures, plays, concerts and exhibitions. The university also recognizes its role in the community by offering South Florida's retired citizens the opportunity to take a wide variety of interesting classes through the FAU Lifelong Learning Society which happens to be the largest and most successful program of its kind in the nation.

FAU's students, alumni, faculty, administrators and staff can take pride in all that their university has accomplished during its first 50 years as they look forward to even greater achievements in the next decades to follow. This institution is an asset of great value to all Americans and to all Floridians deserving recognition and commendation during their Semi-centennial.