Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the time is past due for a raise in the Federal minimum wage, which as last increased 10 years ago. Today, workers making the least should be heartened that this legislation will raise their wages 41 percent to $7.25 per hour over the next 3 years.

Some argue that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment and prices. This is true only if the minimum wage is set too high or phased in too quickly. If done properly, there should be little to no impact on employment or prices.

I am also pleased we are lowering the estate tax, but adopting a far more rational approach than full repeal.

Under this legislation, small business owners will be able to know their businesses can be left with their families when they pass on because of a significantly reduced tax rate. Wealthy individuals would still pay something, between 15 and 30 percent on their estates, but not the 46 percent in existing law.

Because estate and gift taxes has a harmful impact on small businesses--many of which are forced to liquidate assets simply to pay estate taxes which fluctuates in crazy fashion, from 46 percent this year, to 0 percent in 2010 and way back up to 55 percent 2011--we must intervene and provide relief. This bill will protect families and business while still making sure the very wealthy are paying back something to society.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5337, the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act.

I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, which would require that all transactions involving state-owned companies be automatically subject to a full 45-day investigation. The legislation would also name make the Homeland Security secretary the vice chairman of the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is chaired by the Treasury Department.

The recent attempt by Dubai Ports World (DP World), a port operations company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to purchase operating terminals at six U.S. ports, was a clear indicator we must reform the CFIUS process.

Whenever a foreign investment affects homeland security, it deserves greater scrutiny. This legislation strikes the proper balance between strengthening our economy and protecting the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5319, the Deleting Online Predators Act.

I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which requires schools and libraries to monitor the internet activities and implement technology to protect children from accessing commercial social networking sites like MySpace.com and chat rooms that provide an avenue for dangerous individuals to make personal contact with unsuspecting underage children.

The popularity of social network sites have soared, especially among our children, in recent years. These sites allow users to post photos, chat and interact with other users online.

However, the popularity of these sites have also become a haven for child predators. A recent Department of Justice study found that one in five children received an unwanted solicitation online.

This legislation takes an important step towards protecting our children from these online predators. The bill will still allow teens to access social networking sites under their parent's supervision, and yet protects them when they are online alone. The rise in online solicitations by child predators must be countered by a strong response, and H.R. 5319 takes such action.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, on June 29, 2006, the Friends of Animals Caucus held a groundbreaking event on farm animal welfare.

Members of the caucus were joined by a distinguished and diverse panel of speakers: representatives of three major animal protection organizations, a noted legal scholar, a family farmer, and representatives of the religious and environmental communities.

The way a society treats its animals speaks to the core values and priorities of its citizens.

Peter DeFazio and I recently introduced legislation, H.R. 5557, the Farm Animal Stewardship Act, which we hope will lead to more humane treatment of farm animals raised for consumption. Additionally, I am developing bills to address the issues of labeling and animal cruelty that exists in America.

Some species have become our companions, some play important roles in sensitive ecosystems, and some are raised for food. It is our duty to protect and care for all of these animals.

Matthew Scully, former special assistant and deputy director of speechwriting to President George W. Bush, was unable to attend, but he submitted his article ``Fear Factories: The Case for Compassionate Conservatism--for Animals,'' which was published in the May 23, 2005, issue of the American Conservative. He asked that it be included as a summary of his views on this subject.

Before ending my comments, let me highlight some of the views expressed by Matthew Scully because it expresses what I believe.

Mr. Scully states: `` . . . the persistent animal welfare questions of our day center on institutional cruelties on the vast and systematic mistreatment of animals that most of us never see.''

`` . . . all of factory farming proceeds by a massive denial of reality, the reality that pigs and other animals are not just production units to be endlessly exploited but living creatures with natures and needs.''

He continues: ``Conservatives are supposed to revere tradition. Factory farming has no tradition, no rules, no codes of honor, no little decencies to spare for a fellow creature.

``The whole thing is an abandonment of rural values and a betrayal of honorable animal husbandry.''

He further continues by saying: `` . . . we cannot just take from these creatures; we must give them something in return. We owe them a merciful death and we owe them a merciful life. And when human beings cannot do something humanely, without degrading both creatures and ourselves, then we should not do it at all.''

The importance of this issue is evident, as over 100 people attended the hearing to examine the issue of the humane treatment of farm animals.

The Friends of Animals Caucus will continue to work on a bipartisan basis

to help protect animals at the Federal level.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5852, the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act.

This legislation would create a new emergency communications office within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop a standardized radio system for first-responders during disasters.

Two years ago, the 9/11 Commission recommended placing all first- responders on the same radio frequencies to facilitate communications.

Similar provisions to this legislation are included in legislation Carolyn Maloney and I have introduced, H.R. 1794, the 9/11 Can You Hear Me Now Act. This legislation would instruct DHS to provide the New York Fire Department (FDNY) with a communication system that must be capable of operating in all locations and under the circumstances we know firefighters face and will continue to face when responding to an emergency in New York City.

Under the bill, a communication system including three components-- radios, dispatch system and a supplemental communication device--would be required to work in all buildings and in all parts of the city, something that the radios unbelievably do not now do. This bill could and should serve as an example for what needs to be done on a Federal level.

We also introduced H.R. 5017, the Ensuring Implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report Act. H.R. 5017 brings renewed focus to the core recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and holds the Administration and relevant executive agencies accountable to carry out and document the successful implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report's policy goals.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, today, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act.

The phrase ``under God'' belongs in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and the words In God We Trust belong on our currency. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a serious error in Newdow v. U.S. Congress when they declared our Pledge unconstitutional.

When the phrase under God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, I was in elementary school and remember feeling the phrase belonged there. It appropriately reflects the fact that a belief in God motivated the founding and development of our great Nation.

The Declaration of Independence states, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . .'' Our forefathers understood it was not they, but He, who had bestowed upon all of us those most cherished rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness upon which our model of government is based.

At Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln acknowledged we were a Nation under God and, during his Second Inaugural Address, he mentioned our Creator 13 times.

Those historic speeches, the Pledge of Allegiance, our currency and the Declaration of Independence are not prayers or parts of a religious service. They are a statement of our commitment as citizens to our great Nation and the role God plays in it.

Our founders envisioned a government that would allow, not discourage or punish, the free exercise of religion and we are living their dream.

I oppose the Pledge Protection Act because I have faith in our Constitution and do not believe we should preclude judges from hearing issues of social relevance, simply because we may disagree with their ultimate decisions.

While the courts may, from time to time, produce a ruling we question, the principle of judicial review is essential to maintaining the integrity of our system of checks and balances and I fear the path we appear to be on. We are a Nation under God, and in Him we trust.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the veto.

I urge my colleagues to join in voting to override the Presidential veto of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

I am disappointed the President used his first veto on legislation that has the potential to help millions of Americans affected by debilitating illnesses. I do not believe history will judge his decision kindly.

When the President first allowed this research to go forward in 2001, he could argue that he was setting up reasonable restrictions. I think today it is clear those restrictions are burdensome, ideologically driven and threaten our status as the preeminent country for medical research.

I appreciate that my Leadership has allowed fair debate on this bill and an up-or-down vote, and hope that in the future we will be successful in helping this research to advance.

Mr. Speaker, Hamas and Hezbollah attacks against one of our closest friends and best allies, Israel,

are acts of war, and they have Iran and Syria's fingerprints all over them.

As chairman of the National Security Subcommittee with direct focus on the Middle East and the Islamist terrorists that breed there, I am grateful we are promptly considering this bipartisan resolution to say to Israel, to the international community, and, most importantly, to the terrorists and the nations who support them that this Congress unequivocally stands by Israel.

We condemn the terror attacks against it, and we pray for the peaceful resolution of this crisis and to the end to the loss of innocent lives on both sides.

The prisoner exchange called for by some must be put off the table. Doing so legitimizes Hamas and Hezbollah's actions and will only embolden them and the Syrian and Iranian Governments that back them to launch similar attacks in the future. The resolution of this crisis must include the nonnegotiable safe return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, and the guarantee of the security of Israel's borders, including the full implementation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559.

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a Constitutional amendment drafted not to protect my marriage or my family--I see no reasonable way to argue it would--but rather to explicitly deny a portion of our society the right to marry and the benefits that accompany that kind of partnership.

I do not advocate the legalization of gay marriage, but our Constitution is simply not the proper place to set this kind of social policy.

I believed back in 1996, when I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, and I still believe today, the decision about whether to recognize gay marriage should be left to the states.

I can't help but wonder . . . Why are we doing this? What are we so afraid of?

Gay men and women pass through our lives every day. There are wonderful teachers and leaders and role models who happen to be gay and sometimes we don't even know they're gay.

I wouldn't be a Member of Congress today if it weren't for an extraordinary teacher I had in High School 40 years ago. I learned years later he was gay and that he had commuted from Connecticut to Washington, DC, every weekend in part to protect his privacy and his job.

When I went to college, my understanding of gay people was impacted again by my wife's best friend. One day, she told us she too had found the love of her life. We were eager to meet the boyfriend she was so madly in love with, but we soon learned her love was not a he, but a she.

Once we got over our surprise and our ways of thinking about relationships, we were able to sincerely rejoice in the joy they brought each other because we knew what a dear and good person our friend is.

My perception of gay people evolved further during my first campaign for Congress, when I worked with a magnificent young man named Carl Brown.

He became my friend and he gave me another gay face to know. Carl has since passed away, but I remember him as a person of exceptional dignity and grace.

My teacher, my wife's best friend and Carl helped me understand their lives and I think made me a better person in the process.

The Constitution of the United Staets--which established our government, grants us free speech and gives all citizens the right to vote--should not be dishonored by this effort to write indiscrimination.

I am sensitive to some of my colleague's concerns about potential biblical and social implications of legalizing same-size marriage, but I oppose this proposed amendment because I believe the Constitution is not the proper instrument to set--or reject--such policy. That debate should happened in our state legislatures.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased the day has come that Congress can officially congratulate Israel's Magen David Adom Society for achieving full membership in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Since the Knesset ratified the Magen David Adom Law in 1950, the Society has functioned as Israel's National Red Cross Society. While acting in accordance with the Geneva Convention, Magen David Adom has maintained a national civilian blood bank and has also provided emergency first-aid services and temporary shelter in emergency situations.

As Israel has defended itself against terrorist attacks, the Magen David Adom Society has been there to bravely and heroically provide humanitarian assistance to all those in need. Yet despite its clear and undeniable accordance with the principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, until recently Magen David Adom was refused admission into the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and has been relegated to observer status without a vote because it has used the Red Shield of David. As such, it was the only such national organization denied membership in the Movement.

In 2005, the Government of Switzerland convened a Diplomatic Conference of the states parties to the Geneva Conventions to adopt a Third Additional Protocol allowing for the third neutral symbol to be used in combination with other national Red Cross Society symbols. I am so grateful to the Swiss government for initiating this effort and proud of the United States diplomats who worked tirelessly to achieve an overwhelming positive vote in favor of adopting this protocol.

So I wish to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Magen David Adom Society for its full membership in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and my appreciation for its distinguished record of providing humanitarian assistance to all those in need of aid.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today we debated a constitutional amendment drafted not to protect my marriage or my family, I see no reasonable way to argue it would, but rather to explicitly deny a portion of our society the right to marry and the benefits that accompany that kind of partnership.

I do not advocate the legalization of gay marriage, but our Constitution is simply not the proper place to set this kind of social policy. I believed back in 1996 when I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and I still believe today the decision about whether to recognize gay marriage should be left to the States.

I can't help but wonder why we are doing this. What are we so afraid of? Gay men and women pass through our lives every day. They are wonderful teachers and leaders and role models who happen to be gay, and sometimes we don't even know they are gay. There are brave men and women buried in Arlington National Cemetery who happen to be gay.

I wouldn't be a Member of Congress today if it weren't for an extraordinary teacher I had in high school 40 years ago. I learned years later he was gay and that he had to commute from Connecticut to Washington, D.C. to be with his partner every weekend, in part to protect his privacy and his job.

When I went to college, my understanding of gay people was impacted again by my wife's best friend. One day she told us that she, too, like my wife and I, had found the love of her life. We were eager to meet the boyfriend she was so madly in love with. But we soon learned her love was not a he, but a she. Once we got over our surprise and our ways of thinking about relationships, we were able to sincerely rejoice in the joy they brought each other because we knew what a dear and good person our friend is.

My perception of gay people evolved further during my first campaign for Congress when I worked with a magnificent young man named Carl Brown. He became my friend, and he gave me another gay face to know. Carl has since passed away from AIDS, but I remember him as a person of exceptional dignity and grace.

My teacher, my wife's best friend, and Carl helped me understand their lives and I think made me a better person in the process.

The Constitution of the United States, which established our government, grants us free speech and gives all citizens the right to vote, should not be dishonored by this effort to write in discrimination. I am clearly sensitive to some of my colleagues' concerns about potential biblical and social implications of legalized same-sex marriage, but I oppose this proposed amendment because I believe the Constitution is not the proper instrument to set or reject such policy. That debate should happen in our State legislatures.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The reauthorization of one of our country's seminal laws, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act, ensures that we continue to protect the voice of our Nation's minorities.

The unprovoked attacked on March 7, 1965, by State troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, en route to

the State capital in Montgomery, provided a vivid demonstration of the need for Federal legislation. Despite the existence of the 15th amendment, sadly, many Southern States simply ignored the amendment by passing egregious laws such as the poll tax, literacy tests, and blatantly discriminatory redistricting.

The Voting Rights Act passed due to the leadership of President Lyndon Johnson and Republicans and Democrats in Congress who overcame these efforts to deny minorities the right to vote.

My wife and I had the distinct privilege of marching last year in the 40th anniversary march in Selma. It was an extraordinary experience for us and a reminder of how far our country has come in the last 40 years and how far we still have to go in our civil rights movement. The march even included many figures in the civil rights movement, including Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, who was beaten and almost left for dead when he attempted to cross the bridge leading the original Selma march.

Today, the party of Abraham Lincoln has a unique opportunity to contribute to the progress that has been made in advancing civil rights and narrowing the gap in minority voting rights.

Before relinquishing the floor, I want to address one controversial provision in this legislation, section 203, which provides voting assistance in other languages. While I am a strong supporter of making English our country's official language, we need to recognize that when it comes to voting, particularly for ballot initiatives, some citizens can speak English but not read it. These are American citizens who own the right to vote, but may need the assistance provided in section 203.

I applaud the leadership of Chairman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Watt, and all the Members on both sides of the aisle who have brought this landmark bill to the floor and urge support of this rule.

We need to defeat all amendments and pass this historic legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4411, of which I am a cosponsor. This legislation would prohibit banks and credit card companies from processing payments for online bets.

I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form. During my 14 years in the State legislature I voted against every gambling bill we considered.

Gambling financially cripples those who can least afford it--the poor--through the cruel and misleading lure of ``winning it big.''

I am concerned about the spread of gambling, especially among our children. We need to pause and rethink whether we truly want to legalize so many forms of gambling in so many areas of the country.

In my judgment, Internet gambling should be regulated the same way as traditional forms of gambling, as was recommended by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.

Illegal acts should be prohibited wherever they occur--including cyberspace--and society clearly has the right to prevent cyberspace from being used for illegal purposes. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of H.R. 4761, which would open the entire Outer Continental Shelf to drilling for both oil and gas. Before looking to open up more area for drilling, we need to develop a comprehensive energy policy that emphasizes conservation, as well as increasing our supply with renewable and nonrenewable energy resources.

We need to increase our supply of energy, but it is imperative we first take bold action to reduce our demand for oil. This legislation takes the wrong approach to our energy policy by not challenging Americans to use energy in more responsible ways.

The bottom line is we are not resolving our energy needs because we are not conserving. We'll just continue to consume more and waste more, consume more and waste more, and act like it doesn't matter. We are on a demand course that is simply unsustainable.

Drilling is the wrong answer to the right question of how do we meet our energy needs? Before we increase our supply of energy, we must first take control of our over-consumption.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Inslee-Brown-Waite amendment which would fund three newly authorized programs under the Violence Against Women Act.

Domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes of epidemic proportions, exacting terrible costs on individual lives and our communities. Nearly one in four U.S. women report that they have been physically assaulted by an intimate partner during their lifetimes and one in six have been the victims of attempted or completed rape.

Without full funding for VAWA programs, families cannot access the services they need to escape from violence. The continued support of Congress is crucial to helping victims and their children find safety and security and build self-sufficiency.