Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe that it was 25 years ago that this Congress worked to facilitate the establishment of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

I recall being on the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee when John Walsh and his wife testified before us. It was at a time when they did not know who had murdered their child.

It was at a time in this country where we specifically prohibited the use of the FBI in attempting to participate in any activities to try and find missing children. We had a statutory delay for any participation by the FBI. There was a lack of coordination that was not only in existence, but was promoted by law at that time.

And I recall, after John Walsh and his wife testified before us, the shrugging of shoulders by some who basically had to tell the Walshes that there was nothing that we could do here on the Federal level.

John Walsh and his wife did not take that as an answer. They spoke to many of us here in the Chamber, but actually those of us on the subcommittee and committee at that time, and challenged us to try and find a way to make it possible that we could have a seamless web between the Federal Government, the State government and local government when the question was a missing child. And the strength and persistence of that couple, combined with others who joined them around the country was extraordinary at that time.

It seems so commonplace now for us to talk about the 25th anniversary of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It seems so commonplace for us to talk about hundreds of thousands of children being reported missing yearly, and the fact that there was almost a collective shrug of the shoulder at that time saying, it is a terrible tragedy, but there's nothing we can do about it.

It seems so commonplace now that when a child is missing, with all of the various laws that have followed after the creation of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, that almost instantaneously you have law enforcement across the board communicating with one another and creating a mechanism by which there can be the exchange of information and the encouragement of the exchange of information so that we can find these children.

One thing we knew 25 years ago, and it remains the same today, the sooner you know that a child is missing, the better the chances are of being able to find that child. The sooner you have law enforcement involved, along with the communities, the better the chances are that you will have a successful recovery of that child and a successful reuniting of that family.

So I hope people understand why we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and that it has been the result of thousands upon thousands of people working for this effort.

Had it not been for a single couple, the Walshes, who, out of tragedy, decided to make something positive, had it not been for them coming here to the Congress and insisting that we look at this issue and insisting that there was something that can be done and insisting that just because we used to do it the old way was no reason or no excuse for not trying to do something different, had it not been for them, we would not be celebrating the 25th anniversary, nor would we be celebrating the thousands upon thousands of successful reunitings that have taken place around this country.

So this is a wonderful recognition of the center, but I hope it will also be a tremendous recognition of the contributions made by two wonderful Americans, the Walshes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I happen to be one of those people who happens to have an artificial hip. Every time I go through, I set off the screener. Every time I go through, I get hand-patted down, and even though they do it in a very nice way, frankly, that's far more intrusive than going out to the Reagan National Airport and going through that particular system that we're talking about with those pictures.

We have been working for many years since 9/11 to try and come up with devices which will allow us to be able to detect those kinds of things that, if brought on airliners, would be a threat to all passengers. The whole-body imaging technology, which this amendment seeks to stop in terms of its application as a primary means of screening, can detect many things such as small IEDs, plastic explosives, ceramic knives, and other objects that traditional metal detection cannot detect. Let me underscore that: this device that this amendment seeks to take off the table as a primary means of screening can detect small IEDs, plastic explosives, ceramic knives, and other objects that traditional metal detection cannot detect. That ought to be enough for us to understand this.

If you look at the privacy questions, let's be clear: the person who actually is there, the employee of TSA who is there when you go through this machine, is not the one who reads the picture. That person, he or she, is in another room--isolated. They never see you. They actually talk to one another by way of radio. So this idea that somebody is sitting in this little room, waiting to see what you look like, frankly, is sort of overblown.

All I can say is this: I have been through many, many pat-downs because I happen to have an artificial hip. Going through this at Reagan National Airport was so much quicker

and so less intrusive of my privacy than what we go through now. For us to sit here now and to pass an amendment which is going to stop this development and application, frankly, I think, is misguided.

With all due respect to the gentleman from Utah, who I know is sincere about that, and to the gentlewoman, who is also sincere, I would ask you to rethink this. From my experience, this is far more protective of my privacy than what I have to go through every time I go to the airport, number one; but more importantly, it protects me and every other passenger to a greater extent than any other procedure we have now. We aren't doing this because we want to do it. We're doing it because we have people around the world who want to kill us, who want to destroy our way of life, and they have utilized commercial airliners for that purpose in the greatest attack in our Nation's history since Pearl Harbor.

This is a device which helps us take advantage of our technological know-how to gain an advance on the enemy. I would hope we would not do this by way of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the President as he spoke in Egypt today. There are a lot of things to talk about, but in 1 minute you can't talk about most of them.

Let me just make one comment. It was interesting that the President made a very pointed statement that the country of Iran deserves to have the opportunity to use nuclear power in a peaceful way. I find it very interesting that the President thought that that was a part of energy that he ought to emphasize overseas.

My question is this: When will the President, when will his administration, when will this House understand that energy produced from nuclear power is appropriate not only for Iran and other countries around the world, but for the 50 States in the Union? When will the President understand that nuclear energy is a source that we ought to look at? And as the President gives us his various plans under the climate change rhetoric, why does he not realize the importance of nuclear energy for his own people?

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Billie Westernoff, who is retiring after 20 years of dedicated service at the Calaveras County Connection Food Bank.

Ms. Westernoff's career at this important community facility has been solely based on her desire to serve the public. Her vibrant personality and remarkable ability to connect with people have brought national recognition to the food bank. Furthermore, her determination to provide comprehensive programs and services related to nutrition, prevention and intervention for families in Calaveras County has strengthened my district and our Nation.

Let me also say that in 2007, Ms. Westernoff testified before Congress on the importance of fresh fruits and vegetables as a part of a child's daily diet. As a result of her testimony, the Mother Infant Child Harvest program was piloted in Calaveras County and served as the model for the federal Women Infant Children program nationally.

Her dynamic focus and ability to inspire others to assist individuals in need will be her legacy. It is an honor to recognize Billie Westernoff for her immense dedication to improving the quality of life for so many individuals and for her commitment to collaboration and equality. She has served my district and our Nation proudly.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Hugh ``Smitty'' Smith, an American hero who served our nation through five major campaigns in France, Belgium, Holland and Germany during World War II.

Mr. Smith served on the front lines with the 744th Light Tank Battalion of the United States Army. As he advanced on the Axis Powers as the commander of an M24 tank, he was wounded by a German sniper in the face. Determined to fight for the liberation of Europe, he returned to his battalion three weeks later. Epitomizing the strength of the Allied Forces, Smitty staved off starvation and suffered a concussion, only to stay his new post guarding German prisoners until they were relocated.

Serving as a de facto battalion commander and even as a medic when his comrades were targets of German snipers, Smitty was known by his men as a ``go to guy.'' Always rising to the occasion during the worst battlefield conditions, Smitty guided, calmed and assisted his men when they needed him most. Mr. Smith's bravery was simply unmatched.

One of Mr. Smith's most admirable leadership qualities is his fervor for serving others. As this was evident in his youth, he continues today to lead by example and improve the wellbeing of his community by being a member of the CAPS team, the volunteer citizens patrol unit for the Galt Police Department. This role only solidifies what we know to be true about Smitty, that he is always ready and willing to serve others.

The ability to inspire and live a life of complete selflessness is the legacy of a true hero. It is an honor to recognize Hugh ``Smitty'' Smith for his immense dedication to improving the quality of life for so many individuals both here and abroad, and for his unwavering commitment to equality and justice. He has truly served my district and the United States of America proudly.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to make a comment on the appearance yesterday at my alma mater, the University of Notre Dame, by President Barack Obama. As I said, I am a graduate of the university. My dad is a graduate of the university. My two brothers are graduates of the university. My son is a graduate of the university. I have three nieces who have graduated from the university. It is always an honor when the President of the United States addresses your university, particularly when he gives its commencement address.

I have known the former president of the University of Notre Dame, Father Hesburgh, for almost my entire life, having met him when I was about 6 years old, and consider him a friend to this day. His record on civil rights is unparalleled in this country, and he is one of the great leaders of the civil rights movement. Now in his nineties, I am sure it was with genuine joy that we saw tears in his eyes as the President of the United States addressed the University of Notre Dame yesterday.

However, Madam Speaker, I must register my concern about the President's address yesterday, and it is because the President has, through his actions and his statements, made very clear his position on a fundamental issue to this Nation, to the question of ethics and morality and public policy. And it is an issue that has generated much controversy, but goes to the essence of the Catholic Church's teaching on the value of life.

The church teaches that there are a number of moral principles upon which there can be serious discussion and disagreement: areas such as a just war; areas about social welfare policy; areas in which the Commandments of our Lord must guide us, but the manner in which those are applied can differ. Those moral judgments are called prudential judgments where we are called upon to use our prudence to come to the conclusions as to our proper actions, both individually and as a society.

But there are a few, and very few, principles upon which there is not prudential judgment but upon which there is specific moral guidance, and protection of innocent life is among them. The question of whether one is ever able to take the innocent life of another intentionally lies at the root of not only Catholic doctrine, but lies at the root of the Judeo-Christian tradition which has given voice to the Constitution where it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, with life being the first of those three.

So the question was when the President appeared at the University of Notre Dame, was he engaging in a dialogue in which there was an exchange of ideas of substance, or was it an episode in which there would be moral confusion afterwards in which the question of the taking of innocent life was just a prudential judgment type of issue which was the same as many other issues that we can debate and disagree on about whether we should go to war, how we should conduct war, how much money we should pay for welfare programs, what the level of education is, and so forth.

And that's the question that bothers me. I guess the question I could ask would be whether this administration at the University of Notre Dame would have asked Stephen Douglas or Abraham Lincoln to deliver the commencement address following the great debate that took place between those two some 150 years ago. Because one was successful, that is Stephen Douglas, he was elected, he was considered a great man in many different ways, a great statesman; and the other was Abraham Lincoln who had failed in several attempts at election. And the one said that slavery was one of those things upon which you could not essentially disagree when you really looked at the question of whether one man could own another man.

And while he was unsuccessful in that, he carried the moral argument of the day, and the suggestion here is: Was there any dialogue and would the suggestion be that all we have to do is reason together and use better words rather than essentially go to the substance of the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 448. I have the privilege of representing a part of the University of California at Davis. It is a privilege because U.C. Davis is truly one of the premier institutions of higher learning in our Nation.

Since the University first opened its doors to students in 1908 as an agricultural research institution it has played a critical role in the growth of California agriculture as one of our State's major industries and a producer of food for the world.

At a time when the delivery of health care services is an issue of such paramount importance to our Nation it should be acknowledged that the Medical Center at U.C. Davis serves as the primary acute-care trauma center for millions of residents in our region. It should also be mentioned that the University is recognized for its work as a top tier research hospital.

While the veterinary school at the U.C. Davis is recognized as one of the finest such schools in the Nation, I would be remiss not to point out that its law school has also attained the highest standards of excellence.

U.C. Davis is the home of the California Biomass Collaborative, which is a statewide collaborative of government, industry, environmental groups, and educational institutions administered for the state by the University of California, Davis. The Collaborative is sponsored by the California Energy Commission as well as other agency and private industry partners. I worked with the Collaborative in putting together a Biomass Policy Forum last fall to discuss the use of woody biomass as a viable alternate energy source, as well as a means by which to reduce the threat of wildfires.

The University has also done tremendous work in the field of sustainable transportation, and is the new hub of collaboration and research on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in California. Such vehicles have zero-tailpipe emissions and could well be the future of clean transportation.

In my capacity as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security I am particularly interested in the work conducted by the University through the Western Institute of Food Safety and Security, WIFSS, regarding the need to protect our Nation's feedstock from the threat of bio- terrorism. Furthermore, U.C. Davis is engaged in cutting-edge research regarding flame retardant materials which has both civilian as well as military applications.

It is therefore an honor for me to commend the University of California at Davis to you and ask your support for House Resolution 448.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Doctor Claire Pomeroy, who is receiving the distinguished United Cerebral Palsy of Greater Sacramento Humanitarian of the Year Award.

Overseeing the UC Davis Health System, Doctor Pomeroy has brought international recognition to cutting-edge discoveries; contributed to the training of doctors and medical investigators; and spearheaded new initiatives to provide comprehensive clinical care for the greater Sacramento community and our nation.

Most notably, Doctor Pomeroy has outstandingly served the public through the founding of the Center for Reducing Health Disparities and the establishment of Rural-PRIME, a program specifically designed to prepare physicians to practice in underserved rural communities.

The United Cerebral Palsy of Greater Sacramento should also be commended for the work that they do for all people with developmental disabilities. They have improved the quality of life, independence, and productivity for many citizens in my district, and have truly lived up to their motto of providing a ``life without limits for people with disabilities.''

It is an honor to recognize the United Cerebral Palsy of Greater Sacramento for their immense dedication to improving the wellbeing for so many individuals and also Doctor Claire Pomeroy for her commitment to academic excellence, innovation, collaboration, equality and social justice. Both have served my district and our nation proudly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is the definition of bittersweet. Bitter because Jack Kemp was one of my best friends; sweet because we are here marking a remarkable person, a remarkable history, and a remarkable contribution to this House of Representatives.

Jack Kemp, yes, served with distinction in this House. But more than that, he gave this House life. As I was saying to another Member who served with him, as did I, when you talk about Jack Kemp, a smile comes to your lips, not because he walked with the swagger or arrogance of a former athlete, but because he walked with the grace of a former athlete who extended that grace to his public service.

Jack Kemp was a remarkable man. Jack used to say that he probably showered with more African-Americans than most Republicans had met. Jack was referring to his service as a member of the AFL, American Football League, and then a member of the AFC, where he gained the respect of his teammates no matter what their color.

As a candidate for Vice President of the United States, Jack became one of the very few people in the history of the United States to run for that office who had been the founder of a union and president of a union. He helped found the AFL Players' Association and worked with John Mackey, who was the president of the NFL Players' Association, to try and make more equal the bargaining position of players versus the owners and the league. Jack took great pride in that.

But more than anything else, Jack Kemp was a family man. His family never came second to him in anything he did. He told me one time that he was trying to inspire his children and he would leave notes on their pillows at night. One of the notes he would write would say ``be a leader.'' I took that as an example for myself, and as my children were growing up, I would say to them as they went to bed ``be a leader'' or sometimes leave them a note that said that. That was something I got from Jack Kemp.

Jack was also a man of the House. If you listened to him in various settings, he would repeat that phrase. I remember it very well when I was privileged to be among those in the crowd in the Cannon caucus room when Jack launched his ultimately unsuccessful but nonetheless inspirational race for President of the United States. As he bid the House good-bye, he said, ``I may be leaving the House, but I will for the rest of my life be a man of the House.'' And I believe he was to the very marrow of his bone, to his last breath.

Jack loved this House. He understood what this House represented. He understood that this place is, yes, an institution for the people of America. But he understood that it was populated by human beings. He understood that politics was not only policy, but it was people. He understood that in order to make a compromise, you had to know the person across the aisle. You had to have some empathy for them and the lives they lived and the families they had. And in a very real sense, Jack elevated this House because he understood the foundations of this House.

Jack, yes, became famous for his enunciation of the principles that underlie supply-side economics, but it was much more than that. If you knew Jack, you knew it wasn't about the theory, as the impact of the theory.

Jack believed fundamentally that in order to help our neighbor, we had to respect our neighbor. In order to try and bring people up from their bootstraps, you had to recognize their basic humanity. He understood that government, yes, stands for the purpose of helping people, but we needed to help people help themselves.

If you look at his ideas, his thoughts, his work on enterprise zones, it was rooted not in political philosophy; it was rooted in his love of his fellow man. He actually believed every single person was in the image of God. He actually believed that, whether you were black or white or Hispanic, whatever you were, you were of equal value in the sight of God, and that was Jack Kemp to the core.

So if you listened to him argue on the floor, he would implicitly and explicitly articulate the vision that every single person was worthy. And that motivated his philosophy and that motivated his debate and that motivated the bills that he supported on the floor.

He was for enterprise zones because he thought that you could unleash the power of the individual. He thought that one way of elevating the downtrodden in our society was to give them opportunity. He believed in opportunity. He thought he was the embodiment of opportunity, and he wanted to extend opportunity to every single person in this society.

Jack was an inspiration to those who knew him. He wasn't perfect; he would tell you that. Sometimes he acted like a quarterback and you would have to tell him that we weren't in a huddle. And thank God for his wife, Joanne, because Joanne could tell him there wasn't a huddle going on, and he would get that half-crooked smile on his face and he would chuckle and listen. And he would incorporate your ideas and he would always be welcoming of them; and sometimes later you would hear him talking and you would hear one of your ideas being expressed by Jack Kemp in that vibrant way.

Mr. Speaker, you might get the idea that I thought a lot of my friend Jack Kemp, because I did. But it was more than just friendship; it was brotherhood. This place is a better place because Jack served here. This place would be a better place if we had more Jack Kemps here. This place is a greater institution because of his service here, and we will be an even greater institution if we don't just memorialize him, but we embody many of the traits that he brought forth to this floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would yield the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) 30 seconds.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to someone who had the privilege of serving with Jack Kemp on his staff, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

(Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 20 additional seconds.

I yield an additional 2 minutes to that, please.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman, Mr. Smith from New Jersey, who served with Jack Kemp.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell me the balance of time on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for extending the time on this. This is a valuable person, a valuable time, and I thank you.

At this time, I would extend 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Speaker, do you see what I say? When you talk about Jack Kemp, you start smiling.

At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) who also served with Jack.

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I would like to close. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, let's make one thing clear, Jack is becoming a greater and greater quarterback the more we speak. He threw a lot of interceptions, and he would be the first to admit it here.

As I said before, he is my friend. He was my great friend. He was my mentor. I used to kid him and say he was one of my childhood heroes, which would kind of drive him crazy, but it was true that I first got to know of Jack Kemp when he was a young quarterback with the then Los Angeles Chargers.

But I really got to know him in this place and thereafter. I got to know his family; Joanne--no better person you could meet; his children, Judith, Jennifer, Jeff--and in the resolution it says James, I know him by Jimmy. When Jimmy joined the Canadian Football League team that was actually located in Sacramento, Jack and Joanne called and said, we don't know anybody else in Sacramento, would you take Jimmy in? So Jimmy stayed with us for a number of weeks while he started his professional football career.

Jack was the ever-vigilant father. He had his ideas. Jimmy said not too long ago, as Jack was in some of his toughest times and was unable to talk, he said, ``We've established a new relationship with dad; he has to listen to us now.''

On the last chance I had to talk with Jack shortly before Christmas, we had a great discussion. And we talked a little bit about Christmas and about where we were going. And Jack said that we were family, but there are so many people that could say that. I say that Jack is one of my best friends, but I met a large group that could say that because once you met Jack, you were his friend forever.

I said before and I will say it again; there may be somebody out there who didn't like Jack Kemp, but there is no one in this world Jack Kemp did not like. That makes all the difference in the world, particularly when you're in this tough business called politics. When you understand someone who loves you because you are another son or daughter of God, you understand what it is like to be a true American. Jack was a true American.

Jack was someone who inspired, who led, at times infuriated, but all the time loved. He is someone who will always remain in the memory of those who knew him. He is someone who believed in those words inscribed above your head, Mr. Speaker, ``In God We Trust.'' He did trust in his God. He trusted in his family. He trusted in his country. We will miss him. I know that God is embracing him now as Jack looks down on the work we do.

God bless you, Jack. And God bless this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution, which does authorize the use of the Capitol Visitor Center for the purpose of celebrating the birthday of King Kamehameha.

The ceremony, which will take place in Emancipation Hall in close proximity to his famed statue in the National Statuary Hall Collection, appropriately honors the birth of the legendary warrior. In addition to uniting and protecting the Hawaiian Islands, King Kamehameha established the principal Hawaiian law pertaining to the peaceful treatment of civilians during wartime, which today serves as a universal model for human rights.

I thank Chairman Brady for taking up this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H. Con. Res. 80, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to a good and great friend who was also a great American leader that we lost this last weekend, Jack Kemp.

Jack Kemp was not only an inspiration to many, but he is a model for those of us who serve in this House. Through the years, his searching intellect, his impressive leadership ability, his buoyant personality, and, yes, his dedication to his family, was something to inspire all of us who had the opportunity to know him and those of us who were able to call him friend.

I remember that he told me one time that as busy as he was, he always used to take the time to try and give some inspiration to his children, and at times he would write a little note to them and put it under their pillow, and oftentimes it would say these simple words: ``Be a leader.'' I copied that from Jack, and I would remind my children before they would go to bed to think of themselves as leaders, not just followers.

Jack had that kind of effect on people. I was speaking to another Member of Congress recently and I said, when you think of Jack Kemp, you immediately have a smile on your lips because of that buoyant personality, that ultimate sense of fairness.

Today, we talk about athletes having a swagger. Jack didn't walk with a swagger. He walked with the grace of an athlete. And there was a certain graciousness about him as he approached anybody on this floor. Democrat, Republican; liberal, conservative; white, black, Hispanic, it didn't matter. Jack treated you all the same.

Jack genuinely believed that there was goodness in everybody, and even when disappointed he would still come back to that fundamental thought of his that if you could reach just a little bit deeper, if you talked to someone just a little bit longer, if you fought a little bit harder, maybe you could find agreement and maybe we could move this country forward.

It was a great experience being one of Jack's friends. I often thought that there might be someone out there who doesn't like Jack Kemp, but I don't think there was a single person that Jack disliked. And that could be irritating at times when he was an ally of yours and you were dealing with a difficult issue, and you would say, Jack, don't you hear what they are saying? Doesn't it get you irritated? And he would give you that half crooked smile and have that raspy chuckle, and he would just keep on going.

I remember when I was with him, as were several other Members in the House, I believe it was over in the Cannon Caucus Room, when Jack announced his candidacy for President in 1988. At the end he said something to this effect. He said, ``While I am leaving the House, I will always be a man of the House.'' And I believe he was, until the day he died.

Today, as we deal with difficult issues, it would do us good to remember Jack; not as someone of the past, not as someone who made great contributions to this country in his life, but someone whose spirit remains and whose example should be an example to us all.

We dealt with difficult issues when he was here in the House; the Contras, Soviet Jewry, the Cold War, the march of communism, high taxes, difficult inflation, questions about where we were going. And Jack dealt with all of those issues. But he dealt with those issues not only with a smile, but with a clarity of vision and an approach that invited people to sit down and debate with emotion, but with civility.

There could be no better example for us today. The incandescence of his personality, the generosity of his spirit, the genuineness of his friendship, I thank God for all of those things. And I think today as we deal with these difficult issues, rather than just to have a tip of the hat to people like Jack Kemp, we ought to say, your inspiration, your leadership and your example will continue to burn brightly in the hearts of Members of this body and we shall always remember your belief in the goodness of America and the goodness of its people.

God bless you, friend.

Madam Speaker, if one looks to the exceptionalism of America, one finds that at its base is freedom. We've always had an agenda for freedom--freedom with responsibility.

Today, we have a budget that's made up of numbers. People wonder how does that somehow have anything to do with freedom. Well, if you spend too much, if you tax too much, if you borrow too much, what it means is you give greater and greater power to the Federal Government, to elected representatives, to nonelected bureaucrats to make decisions for you and your life, not only today, but in the future.

For the young people that are listening, they ought to understand that the impact of this budget today will be far greater on them than it will be on me. Why? Because we are about to embark on a budget that will give us more debt than at any time in the history of America. And we and those of us who are here will not live long enough to pay it off.

The young people are the ones that are going to pay for it. They are in fact going to have less freedom rather than more freedom unless we come to our senses and vote for a budget that is consistent with the American agenda of freedom.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, John Kennedy's famous words were that a rising tide lifts all boats. I guess conversely then, a receding tide would lower all boats.

Isn't that what we are talking about here? How do we get out of this economic difficulty we are in? My friends on the other side have correctly pointed out that we spent too much and we borrowed too much in the last number of years. I have agreed. I have said that ever since I came back to Congress 4-plus years ago.

But to condemn the actions of the past and then say you're going to get out of it by repeating it but doubling down on it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Look, I was gone from this place for 16 years. My children are grown now. I now have grandchildren. When I first came here, I had very young children. And I have got to answer to them at some point in time as to what we did when this choice came this year. Did we say that it made us feel good to loft ad hominem arguments at one another, to say that if you are fiscally responsible, what you are going to do is literally take the food out of the mouths of children, as I heard the gentleman from the other side say? The gentleman from the

other side said that he has a number of school districts that can no longer give children lunch.

Why is that? They are having difficult economic times there. They are finding out they can't tax their people any more. Their receipts aren't enough at this time to do that. So the gentleman says that all we have to do is come to Washington, D.C., because, of course, our taxpayers are different than the taxpayers back home.

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is, they are the same people. They are the same people that are going to suffer if we put them on a road to economic calamity that is going to last for decades.

So we have a responsibility here to look beyond the easy personal shots and to judge these budgets to see whether or not one of them is more responsible than the other. I could point out the $1 billion placeholder that is in the Democratic budget. What is it for? Nobody knows. It is a hedge against whatever they want to spend it on. I could point out that my Democratic friends are saying that cap and trade, which really translates into cap and tax, is a magical, mystical ride that we are going to take. It is going to cost nobody anything. And so they criticize us when we say, ``do you know that there is a tax inherent in this budget?'' Well, tell me how are we going to do this cap and trade that is based on an auction? An auction means somebody has to put a price in order to get the ability to spend. But it is going to come out of nowhere? And my friend from Massachusetts says, ``and the Republican budget is going to allow dirty fossil fuels to be used.'' Once again we are blaming America.

I know that the fact of the matter is that we have fossil fuels in abundance here in the United States, coal for instance; and somehow, instead of working towards clean coal technology so that we can utilize our abundant resources, our friends on the other side say somehow that's evil.

I will be happy to yield.

Well, the gentleman's statement is only true if you believe that when you buy a carbon credit and pay for it, that actually amounts to money. If somehow, magically it doesn't cost anybody anything, even though it's being auctioned on the market, and then that cost is going to be passed on to the consumer, which is, in the nature of a tax.

What we have here is an argument that if you can't pay for it back home, you can pay for it here because somehow we have an unlimited amount of money, and it has no impact on anybody whatsoever. As if inflation has no impact.

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Madam Chair, I will reserve at this time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Chair, when I listen to some of the debate on the floor, I wonder what the American people might think. As I reflect on the words that were just spoken, it sounds like we have a greater imperative to somehow deal with this notion of climate change than we do with defending the American people.

The budget that's presented to us by the Congressional Progressive Caucus cuts defense enormously, and yet we keep hearing that, well, we don't want to take any money away from the troops, we don't want to take any money away from the equipment. But we cut defense enormously.

And one has to ask, what is the first obligation of government? It is to create a modicum of security so the American people can live their lives in a sense of safety, so they can attempt to be the best that God gave them the skills to be. That's the first obligation of local governments, the first obligation of State governments, and I would hope at some point in time in this debate it would be acknowledged by the other side that it is the first obligation of the Federal Government.

At this time, Madam Chair, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to whether or not the other side has more than one speaker on this subject.

I will reserve.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of our time.

I have never been in a place where a $4.3 trillion budget over the period that we're talking about, which is what the Republican budget is, is somehow seen as parsimonious. The other side seems to suggest that we are not attempting to try and pay for those things for which there is a reason for the Federal Government to be involved.

Secondly, I would say this. I have been a leader for the last two Congresses in an effort, on a bipartisan basis, to try and reduce or to encourage the President to negotiate with Russia to reduce our overall nuclear weapon arsenal, and the President has indicated this last week he's going to do that. But I have looked at the figures, and if we reduced it to the numbers that the President is talking about that we've urged, it wouldn't even come close to be the cut that you're talking about on your side.

The suggested cuts in defense spending in this budget, in the Democratic budget, but in this budget particularly, it doesn't just cut fat. It cuts muscle. It cuts sinew. It cuts bone. It makes us less able to defend the American people. And let's just be very, very clear about that. No one, no respected member of any previous administration in terms of national defense has suggested that you can support this kind of a budget presented here.

So let's make it very clear to the American people what we're talking about here. Are we going to do the fundamental job of preserving liberty and preserving freedom or are we, in fact, going to cut defense and, in the process, burden our people with more spending, more taxation, more borrowing, increasing the size of government, which ultimately takes freedom away from individual Americans?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 54, which would, as the chairman has said, authorize use of the Capitol Rotunda on April 23, 2009, for a ceremony as a part of the commemoration of the Days of Remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.

For descendants of the approximately 6 million Jews who were killed during the Holocaust, the atrocities that their loved ones suffered at the hands of Nazi Germany are with them each day. As a Nation, it's important that all Americans take the time to reflect upon the effects of the horrors inflicted during the Holocaust, one of the darkest days or hours of our humanity. Those who would seek to destroy an entire people based on their religious heritage committed the most heinous acts imaginable upon their brethren. By remembering the victims of these unspeakable acts, we ensure that the flame of life that the forces of evil tried so hard to extinguish will never be forgotten and that we shall never allow this to happen again.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to mention that there is a wonderful statue in our Rotunda of a great American, his name is Dwight D. Eisenhower. He's remembered as President of the United States. He was also the Supreme Allied Commander of all of those allied troops in Europe.

When his troops and he came upon the reality of the Holocaust, when they came upon the concentration camps, then-General Eisenhower commanded that his troops take pictures, see the evidence, gather the proof. He required that German residents, German citizens of the surrounding communities, be brought forward and have to see what had taken place; and then he required those individuals to actually be part of the burial committees that buried the bodies of those who had been destroyed.

When asked why he did this, President Eisenhower, then-General Eisenhower, said, ``I do this to gather this evidence, to get this proof, to get these photos, because some day in the future, some''--and I will use the initials--``some silly SOB will claim this never happened.''

There are some who claim this never happened. Because a remarkable man with tremendous foresight, General Eisenhower, later President Eisenhower, because he required that proof be made, those perpetrators of that fallacy cannot be successful.

In order to make this time of reflection an official event shared by all Americans, Congress established the Days of Remembrance as our Nation's annual commemoration of the victims of the Holocaust and created the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum as a permanent living memorial to these victims. Since 1982, the Holocaust Museum has organized and led the national Days of Remembrance ceremony in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, a ceremony that includes Holocaust survivors, their families, liberators, and Members of Congress.

So I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that we may continue to use the Capitol Rotunda to pay tribute to those lives that were lost in the Holocaust during this shared time of solemn remembrance throughout the world.

I yield back the balance of my time.