Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and Mr. Brady, our Ranking Member, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Katherine E. McCarron who is leaving the House to take a position with the Federal Trade Commission. Ms. McCarron served in the Office of the General Counsel for nearly 4 years as an Assistant Counsel. We will miss her.

Ms. McCarron provided frequent and invaluable legal advice and representation to the Committee on House Administration, as well as to Members, officers and other committees of the House more generally. Our staff came to rely on her expertise and guidance, particularly in connection with their internal oversight activities. Over the years, Ms. McCarron played a significant role in safeguarding the legal and institutional interests of the House of Representatives.

Ms. McCarron served the House with great distinction, and we know she will serve the Federal Trade Commission with that same level of distinction. On behalf of the Committee on House Administration, we thank Ms. McCarron for her devoted service, and extend to her our very best wishes for her continued success.

Mr. Speaker, when I had the privilege of serving in this House for the first time in the 1980s, I joined with many of my colleagues in supporting the creation of the Martin Luther King, Junior holiday. I recall the time because we had twice before defeated the proposition based on fiscal concerns. I, in fact, had voted against it on one occasion and then had reflected further on it and thought that it perhaps was more important that we have a single holiday that celebrated the consensus that had been obtained on civil rights, the consensus in this country that we should take positive action to assure that all men and all women were recognized as being created equal and having opportunity in this society.

I thought this consensus on civil rights was embodied in the person of Dr. Martin Luther King and thought it was important for all Americans, young and old, to be able to reflect on that and to have a period of time for that reflection and that we could learn from the mistakes of the past and also the sacrifices of the past as we went forward.

Now, having said that, I must take exception to a characterization of the comments of one of our Presidential candidates, a former colleague and my friend, Newt Gingrich, when he was trying to make a very, very important point. Too often, those of us in government take credit for programs that

give things to people that is largesse from the government to individuals rather than understanding the genius of our system, which is the opportunity for people to rise to the best of their abilities to become as good as God created them to be, and that there is no greater social welfare program or social program than a job. That's a cliche at times but it is, in fact, an important statement.

The point that Newt Gingrich was making was that we should not revel in the fact that we have more people on food stamps than ever before, even though that has been promoted by some as evidence of our compassion. What Mr. Gingrich suggested is we ought not to be beating our breasts in pride about our compassion. We ought to be looking inward about our inability to create opportunity for our fellow men and women in this society. The point he made is that it is far better that we create an economic environment in which men and women, young and old, have an opportunity to experience the satisfaction of a job well done.

As Newt Gingrich said, his daughter's first job was as a janitor in their Baptist church in Georgia, and he said while that was not to which she aspired as a long-term goal, it was, in fact, the launching point of her job experience. Too often we have knocked out the lower rungs of the ladder of economic success in a manner which has created frustration, disappointment, and a lack of confidence in our young people today.

That was the point that former Speaker Gingrich made. It is a point well made. It is a point that we should contemplate. It is a point that we should recognize and place within our debate today. And to mischaracterize it as somehow having an underlying racial meaning demeans the level of debate on this floor, the level of debate in the Presidential campaigns, and frankly, the reality that confronts too many of our people today.

I represent a district that has higher unemployment than the national average, higher unemployment than the statewide average in California, which has for too long a period of time been, I think, the third worst unemployment rate in the country. We need to work harder on creating an economic environment in which the uncertainty imposed by the government is reduced so that those men and women of genius and hard work and inspiration and creativity can continue to make this the most vibrant, robust, economic engine in the history of the world.

That is the way that we help all in our society, men and women, black and white, Hispanic, people of every color, not by questioning motivations but by, in fact, facing the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 497) to provide for the placement of a statue or bust of Sir Winston Churchill in the United States Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

I rise in support of H. Res. 497 and the placement of a statue or bust of Winston Churchill here in the United States Capitol. Winston Churchill was unique. An inspiration to millions around the world during World War II, Winston Churchill's eloquence and courage brought hope to those bound under the weight of tyranny and war.

His prose and his voice were direct and succinct. Churchill believed in calling things by their rightful names. When he secretly met with President Roosevelt in August of 1941 and signed the Atlantic Charter, Churchill made sure that it referred specifically to ``Nazi tyranny.'' Always a straight shooter, Churchill called it like it was. In retrospect, many people think that it's easy for that kind of nomenclature to be used, but at the time, it was unique. During the 1930s, when voice after voice cautioned against taking too strong a stance against Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill refused to ignore the gathering storm.

In 1982, Mr. Speaker, I was a young, second-term Member of this House. But I, like millions of Americans, was inspired that year by the actions and words of our 40th President, who traveled across the Atlantic in June of that year to address Parliament. He did so out of an appreciation of the common liberty-loving and natural rights- affirming heritage Great Britain and the United States had shared, and which he thought must be protected at all costs.

And as he should have, President Reagan quoted frequently from Churchill that day, for there was no other statesman in the 20th century who had thought, who had contemplated, who had written, and who had taught us about war, about the motives of man, and about the causes of and necessities present for civilization to survive. That is why Churchill's hatred of tyranny burned so deep, and why his warnings about oppression before and after the war were so prescient.

Mr. Speaker, during the long dark night of war in 1940 and 1941, before the United States was there to aid its ally, Britain suffered the horrors of attack after attack, as all others on the continent had fallen and it was left alone, separated only by the channel from utter destruction.

During Nazi bombing attacks on London, the great and majestic St. Paul's Cathedral was badly damaged. It looked like it would crumble in flames, but it did not. One of the most inspired images of the war is of St. Paul's with smoke billowing all around it, standing tall, refusing to fall, and reminding us of the things for which Britain was fighting. And like that image, Winston Churchill's example does the same, and so much more.

Almost 70 years ago to the day, Prime Minister Churchill risked his life in a U-boat attack in a secret voyage across the Atlantic. On December 26, 1941, in an address to a joint session of Congress, he said: ``I avow my hope and faith, sure and inviolate, that in the days to come the British and American peoples will, for their own safety and for the good of all, walk together in majesty, in justice, and in peace.'' This is a charge to which I hope this Congress will still aspire.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the author of this resolution and distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Elections for the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a distinguished member of the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committees.

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

Returning to the subject at hand, we have the great portrait of General Lafayette here in the House Chamber, one of seven honorary citizens of the United States, Winston Churchill being another.

Winston Churchill was, as is evident, one of the great men of the last century, one for whom inspiration was a way of life, and one who, as the Speaker said just a few moments ago, was the best ally that the United States has ever had.

As a young boy, having been born somewhat after World War II, I remember with fascination seeing this figure on television. He seemed to remind me of every newborn baby I've ever seen. They all look like Winston Churchill without the cigar. You wondered what was it that made this man great. And you began to read history. You began to talk with your father who had served in World War II about what this man was, and you realized this was someone who, in his youth, was involved in cavalry charges, and in his oldest age, was leader of a country at the beginning of the thermonuclear world.

Talk about the span of time and the span of greatness and the ability to perceive, through all of that time, despite his mistakes, being a fallible man, perceive the greatness of the individual and the opportunity that democracy gives to individuals as no other form of government does.

At the time when he criticized Nazi Germany, it was not something that all then said. The late Christopher Hitchens, in an April 2002 article in ``The Atlantic,'' said this:

But alone among his contemporaries, Churchill did not

denounce the Nazi empire merely as a threat, actual or

potential, to the British one. Nor did he speak of it as a

depraved but possibly useful ally. He excoriated it as a

wicked and nihilistic thing. That appears facile now, but was

exceedingly uncommon then. In what was perhaps his best ever

speech, delivered to the Commons 5 days after the Munich

agreement on October 5, 1938, Churchill gave voice to the

idea that even a ``peace-loving'' coexistence with Hitler had

something rotten about it. ``What I find unendurable is the

sense of our country falling into the power, into the orbit

and influence of Nazi Germany, and of our existence becoming

dependent upon their good will or pleasure.''

That was an uncommon statement at the time. That was a courageous statement at the time. That was a visionary statement at the time.

It is to honor that vision, it is to honor that ally, it is to honor that person who was dedicated to the best of Western civilization, who was one who stood with very few at a time when that civilization was threatened as never before.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be on the floor to offer this resolution to allow for, to authorize, a statue or bust of Winston Churchill here in the United States Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time as I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Rear Admiral Michael A. Brown for his distinguished service to the Government of the United States as the Director, Cybersecurity Coordination, National Protection and Programs Directorate, and Senior Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Representative to the National Security Agency and the United States Cyber Command from December 2010 to January 2012.

Rear Admiral Brown is a national level leader on cybersecurity, a matter of highest importance to the nation's national security, homeland defense and economic competitiveness. Since the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security each bring different authorities, capabilities and cultures to this national challenge, the nation needed an astute solution provider and consensus builder in each of these areas. Handpicked to bridge the two leading Departments in this mission space, he quickly earned the respect of each due to his intellect, skill and determination for national-level solutions and brought the Departments closer together.

Rear Admiral Brown's sound advice routinely developed and informed policy and operations positions taken by senior decision makers at the national level, thereby advancing national and international cybersecurity policy and critical legislative proposals needed to change the nation's antiquated cybersecurity-related laws. Few people had a bigger role at increasing the understanding and appreciation of the complexity and relationship between policy, technology and operations required to secure our nation's public and private infrastructure.

Rear Admiral Brown's leadership was crucial in the execution of a first-of-its-kind government-wide boundary cyber defense system to which the U.S.'s foreign intelligence system would be connected, to setting the course to transform DHS's cyber operational centers into national assets, to creating the public-private partnerships necessary to jointly operate to mitigate extraordinarily pressing nation state, crime, and hacktivist cyber threats.

The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center was another of his notable achievements providing the vision and execution to make it operational. Both a warrior and innovative thinker, he seamlessly worked with government and private sector counterparts to strengthen and support operational partnerships.

During a perilous time for our nation, in which our adversaries' ability and will to steal and control our national assets through cyberspace often far outpaces our posture to stop it, Rear Admiral Brown helped set the necessary strategic direction by unifying the Federal Executive branch, state and local government, the U.S. critical infrastructure community, and the private sector. His leadership culminated in a White House-supported effort that defined a national plan for unified public and private response to malicious activity under the National Cyber Incident Response Plan.

Our thanks also go to his wife, Therese L. Brown and his children Michael R. Brown, Meghan T. Brown and Lauren M. Brown. Their support and sacrifice on behalf of our Nation should be recognized along with Rear Admiral Brown's tremendous hard work.

Mr. Speaker, the clock is running down for the 3,400 residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq. I share the concern of many of my constituents and others across our country and around the world for the status of those living in Camp Ashraf. It is my fear that if the Iraqi government follows through on their threat to shut down the camp that we could be facing a monumental human rights tragedy. I have joined many of my colleagues in calling for access to the camp by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It is indefensible that UNHCR has not been given access to those in Ashraf. This in itself seems to be a violation of international human rights law.

It is imperative that the government of Iraq revoke its year end deadline for the closure of Ashraf. UNHCR must be provided sufficient time to process each and every one of these individual cases. Regardless of the State Department's position concerning the legal status of MEK, the department has both a moral and legal responsibility to do everything in its power to ensure that UNHCR is provided access to the camp.

It is my hope that when Prime Minister Maliki visits with President Obama, that he will agree to remove the December 31 deadline for the closure of Camp Ashraf. There is still time to avoid a catastrophe and the Secretary of State should act with the assurance that decisive action will have the support of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Kitty O'Neal on being named Person of the Year by the Carmichael Chamber of Commerce.

Over the last 20 years, Sacramentans have known Kitty as the voice of our afternoon radio. With exceptional class and professionalism, Kitty has given us the news on our drive home from work, anchoring the award winning KFBK Afternoon News. As an ambassador of Sacramento, she has represented us at the Grammy Awards, Academy Awards and on national programs such as A&E Channel's Biography.

Those of us who live in the region know Kitty as more than simply the voice coming through our speakers; she is a pillar within the Sacramento community. Her roots run deep there as she donates much of her time and talent to community events and charitable organizations. Growing up, Kitty's father was the Base Commander at Mather AFB in the 1970's, and before embarking on her path in radio, Kitty attended Sacramento State graduating with a degree in Communications. Along with being one of the Sacramento region's most notable figures, Kitty is married to restaurateur Kurt Spataro, and together they are partners in several well known Sacramento area restaurants.

If you have ever dined, listened to Sacramento radio or have been involved in our surrounding community, more than likely you have benefited from Kitty's legacy. The Carmichael Chamber couldn't have chosen a better person to recognize and again it is with great pleasure that I congratulate Kitty O'Neal on her achievements and recognition as Person of the Year by the Carmichael Chamber of Commerce.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3463 will eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Election Assistance Commission. That's good news. The American people have been asking this Congress to get serious about spending, begging us to take a critical look at government operations and get rid of the dead weight. Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a government program or a government agency that is ripe for the cutting, it is the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and Election Assistance Commission.

The Election Campaign Fund is an unused government program only supported by a meager 7 percent of the American people. In other words, 93 percent of the American taxpayers have opted out of participating in this program. Candidates and nominees have routinely opted out of the system altogether.

In 2008 we know then-Candidate Barack Obama declined public financing in the general election. In 2012, it's expected that neither general election candidate will participate in the program, and no candidate has requested eligibility thus far in the election cycle.

According to CBO, elimination of this program would save the American taxpayers $447 million over the next 5 years and return nearly $200 million to the public Treasury for deficit reduction immediately.

I know some people think $500 million isn't much. Where I come from, that's a lot. We can eliminate something that the American people have rejected by a vote of 93-7. It seems to me to make sense.

Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress, the Committee on House Administration held hearings on the issue of taxpayer financing of campaigns. And one of our witnesses asked this question. He said, if the voters are not willing to pay for the program, then why should it continue?

As for the Election Assistance Commission, this agency has been the subject of two hiring discrimination lawsuits, spends over 50 percent of its budget on administrative costs, and is asking this Congress for $5.4 million to manage programs totaling $3.5 million.

In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill before us eliminates an unused government program, shuts down an obsolete government agency, saves the taxpayers $480 million over 5 years, and returns almost $200 million to the Treasury. How could we not vote for it?

I strongly support the Second Amendment. For that reason, I signed on to the amicus briefs in the Heller case and in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case, upholding the right to bear arms as an individual and constitutional right. I believe that. At the same time, as the former attorney general of California, I continue to have a deep and abiding commitment to preserving States' rights in the manner that the Founders envisioned the notion of federalism.

Under the 10th Amendment, it is obvious that the Constitution allocates what are known generally as police powers to the States to protect public safety and health. That's why I object to some of our legislation to expand the Federal role in tort law and in marriage law, because it's not just those things you necessarily agree with, but it's tougher when it's those things you may disagree with that are left to the States. Some people have talked about licenses here. You don't have a right to take your license to practice medicine or law to the next State. We have not required that. We allow States to do that.

Here is the other thing.

My State is one of the most liberal. We have too liberal a law with respect to concealed weapons, but the only way the liberal State legislature in California will respond to this is by following Illinois, because it's the only way they can get a limit, as they see it, on these sorts of things.

My suggestion is, those who are concerned about it in my State might have to worry about this because our legislature will now be tempted to get rid of all concealed-weapons permits because, unfortunately, under this legislation, that's the only thing they can do to police the eligibility of those who get concealed- weapons permits.

So this does cut both ways, and at least I think we ought to understand that States' rights is a legitimate argument here on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight the career of Mr. Philip Melvin (Phil) for his thirty years of distinguished service to the United States House of Representatives. Phil has served this great institution as a valued employee of House Information Resources (HIR) in the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).

Phil began his tenure with the House in 1981 as a Mainframe Computer Operator. Diligently rising through the ranks, Phil was eventually selected to be the Lead Computer Operator. His duties entailed bringing the House's systems online, recognizing and diagnosing hardware and software problems, maintaining quality control of printed output, and training new Operations Staff. Mainframe operations were the heart of the House's emerging Information Technology Infrastructure.

Phil's technical expertise and delivery of mainframe operational services led to his appointment as a Mainframe Systems Programmer, whereby he provided the system tools and computer resources required to host the House's mission critical internal applications on the mainframe.

In the early 90's, Phil was selected to support a Distributed Systems Support Project, which required him to support the multiple e-mail systems then in use by the House. Phil was responsible for managing the main system that allowed Members to send/receive mail from several different e-mail systems. In

1995, he became part of the team that successfully merged all of the House's e-mail systems into one enterprise service. He then became the lead in implementing the Enterprise Fax system for the House which allowed Member offices to receive and send their faxes via e-mail. Phil has helped make the House e-mail and Enterprise Fax systems the reliable services the House relies on today. Continuing on the leading edge of technology, Phil's most recent duties were instrumental in the House's successful evolution to server virtualization.

Phil's knowledge, experience, dedication, mentoring and consistent outstanding performance in his daily tasks have set a fine example in providing superior customer service and earned him the respect and admiration of his co-workers.

On behalf of the entire House community, we extend congratulations to Philip Melvin for his many years of dedication, outstanding contributions and service to the United States House of Representatives.

We wish him many wonderful years in fulfilling his retirement dreams.

Mr. Speaker, in contrast to the suggestion made that we don't need to have this reaffirmation of our national motto, I provide this evidence. First of all, we had a lawsuit by an individual in my district that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court about the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. Secondly, that same individual is now suing, attempting to get up to the Supreme Court on this very question of ``In God We Trust.'' Third, just a couple of years ago, I had to fight very, very strongly to get the words ``In God We Trust'' emplaced, in fact, in the CVC, where it is now.

And for all of those that we've referred to in our history, I think we've omitted one which is very, very important, the leader of the civil rights revolution. Martin Luther King made it very clear in his letter from the Birmingham jail that, in fact, we act out of the requirements made on us by the God in whom we trust. That makes us a Nation that respects the liberties and the individual worth of every single member of our society. If he had not, in fact, looked to our historic belief in God as a basis for those principles that all Americans abide by, that is, that we are equal in the eyes of God and therefore equal in the eyes of our government, he would not have been successful.

This is an important message that we need to reaffirm. It is, in fact, under attack. We are not wasting time. For example, how could we waste time in making sure that ``In God We Trust'' is, in fact, enshrined in our laws and as our national motto?

Religious faith has been an ever present fact in our history which must be included in any picture of who we are as Americans. The failure to include it among other representations would give an incomplete and inadequate picture of our national ethos.

The motto ``In God We Trust'' first appeared on a United States coin in 1864 during the Civil War, and later became the official motto of our nation in 1956 by an act of Congress. It is codified as Federal law in the United States Code at 36 U.S.C. 302, which provides: ``In God we trust'' is the national motto.

We must say no to any revisionists who seek to rewrite the American narrative. It was not secularism and materialism which inspired those from other continents to travel across dangerous seas to a foreign land where they sought refuge from religious persecution. Neither can the manifest destiny in the hopes and dreams of those who populated the land that we now call America be described apart from a spirit which led them to face challenges and even death to fulfill those dreams.

No. It was something greater than themselves which guided them in such quests. This understanding of a greater purpose was reflected in the Mayflower Compact signed aboard the Mayflower in 1620. In acknowledging Divine Providence, John Winthrop and the other Pilgrim signers expressed the desire to form a democratic form of government and a mutual regard for one another as equals in the sight of God.

There was a sense of destiny in those first Americans who were drawn here by that same vision. In a very real sense they conceived of themselves as a chosen people. They saw their covenant as connected with the blessing of a new land but even more importantly with an idea that America was a place with a transcendent purpose. This ethos of the older covenant provided them with a foundation rooted in a common commitment to the creation of a new political order.

The Founding generation of our nation possessed that same sense of purpose. John Adams, the author of the Massachusetts constitution, a key player in drafting the Declaration of Independence, and the President of the United States represented this worldview. Adams was committed to this early understanding that a Hebrew metaphysic was the cornerstone of the new American culture. Adams understood that only the nature of an intelligent, wise, and sovereign God could not only create, but also sustain the morality necessary to civilization itself.

He observed:

We have no government armed with powers capable of

contending with human passions unbridled by morality and

religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would

break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes

through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and

religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government

of any other.

Adams understood that a constitution must be more than mere parchment or paper. Rather, our nation's basic law must be grounded in a moral order which embodies the timeless first principles of an older covenant.

Such sentiments followed what has become recognized as the clearest enunciation of those cardinal principles of American character. In his Farewell Address President Washington observed:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political

prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports

. . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that

morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be

conceded by the influence of refined education on minds of

peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to

expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of

religious principle.

The American Revolution was rooted in a very different worldview than its French counterpart. The conception of liberty to which the founding generation aspired was rooted in a Transcendent source. With respect to the philosophy underlying our political institutions and governance, we need look no further than the Declaration of Independence to discover what is perhaps the clearest statement of the source of those rights which would later be enshrined in our Constitution. We are informed in the Preamble that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable rights, that among these are life,

Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The source of these unalienable rights--rights that cannot be given or taken away--should be noted. Where do our rights come from? They are not the product of mere men. They are not the product of mere agreement.

No. we are endowed with these rights by our Creator. The significance of this is that if our rights do not ultimately come from man, they cannot be taken away from us by mere men. It is the ultimacy of a transcendent source which gives rights their substance.

The role of the Declaration as the principal statement of American political philosophy must surely have a prominent place in our effort to unfold a catechism of American character. It is significant that Abraham Lincoln in one of his debates with Stephen Douglas derisively stated that ``[i]f the Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book, in which we find it, and tear it out!'' There is a practical component to this argument in that ``the United States Code includes the Declaration of Independence as one of the Organic Laws upon which all statutory law rests.''

However, there is a more compelling reason that Lincoln might have responded with such firmness. For he would later note at Gettysburg that it was ``Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.'' On that day of November 19, 1863 at Gettysburg, it had been 107 years since those immortal words contained in the Declaration had been declared to the new nation. Lincoln saw the Civil War as an epochal struggle necessary to this promise of the Declaration, ``that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.''

This our history, and our concepts of human dignity and equal justice before the law are deeply rooted the notion of eternal justice.

Perhaps no greater testimony exists to this fact than the Reverend Martin Luther King's, Letter from a Birmingham Jail. He described his plight with the following eloquence:

. . . I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as

the eighth century prophets left their little villages and

carried their `thus saith the Lord' far beyond the boundaries

of their hometowns; and just as the Apostle Paul left his

little village of Tarsus and carried the gospel . . . to

practically every hamlet and city of the Graeco-Roman world,

I too am compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond to

the Macedonian call for aid.

This great leader of the Civil Rights movement clearly understood the origin and nature of rights. He spoke of ``God-given rights.'' In describing the concept of rights he wrote:

One may well ask, ``How can you advocate breaking some laws

and obeying others?'' The answer is found in the fact that

there are two types of laws; there are just and there are

unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that ``an

unjust law is no law at all.

Now what is the difference between the two? How does one

determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-

made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.

An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral

law. To put it in terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust

law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural

law.

Dr. King reasons from experience that rights must be rooted in a moral law that is itself rooted in the law of God. The expression of a majority is itself an insufficient basis for rights. The argument by Stephen Douglas on behalf of the doctrine of popular sovereignty (allowing states to determine the slave question by a popular vote) failed because of the moral premise that majority sentiment should not overcome the fundamental First Principle that it is not permissible to own another human being. The exercise of political will without moral justification is nothing more than the use of force legitimized by a vote. Douglas' position that such a question could be left to the decision of the various states was in fact an argument on behalf of cultural relativism. Lincoln understood that this was not a sufficient basis for law and argued that ``there is no right to do a wrong.'' Rights which are not grounded in a transcendent being ultimately are left to the historical vagaries of taste and opinion.

This understanding concerning the centrality of religious faith in our nation's history is also reflected in an opinion written by the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Perhaps one of the most liberal Justices ever to sit on the Court, Douglas nonetheless observed that ``We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being.'' Of course, not every American believes in God-- that is not what Justice Douglass was getting at. Rather, his focus was on our history as a people. And it is undeniable that throughout our history the religious faith of the American people--in all of its various forms--has been an integral part of who we are as a people. A plurality of faith commitments has come together in the American experience to form a canopy of overlapping consensus concerning the providential nature of our history.

This is our history. It is who we are as a people. Although we are not captives of the past, it would be nothing less than national suicide were we to fail to uphold the integrity of our collective story. Worse yet, we must never allow our history to be rewritten by those seeking to serve their own ends. For our understanding of our past serves to define who we are and to direct our aspirations for the future. To allow others to deny the foundational role of religious faith in our nation's history is not only an assault on our history but an attempt to dramatically alter the direction of our nation in the years ahead.

Will the gentleman yield on those points?

The gentleman who brought that case to the Supreme Court has a case pending in Federal Court right now on the issue of ``In God We Trust,'' and there is a Federal action out of the District Court in Wisconsin right now attempting to get us to take out the words ``In God We Trust'' in the CVC. Those are still active lawsuits.

Several years ago, my wife and I, accompanied by a number of other Members and their spouses, were privileged to be in the State of Israel at the time the Israeli Government made a very difficult decision to turn over Gaza to the Palestinian Authority.

It was a very controversial decision. The question was: Would this gesture of goodwill be reciprocated by the other side? Unfortunately, of course, it was not. As in other gestures by the Israeli Government, the response has been: Give us more and we will not commit to the existence of Israel, but you have to commit to the existence of a Palestinian state.

Let there be no mistake. It is a bipartisan support on the floor of the House for the State of Israel at this time of great need for them when they face all sorts of problems in the United Nations and elsewhere.

Let us be clear. We will not be divided on this. Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, and liberals here in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate support Israel in their effort to remain free and to not be forced into positions that are totally unfair.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize outstanding employees of the Officers (Clerk of the House, Sergeant at Arms, and Chief Administrative Officer) and the Inspector General of the U.S. House of Representatives who have reached the milestone of 25 years of service to the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the recipients of the House Employee Excellence Award.

The House's most important asset is its dedicated and exceptional employees, whose work often behind the scenes, is vital in keeping the operations and services of the House running smoothly and efficiently. The employees we recognize today are acknowledged and commended for their hard work, dedication, professionalism, support of House Members and their staffs and constituents, and for their contributions day-in and day-out to the overall operations of the House. These employees have a wide range of responsibilities that support the legislative process, assure the security of the institution, maintain our technology and service infrastructure, and contribute to a more effective and efficiently operating House support structure. They have accomplished a great many things in a wide range of activities, and the House of Representatives and its Members, staff, and the general public, are better served because of them.

We honor the individuals named below for 25 years of dedicated service to the House. Collectively, this group has provided two hundred seventy-five (275) years of service to the U.S. House of Representatives:

Gretchen Ewers, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer;

Kevin Harris, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer;

Darius Holmes, Office of the Sergeant at Arms;

Thomas E. Mako, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer;

Craig D. Pence, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer;

Dean Phan, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer;

Paul Rossiter, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer;

Airlie Shoemaker, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer;

David Sparling, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer;

Matthew B. Smith, Office of the Clerk;

Saundra E. Watkins, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer.

We also recognize and congratulate four House employees for receiving the Employee Excellence Award. This is a merit-based award, given to one employee from each House Officer organization, and the Office of Inspector General. Selected employees exhibited outstanding overall job performance and displayed a willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty throughout the last year. We honor the individuals named below for receiving this prestigious award.

Traci L. Brasher, Office of the Sergeant at Arms;

Faye Cobb, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer;

Michele Herzfeld, Office of the Clerk;

Gregory M. Roberts, Office of Inspector General.

On behalf of the entire House community, I extend congratulations and once again recognize and thank these employees for their professionalism and commitment to the U.S. House of Representatives as a whole, and in particular to their respective House Officers and the Inspector General. Their long hours and hard work are invaluable, and their years of unwavering service, dedication, and commitment to the House set an example for their colleagues and other employees who will follow in their footsteps. I celebrate our honorees, and I am proud to stand before you and the nation on their behalf to recognize the importance of their public service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight the career of Mr. Ronny VanDyke on the occasion of his retirement, on September 1, 2011, and to thank him for his more than thirty-three years of distinguished service and dedication to the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. VanDyke has played an integral role in the Information Technology journey of the House. He began in 1978 as a COBOL programmer supporting mainframe applications, transitioned readily into online application development using CICS, and then integrated mainframe and workstation technologies for the Information Services and Integrated Systems (ISIS) project. Finally, Mr. VanDyke worked on the design, development and support of the CAO's Web-based services.

Mr. VanDyke developed the first electronic mail system on the House mainframe and played a key role in the design and development of the mainframe-based Member Information Network (MIN). MIN provided congressional offices with online information services including newswires, LEGIS and GRANTS, as well as Member services such as scheduling, casework and tracking. Mr. VanDyke excels at developing standardized processes that are then readily adapted for multiple uses in support of House office business.

Mr. VanDyke played a key role in the design and development of the first release of the www.house.gov web site and the Write Your Representative Service, providing Members their first opportunity for a customized Web presence and e-communications.

Many of the core services Mr. VanDyke originally developed for the mainframe, he successfully made available on the Internet. These services continue to provide Member offices ease of communication with their constituency including, but not limited to, Google Site Search, custom in-House content management and publishing services, zip code authentication, and Web form processes enabling both the development of dynamic surveys as well as the electronic submission of constituent requests to one's specific House Representative.

Mr. VanDyke's knowledge, experience, dedication and consistently outstanding performance of his daily tasks have been exemplary. His ability to adapt to emerging technologies and his skilled transition of core House services has provided House offices seamless support and earned the respect of his co-workers, peers and management. Mr. VanDyke has provided House offices with superior customer service, almost always from behind the scenes, by providing those on the front lines with the confidence to propose technical solutions knowing that he will make it work.

On behalf of the entire House community, we extend congratulations to Mr. Ronny VanDyke for his many years of dedication, outstanding contributions and service to the House.

We wish him many wonderful years to fulfill his retirement dreams.

Mr. Speaker, what is incredible, what is outrageous, what is unprecedented is the amount of debt that we are incurring on a daily basis and have been doing for some time. Those who are being held hostage are our children and our grandchildren and their futures. The question we have is whether or not we are going to reach a balanced approach.

What do I say a balanced approach would be? A balanced approach is when we are once again creating jobs in this economy.

What those on the other side have led us to believe is that the answer to our problems is to follow the European experience over the last 30 to 40 years, and that is to rely more on government, higher taxes, with the net result of a shrinking private economy and fewer jobs.

What is unprecedented is that we are now in the longest period of continuous unemployment that we've seen since the Great Depression. What is unprecedented is that if you call this a recovery, it is the most jobless recovery in the history of modern-day United States. What it is, is very much like what we've seen in Europe over the last 30 years.

So the question before us is do we follow the European experience with greater reliance on government; greater balance, which translated means ``taxes,'' when we know that not a single economist of any repute would tell us that the answer to our jobless situation is to tax those who create the jobs?

That's why this is such an important vote for us today. That is, we will show that the way to the future is the American way; the way we've done it in the past: reliance on the private sector, allowing the ingenuity, the creativity, the risk-taking, the courage of the American people to bring us back to prosperity.

Those on the other side, the gentlewoman from New York just suggested that the way to do that is through the expansion of government programs.

That's not the essence of how we create jobs.

We are in an unprecedented period of time; that is true, Mr. Speaker. We must act in an unprecedented way, and that is to follow the Boehner plan.

Madam Speaker, last night I had a town hall. Obviously I wasn't there; I had to be here. So we did it by way of Internet. And it was amazing how the consensus of those who were there was a request for those of us to take seriously our leadership responsibilities and do something about the fiscal mess we are in.

In answering them, I was thinking about what the President's bipartisan deficit commission leaders said about the plan we passed here in the House. They called it a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our Nation's enormous fiscal challenges. It sounds like that's the answer to the questions that were being asked last night by our constituents.

Interestingly enough, there is a poll out, rendering an opinion by the American people on the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill that we passed here in the House. Over 60 percent of the American people happen to think it's a good idea. Perhaps we ought to stop the name calling and look at what the American people are telling us to do and get serious, as the President's bipartisan deficit commission said, and come up with a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our Nation's enormous fiscal challenge.