Floor Statements

I thank my colleague very much. I recall the sessions I have had with seniors back home in Florida trying to work through the morass of Medicare part D.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this amendment and take issue with the suggestion from the other side that somehow our generals and flag officers are tainted by the offers of employment upon leaving military service.

We are talking about individuals who have spent their entire professional lives serving in the United States of America. Our men and women in the uniformed services consistently hold themselves to a higher standard of ethical and moral conduct. They serve as role models for Americans all across this Nation. They deserve our respect, gratitude, and admiration.

This amendment imposes employment restrictions on general and flag officers that do not apply to any other officer or employee of the executive or legislative branch. In fact, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania who spoke before said, this amendment would ensure that our Nation's senior military leaders are governed by more restrictive postemployment rules than Members of Congress are.

Current postemployment prohibitions and restrictions in title 18 already apply to officers and employees of the executive and legislative branches, including general and flag officers. Current law does not generally prohibit employment, but rather restricts what individuals can do for 1- or 2-year periods following government service.

Finally, Madam Chair, this amendment hints of an antimilitary sentiment that will have an adverse impact on military officers serving in military grades below general and flag rank.

Our Nation's men and women serving in the military today have made tremendous sacrifices in the service of our country. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and send a message to our Nation's senior military leaders that we appreciate their service, recognize their sacrifice, and honor their integrity.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, for many hard-working families, the American Dream and homeownership are one and the same, but lately that dream appears increasingly elusive in the face of ballooning costs of homeowners' insurance and rising interest rates on home mortgages. Nowhere is this discomforting trend more profound than in States ravaged by natural disasters.

Today we have the ability to help. Congress can enhance the way the law treats mortgage interest, giving American families more buying power when shopping for their dream home. We can also improve how it treats mortgage insurance, assisting those low-income families generally required to pay this insurance to afford better housing.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, in its current form, however, has a glaring weakness. When it comes to disaster relief, it only names the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which would help families stricken by hurricanes in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. There are countless Americans beset by the recent tornadoes and wildfires in other parts of the country. Their plight is indistinguishable from those families of hurricane-plagued regions. A disaster befalls an area, home insurance rates skyrocket, and, together with the rise in mortgage interest rates, the American dream of owning a home is dashed.

This motion to recommit sets aside funds for families in districts in Kansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas.

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the majority has described motions to recommit promptly rather than forthwith as an attempt to kill the underlying bill. In this case, this is categorically incorrect. The minority has in effect been prevented by the Democrat rule from offering this language as a forthwith amendment.

As the majority knows, the housing fund in this bill, section 139 on page 127, is a violation of rule XXI, clause 4, because it is appropriating on an authorizing bill. The Democrat rule waives this rule for the underlying bill, but does not provide a waiver for the motion to recommit or any amendments. Therefore, the minority was given no other option than to offer a motion to recommit promptly and comply with House rules.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is a genuine effort to improve this bill with the language we can all agree on ought to be included. In its current form, the bill is far too vague.

Starting brand new government grant programs to help fund more bureaucracies is not the way to go. Instead, policies that have already worked to create record levels of homeownership is preferable. This recommit inserts new language to offset the cost of subsequent legislation that would enhance, continue and expand policies promoting homeownership, such as the construction and rehabilitation of housing destroyed by natural disasters and wildfires. The motion would provide for programs to enhance, continue, expand policies promoting home ownership by reducing the cost of mortgage insurance, reducing the cost of financing residences for veterans, reducing the cost of mortgage interest and reducing the costs of homeowner insurance.

Mr. Speaker, while the underlying bill does provide that Affordable Housing Fund money can be used to help victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it is incumbent upon us to recognize the plight of families suffering from natural disasters recently affecting other areas of the country. Families in Kansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Louisiana deserve no less.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Virginia, for yielding.

I, too, rise this evening to pay tribute to a fellow Virginian and a great leader in America's conservative movement.

Dr. Jerry Falwell made his mark as an outspoken, passionate advocate for conservative causes. More than any other 20th century Virginian, Jerry Falwell's passion and convictions sparked a new generation of grassroots activism.

Recently, as my friend from the Sixth District noted, I visited with Dr. Falwell in his office on the campus of his beloved Liberty University. During that visit, I gleaned a little more and had gained a little more insight into this impressive public figure.

Jerry Falwell, a man of faith, was a pastor who loved his congregation. He was chancellor of a growing university, a place that began just as a vision, but one that he built into a thriving reality that has become a major educational and economic force in Virginia.

Jerry Falwell was a husband, father, and grandfather who actively engaged in the affairs of this Nation because he, like all of us, wanted to leave behind a country better, more hopeful, and filled with greater opportunity than even the one he inherited from his parents.

The people of the Commonwealth of Virginia have lost a son and the American people a true patriot.

To his family, I extend my deepest sympathy during this time of sorrow.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Cassie Statuto Bevan, a woman who has served this House and the welfare of America's children for more than 20 years.

To Dr. Bevan, there was no such thing as liberal or conservative when it came to protecting the rights and safety of children. In her more than 20 years on the Hill, she worked with members on both sides of the aisle to write and pass meaningful, effective legislation that would keep kids off the streets and in safe, permanent homes. Widely considered the ``in-House'' expert on child welfare issues, there was rarely, if ever a piece of legislation dealing with the care of children that passed without the benefit of Cassie's expertise and passion.

And Dr. Bevan's service began before many of us were elected to serve in this chamber. She started her work in the House of Representatives in 1984 as a staff member for the newly established Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, and after several years, she became the Republican Staff Director. In 1993, Dr. Bevan joined the National Council for Adoption to become the Principal Investigator of the Child Protection Project and to head the Council's Office of Public Policy. In 1994, the Speaker of the House appointed Dr. Bevan to serve as a Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare. The following year, Dr. Bevan returned to the House of Representatives as a Professional Staff Member to the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means and was promoted to Staff Director at the beginning of the 107th Congress.

In 2001, Dr. Bevan joined then House Majority Whip, Tom DeLay, to serve as his Senior Policy Advisor handling child welfare, welfare reform, and other domestic issues. She continued to serve as the principal staff member to House Majority Leader DeLay on a wide range of issues, including his successful efforts to develop the D.C. Family Court in the wake of the Brianna Blackmond tragedy. Dr. Bevan was the principal staff member on many key pieces of child welfare legislation, including the Inter-Ethnic Placement Act of 1996; the Adoption Tax Credit of 1996; the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997; the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999; the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 and the House passed welfare reform reauthorization--the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2002.

Dr. Bevan's work has also been noted outside Capitol Hill and by many national organizations. The National Council for Adoption, the National Association of Psychiatric Treatment Centers for Children, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse have all rightly honored Dr. Bevan for her leadership in child advocacy.

The House of Representatives may be losing one of our brightest, but her fight is not over. In her much-deserved retirement, Dr. Bevan will continue her commitment to helping abused and neglected children, and will raise awareness as a university professor, teaching future generations the battles she has fought, and won, on behalf of the kids who need it most.

We are very sorry to lose such a valuable member of our team, but I know our work together is not done. On behalf of all the members who have had the opportunity to work with and learn from Dr. Bevan, we wish her the best as she continues her fight outside these halls.

I thank the ranking member, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, you know, when I sit here in almost astonishment and thinking, it's the fact that even though we are witnessing the massive tax hikes that are embedded in the Democrat budget, in fact, the largest tax increase in American history, what the majority's budget fails to do, it fails to stop the raid on Social Security.

In the year 2012, the Social Security fund will be running a surplus of $99 billion. As we know, the Federal Government has experience and has collected more in Social Security taxes than it pays out in benefits since 1984. Instead of using this money to shore up Social Security, instead of using it to do something to honor the contract that this government has made with the seniors, the Democrat budget spends that cash surplus on other programs.

What is astonishing is the fact that this very House, last week, in a vote on the Republican motion to recommit to stop the raid on Social Security, this House, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, supported the end of that raid. But here we have the Democrat budget that goes back on that word represented by the bipartisan vote and starts again with the raid on Social Security surplus.

In contrast, the Republican budget that was offered several weeks ago does just the opposite, and, in fact, uses the surplus that will exist in 2012 to begin to shore up the Social Security system and to improve and enhance the vitality of that program for today's seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly recommend a ``no'' vote on this conference budget report.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the majority's proposal to cut $764 million from missile defense just as a genocidal Iran kicks into high gear its missile buildup and sprints toward the nuclear finish line. The incongruity of this proposal is perplexing. These proposed cuts don't make any sense.

Iran has made its intentions clear: the liquidation of the state of Israel and the United States of America. Add to the mix Iran's historic cooperation with terror groups and we have the perfect storm on our hands.

Iran, before long, will have the missiles to reach all of Europe and the United States. We must do all we can to ensure that we cannot be hit or held hostage. We must invest in a robust, layered missile defense that can defend America and her allies against immediate, near- term, and long-term threats posed by Iran and other rogue regimes.

Madam Chair, amid the dangers, how can we decrease our investment in missile defense? Gambling our national security on the illusion that our enemies won't have the resources, technology and wherewithal to launch that first missile into an American school, shopping mall or sports arena is a risk that we should not take. Failing to prepare for this reality could lead to catastrophe, the consequences unfathomable.

I support the gentleman from Arizona's amendment.

Madam Speaker, the 105 settlers who landed at Jamestown in the spring of 1607 had little idea of the hardships they would soon face in the New World--life in the wilderness was racked by disease and famine. Nor was this band particularly equipped for life under such unforgiving conditions. Captain John Smith dubbed half of them ``gentlemen.''

But with just the right blend of faith, ingenuity and luck, the settlers of Jamestown survived, planting the seeds for the American Democratic experiment. Indeed, the inspiration for the current U.S. Congress comes from July 1619, when the New World's first representative body convened in the Jamestown church. There, they established ``one equal and uniform government'' over all Virginia. It brings me great honor today to recognize the sacrifices of these first brave Virginian settlers.

Madam Speaker, today we commemorate Israel's 59th birthday. We all know some of the reasons why our 2 countries remain so close--an appreciation of democracy, human rights and peace, as well as a commitment to fighting terrorism and radicalism. But beyond the obvious lie a remarkably similar national narrative which has shaped our values and sense of national purpose.

In his recent book ``Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East,'' Michael Oren examines that narrative as well as the rich history of American support for a Jewish state in Israel. When William Bradford and the persecuted Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620, Bradford exclaimed ``Come, let us declare the word of God in Zion.'' That's because the Puritans saw themselves as the New Israelites. They believed that God had finally delivered them from bondage to their new promised land. There, in freedom, they could shine a glowing light for the rest of the world to see. During the American Revolution, Oren describes, our leaders drew strong parallels to the Jews' struggle for repatriation. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin even proposed for the Great Seal an image of Moses leading the Children of Israel toward the Holy Land.

This longing for freedom and tolerance in a new homeland also spawned the American democratic experiment. While our democracy remains imperfect, it has been our vision of a new, exceptional land that has motivated us to make America the greatest beacon of hope in the world. The Israelis are driven by similar desires.

Fifty-nine years ago today, Jews declared a state of their own. Several thousand had been in Nazi concentration camps just a few years prior. In Israel, they saw a 2,000-year overdue opportunity to live free of persecution in their ancestral homeland. But before they could rejoice, five Arab armies attacked the nascent state on all fronts. Israel, despite long odds, emerged victorious and finally celebrated its victory. Still, it was bittersweet, since they had lost 6,000 people, at least 1 percent of the population.

Israel chose the song Hatikva, or ``The Hope,'' as its national anthem. Fittingly, in a small Democracy perpetually terrorized by hostile enemies surrounding its territory, hope has sustained it. Israel's territory, devoid of natural resources, has been transformed into a prosperous state. Just as the United States has represented hope to the rest of the world for years, so too does Israel represent the limitless possibilities of freedom and hope.

Mr. Speaker, having returned from a heart-wrenching trip to Virginia Tech yesterday, it is hard to stand here and find words to express the pain and sorrow that has befallen that community. As a parent of a student approaching college age, there is absolutely nothing more upsetting than seeing young people cut down in the prime of their lives.

I will never forget, Mr. Speaker, the raw emotions that filled that convocation arena yesterday as I, along with my colleagues from Virginia, mourned with some 12,000 friends and family members of victims, half of whom at least were clad in Hokie maroon and orange. Nor will I forget the sight of a bereaved father who, overwhelmed with grief, simply collapsed.

When an act of random cruelty bewilders us and pulls us down, the sort of love, generosity, courage and heroism we have seen in Blacksburg and its response serves as a counterforce. It replenishes us and demonstrates, as the Bible says, that ``love is strong as death.''

We Virginians are resilient people, and I already know that under the strong leadership of President Charlie Steger, our brothers and sisters at Virginia Tech will band together and make it through this tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, in response to a moving plea from Virginia Tech's resident poet toward the end of the convocation ceremony, the crowd there erupted into cheers of ``Let's go Hokies.'' It was a moving call to action. Let the healing begin.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I stand here with a heavy heart, and extend my deepest sympathies, especially to the families of those students who lost their lives.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, in listening to the debate, I can't help but think about 5\1/2\ years ago and the 9/11 attacks and the simultaneous bursting of the technology bubble here in this country. It was the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that provided a desperately needed shot in the arm, lifting us from our malaise and dispelling fears that the economy was sliding irrevocably into recession. But, today, after years of steady economic growth marked by a surging stock market, low inflation and low unemployment, a deflated housing market has shaken confidence in this economy.

With the tax cuts set to expire in 2010, the last thing investors and the American people need right now is the largest tax hike in the history of our country, and that is the reality they are smart enough to see, despite claims on the other side of the aisle otherwise.

The real difference between the Ryan budget and that of the majority is whether you believe that tax cuts expiring is a tax hike. I do, and I think the American families who will bear the brunt of a $400 billion tax increase will likewise.

In my State of Virginia, the effects are particularly acute, with taxpayers on average facing $3,120 in additional taxes each year. Around the country, 45 million families with children will be hit by an average tax increase of $2,864. Again, this is because the majority does not agree that expiring tax cuts are a tax hike. I do.

Instead of choking our economy, we need to make the tax cuts permanent. If we let the Democratic tax hike genie out of the bottle, it is going to be awfully hard to put it back in.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, some 6,000 miles from here a new plan is underway to secure Baghdad and stabilize an Iraq that 2 months ago was sliding into chaos. Indeed, we should be encouraged by declining levels of violence in Baghdad as well as the beginning of a restoration of trust between ordinary Iraqis and coalition and Iraqi forces.

Unlike the gentleman before me, I disagree that this sends the right message. This supplemental undermines General Petraeus' plan before our troops have an opportunity to achieve success.

Instead of reaffirming our commitment to victory, this bill concedes defeat while piling on billions in unrelated pork. So while tropical fish get $5 million, our troops get a steady Democratic diet of limitations and pull-out deadlines. We should have few doubts that, if passed, this bill will be a rallying cry for terrorists recently dismayed by our resolve.

Our troops march to the order of one Commander in Chief, not 535. While the current Commander in Chief has a plan for victory, it is apparent that the majority party in this House has already thrown in the towel.

Mr. Speaker, recently some Members of the House have proposed using the supplemental appropriations bill to restrict the President's ability to defend our country and its allies from a hostile Iran. Attempts to curtail the bargaining ability and leverage of the United States comes at the precise moment when our Nation must show strength.

However, attempts to dampen our resolve and security send the anti- U.S. forces in Tehran a signal that America is weak. If Iran continues to see that America stands determined to prevent it from going nuclear, it will be encouraged to become a responsible member of the international community.

If we falter, the Iranian nuclear threat may well become a reality. Mr. Speaker, we must not let that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is designed to be a substantive enhancement to the underlying Secure Maritime and Vessel Workforce bill.

I think the other side has demonstrated on two occasions this week that they are inclined to work across the aisle and accept substantive improvements to the bill.

What this motion to recommit does, it is intended to protect our maritime workforce, our national security, and ultimately the ports that serve and provide commerce to our great Nation. The language of the motion to recommit ensures that individuals that have been convicted of felonies are not able to board maritime vessels using transportation security cards. Now these felonies includes espionage, treason, sedition, murder, racketeering, crimes dealing with explosives or incendiary devices. These are individuals convicted of these felonies that frankly have an underlying purpose to harm Americans.

Clearly, individuals convicted of these type of felony crimes pose a security risk to America and its citizens.

We need to keep our ports safe and secure, and to do that, we must keep our maritime vessels safe and secure.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I would ask the gentleman to repeat that again.

I would respond to the gentleman that the section cited on page 2, subsection (4), line 1 of the bill, is a section of the U.S. Code dealing with terrorism.

And again, the underlying----

I would say to the gentleman again, this is a section of the U.S. Code that deals with acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens.

The underlying purpose, again, of the motion to recommit is to ensure the safety of our----

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, I find it very difficult to understand how the gentleman can refer to an abuse of process on this side of the aisle. I hardly----

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has yielded.

So what we are talking about here is the substantive----

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

I would tell the gentleman, dealt with----

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, just 2 days ago, on February 14, Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, posted a speech on an Islamist Web site where he blessed jihad fighters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia and urged the mujahadeen all over world to remain steadfast since complete victory was near. He made special mention of those in the Islamic jihadist media and thanked them for their blessed efforts which cause the Crusaders to lose sleep.

There is no doubt about it, Madam Speaker. We are fighting against an enemy that uses every weapon at its disposal to inflict casualties upon our soldiers in the field. This enemy seeks not just victory in Iraq but the reestablishment of a greater Islamic caliphate that would threaten the security of America and freedom-loving people throughout the world.

Today, this House will vote on a nonbinding resolution that disapproves of a surge in Iraq, a resolution that discourages our troops yet fails to satisfy the antiwar movement of America's left.

The resolution will likely pass today with near unanimous support of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Yet, Madam Speaker, I am troubled by their seeming unwillingness to accept the real consequences of this outcome. This from the party of John F. Kennedy, who so inspired our Nation when he said in his inaugural address: ``Let every Nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to ensure the survival and the success of liberty.''

Madam Speaker, we have come a long way since our Nation's 35th President spoke those words 46 years ago.

This debate arrives at an historic time in our Nation's history, not because of the resolution we are considering today but because the results of our efforts in Iraq will have a true impact on the lives of our soldiers and the security of all of us for generations to come.

Recently, I received a letter from one of my constituents who expressed some very real concerns about the Democrats' view of the war in Iraq. He writes: ``I am a servicemember that has served in Iraq, training Iraqis. I have 19 years of service. I spent 6 years in the Virginia Army National Guard, and I am entering my 13th year of active Federal service.

``Pulling out of Iraq doesn't send the right message to those we are fighting,'' he said. ``Not enough is being said about what the U.S. will do if we withdraw and what will happen in the midst of a power vacuum . . . ''

The soldier went on to say: ``I personally served in the streets of Baghdad in 2006, and I would have felt better serving, thinking that both houses of Congress gave me their full support.''

Madam Speaker, what we debate in this House, how we conduct ourselves, does have real consequences. Some of our country's bravest are on the battlefield and on the streets of Baghdad as we speak.

We have seen throughout our history what happens when our resolve is weak. In 1993 this country half-heartedly supported the commitment of troops to subdue the violent warlords of Somalia. The precipitous withdrawal in the face of casualties left a chaotic nation to this day that harbors terrorists and is a feeding ground for instability.

The lessons of history must not be forgotten as we face a determined enemy of Islamic terrorists who are waging a war upon freedom.

Madam Speaker, the American people want us to fight and win in Iraq and bring our troops home. Our soldiers seek nothing more than the support they require to perform their mission and the knowledge that the American people believe that their sacrifice is necessary and noble.

Contrary to some of those on the other side of the aisle who have stood here in this well believing and saying

that this debate is a breath of fresh air, our enemies will be the only ones satisfied by this debate. They will have received all the political rhetoric they require to convince their followers that complete victory is at hand. One can only imagine with horror how many Islamic radicals will be inspired to continue the fight after this House resolves that it supports our troops but not the mission we ask them to perform.

To those who support this resolution and oppose any effort to achieve victory in Iraq, I challenge you to be true to your convictions and bring a binding resolution to the floor to cut off funds for our troops, because that is really what this is all about.

Madam Speaker, I oppose this resolution and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and send a message worth hearing to America, our soldiers, and our enemies.