Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, earlier this year I reintroduced the Residential Solar Energy Tax Credit Act, which would provide a 15 percent tax credit for the purchase of solar water heating systems and photovoltaic systems to be installed in residential settings.

The maximum amount of this credit is $2,000 and the credit cannot apply to solar energy systems used to heat swimming pools. I am pleased this provision has been included in the tax title to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The solar energy industry in our Nation has been growing at a clip of 25 percent per year for the past several years, yet U.S. manufacturers export 75 percent of their products because of the higher up-front costs of solar energy systems as compared to other energy sources.

Purchasing a solar energy system is like buying a car and prepaying for all the gas it would ever need. This makes consumers understandably hesitant despite the environmental and other gains associated with solar energy. National polls consistently find that over 85 percent of Americans want greater support for solar power, and solar power can play a role in our energy mix from coast to coast.

It is my belief that the residential solar tax credit will help advance this important form of renewable energy. And in stark contrast to the protestations of my friends on the left, we are willing to embrace these technologies. It is proven by this solar energy tax credit. I thank the chairman for its inclusion.

I urge support of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule, and I rise in favor of the Sessions amendment. The amendment makes certain that before an alien is released from DHS detention on his own recognizance pending an upcoming hearing, the immigration judge first certify that the alien is not a flight risk and, more importantly, that he does not pose a security risk to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the different views that we hear in the well of this House. I understand full well Dr. Franklin's admonition about the challenge confronting those who seek security and yet also wish to preserve liberty.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we are here on the floor visiting this issue today is, as the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules pointed out, while our founders believed that all men were created equal, now we have the arcanities and absurdities of certain judicial procedures that allow illegal aliens to enjoy more legal privacy in some cases than do American citizens. We need redress.

I listened with great interest to my friends who came to the floor recently discovering States rights with reference to this legislation, and I believe that to be a hopeful sign. I listened with great interest to other friends who came to offer scriptural and spiritual entreaties in this debate, and I welcome that as well. But, Mr. Speaker, here is the fundamental question we confront. In the wake of 9/11, in the wake of clear and demonstrable evidence that there are those who come to this Nation with the intent of harming and killing Americans, who are bent on the destruction of our Nation and our system of government, at long last this body should take the steps necessary to preserve our security and our liberty. Border security is national security.

There has been lament expressed from the other side that we are moving too quickly. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I came to this well in a previous Congress lamenting the fact that at the behest of the other body we remove these important provisions from a piece of legislation passed at the end of the last session of Congress.

Incrementalism in wartime is unacceptable. There is a clear and present danger. We must respond.

Pass the rule. Pass the Sessions amendment. Pass the underlying legislation. Let us preserve and protect our Union and our way of life.

And so, Mr. Speaker, it begins, the canard of hyperbole, the delusional statements, indeed, word coming to this body that later today, in a joint session, one from the other body will lead an American-born Boxer Rebellion.

The conspiracy theorists use celluloid and mockumentaries and fevered imaginings to try to mischaracterize debate and, as we understand, even this afternoon, try to dissuade numbers and facts.

Mr. Speaker, the sour grapes, the sensationalism, the conspiracy theories, and the fear and smear should be laid to rest. It will be later this afternoon, and for the American people it will be through vigorous factual debate.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida, especially in terms of the fact that a quick check of the weather map indicates that his district may enjoy temperatures in the 80s this weekend; and in Arizona, we are just creeping back up to 65 in the Sonoran Desert. So I appreciate the fact that he is willing to pack a sweater. Hopefully, no umbrella will be needed in the wake of the moisture. We very much needed it in the desert earlier this week and in the high country in terms of snow.

But weather aside, we hope that all our friends from the class of 1994 and the 104th Congress will enjoy their time as we take a look at where we have been and where we are headed in this 109th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 241) to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I seek to be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this may be the most appropriate time to remind each and every one of us engaged in this debate that it is the hallmark of our constitutional Republic and our government to operate by the consent of the governed. And there is a corollary to that which we should likewise remember: in a free system where the people choose, it is also necessary for contestants who are unsuccessful to accept the verdict of the people. In our Republic there are majority rules, but the rights of the minority are protected.

Now, also understand what has transpired this afternoon. In what should be a reaffirmation of our constitutional Republic and the Electoral College, a Member has chosen to dispute the outcome of voting in the State of Ohio. Despite that fact, speaker after speaker on the minority side, including the leader from California, has said they accept the verdict of the election. Do not misunderstand, I say to my colleagues. This is a vitally important point.

The problem we confront with this debate is that it serves to plant the insidious seeds of doubt in the electoral process. All the talk of election reform, all the talk of hearings that the leader championed, all the process complaints, some that are inaccurate that have come from the other side, are points to be debated in the regular business of this House. Yes, they are important. But to disrupt the Electoral College, to say in effect, hey, we just want to shine light on this problem, is not the proper use of the people's time. And with all due respect, I question not the intent; but the net effect is this: again, it is to place doubt and to institutionalize forever the notion of grumbling and a lack of acceptance of the verdict of the people. In less elevated terms, Mr. Speaker, it is called sour grapes; and it is sad to see in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not point out that this view is not

shared universally, despite the kind words for the Member who brought this from her friends on that side of the aisle. Listen to the comments from Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade: ``I'd give my right arm for Internet rumors of a stolen election to be true, but blogging doesn't make it so. We can change the future; we can't rewrite the past.''

Or Kerry spokesman Joe Lockhart on Election Day: ``We think the system has worked today. There were thousands of lawyers deployed to make sure that no one tried to take advantage or unfair advantage and, by and large, it has worked. I've seen very few reports of irregularities, and even the ones we have seen, after a little investigation, you find there is not much going on.''

And it bears repeating, even though he has spoken earlier today in Baghdad and made some comments I vociferously disagree with from a Member of the Senate going into a wartime theater, listen to the words of the nominee of your own party who lost the election, my friends on the Democratic side: ``But the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process. I would not give up this fight if there was a chance we should prevail, but it is now clear that even when all of the provisional ballots are counted, which they will be, there won't be enough outstanding votes for us to be able to win Ohio and, therefore, we cannot win this election.''

Mr. Speaker, one of the virtues of our system is this: in America, there are never lost causes because, in America, there are never fully gained causes. That is why we have the electoral process. How sad the electoral process has been sidelined today for a publicity stunt.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant, but vociferous, opposition to this legislation, fully named the National Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly, but adamantly, oppose this measure because it fails to deal effectively with the second heading in the legislative title. It is beyond titles and slogans and, instead, policies where we must concentrate ourselves. Mr. Speaker, much has been made, and I have heard previous speakers speak of the families who suffered such great loss on 9/11, speak of what this Nation confronted on that fateful day. Yet, perhaps in a triumph of legislative policy and the incrementalism so often a part of the system, we are ignoring the single best provision to prevent future acts of terror, understanding that border security and national security are one and the same.

Good people on both sides of the aisle, well-intentioned people rightfully say we need to restructure our national intelligence- gathering capabilities. I concur. But what we see now, Mr. Speaker, is laying a new foundation, building a new wall, but forgetting both a front door and a back door and a roof. We are leaving our doors wide open.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to be an Arizonan. I was in Nogales at our border crossing not too long ago visiting with our friends from the Border Patrol. They told me of an interesting apprehension the day before. The gentleman they said was a native of Iraq who had claimed to come to the United States in 1978 with a green card. It was interesting, though, to hear the Border Patrol personnel speak of their detainee, because curiously, the Iraqi who said he had come to the United States in 1978 with a green card was much more fluent in Spanish than he was in English. We read in accounts of the free press that there are those who come from the Middle East, adopt Hispanic surnames, and seek to infiltrate. There are some adherents to the politically correct who would ignore or diffuse or understate the nature of this threat.

Mr. Speaker, I will not allow the national security of the United States to be jeopardized and undermined and placed on the funeral parlor of the politically correct. To those who say that it is incremental, it is a step in the right direction: well and good. But incrementalism in wartime when our national survival may be at stake is unacceptable. Either do it right, or do not do it.

It is sad, but necessary, to reject this bill because it fails to deal with preventing terrorist attacks by understanding that border security and national security are one and the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me the time.

As an Eagle Scout, I rise in strong support of this resolution and am heartened by the bipartisan outpouring of support for the Boy Scouts of America, as mentioned earlier, a movement that was chartered federally by this very Congress early in the 20th century. While we today reiterate our support for the scouting movement, as my colleague from California, the sponsor of this resolution, noted, scouting is under attack.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a nuisance lawsuit against the Pentagon saying that somehow sponsorship of Scout troops on military bases violates the doctrine of separation of church and State. Mr. Speaker, that is a nuisance lawsuit, and I am sorry the Defense Department attorneys decided to surrender to the ACLU.

Mr. Speaker, I have written Secretary Rumsfeld asking him to countermand the decision of the Pentagon lawyers. Scouting values, military values, citizenship values, a respect and reverence for our Creator is not a violation of the doctrine of separation of church and State. So I hope those who join us in support of this resolution will likewise join us to say to the Pentagon attorneys, take down the white flag of surrender, do not give up on scouting, and we remain poised to take further measures to ensure that our government institutions follow the will of the people and the sentiment of the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 437) to provide for adjustments to the Central Arizona Project in Arizona, to authorize the Gila River Indian Community water rights settlement, to reauthorize and amend the Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act of 1982, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 437, the Senate bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 437, sponsored by Senator John Kyle and supported by a bipartisan group of our House colleagues in Arizona and New Mexico, represents years of negotiations among representatives of the Federal Government, the States of Arizona and New Mexico, the Gila River Indian community, as well as various communities in the region.

This bill offers a comprehensive approach to resolving certain Indian water claims and settles long-standing litigation. It also provides long-term water use certainty for non-Indian water users and allows New Mexico to develop long-promised water supplies.

I commend my colleague, Senator Kyl, the sponsor of this bill, and so many others for helping foster the historic agreements in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation offers most everyone something, but not everything to anyone. It represents hard-fought compromise that deserves passage. I would urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Speaker, I would simply comment that I welcome the statements of my two colleagues from Arizona on the other side of the aisle. I thank my friend from the Virgin Islands for managing on the minority side.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, chairman of the Committee on Small Business, for yielding to me and the chance to again repeat that I hail from the State of Arizona; Arizona and Illinois, with a great symbiotic relationship that extends beyond spring training. I was talking to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who likewise will leave the Chamber coming up, and we honor his service. And he talked about coming out to be able to watch the White Sox and the Cubs unfettered by the contingencies of the congressional calendar.

Mr. Speaker, I obviously get emotional when I think about the friendship and the example of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). There have been those who have preceded me in the well who have spoken of the gentleman from Illinois' (Mr. Crane) impressive resume, of the fact that he arrived here as a new Member of Congress to succeed our current Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld in 1969, the year which man finally walked on the moon, and at that time, the prevailing sentiment within the body politic was that conservative ideals were almost as distant as the moon to the here and now. And yet the cheerful persistence of this great and good man from the land of Lincoln, offering a clear, constructive example of free minds and free markets and a foreign policy built on freedom was an example day in and day out in this Chamber.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), a historian, a professor, a citizen, a congressman, a presidential candidate; but always a catalyst, a catalyst for conservatism, an agent for change, yes, only in the sense that change would understand what it is in the American character that made us great, that continues to make us great.

My friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) preceded me in the well, as did my friend from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). They spoke of 1980, and how I remember that year as a senior in North Carolina State University with more than a casual interest in politics, mindful that in that year no fewer than three Members of the people's House aspired to leave the legislative branch to serve as our chief executive, our friends Jack Kemp of New York and John B. Anderson of Illinois and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), likewise of the land of Lincoln. And as I have shared with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Crane), I remember full well his opening statement in the debate in the Iowa Caucus where he quoted Frederick Douglas and how Frederick Douglas said, ``I am a Republican and I will remain a Republican because of the triumph of freedom and the opportunities that this country represents.''

And, yes, we think of conservative leaders, and we think of Arizona's favorite son, Barry Goldwater, for whom the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) worked tirelessly, and we think of Ronald Reagan. And we understand also the seemingly insurmountable challenges that confront a Member of the people's House who would aspire to an address down Pennsylvania Avenue. Indeed, history records that only one among us, only one sitting Member of Congress was elected from this Chamber to serve in the executive mansion, James A. Garfield of Ohio, in 1888.

But perhaps the lesson is best told by another historical name, John Quincy Adams, who followed his father, John Adams, our second President, into the White House in later years, but who, upon losing a bid for reelection, returned home to Massachusetts. And then the people of Braintree came to him and said, ``Mr. President, would you run for Congress?'' And so John Quincy Adams, former President of the United States, ran for and was elected

to this institution where he served to the end of his days. And what he said upon that election I think is a sentiment shared by all of us but especially by our good friend whom we honor tonight. Quoting Congressman John Quincy Adams, ``There is no greater honor than serving in the people's House.'' And as I see my friend nod in agreement, I know through 3\1/2\ decades of public service that truth has been reaffirmed. And for the citizens of the land of Lincoln who sent our friend here, beginning in 1969, time and again, we say thank you.

And to our friend, as I look at this color scheme, I am so glad because I remember the button. It was the reverse of this, ``Phil Crane for President.'' Now we say ``Phil Crane for Citizen,'' in a land without title, without distinction, without peerage. The most honored title is not President, is not congressman. It is citizen.

So, Mr. Speaker, to our good friend, to his bride, Arlene, to a remarkable family that has lived the American Dream, we say, ``Thank you, Citizen Crane,'' for what he has done, but more importantly what he is going to do. There is a reality that many of us fail to recognize and embrace, and it is that life continues. There is a life after Congress, and that life is found with friends and family and fellow citizens and an advocacy that never leaves us though we may leave the well of this House, though we may surrender a voting card in this Chamber. There is always the advocacy and the poetic justice of eternal vigilance and continued involvement in a constitutional republic, and that is the gift that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) over 3\1/ 2\ decades fought to preserve. That is the gift that he will continue to enjoy as he leaves this Chamber. And regardless of political affiliation tonight, that is what we recognize, and that is what we celebrate.

One closing purely personal note.

It has been said that the true measure of a man is how he treats not those born to great wealth or those who enjoy great titles, but how he treats small children. I will never forget when our middle daughter, Hannah, was much younger. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of full disclosure, I should point out that sometimes Mary and I believe we should lobby Dr. Dobson to put Hannah on the cover of the next edition of ``The Strong-Willed Child,'' and I hope that Hannah will forgive me for that candor tonight. But Hannah has a vivacious, rambunctious personality, and her favorite Member in her first trip to the floor when she really understood this place was one Phil Crane who would say, well, there is Hannah Banana, what are you doing? And in that gentle, easygoing way of a man blessed with a great family who understands girls and understands children, there Phil Crane, right here on Crane's Row in the people's House, would put a little girl at ease and enchant her and charm her with no great theories of government, but just an easygoing style that said, honey, I am your friend. You come visit with me.

He has been a friend of the people from the land of Lincoln. He has been a friend to this country. He remains one of the foremost founders of the modern conservative movement. His works have inspired so many, but more than his writings, it has been his call to arms. How many sit back, how many offer the dogma and the doctrine on the printed page and yet fail to have the courage to step into the arena. Theodore Roosevelt wrote to the man in the arena. Phil Crane has been that man in the arena.

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), for the time; and I thank Philip Crane for his service.

Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to head back to our respective districts and likewise as we prepare to engage in the exercise that typifies this constitutional Republic, where our government operates only through the consent of the governed, I believe it incumbent upon Members of this House and, indeed, Mr. Speaker every citizen of these United States, to pause and remember, and, yes, in this case to hear from one of those young Americans defending our freedom in Iraq.

Recently on the pages of the Arizona Republic there appeared a letter from Captain Scott Moore. Captain Moore, with the United States Army, lives in Sholo, Arizona. His civilian job is that of a high school history teacher in White River on one of our tribal reservations in rural Arizona. How appropriate it is that Captain Moore, through his letter, teaches all of us about the nature of the men and women serving this country and reminds us of the special gift it is to be an American.

This letter was written February 1. It was composed in a military plane headed for Kuwait. Captain Moore writes:

``If you were with me, you could tell this plane I am on is heading to a combat zone. All the passengers are dressed in desert camouflage uniforms and carrying weapons. I have an M-16 and a 9 millimeter Beretta, which will be in my possession until I go home in about a year from now.

``As I sit on this plane taking us to war, I cannot help but think about who is with me. No African Americans are going to war, no Asian Americans are going to war, no Mexican Americans are going to war, no Native Americans are going to war, no Hispanic Americans are going to war, no Arab Americans are going to war, no Anglo Americans are going to war. Only Americans who happen to have different ethnic backgrounds are going to war with me.

``I assume Americans from different religions, such as Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, et cetera, are going to war together on this plane. We don't really know who practices what religion, and don't really care. Only Americans are going to war.

``Americans from all over the United States are going to war together on this plane. They are from different States, from urban cities to rural towns. Once we left the United States, this didn't matter anymore. We were from only one place, and that was the United States of America.

``Americans from all walks of life are going to war together on this plane: doctors, custodians, teachers, police officers, store owners, engineers, the unemployed, college students, post office employees, restaurant workers, retail sales workers, veterinarians and countless other people with different civilian jobs are going to war together. These citizen soldiers left their civilian jobs and are now all American soldiers fulfilling their commitment to the Army Reserves and the United States.

``Americans going to war on this plane are grandparents, parents, daughters, sons, single parents, granddaughters, grandsons, nephews, nieces,

cousins, boyfriends, girlfriends, wives, husbands and fiancees. Americans going to war on this plane are ages 18 to 59. Americans going to war on this plane are rich and poor. We have soldiers who were unemployed before getting activated for military service. We also have soldiers who were making six-digit salaries and just took quite a pay cut going to war on this plane.

``Americans on this plane joined the Army Reserves for different reasons. All are volunteers. Some joined primarily for college funds. Far many more joined out of a sense of duty and loyalty to their country.

``Many people in this unit were not originally in the unit when it initially got alerted. Only when they knew the unit was going to Iraq did they join. Some joined to be with friends in the unit, some to do their duty, some out of guilt of not being in Iraq with friends already there. Some joined for very specific reasons. One joined the day after September 11, 2001. Another was excited to hear news reports that al Qaeda is showing up in Iraq. He has special plans for those people.

``The very best of America is on this plane heading to war. I feel humble and not good enough to be with them.''

So writes Captain Scott Moore, serving now with the United States Army in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, Captain Moore need not feel unworthy. Indeed, the reader of this letter cannot help but be humbled by the quality of those in our all-volunteer force willing to step forward. And whether it is in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere around the world or here within the boundaries and borders of the United States of America, we have been blessed by this all-volunteer force.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it was I who felt incredibly humbled in the spring of this year visiting with our troops in Iraq and Kuwait. Indeed, just about 6 weeks to 2 months after this letter was initially written by Captain Moore, I had occasion to travel with a congressional delegation led by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who just managed the conference report for Military Construction. The ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), joined us, along with others.

Our travels took us first to Baghdad and then north to Mosul, and then to the growing nerve and supply center known as Balad, where the Iraqi Olympic team during Saddam's reign of terror trained, and, indeed, members of that team had terror and torture perpetrated on them by the now departed sons of Saddam, Odai and Qusai.

So many instances in that trip resonate in this letter. I can recall climbing aboard a Blackhawk helicopter flying over Mosul, flying over a large hydroelectric dam utilized for power to the northern portion of Iraq and viewing the infrastructure there, but climbing into the helicopter and having the help of one young soldier. And when I pled lack of familiarity with the harnessing and the procedures, the young soldier said, ``That's okay, sir. That is what we are here for.''

``That is what we're here for.''

President Bush at our National Cathedral on our Day of National Remembrance for those Americans and others who perished on the date we now know in that historical shorthand as 9/11, President Bush said, ``This war was started by others, but it will end at a time and a place of our choosing.''

Perhaps our Commander in Chief did not realize exactly how prophetic those words have become, because in a free society we celebrate the fact that different Americans can have different points of view. We rejoice in that divergence of opinion.

But it is worth noting the consequences of following certain policies that have been advocated as people make their choices as to who should serve in public office. I am disturbed that the Democratic nominee for the Presidency has yet to express a consistent, clear, concise response to carrying out the mission in Iraq and elsewhere in the ongoing war on terror.

Indeed, there have been so many different responses.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but believe that the electorate is somewhat confused. We heard the Democratic nominee a few days ago say he was committed to staying the course in Iraq, yet even as he called it the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time.

Mr. Speaker, it is more accurate to describe the military action in Afghanistan and in Iraq not as a singular or specific war, but as battle campaigns in an ongoing war against Islamo fascism and the terror that has been utilized by Islamo fascists and unleashed on liberty-loving peoples throughout this world.

Accordingly, I celebrate in a bipartisan fashion with my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); we do not agree on much, but as I heard her comments celebrating what transpired today in Afghanistan when the citizens of that Nation went to the polls and expressed their preference for leaders and for government and for governance. When we realize that now, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, young children are going to schools, including little girls, many for the first time, having the opportunity to learn reading, writing, arithmetic, and oh, yes, for the first time to learn without a message of hatred for others in the world or an endorsement of the twisted cult and political morphing and hijacking of a faith best described as Islamo fascism.

Instead of an endorsement of Islamo fascism, little boys and little girls now in Afghanistan and in Iraq are going to schools opened by the same soldiers who we have seen perform their duties so valiantly and work actually to rebuild two societies even as insurgent conflicts continue.

We are reminded that not only were elections held today in Afghanistan where close to 10 million Afghanis, according to the latest reports I saw, 10 million Afghanis were willing to come forward and vote, despite remnants of the Taliban and other terrorist groups who would try to abridge, who would try to terrorize, who would try to tear down the elections process. Yet, the Afghanis lined up to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded that just a few short days ago, if memory serves, just 2 weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Iraq, Prime Minister Allawi stood here at the podium behind me and addressed a joint session of this Congress and spoke of the challenges confronting his homeland, but pledged to this Congress and to the people of the United States that the sacrifice in blood and treasure of the American people will not be in vain, that there will be a free Iraq, and that there will be elections in January of next year.

Consider the source making this bold, clean assertion. Perhaps my colleagues do not know the story of the Iraqi Prime Minister. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that now, at least 2 decades, perhaps close to a quarter of a century ago, Saddam's secret police tracked then-private-citizen, or perhaps more accurately, political-refugee Allawi to London, and Saddam's agents of death, wielding axes, went in to kill him. He fought off that attack in the most literal sense. Prime Minister Allawi is a survivor.

So often, because of just the sheer volume of information and news that come across anchor desks and through the Internet to your home and through so many sources, sometimes we fail to pause to understand the unique nature of those who stand with us.

Mr. Speaker, we should make no mistake, for we also need to understand the evil nature of those who fight against us. We have heard of the Jordanian al Zarkawi wreaking havoc within the boundaries of Iraq, beheading in barbarous, indescribably cruel and evil fashion American citizens and others. But the irony seems to be this: As horrible as this monster is, in an intercepted communication which first appeared in the American press, in The New York Times, of all publications, in an intercepted communication to other allies in terror, Zarkawi outlined what is exactly at stake. He outlined to other evil agents of terror, if Iraq is able to elect a free government, if boys and girls are able to go to school and learn without the prejudice of Islamo fascism and without the heel of the jackboot upon their throat, and without the continued threat of mass graves, that freedom in Iraq would be a crushing, mortal blow to the forces of terror and Islamo fascism around the world.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if one of our sworn enemies understands what is at stake, I would ask the American people to

likewise understand that dynamic. Here is the irony: Our sworn enemy, in communications not intended for our ears, in intercepted correspondence, clearly and succinctly put the stakes of our action and the possible consequences for his evil movement out for us to understand. It was not his intent, but that is the result.

Mr. Speaker, while we all rejoice in the fact that we are free to agree to disagree, while people of goodwill can disagree, while indeed we will make manifest those different opinions through different choices at the ballot box on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November, Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the American people, whether Republican or Democrat or Independent or Libertarian or vegetarian, whatever your political label, whatever your partisan stripe, as Americans who were brutally and viciously attacked on 9/11, as Americans who now in this post-9/11 world understand that there are those who will harm the most innocent among us, as Americans who just read of reports emanating from Iraq where our forces had uncovered intelligence, where Islamo Fascists and forces of terror had the layout and the architectural plans and the schedules of certain schools in the United States, bringing to mind the horror of what transpired in Russia and what in that culture and society was a day of great joy, the first day of school in that society, that turned to such evil carnage.

We are confronted by people who are not out to win debating points, who are not out to win friends among us, but indeed, Mr. Speaker, if there is a new phrase I could coin, I would say that those forces of evil are actively engaged in plotting and planning Americide, where our only crime is to be Americans in their eyes, and the malignant, malingering, accompanying aspect of this wretchedly despicable and evil behavior is the fact that these same Islamo Fascists care not if they kill fellow Muslims, care not if they kill noncombatants and women and children, indeed, care not if their carnage continues unabated, such is their twisted, malignant outlook.

The choice remains for us here at the dawn of the 21st century. The choice is a stark one, and it is very simple. Either we take the fight to the terrorists where they live, where they grow up, where their homes are located; or we sit back, we hope for the best through nuance and timidity and the alluring siren song of complacency, if we do not bother them, they will not bother us. If we follow that doctrine, I fear for my country and for its survival.

No. It is simple. The reason we are in Iraq, the reason we are in Afghanistan, the reason we must be prepared to fight Islamo fascism around the world is because it is far better to take on the terrorists on the streets of Tikrit, Iraq, than on the streets of Tucson, Arizona. It is far better to deal with the terror movements and the insurgency on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of Baltimore. It is far better to confront these agents of evil in Sadr City than in Syracuse, New York.

The key to our national security and defense is not found in a fantastic fantasy of hope that these agents of evil will ever listen to reason. It is instead found in the solemn promise and commitment to this Nation, a commitment embodied so valiantly in our all-volunteer force, a commitment embodied in the letter of Captain Scott Moore of Sholo, Arizona, a high school history teacher in White River, on one of our Native American reservations who is, himself, along with his colleagues in arms, making history, building a free Iraq. Moving forward, he eventually strikes a blow for peace by picking up the implements of war.

Mr. Speaker, our President again made the statements so clearly and compellingly, in the days following 9/11: ``This conflict was started by others but it will end at a time and place of our choosing.''

No one wants war. General MacArthur, our supreme allied commander in the Pacific theater in World War II said, ``The soldier least of all wants war for it is the soldier who literally has the most to lose.''

His counterpart in the European theater, the supreme allied commander, General Dwight David Eisenhower, who remarked that when he came ashore a few days following D-Day on Omaha Beach, it was impossible to take a step without treading upon dead and decaying human flesh. Eisenhower, even in victory, seared by that experience described war as a cross of iron upon which hangs all humanity. But as horrible as war is, the constant threat of terror, the scourge of those who in barbaric fashion would murder the innocent, cannot be left unchecked nor unanswered.

We must renew our commitment at this time, in this place, and through our expressions of conferring power. Again, as I mentioned earlier, the unique aspect of governance in our constitutional Republic is that this government only operates, only derives its power from the consent of the governed. And as the people make their decisions, Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to all Americans regardless of partisan label, political stripe or philosophy to see this thing through. It will take many different forms. It will take many different approaches. It may, in fact, Mr. Speaker, take us many years.

I mentioned earlier the observations of our great wartime military leaders, Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. I am also reminded of our British cousin with whom we formed the grand alliance during World War II, Prime Minister Churchill, who in the other body addressed the American people in 1941 or in early 1942, the date escapes me, but who essentially said, as allies we are in for a time of great tribulation and sacrifice.

There is no way to sugar-coat or put aside the sacrifices of war. There is no way to explain away the sacrifice of the lives of men and women. There is no way to articulate the thanks we owe to so many brave wounded with whom I have had the privilege to meet at Walter Reed Medical Center and at other locations.

But we dare not in this new century fail to understand that the horror of war cannot obscure the even greater horror of inaction, the even greater horror of appeasement, the even greater horror of capitulation through inaction, the even greater horror of a lack of resolve. For in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, the most basic responsibility of government is to protect the citizens of this Nation, as our founders said it, to provide for the common defense. And we best provide that defense and that national security with offense, with offensive operations, with taking the fight to those who would hope to bring the fight to our shores.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier my visit to the war theater on the anniversary of the outbreak of the conflict. I saw many Arizonans there. I was greeted in Baghdad by a former Arizonan, General Steve Sergeant, former commander at Luke Air Force Base in the west valley at Balad. I saw my old friend Cornell Ronny Cox who I first got to know when he was a high school football coach for an opposing team in my youth, who at the time I saw him in Balad earned the informal title the ``Mayor of Balad,'' dealing with civil administration and so many other things.

I have met many other Arizonans along the way, but in Mosul I saw another young Arizonan who typified what is best with America. This young man calls the Navajo Reservation in northwest Arizona his home. This young man happens to be the grandson of former Arizona State Senator Jack Jackson. And it was interesting as I sat in the mess hall with Munoz of Tempe and Pignato of Tucson, they said to me, Whatever you do, Congressman, do not leave until you meet Adahy. Sergeant Adahy, the young Navajo was working in the garage, but he was not performing the standard maintenance of vehicles that we often associate with the grease pits in the garage. No. Adahy was there building what was eponymously named the Adahy Special.

You have heard about the challenges that our forces faced as they tried to deal with their different vehicles and initially a lack of armor; and this Congress provided supplemental funds not only for personal body armor but also for retrofitting armor on vehicles. Indeed, one of the companies supplying that armor likewise is located in Arizona. But our friend, Adahy, was not waiting, was not waiting for that armor to come up the supply line.

He was doing what so many Americans have done before. He was displaying good old fashioned Yankee ingenuity, finding scrap iron, taking the

welding torch, working in his own way to build what they call Adahy Specials, putting armor on the vehicles to protect his fellow soldiers.

What Sergeant Adahy was doing that day we have seen so often in our all volunteer force. The unique thing about our men and women in uniform, whether they hail from the Navajo Nation in northwest Arizona or from the plains of Kansas or from the streets of New York City, our fighting forces are composed of seemingly ordinary men and women who are capable of extraordinary things. And we give thanks for their service. To those who have sacrificed, we will remember that sacrifice, and we dare not fail to see this through. Because as we learned on that beautiful fall day just 3 years ago, there are those perfectly happy to kill Americans just because we are Americans.

So let us remember the sacrifices of those who serve. Let us remember the words of Captain Moore of Arizona. Let us remember the actions of Sergeant Adahy and so many others who are taking the fight to the insurgents and the agents of terror over there so that we do not confront them here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for yielding me time.

I too listened with great interest to the remarks of the minority leader who preceded me here in the well. Mr. Speaker, I think she offers ample evidence as to why she will remain the minority leader in this body unless she is involuntarily returned to the private sector where perhaps she can take up a career in writing more fiction. Although I would offer some friendly advice: it is probably not good to try to rewrite the Orwellian tale of ``Animal Farm,'' but the valid theme rings true

here as borne out by my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) the minority leader.

I guess in her mind some animals are more equal than others. Rather than an imaginary sound of a porcine species, perhaps if we listen closely, we hear the braying of the typical tired, shopworn refrain. The notion that somehow the highest and best use of the people's money is to be captured in the coffers of the government to offer this type of job growth. Job growth for bureaucrats, money always in the coffers being overspent. Not really accountable to the people but that for some of our friends is the highest and best use of the money for the American people.

And if there are businesses, be they small businesses, S corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, whatever category, why certainly they are part and parcel of some evil cabal of special interests. Certainly they exist only for greed and to rob the noble public treasury.

That is one vision of the future that was endorsed in this well by the minority leader. But a bipartisan coalition and majorities in both Houses rises to say no to that thinking with this, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 eponymously named, Mr. Speaker, because by reducing taxes, yes, even on corporations, we create more jobs. That is the key. Support the legislation.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise against the legislation, and I read the words of a young Arizonan now at war from the pages of the Arizona Republic, a letter. He writes, ``As I sit on this plane taking us to war, I can't help but think about who is with me. Americans from all walks of life are going to war together on this plane. Americans going to war on this plane are ages 18 to 59. Americans going to war on this plane are rich and poor, Americans on this plane joined for different reasons. All are volunteers.''

It is a strength to have a volunteer fighting force. We rise remembering the words of Captain Moore, ``We have a great volunteer force.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment, and I would like to highlight two basic principles in support of the amendment.

The first is this, and everyone should understand this, including my friend, the gentleman from Ohio who preceded me in the well of this House. Same-sex couples have the right to live as they choose, but neither they nor a handful of activist judges have the right to redefine marriage for our entire Nation.

The second point again goes with what my friend from Ohio said and I take issue with. Marriage is not about

excluding a group of people. Marriage is about what is best for our children and our society.

To the first principle, I wish this were not an issue that needed at long last constitutional protection via an amendment, but unfortunately, activist lawyers and judges have been working across our Nation to undermine marriage and impose a new national marriage standard without a public debate. Thousands of same-sex couples from at least 46 States have received marriage licenses in California and Oregon, then return to their home States. This is a national issue, and regardless of the months on the calendar and the so-called political season, the American people have a right to know where their representatives stand.

Mr. Speaker, to those who believe that marriage protection and that this marriage protection amendment is discriminatory, I would ask them this: Do my colleagues truly believe that marriage, the traditional and foundational union between a man and a woman, is discrimination? Mr. Speaker, once we start treating a child's need for a mother and father as discrimination, it becomes impossible for the institution of marriage to do its work. If it is discriminatory to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, then why not have three parents or four or more? Even groups of single people are now protesting that their exclusion from the benefits of marriage is discriminatory.

Now to the second point. Marriage is not about exclusion. It is about inclusion and an inclusive foundation for children and society. Whether a couple is a man and a woman has everything to do with the meaning of marriage. Marriage encourages the men and women who together create life to unite in a bond for the protection of children. That is not discrimination. It is the building block on which our society is based.

Now, Mr. Speaker, failed marriages between individuals does not mean that the institution of marriage itself is failing, but Mr. Speaker, we will fail in our responsibilities to our Nation if we fail to neglect and fail to protect this basic institution in our society.