Floor Statements

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that unites Republicans and Democrats in opposition to this amendment, that's why you've heard them take this floor, is that the Constitution of the United States mandates Congress to build strong navies. It doesn't mandate the Pentagon, it doesn't mandate the White House, it doesn't mandate anybody. It mandates us, and we will not walk away from that mandate.

And if you look at every independent analysis, every QDR since 2001 says we need 11 carriers. If you really believe the Navy's going to come in here and say they don't need them, that's not the truth. What's going to happen is somebody's going to give them a budget figure and say the budget needs to drive the strategy, and that's why you need to cut it down. And we're not going to put them in that position.

Three things: they talk about costs. The reality is it could cost more to have fewer carriers because they don't take into consideration the deployment times we're going to put on the backs of our sailors, or the turnaround time we're going to have, or the increased maintenance cost.

The second thing they don't look at is the fact that, in 2007, we were able to meet 90 percent of our combatant commanders' needs through the Navy. This year we'll only meet 51 percent because of cuts we've placed on their backs.

But the final thing, Mr. Chairman--and this is the essence of all of it--they will come in here, and the people who advocate that will say this is acceptable risk.

Do you know what acceptable risk means to them?

It means how many ships we can lose, how many men and women we can lose, how much equipment we can lose in a conflict and still have the potential of winning if every other assumption we've made holds true.

Mr. Chairman, we're committed to changing the definition of acceptable risk, and saying this: when one of our men and women go into battle, we're going to make sure we've done everything we can reasonably do to make sure they have the highest probability possible of returning to the country they're fighting for and the families that they love. And you can't do it with fewer than 11 carriers.

That's why we're standing with this, and that's why I hope we will reject soundly this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

With Chairman McKeon's and Ranking Member Smith's leadership, I believe that this bill provides the right authorities and sufficient resources to demonstrate our resounding and unequivocal support for the men and women who place their service to country above all things. I think we could all learn from their service and devotion.

As to the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee mark, I continue to be concerned about both the size and composition of our Navy's fleet. In the 30-year shipbuilding plan, the administration has indicated a requirement of 306 ships. The 2010 QDR independent panel indicated a requirement of 346 ships. Unfortunately, the Navy has proposed a reduction of the fleet to 270 ships in just the next year. Various outside experts have indicated that if we continue to support our current level of shipbuilding investments, the fleet could be reduced further to just 240 ships. This path is simply unacceptable.

Given the budget cuts of the past 4 years, which I opposed, I think this bill does a good job of reversing some of these negative trends and takes a step in the right direction by authorizing eight combat ships and ensuring that we retain and modernize our current fleet to the end of their service life.

I remain very pleased with the direction of our projection forces. This bill provides strategic Air Force investments in terms of both the KC-46A tanker program and the Long-Range Strike Bomber. These are critical capabilities that need to be nurtured carefully.

This mark also includes important cost-saving initiatives that provide the Navy and Air Force with the ability to procure E-2D Hawkeye and C-130H Super Hercules aircraft using multiyear procurement authority. These legislative provisions alone are projected to save taxpayers over $1 billion.

As I look to the future, I believe that it's essential to ensure strategy drives our debate.

Mr. Chairman, we've gone a long ways to reverse some of these negative trends. I think this bill does a good job of supporting our forces, and I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank my colleague and friend, Mike McIntyre, my ranking member, and our hardworking staff for their efforts in producing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, Dr. Burgess, for his leadership on this issue and for yielding me this time.

We just heard the speaker talk about the definition of ``insanity,'' and Americans woke up the last few weeks and realized the definition of ``insanity'' is giving massive amounts of information to thousands of new Internal Revenue Service agents who can use it as leverage over our lives.

I hope that, despite the fact that this bill is increasing costs on individuals and businesses, at least we ought to agree we don't want to hire thousands of new Internal Revenue Service agents and give them all of this information that they can use as an abusive process over our lives. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the Prevent IRS Overreach Act which would at least take the Internal Revenue Service out of this provision.

I hope that we'll adopt this rule and we'll support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor tonight to discuss our Nation's rich spiritual heritage and the foundation it laid for the religious freedoms we still enjoy today. I'm hosting this Special Order hour as founder and co-chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, a bipartisan group with more than 90 Members of the House of Representatives dedicated to protecting religious freedom in America and preserving our Nation's rich spiritual heritage. I co-chair this caucus with my good friend, Mr. Mike McIntyre, a Democrat Member from North Carolina. We founded the caucus in 2005 to formally acknowledge the important role that faith plays in American life and to recognize our Nation's religious heritage. We're working to guard these legacies for future generations.

Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus gather each week in the United States Capitol, just a few feet from here, to pray for our Nation. We leave political labels at the door and we join in prayer for one another and our country. We all know how unusual it is in the current political climate for Members to unite across the aisle and work together. Yet throughout the more than 200-year history of our Nation, prayer has played a vital role in strengthening the fabric of our society.

Mr. Speaker, our prayers build upon the legacy that was established by early legislators. In fact, the first act of America's first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and lead Congress in the reading of four chapters of the Bible. As our fledgling Nation grew and encountered overwhelming challenges, time and time again we saw our Nation's leaders turn to God in prayer.

We live in a challenging time. Wherever I go, I encounter people who want to know if the future of America is optimistic or pessimistic. When I review the insurmountable challenges our Nation overcame to get to this point--the Civil War, World War II, the Great Depression, and so many more--I believe our future is optimistic. As long as there are men and women in our government and throughout our Nation who continue to turn to God for help, we'll always have hope.

In addition to joining in prayer each week, members of the Prayer Caucus also work together to preserve the presence of religion, faith, and morality in the marketplace of ideas. We're seeing increased efforts to remove references to God and faith from the public square. Activists seek to remove ``God'' from our national motto and Pledge of Allegiance. They seek to prevent city and county councils from praying and recognizing our Nation's spiritual heritage. And they seek to silence people who wish to live out their faith.

Members of the Prayer Caucus have countered these efforts, successfully ensuring that our history remains intact for future generations.

In the 112th Congress, I introduced a resolution reaffirming our national motto ``In God We Trust'' and encouraging its public display in public buildings. The measure passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 396-9. Some ask why we needed to reaffirm our national motto; yet if left unstated, the motto could be changed in a de facto manner.

On November 2010, before a worldwide audience in a much publicized speech focusing on the United States' relationship with the Muslim world, President Obama incorrectly proclaimed that our national motto was ``E Pluribus Unum.'' Despite a bipartisan letter from 42 Members of Congress, the President didn't correct his inaccurate statement. Now, thanks to the House passage of the In God We Trust resolution, children across America know that if God can be displayed on the walls of their classroom, they cannot be prevented from talking about him at school.

Members of the Prayer Caucus also worked to correct inaccuracies and omissions in the Capitol Visitor Center. In 2008, the over-half- billion-dollar Capitol Visitor Center opened for the purpose of educating over 15,000 Capitol visitors daily on the legislative process, as well as the history and development of the architecture and art of the U.S. Capitol.

When Members toured the facility, however, CVC historians had censored the building of any references to our Judeo-Christian history. They had replaced the inscription of ``In God We Trust'' inscribed right behind you on the Speaker's rostrum with stars and a replica of the House Chamber and had cropped an actual picture of the Chamber so you could not see the words ``In God We Trust.''

Additionally, a plaque was placed in the CVC falsely educating visitors that the national motto was E Pluribus Unum. They had not included the Pledge of Allegiance in the CVC because it referenced God. Only after Members of Congress intervened publicly and legislatively were these omissions and inaccuracies corrected.

I am proud to partner with my good friend, Mr. Mike McIntyre, in leading this extraordinary group of Members in the Congressional Prayer Caucus, and I'm so pleased to be joined this evening by my colleagues who are working to protect religious freedom in America and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to my colleague and my good friend from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his great work on religious freedom and religious liberty issues, and thank you for sharing that tonight.

Mr. Speaker, as individuals watch Congress across the country, one of the big criticisms they always talk about is all of the partisanship that hits here, and they just don't get to see the Congressional Prayer Caucus. If they did, they would see what they are going to see on this floor tonight, and that is my co-chairman, who is also one of my dearest friends in here tonight, and that is Mike McIntyre. He is a Democrat from North Carolina; I'm a Republican from Virginia. But I can tell you that I have just the utmost respect for him, and I think he does for me.

It is my honor to now yield the floor to him.

Thank you so much for your leadership and your courage and your friendship, and we appreciate your words tonight and we'll treasure them.

Mr. Speaker, one of the true leaders in the House of Representatives is a lady from North Carolina. It's often said, when Virginia Foxx speaks, everybody listens, and we're delighted tonight to have her here and to listen to her speak.

With that, I would like to yield the floor to the gentlelady from North Carolina.

I would like to thank Congresswoman Foxx for those remarks and for her leadership.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a gentleman from Oklahoma who has been a longtime leader in religious freedom and religious liberty issues. It is my privilege to yield the floor to him now, Mr. James Lankford.

I would like to thank Congressman Lankford for his words and for his strong work throughout the year on these issues.

Now it is now my privilege to yield to another individual that's been a passionate leader on religious freedom and religious liberty, Congressman Louie Gohmert from Texas.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of humility that we always take the floor in this Chamber. Tonight especially, as I look over your head, I see the inscription of our national motto: ``In God We Trust.'' Most of the individuals watching from home don't get to see that because the cameras are fixed below it, so they normally don't show it.

You have heard remarks tonight from Republicans and Democrats, and one of the truly great privileges of serving in this body is that we get to serve with some wonderful people. They come from a lot of wonderful States, and each of those States has its own history. We're not only proud of that history, but we learn so much from that history. I come from Virginia. When we look at our history, even before the first colonists ever stepped foot on the shores in Virginia, it was drafted in the charter of Virginia that one of the major purposes of that colony was going to be to propagate faith and to propagate religion.

As they made that arduous journey across an ocean and didn't know if they were going to live or die, they had a ragtag group of people, and they weren't exactly the people that you'd have teaching Sunday school classes. They were tough individuals. When they landed on the shores, their chaplain, Robert Hunt, was able to convince them to come together and do their first organized act, which was to take an old sail and create a makeshift church, to get on their knees and thank God for delivering them over here and to ask for His wisdom and His blessing. With all of the challenges that they had, Mr. Hunt was able to convince them to come morning and afternoon and have those same prayers. They didn't have to think a lot about what they would pray for; it was just that they could make it to the next day. They did make it to the next day and to the next year.

About 10 years later, they selected the first legislative body in the new world in 1619, and the first act of that body was to go into the church in Jamestown, to get on their knees and to ask for God's blessing and His wisdom and His guidance.

It doesn't surprise us then that 2 years later when they would draft the first charter of the first Constitution of Virginia, that they would have as one of its primary purposes in its dedication for the advancement and service of God and the enlargement of His kingdom. And those years turned into decades and they moved that capital from Jamestown to Williamsburg, and it was a tough several years. They would have great men of faith. Some of them would spend 13 hours a day studying the Bible, praying.

One of those individuals was a guy named Samuel Davies. He would get up oftentimes at his church and preach. One lady liked him so much that she would bring her son and daughters to hear him on a weekly basis. Her young teenage son would sit at his feet and he would learn principles that he would talk about, about God and rights that came from God and not from men. That lady was Sarah Henry, and her son was Patrick Henry.

And when Patrick was 29 years old on his birthday, the first day he was in the Virginia General Assembly, they were debating the Stamp Act. He was supposed to be there and seen and not heard. He was a freshman. He sat there and he listened, and it looked like Virginia was going to do nothing and allow the acts that had taken away so many rights just to slip right between their fingers. And as he listened and listened, he opened up a law book and there was a blank page and he started making notes. And finally he stood up and he started talking about rights that we had.

Another young man that heard Patrick Henry was a guy by the name of Thomas Jefferson. He said that Patrick Henry was the greatest orator he'd ever heard. And Patrick Henry replied, no, the greatest orator, the person he'd learned all of those concepts of freedom from, was that fellow by the name of Samuel Davies.

Years later, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, they would find themselves in that same Virginia General Assembly, but the port of Boston was about to be closed, and the King had issued that order. They came together with a makeshift caucus and they asked themselves: What can we best do to help our fellow

colonists in Boston? Of all of the things they thought of, you know what that group came up with? They said the most important thing they could do was ask Virginians all across that Commonwealth to go down and pray for the colonists in Boston.

They spent that night writing a prayer resolution. They didn't know how to do it. They hadn't done it in years. They looked back at old puritan resolutions. They wrote one and went into the General Assembly, and they didn't know how it was going to be received. The next day, the Virginia General Assembly voted it unanimously and didn't change a word. The Governor was so irate, how dare they ask and pray against the King himself, that he stormed in with that proclamation in his hand and he dissolved the Virginia General Assembly.

Well, they were a group of individuals that didn't like the word ``no,'' and so they walked across the street--Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Peyton Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, and a guy by the name of George Washington and several others, and they wrote a resolution that changed the world, a resolution that said that an attack on one colony was an attack on all of them, and they called for the first ever Congressional Continental Congress.

That Congress, as you know, would meet. And as Mr. Gohmert pointed out, when they couldn't agree on anything else, the one thing they agreed on was opening with prayer. That Congress led to the Second Congress. In the Second Congress, they appointed a committee--Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman--to write a declaration that would birth this country. And as we are proud of in Virginia, the scrivener of that declaration was Thomas Jefferson. He would later say that he didn't write any new ideas or principles. He wrote concepts that had been heard and preached from pulpits across the Commonwealth and across this Nation, concepts that said this: Our rights didn't come from any act, any king, any committee, but they came from the Creator himself; and if they came from Him, they could never be taken away.

They went on to win that war, to win their freedom, but it didn't last long before it was challenged. And in 1812, in that war, as you know, Francis Scott Key penned that great poem that became our national anthem, the Star-Spangled Banner, and he wrote what is right behind you, and he said: Our motto will ever be ``In God We Trust.''

As we went into another great war that would split this country, the Civil War, this Congress declared that that motto, ``In God We Trust,'' could be on our coins. Later, the Supreme Court would have it challenged, but in the 1890s would recount the great history of faith in this country. And almost a half century later, when the greatest battle of freedom that ever was fought on the shores of Normandy was about to take place, Franklin Roosevelt led this entire Nation in prayer asking for blessings upon us.

After that great war and our victory, we came back in this Congress and asked where are we going to put our trust. Are we going to put it in that great atom bomb, in our resources and in our economy? This Congress said, no, our motto would be ``In God We Trust,'' and they adopted that as our motto.

And when I was a young boy, John Kennedy, facing the Cuban missile crisis, came out and said: The guiding principle of this country has always been, is today, and will forever be, in God we trust.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that great history of faith, why is it that faith is under attack so much across this Nation? Well, Mr. Speaker, tune in, because in a few weeks we'll be back on this floor. We'll tell you who's doing it, why they're doing it, and what we need to do to stop it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the chairman, the ranking member and staff of the Armed Services Committee for the great job that they have done in bringing this bill to the floor.

This bill takes several steps to ensure our military readiness, including the restoration of funding to retain at least three Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers that the Navy proposed to retire well before the end of their expected service life. The conference also added an additional 32 tactical airlift aircraft that are essential to meeting the Army's direct support airlift missions. These additional force structure changes are essential to ensuring our military meets mission requirements.

The bill also refuses to authorize another round of BRAC, which I believe

was founded on a flawed premise that assumes the administration's proposal for a reduced force structure is correct. I categorically refuse to accept a diminished Department of Defense and believe that additional force structure is necessary to support our combatant commanders.

While I support this bill, I'd be remiss if I did not express my concern associated with continued discussions on further reductions to the Department of Defense budget. While I believe the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense, needs to seek additional efficiencies, I reject the notion that additional cuts to Federal Government should be levied on the backs of our servicemen and -women who provide so much. We hold a special trust with these men and women, and we should oppose any proposal that seeks to diminish the promises provided to our valiant servicemembers.

Mr. Speaker, I hope and encourage our Members to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a devastating drought--impacting the viability of our nation's crops and the livelihood of farmers in 65% of the country, including Virginia. In response today, I supported the Agriculture Disaster Assistance Act, reauthorizing disaster assistance programs, and allowing producers to effectively manage risk, while providing certainty to producers who are generally ineligible for crop insurance.

This assistance does not come without a cost--one that is absorbed by some of our nation's agriculture conservation programs. These programs have been instrumental in aiding Virginia's agricultural community, and I support their efforts to protect our rivers, streams and waterways that make up the important Chesapeake Bay watershed.

I believe that we must work to ensure the stability and future of our economy, including our nation's food sources. However as we do, we must remain mindful of the need to conserve our natural resources which are critical for agricultural production throughout the country. It is my hope Congress can move to pass a comprehensive Farm Bill which will support our nation's rich agricultural heritage while giving our farmers the tools they need to protect our vital natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a significant milestone being reached this year by Brigadier General Gwen Bingham. Brig. Gen. Bingham has been given the assignment to be the first woman ever to take command of the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The White Sands Missile Range encompasses nearly 3,200 square miles and is the largest military installation in the United States, used by the Army, Navy, Air Force, NASA, and other government agencies and private enterprises for research, development and training.

Prior to this assignment, Brig. Gen. Bingham was also the first woman to hold the position of Quartermaster General and Commandant of the U.S. Army Quartermaster School at Fort Lee (Virginia). As Quartermaster General, she was responsible for overseeing the training of more than 20,000 military students annually.

This milestone marks yet another impressive achievement in an already distinguished 31-year career for Brigadier General Bingham. It is a testament to her professionalism, character, and selfless sacrifice to her country. I am honored to recognize her continued achievements.

Mr. Speaker, several days ago I was one of only a handful of

Members of Congress who actually sat in the Supreme Court and listened to five Justices debate and say that they believed that the President's health tax was constitutional, and I watched them debate the four Justices who believed it was not constitutional.

Because one more Justice believed it was constitutional than the four that believed it was not constitutional, our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that we should now step back and do nothing and just allow this health tax to be imposed on the American people.

Well, we reject that suggestion, and the reason we do is because today the number one issue in the American people's minds is the economy, and the number one concern we have about the economy is the loss of their jobs. Yet we have watched as this administration has had 41 straight months of unemployment in excess of 8 percent.

We have watched as their policies have delivered us a net loss of 473,000 jobs, and we are about to unleash three enormous job killers on the American public. In just a few months, we will increase taxes on the American people if we refuse to extend the Bush tax cuts, which will cost thousands of jobs. Yet our friends on the other side of the aisle say we should step back and do nothing, and we reject that notion.

In just a few months, based on legislation this President approved and signed into law, we will have massive defense cuts that his own Secretary of Defense says will cost us 1.5 million jobs, and our friends on the other side of the aisle say we should do nothing and just let that come on the American people. We reject that notion.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as this health tax gets ready to be imposed on the American people, based on the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost 800,000 jobs. Yet our friends on the other side of the aisle say we should take no action and just let it happen. We reject that notion.

The reason we reject it is because the American people realize that as we take an action to repeal this health tax, we are setting a new course for health care in America. As we set a new course for health care in America, we begin to do what the American people want us to do and set a new course and a new direction for America.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend on his amendment that we share his love for the Guard across this body. I think most of the Members here recognized the great job they do day in and day out for us.

That's why I want to also say how much we appreciate the chairman's work and the ranking member's work to make sure in this bill that they have raised and saved many of our Guard priorities, and I thank them for looking in there and for doing that.

I wish we had been able to save everything in this bill, but friends on the other side have criticized us for the extra money we've put in already.

One of the things that you realize, Mr. Chairman, is that at times you just do have to make an allocation. In this particular situation, the National Guard Bureau actually looked and said, We want to save and prioritize our UAV mission because we think that's higher than headquarters functions. That's what they did. They made a priority assessment that it was more important for us to save the UAV missions, which they did, and not headquarters operations. I also realize, as the gentleman does, that we would like to each preserve these Guard units in our own areas, but the Department of Defense just felt that that wasn't possible. They opposed this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would say, if you have to make the choice between protecting our headquarters units and protecting missile defense, I think that's an easy decision for us. We want to make sure we are continuing to protect missile defense. I hope that we will vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to join the distinguished lady from Hawaii in opposing this amendment, and also in her complimenting the gentleman who brought it. I know his motives are very good in trying to create jobs in his area.

The problem we have, as the gentlelady from Hawaii has stated, is that we already have authority to conduct repairs in the Mariana Islands at this particular point in time. The problem is that there's limited pier space, and there's no drydock capability.

To allow private sectors to invest huge monies, or to come back here later after we get the authorization to say we want more money from Congress to appropriate there would not be appropriate because, as the gentlelady from Hawaii said, we already have sufficient capacity, both in Pearl Harbor, in Washington, in California, and in Guam.

And to show that there are no requirements for this further ship repair capacity in the Pacific region, you can just look at last year, where the absence of need was perhaps best exemplified by the fact that the Navy only received one bid when it had a proposal from shipyards in the Pacific region for a long-term operating lease for the Guam ship repair facility property, and that bid was from the current Guam shipyard operator.

The distance from overseas home ports and from the regions in which the MSC ships operates makes a shipyard in the Mariana Islands prohibitive in terms of operating costs to and from there.

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that Congress will not go down this line. At this particular point in time, the Navy has absolutely no additional requirements or needs that they have for this particular yard there. We are struggling, at this particular point in time, to keep the other yards going with the capacity that we currently have, and to invest this kind of investment there when we're not going to be able to take advantage of it would not be appropriate for us to do, this body at this time.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will defeat this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment. One thing we know, that under this administration's watch we will see, if we don't change it, up to a trillion dollars of cuts to national defense coming down the pike. What does that mean? We have seen the Air Force say that they're on the ragged edge. We've seen this administration propose to take seven cruisers and dismantle those cruisers. What that would mean is doing away with twice the surface capability of the entire British Navy.

We've seen the possibility of as many as 150,000 pink slips that could then be coming down to our men and women in uniform and the loss of as many as 1.5 million jobs. And I don't know whether or not there's a secret deal or what that secret deal is with the Russians, but one thing we know is we are moving dangerously close to the point where we will no longer be able to guarantee the security of the United States and U.S. interests, and that's why it's important that we support this amendment, and I hope we'll do that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. And, Mr. Chairman, I would say that I have enormous respect for the gentlemen from Colorado. I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Colorado's service in the military. But I also have enormous respect for the United States Army and for the leadership of the United States Army.

The only reason that we would do this move is--there are two reasons. One would be because it makes strategic sense to do so, and the United States Army says it does not make strategic sense to do so. The second one is because of cost. And the United States Army would point out that the cost savings we have would be minimal because the rotational units are very expensive and much less effective than forward-base forces.

Mr. Chairman, it's been said here that we don't want to be defending our allies, and indeed we don't, not necessarily. But what we're doing with this is not just defending our allies but joining with our allies to make sure we're defending the United States and U.S. interests.

Mr. Chairman, I would say that the Army has moved already very strongly by removing two of these combat brigades from Europe. They've reduced by 50 percent the number of personnel we have in Europe since 2003. I think we should listen to the Army and make

sure that we're allowing them to do what they think at this particular point in time is strategically and from a cost-effective basis in the best interest of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, we've debated some important issues here tonight. Some of them we've had some fun with. Some of them we have debated very, very strenuously.

But make no mistake about it, the greatest threat to world peace today is Iran and the possibility that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. There is no other country in the world that has specifically stated its purpose to use that weapon will be to destroy one of our allies, which would be Israel.

And one of the most important things we can have is to make sure that we have no lack of clarity when we come to dealing with Iran.

Our good friend, Ike Skelton, used to always admonish us, read the bill. In this bill we are looking to take power away from the Secretary of State. We say we want to have diplomacy, and yet we are pulling away the Secretary of State's options to do that.

We're looking at taking away powers of the President, because, if nothing else, we're mucking up the War Powers Act and making it unclear what the President can do and what he can't do. And when it comes to Iran, that's the least important thing we can do.

The most important thing we can do is to make sure that we continue to give the President the options that he needs to keep everything on the table in dealing with Iran. And when we tell him he can't use military force until he's done all diplomatic avenues, nobody in here understands what that means exactly.

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will not go down this path, because I can assure you the destination may be one that we wish we had never arrived at. And I hope we'll defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership for the national defense of our country.

I rise in support of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. As you've heard, Mr. Chairman, this bill reflects a bipartisan effort to address the many issues impacting the readiness of our military.

This year's bill prohibits funding from being used to plan for another round of BRAC, which I believe would be founded on a flawed premise that assumes the administration's proposal for a reduced force structure is correct. I categorically refuse to accept a diminished Department of Defense and believe that additional force structure is necessary to support our combatant commanders.

We have also done our best to craft a bipartisan way forward on depot maintenance reform, returning the Nation to a long-standing balance between the public and private sectors. Although I will admit this bill is not all things to all people, we look forward to continuing to improve these portions of the bill in conference.

This bill also takes several steps to ensure our Navy readiness, including the restoration of funding to retain three Ticonderoga class guided missile cruisers that the Navy proposed to retire well before the end of their expected service life.

Finally, in this year's bill, we address the administration's efforts to reduce military and civilian workforce, while increasing its contractor full-time equivalents. By building upon last year's effort to direct the DOD to create a policy for total force management, we direct GAO, in this year's bill, to provide their assessment of what measures DOD is taking to appropriately balance its current and future workforce structure against its requirements.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of the Armed Services Committee, especially my Readiness Subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Bordallo, for their help in providing the unyielding support for the men and women who so heavily rely on our efforts, and our staff who work tirelessly to produce this product.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives will vote on a budget proposal that will begin to turn the tide away from Washington's habitual deficit spending. I applaud the House Budget Committee for making difficult choices to cut spending, for finding creative solutions to our country's fiscal challenges, and for taking vital action to stop planned cuts to our national defense--cuts that our military leaders have labeled as ``catastrophic.'' Addressing our nation's fiscal problems is one of my top priorities; however, I believe this can be done in a responsible fashion that does not undercut our nation's federal workforce.

Federal employees have dedicated their lives to public service. They protect our nation's borders, defend our cities and communities from terrorism, provide critical assistance in the wake of natural disasters, and support and treat our nation's military personnel and veterans. At the same time, as our neighbors, they live, work, pay taxes, and spend the money that is helping to build economic growth in the private sector in Virginia.

I believe we must reduce the size of our federal government in order to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness, but as we do so, we must never lose sight of the fact that a capable federal workforce is vital to that goal and we must recognize the contributions of our federal employees as we work to ensure our government is capable of meeting our country's future challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to compliment Congressman Pitts and Congressman Ellison for their leadership in this matter and to recognize tonight, Mr. Speaker, as we go through our busy lives, we often take for granted the privilege of living in a Nation that's governed by Founders who realized there were a set of rights so fundamental, so much at the core of life itself that they could not come from any State or any government but had to come from the hands of the Creator of life himself.

At the center of these rights, some would say the foundation of them, is the freedom of religion. As we travel around the world and see other citizens who do not have these rights, we may be saddened or even angered, but when the government of any nation of the world is so dangerous to the lives of its citizens that it's willing to rob one of those citizens of life itself merely because he will not recant his faith, we not only feel sadness and anger, but also fear.

Tonight, the citizens of Iran should be afraid of such an oppressive and dangerous government. Tonight, the neighbors of Iran should be afraid of such an oppressive and dangerous government.

Tonight, the citizens of the world should be afraid of such an oppressive and dangerous government.

They should condemn this government for its actions. They should stand with this pastor, and they should join hearts with people of all faiths around the world to pray for his life and his safety.

Every Member of this body should adopt this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of National Marriage Week, which is observed each year from February 7th to 14th. During National Marriage Week, organizations and individuals across America collaborate on programs designed to strengthen marriages, reduce the divorce rate, and acknowledge the institution of marriage as a vital factor in promoting family and community stability. Although it is important that we devote ourselves to strengthening our marriages each day of the year, National Marriage Week provides an important opportunity for us collectively to pause and reflect on the crucial role that marriage plays as the foundation of a strong and healthy society. In so doing, it is my hope that we will be inspired to work even harder to protect this sacred institution.

Marriage is ordained by God and provides innumerable benefits to spouses and their children. Studies suggest that married men and women experience greater financial stability, longer life spans, and a decreased risk of depression--particularly among married mothers. Children in married families also reap a host of benefits, including increased physical health, lower rates of alcohol and substance abuse, and a reduced risk of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.

I remain committed to the conviction that traditional marriage is worth protecting. The data demonstrates what many of us have long known: marriage between a man and a woman is one of the cornerstones of strength of our country, and is the foundation of families across America. I encourage you to join me in celebrating National Marriage Week by renewing your dedication to your spouse, and considering ways in which you can strengthen your commitment and devotion each day.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 13) reaffirming ``In God We Trust'' as the official motto of the United States and supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.

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 House Concurrent Resolution 13 currently under consideration.

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

When our Declaration of Independence was penned, it was unique in that the writers of that document recognized that the rights that we have as American citizens didn't come from some committee in this body, some resolution, or even from the king, but rather came from God himself. In 1814 during the War of 1812, Francis Scott Key noticed through the battle fires that were going on a unique thing and began to pen what would become our national anthem when he wrote ``The Star Spangled Banner'' and mentioned that ``In God We Trust'' was the motto of this great Nation.

The 39th Congress of the United States in 1865 during the Civil War which threatened to tear this Nation apart authorized ``In God We Trust'' to be placed on certain coins, including the dollar, the half dollar, and the quarter dollar.

The 43rd Congress in 1873 authorized ``In God We Trust'' to be placed on coins as the Secretary of Commerce would so desire, and the Secretary of the Treasury.

In the 60th Congress in 1908, Congress mandated that ``In God We Trust'' be placed on all gold and silver coins.

In the 82nd Congress in 1951, the Senate Chamber demanded and authorized and then had ``In God We Trust'' placed over the entrance door in the Senate Chamber.

In the 84th Congress in 1955, Congress enacted and President Eisenhower approved legislation requiring the motto to appear on all coins and currency.

In the 84th Congress in 1956, Congress officially adopted ``In God We Trust'' as the national motto of the United States. And in that Congress, the Senate said it was important for the spiritual and psychological value of the country to have a clear and well-defined national motto.

In the 87th Congress, this body authorized ``In God We Trust'' to be placed right behind where you're standing, where it still stands today.

In the 107th Congress, we reaffirmed the Pledge of Allegiance and once again our national motto.

And in the 109th Congress, the Senate reaffirmed the national motto.

In the 110th Congress in 2007, Congress said that on the dollar coin, we had to put ``In God We Trust'' from the edge of coin back to where it belonged on the front or back of the coin.

And in the 111th Congress in 2009, this body authorized ``In God We Trust'' to be in the Capitol Visitor Center and mandated it be placed in there.

Mr. Speaker, so what brings us to today? Well, unfortunately, there are a number of public officials who forget what the national motto is, whether intentionally or unintentionally. There are those who have become confused as to whether or not it can still be placed on our buildings, whether it can be placed in our school classrooms. Almost a year ago, the President, in making a speech across the world, said that our national motto was ``E Pluribus Unum.'' When the Visitor Center was opened, was tried to be opened, $621 million of taxpayer money, a part of this very structure that you and I are standing in here now, they did not have the national motto in there. In fact, they inscribed in the stones that our national motto was ``E Pluribus Unum.''

We have because of those kinds of omissions many people confused today, asking when we changed it, what happened to it, can they still display it in rooms. So we believe that today it's fitting that we come together as a Congress and reaffirm that great national motto, do what the Senate did just a few years ago, and once again make clear to the people in this country that our national motto is ``In God We Trust'' and encourage them to proudly display that motto.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I hope and urge the adoption of this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I would like to respond to my good friend as he said this is irrelevant, nothing to offer the middle class that is hurting, when he says this is just a symbolic gesture.

Mr. Speaker, there are those who believe that the Declaration of Independence is just a symbolic document, just words. There are those who believe that that flag behind you is just a symbol, and the Pledge of Allegiance we make to it just words. And there are those who believe that ``In God We Trust'' right up there--just words.

They don't realize what so many other Congresses, so many Presidents of this United States have realized: They are far more than words; they are the very fabric that has built and sustained the greatest nation the world has ever known. And I challenge my good friend who would dare say that that declaration was just a symbol, that Pledge of Allegiance just a symbol, or ``In God We Trust'' just a symbol, to dare say to President Lincoln, when he brought in ``In God We Trust'' and he talked about that and he embraced it during the greatest conflict this country has ever known, the Civil War, he was just wasting his time, it was irrelevant, he wasn't doing anything to that Nation that was hurting.

Or to say it to Woodrow Wilson, who would embrace it during World War I when this Nation was at a very, very difficult time, that it was just irrelevant, it was just words and it did nothing at all.

Or to say to President Roosevelt, during World War II, when we didn't know whether we'd have the freedoms that ``In God We Trust'' gives us the opportunity to have and that flag gives us the opportunity to have, that ``In God We Trust'' was just words.

Or John Kennedy, or Dwight Eisenhower, or Ronald Reagan, or Francis Scott Key during the middle of a battle that challenged the existence of this Nation--just words.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my good friend that I understand how there are few who believe that ``In God We Trust'' is just words. But I would say today that it is far more than words. It is worth defending just as that Pledge of Allegiance is worth defending and that Declaration of Independence is worth defending. And I'm grateful that we will have an opportunity to do just that today.

The challenges the gentleman says don't exist with court suits and public officials who are saying that not ``In God We Trust'' is our national motto but something else, it's worth our standing today and taking 40 minutes to do what so many Presidents and so many Congresses have done before in saying that we should inspire this Nation with hope and optimism that we are different from the rest of the world and those words will continue to stand behind where you stand.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee whose leadership helped bring this resolution to the floor, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the chairman of the Veterans Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the gentleman from New York says that we are simply declaring how good we are, that we are wasting our time, that we have other things that are important.

I realize that there are some who don't see the difference between what we're doing in reaffirming ``In God We Trust'' as our national motto from naming a post office or commending some athletic team that's won the last sports contest. But I happen to believe that when Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence that our rights came from God, he didn't think that was irrelevant or not important.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Prayer Caucus to note the importance of faith in our Nation's history. In his first inaugural address in 1789, George Washington said in part:

``It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.''