Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am honored to highlight the outstanding achievements of a group of young scholars from my congressional district.

Last month, Findlay High School students Christina Back, Anthony Baratta, Kyle Collette, Meghan Gannon, Jessica Gephart, Bryant Hendriksen, Emily Janowiecki, Stephen Kostyo, Jaime Malloy, Debra McCaffrey, Jade Mummert, Will Olthouse, Nicholas Rackley, Michael Sears, Caroline Solis, Stephen Strigle, Rebecca Walter, and Matthew Wiseman represented the State of Ohio in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program. They joined more than 1,200 students from across the country at this three-day competition in Washington.

Authorized by act of Congress, the We the People program allows high school students to develop in-depth knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our republic. Students testify at mock congressional hearings before a panel of experts, answering questions that test their understanding of the Constitution and their ability to apply that knowledge. Columnist David Broder has described the national competition as ``the place to have your faith in the younger generation restored.''

These 18 students continue a long tradition of success for Findlay High School in this competition. I commend them for their hard work-- along with the efforts of their teacher Mark Dickman, who helped them prepare for the local, state, and national competitions. In addition, I salute the tireless work of Jared Reitz, the state coordinator for We the People, and district coordinator Libby Cupp.

Madam Speaker, all of Ohio can take great pride in the performance of these scholars, who are excellent role models for their peers. They are perfect examples of all that is right in our education system today, and are to be commended for a job well done.

Mr. Chairman, the principal role of our Federal Government is to help keep America safe.

As such, we in Congress must make our national defense a top budget priority.

This means we must pledge our steadfast support to American troops serving both at home and abroad, and we must renew our unwavering commitment to homeland security, in recognition of the dangerous world in which we live.

H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act, makes a genuine effort to achieve each of these goals. That's why I will vote for it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

In 1945, at the end of World War II, the defense budget of the United States represented 34.5 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. By 1968, that number had shrunk to 9.8 percent. Today, the number is less than half of that: about 4.3 percent.

Certainly, the overall dollars spent on defense have increased as our economy has grown, but it is clear that our priorities have shifted. This bill, while not perfect, commits to funding our defense budget in a way that many of us would have thought impossible just a few months ago, given the nature of the debate at that time. Some would argue that the tenor of the debate on national defense has shifted from talk of cutting off funds for our troops in battle to this bipartisan bill.

Some of the bipartisan provisions contained in this defense funding blueprint include: Continued support for our troops in harm's way, serving in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and elsewhere. $4.1 billion for state-of-the-art Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to help protect our soldiers from IEDs. Increased Army and Marine Corps active duty end strength, as well as a 3.5 percent pay raise for all members of the armed forces in 2008, and guaranteed pay raises in 2009, 2010, and 2011. $1 billion in new funding for National Guard equipment to benefit both our homeland security and national defense missions.

These are great and welcome achievements for our national defense-- achievements that each of us can be proud to support. But make no mistake: this bill is far from perfect. The measure contains some critical funding cuts that, in my opinion, will hurt our ability to protect our homeland and our national defense interests from missile attacks.

The Democratic bill guts funding for a ballistic missile defense system capable of intercepting missiles in each phase of flight. This type of program can help protect against growing threats in a changing world. Though I was pleased we Republicans were able to restore some of the funding for this important program through the amendment process, I am disappointed that cuts still exist. But in terms of helping achieve our most critical role--keeping America safe--this bill has, and deserves, bipartisan support.

Again, Mr. Chairman, though there are some aspects of this legislation that I clearly oppose, it is an important step in the direction of making national defense and homeland security a continued priority of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

This measure represents an unprecedented departure from the deeply rooted American principle of equal justice under law.

Justice should be blind. It should be equal for all Americans, and it should be rendered in a criminal justice system that does not take such issues as race, gender, and religion into consideration.

It makes no sense to me that crimes committed against one citizen should be punished any more or any less than crimes committed against another, which is what this bill will do.

Violent crimes that are not aimed at a certain class of people, like those committed recently at Virginia Tech, are just as reprehensible as those that are committed for other reasons.

Yet this bill would likely treat the senseless, random violence at Virginia Tech less harshly than other, less ``random'' crimes.

Even worse, the bill asks local law enforcement to infer if a crime was committed ``because of'' bias toward a protected group. This

essentially means that one's ``thoughts'' or ``feelings'' might be evidence of hate, and can be considered when determining whether a crime was indeed a ``hate'' crime.

Let me say that again. The bill would ask law enforcement to consider one's potential ``thoughts'' as evidence of ``hate.''

Mr. Speaker, this is the dangerous, likely unconstitutional threat that has caused great concern to so many residents of Ohio's 4th Congressional District.

Upon consideration of this bill in the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Speaker, I sent you a letter, co-signed by many of my Republican colleagues on the committee. The letter expressed concern about H.R. 1592's ``thought crime'' provisions and their potential to categorize individuals who share spiritual or gospel messages as hate criminals.

In the letter, we noted that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed Resolution 060356, which castigated Cardinal William Levada and the Catholic Church for opposing the adoption of children by homosexuals. The resolution, perhaps prophetically, describes the Church's policy using such words as ``hateful,'' ``discriminatory,'' ``insulting,'' and ``callous.''

It is easy to see how this type of inflammatory anti-religious assertion emanating from a governmental body is disconcerting to those who espouse deep religious beliefs.

This so-called hate crimes bill not only discards the fundamental American legal principle of equal justice, it also lays the groundwork to criminalize individuals and groups that might not share the liberal values of places like San Francisco.

It is rather ironic that on this, the National Day of Prayer--a day where Americans gather to celebrate our religious heritage--liberal members of this House are uniting to pass a bill that could deem their prayerful voices as ``hateful.''

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding some time and for his work in putting this together and his passion and intensity and energy that he brings to the Congress and what he has done in our freshman class. I appreciate the remarks of the previous speaker. He talked about Tax Day, and he is right on target when you think about the amount of money government takes.

And I just want to start with a question. And there is probably a few people watching, probably mostly in the gentleman from California's district. Most people in Ohio are smart enough to get in bed at this hour. But there are a few people watching out there. And I just want to ask those Americans who are watching, do you think government has enough of your money already, or do you think they need more? And my guess is the vast majority of people in California who are watching, or in Ohio who are sleeping, understand that the government, the billions and billions and the trillions and trillions that the government takes in already is probably enough.

And the gentleman from Michigan was great in outlining what is at stake and what the Democrats want to do, because the Democrats obviously think different. The American people think, you know what, the government probably takes enough of my money. But based on what took place 2 weeks ago with the budget that was passed by the majority party, over the next 3 years the spending they want to do is going to take more and more money out of the private sector, where good things happen in our economy, where jobs are created, where prosperity takes place, more and more money out of the private sector and more money from the families across this great country, in Ohio, in the Fourth District, and across the Nation as whole.

So I just want to provide some perspective and context and framework for why that is a bad thing. And I think we just start with this basic premise: the stakes are high today. It is important that the elected officials, the politicians here in Congress, get it right for a change. There was a point in the past where, in spite of bad policies that the politicians may have enacted, America, because we were so uniquely positioned coming out of World War II, we were the economic superpower. We were the economy that was growing. It didn't really matter if bad public policy was put in place. We were going to excel. We were going to prosper in this world market in spite of the things that the politicians might have done.

But today the stakes are high and the competition is stiffer. And I just want to give some facts and figures and I will yield back to the gentleman from California. But recognize the framework we are in. Today, China has 1.4 billion people. India has close to 800 million people. Those two countries, over two billion people. United States of America, we just hit 300 million population last summer. Those two economies, China and India, over two billion people combined in those two countries, China's economy is growing at approximately 10 percent annual growth rate. India is growing at about 7, 7\1/2\ percent annual growth rate, quickly moving towards middle class. The competition is stiffer. And it is important today when you think about those numbers, those facts, those figures, that we in elective office do the policies right.

Raising taxes on business owners, raising taxes on families, $400 billion, as the gentleman from California pointed out, doing those things makes it tougher for our families, our small business owners, our economy to compete in that world market. And that is why it is important we not go along with these tax increases. That is why it is important we try to keep those tax cuts that are in place, so that family and businesses can prosper. It is that fundamental. The gentleman from Michigan was exactly right. And he ticked off, he read off the tax increases that will happen under the Democrats budget plan. And it is important we not go there.

I always come back to, you know, the very first thing we did in this Congress, the majority party, the Democratic Party enacted some PAYGO rules, which sound great. But what those PAYGO rules did was make it easier to raise taxes.

The last thing this Congress did before we went home for Easter break to see our constituents and visit our districts, the last thing we did before we went home for the Easter break was raise taxes. So they started off the Congress by making it easier to raise taxes. The last thing we did before we went home for break was raise taxes. And so that should tell you what is at stake here and why it is important that we fight for the American families, like the gentleman from California has been doing, and it has been a pleasure to serve along with him in that regard. And I will yield back some time and we can discuss some of this maybe as we move along.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And you talked about a $400 billion tax increase. I just come to the question, how many Americans think that government can spend money better than the private sector? How many Americans think that the government can spend money better than the small business owners in our communities? How many Americans think that government can spend that money better than the families that live in our districts and make this country great? That is the fundamental question.

And the gentleman from Nebraska was right on target when he talked about families. So often we get so focused on the numbers, the budgets, capital gains, dividends, tax rates, tax brackets, all this fancy political speak, and we forget in the end it is about people. It is about moms and dads having more money in their pockets to spend on piano lessons for Sally, soccer lessons for Johnny.

Saving for college is a huge thing. And I have got one in college, and I am paying them right now, writing those checks. That is what it is about. In the end, it is about families.

Jefferson had a great line. When you think about the size and scope of government, how big this government is going to grow under this proposal, Jefferson said, ``When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.''

Just ask yourself this question, as government begins to grow: If tomorrow you are at home and you get a knock at your door and you answer the door and the gentleman identifies himself and says, ``I am from the IRS,'' is your first response, ``Oh, joy, one of my public servants is here to help me today''? Of course it is not.

We have to understand that. If we want families to have the liberty and freedom they need to do what is best for their kids and their grandkids, we need to let them keep more of their money. And that is what our struggle is when we go forward, to try to make sure we can allow families to keep more of their money.

I know that is why I came to Congress and I know that is why the gentleman from California came to Congress and the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Nebraska as well. So that is what we need to do, and that is what we are going to continue to do as we move forward.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the chairwoman of the committee for her hard work and the entire committee on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the bill for many of the reasons that the ranking member has cited. I believe the bill shortsightedly tries to move a good organization, the U.S. Small Business Administration, further from its original mission of helping create, strengthen and maintain small businesses across our country.

The SBA was created by the Small Business Act of 1953. Its mission was to stand up for small businesses, and its main focus, other than loan guarantees, was promoting small businesses for Federal contracts. Since then, the SBA has grown to become the largest backer of small businesses in America. It has made progress toward its goal of improving small business and the engine of our free market economy.

Of late, though, the SBA has done more in fueling small business to coordinating disaster relief for businesses and homeowners. This is certainly a worthy goal, but again, one that strays from its fundamental mission. As the ranking member pointed out, this bill would require the SBA to provide loans it once denied as bad risks. It would also allow recipients to receive disaster relief.

Small businesses are successful in part because they are uniquely focused on their mission, and because they watch every single penny. This RECOVER Act will further blur the focus of SBA's mission while making it impossible for them, or us, to protect the integrity of tax dollars.

Finally, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendments that the ranking member plans to offer. Those will, I think, improve the legislation and make it worthy of everyone's support in a broad, bipartisan manner.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today the Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which was passed in the House, in the Senate, signed by the President and became Public Law No. 108-105 in November of 2003.

As others have stated this evening, this is a victory for the health of women across this country. It is a victory for unborn children. It is a victory for life, and, as I have said, people have indicated it is a victory for America.

I just want to take a minute to thank all the pro-life volunteers across this country who are really the reason we have this celebration that we have today. Those of us in public life, those of us charged with forming public policy, we get approached just about every day by lobbyists and interest groups. And they want to talk to us. They want to influence legislation. They want to be a part of this process where the laws and the taxpayer dollars are spent. And they want to do all those things because they have a financial interest at stake. But the people who articulate that life is sacred, the people who advocate for protecting the sanctity of human life, they have nothing to gain financially by talking to us. They have nothing to gain financially by being involved in this movement. They simply do it because it is the right thing to do. They understand life is precious; life is sacred. They understand. That is why they work in our crisis pregnancy centers. That is why they help unwed mothers, because they understand how precious life is. And they understand, and others have talked about this. They understand what the Founders understood, that life is precious. And, as they said in the Declaration of Independence, that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I think it is interesting to note the order that the Founders placed the rights they chose to mention, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Can you pursue happiness, can you go after your goals and dreams if you first don't have freedom and liberty? And do you ever have true freedom and true liberty if government doesn't protect your most fundamental right, your right to live?

And that is what we celebrate today. Again, it is a testimony to the hard work of millions of pro-life people across this country. So I want to commend you and again say what a great day for America.

Mr. Chairman, my opposition to this proposal is clear and fundamental. It raises taxes. It is not fiscally responsible. It does not protect Social Security, and it does not protect the interests of families, who as the cornerstone of our society, deserve to be the very first consideration in each of our legislative decisions.

I am pleased to support Mr. Ryan, ranking member of the Budget Committee, and my colleagues on the Republican Study Committee on the conservative alternative to the budget blueprint before us today. I was pleased to offer a tax cut amendment to this legislation that would have extended the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 at least until 2012. Unfortunately, the amendment was not accepted, but I rise today to say that my opposition to H. Con. Res. 99 does not end with runaway taxes and spending.

True, the proposal has excessive spending that mortgages our children's future on government programs.

True, the proposal raises taxes on families and businesses, reinstates the ``marriage penalty'', reincarnates the death tax, and cuts the child tax credit in half.

True, these tax increases, the biggest in American history, will cost the average Ohio family thousands of dollars in higher taxes.

But what is most troubling is that the entire budget is based on a premise that is antithetical to what makes America great.

This budget postulates that economic security . . . a ``Great Society'' if you will . . . is just another government program away.

It says that the tax cuts currently in place, which have led to private sector growth with 7.6 million new jobs, 42 straight months of uninterrupted economic growth, the Dow Jones Industrial Average above 12,000, record levels of investment, and record low unemployment . . . tax cuts that have helped every American family regardless of income, are better left to expire.

It says that the $392.5 billion of additional tax dollars Democrats expect spend over the next 5 years are better spent on government programs than in the pockets of American families. It says that what we need is more government, not more jobs, not more economic growth, not more money working its way through our private sector economy.

Just 3 months into this new majority, the tax man has come twice, and he is coming again.

Mr. Chairman, April 15, the day American taxpayers love to hate, is still 18 days away. But today, March 29th, is the day the American taxpayer will come to fear.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on record tax hikes.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I thank him for his work with the Republican Study Committee. His leadership there is just so valuable.

Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of points about this tax increase that has been talked about this last hour, this largest tax increase in the history of the United States of America, why it is such bad policy for our country. And I want to just focus, as I said, on two points.

First of all, I think it's important to recognize how the competition is stiffer today. And what I mean by that is this changing dynamic that we see in the world market. There was a point maybe in the past where elected officials, where politicians could afford to make poor decisions, poor policy decisions and because America's economy was so far ahead of the rest of the world, we could succeed in spite of the bad policies that were enacted. But the facts today are such that it is important we get it right and we not put additional burdens on families, on taxpayers, and on our economy if we are going to compete in this world market.

Just a couple of facts. Think about this: China has 1.4 billion people. The country of India has 800 million people. The United States of America, we just hit a population of 300 million last summer. So, again, two countries, over two million people that we are competing against. China's economy is growing at about 10 percent. India's is growing at about 7\1/2\ percent. If we are going to compete against those emerging countries who are moving towards middle class, if we are going to compete, we have got to have the right kind of policies in place. Tax increases are not the right kind of policies on our families, on our business owners, on our American economy. It is important we recognize that.

I have related this story to the Chair of the Republican Study Committee before, but I think it captures just how important it is to understand the dynamic that we find ourselves in in this point in history.

We have a constituent who has been very successful in manufacturing. And he wanted to, a few years ago, sit down with our United States Senator and talk about this dynamic that is taking place in the world market. And so we helped put together a meeting, and he sat down with our United States Senator around the conference table. He took one of the pieces, the piece that they make in their manufacturing plants and he had taped to that piece, he had two pennies taped to it. And he slid that piece across the table to our U.S. Senator and he said, Senator, those two pennies taped to that piece, those represent, those two pennies represent our labor costs in that piece. He said, competing with China. He said China and India aren't beating us on labor costs. What makes it tougher, he said, we are so efficient. Our systems, our processes are so good we feel like we can compete with anybody in the world. What makes it tough for us to compete is the stuff you politicians do, and he pointed right to our Senator. He said it is the tax increases, it is the regulation, it is the litigation, it is those sorts of things in our economy, in our policy that make it tough for us to compete.

We have got to recognize that when we are competing in this world market today, it is important we get it right, because, again the competition is so stiff.

And then of course the other reason that has been talked about very eloquently, I think, this evening, why it is bad policy to raise taxes. It is not just because it is bad for the economy. It is not just because we have all this focus when we are dealing with the budget where we talk about budgets and numbers and revenues and projections. It is bad because it is about people. It is about families. And when you think about what really makes our country strong, what has allowed the United States of America to be the most prosperous Nation in history, it is the fact that we have that key institution that has been so strong, that family institution. And really, I believe what makes America so great, it is this idea, and the chairman was just alluding to this, it is this idea that moms and dads are willing to sacrifice so that their kids can have life a little better than they did. And then that next generation, as they grow up, they do the same thing for their kids and their grandkids, and it continues. And it has been that cycle that has allowed America to prosper.

If we are going to take an additional $2,500 per family away from them, away from their checkbook, away from their pocketbook, away from their goals, their dreams, the things they want to spend it on, we are making it tougher for that American Dream to continue. We are making it tougher on the families, that key institution in our culture. And that is why this budget, this $392 billion tax increase is wrong for our country when we think about competing in the world market, and it is wrong for families who make this country so great in the first place.

And with that I would yield back to the chairman of the RSC and thank him for his work here this evening and for his continued work for families across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 1591, a measure that would set dangerous and unprecedented timelines for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Madam Speaker, the United States of America is the greatest Nation in human history. And that is due to a number of reasons, number of facts, number of truths that make that so. But certainly, one of those is the document we call the United States Constitution. And on giving the District of Columbia a voting Member in Congress, the United States Constitution could not be more clear. And let me just read what other Members have read: ``Article I, section 2, the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of 25 years and have been 7 years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Further, when vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.''

State, State, State. Three different times the word State is used. The District of Columbia is not a State. I can't help that inconvenient fact, as someone has said earlier. But those are the facts. You don't have to be a lawyer. You don't have to be a judge. You don't have to sit on the Supreme Court to understand what the Constitution says.

This bill is unconstitutional, and that is why I oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate Dr. Gingrey's work on this legislation and other legislation. I think he is right on target with this Parental Right to Decide Protection Act.

Like the doctor, I, too, understand the importance of vaccines, but I also understand, as the Representative was talking about, the importance of parents having control and the ability to direct their children in the upbringing of their children.

My concern about this, what we are seeing being done in the States around the country is just what Mr. Gingrey talked about, this mandatory approach to this vaccine. In fact, we have legislation that has been introduced in my home State, Ohio, which would, if, in fact, it would pass, would require parents to opt out of the program; not take an affirmative step and opt in, but instead opt out, and instead puts the onus on parents to go in the other direction.

One of the things I believe in so strongly is that we policymakers should make decisions based on what is best for families. We should filter things through a fundamental question: Does it help families? If the answer to that question is yes, we should be for it.

My concern with what we have been talking about here this evening in this mandatory approach is that it undermines the importance of families, undermines the role that parents have to play in the upbringing of their children.

America is a great country. It is the greatest Nation in history for many reasons: the rights we have; the fact that we have the right to vote; the freedom of speech; the freedom of assembly; the freedom to go after our goals, our dreams; the rule of law; all those wonderful things in the Bill of Rights and our Constitution and our heritage and our history that make America special.

But one thing that makes this country special is this idea that parents are willing to sacrifice and do things so that their children can have life a little better than they did. Those youngsters in turn will do the same thing for their kids. It has been that concept and that approach and that phenomenon that has truly made America prosper and grow over the years.

Again, my concern is that this moves in the opposite direction and begins to undermine that.

You think about all the things that parents are willing to do to help their kids and make decisions in their best interests, and they should have that same prerogative here.

I was reminded of legislation that we dealt with, Doctor, in my time in the Ohio General Assembly. We dealt with a bill that actually required, a good bill, I voted for it, before a minor, and, again, we are talking, as I think you indicated in your opening remarks, we are talking about 6th graders here, young ladies. We dealt with the legislation in my time in the Ohio General Assembly which required parental consent before a minor could get a tattoo or any type of body piercing.

Yet here we have something this important, this serious, and it would require parents opting out, not opting in on the front end. I think it's important to keep those concepts in mind as we move forward.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments there. You know, it's almost as if there is this underlying belief in the way many of these proposals are structured, that the State knows better than mom and dad. We all know that is not the case. Even though some parents sometimes may make poor decisions on behalf of their kids, on behalf of their children, in the vast majority of cases, parents make infinitely better decisions than the State, than the politicians, than the bureaucrats can ever dream of making.

Then this whole approach seems to undermine that concept which has, again, been fundamental, I believe, to the greatness of our country.

I just want to pick up on where Congressman Garrett had kind of emphasized what he had talked about. It is almost as if some people are saying parents aren't smart enough. Parents are smart enough to figure out where their kids need to go to school. They are smart enough to help and save and invest and help their kids get a college education.

They are smart enough to forgo opportunities for themselves and make sacrifices so their kids can have a little better life than they did and further that American Dream and further the prosperity of this country. Yet somehow they are not smart enough in this area.

I think it is important we never undermine that basic fact that parents know best. We had sent a letter to the Governor of our State. We have had legislation introduced in Ohio. I said in that letter, I said, in addition to this bill, this concept is being introduced in Ohio making inappropriate suppositions about the promiscuity of 6th grade girls. I share the view of many that this will lead to further erosion of the rights of parents to instruct the upbringing of their children.

Again, that is why the sponsor of this bill has so appropriately named it, protecting parental rights. That is so important.

Again, I just wanted to, before I have to leave, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from New Jersey for his remarks this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate the chance to say a few words. I was over making phone calls in my office and clicked on C-SPAN and saw what you guys were talking about and thought I would come over and maybe just share a few things.

For those who are advocating that we just up and leave, that our military come home, that concept scares me to death because of the message. And I know you have talked about this some here on the floor this evening. The message that sends to the people who want to do us harm and want to do people harm all over the planet is a dangerous message and it scares me to death.

And I am reminded of, if folks will remember, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, that terrible day, where the President gave several speeches, where he talked about the fact that if you are a country that harbors terrorists, finances terrorists, trains terrorists, and are looking to produce weapons that are going to cause great harm to a great number of people, if you are doing those things, we, the United States of America, are putting you on notice that we are not going to tolerate that. And it was amazing that shortly after those speeches that Moamar Kadafi, a guy who hadn't necessarily been a great leader around the world and not necessarily a good guy, how quickly after those speeches Mr. Kadafi suddenly found the Lord and saw the light and said, wait a minute, I want to cooperate with the United States of America now in their fight against terrorism around the world. He saw the message. He got the message. Now, if we do what some are advocating in the Out of Iraq Caucus, some are advocating that we just up and leave and not win in Iraq, not succeed in our mission, for those who are advocating that, think about the message that sends to the Kadafis of the world and how dangerous that message is for the credibility of the greatest Nation in history, the United States of America.

That is what scares me to death about those on the other side and what they are pushing not only in this supplemental but what they have been talking about for several months now. That is a scary, scary message when it comes to our foreign policy and the success of our mission and the safety of our men and women in uniform who have been fighting the good fight, defending those principles and values that make this country great. That scares me to death.

And that is a simple point I want to make, but I think it never hurts to reinforce that point, which is so fundamental and why we are still engaged in

this struggle and why I think it is so important that we win and we continue to do what the Commander in Chief and General Petraeus want us to do over there in Iraq today.

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. And the gentleman is exactly right. Of course we wish things had progressed quicker and faster. We wish all our men and women were home. But there is good news to talk about. And one fact that I think gets lost sometimes, every single life that is lost is a tragedy. We wish it didn't happen, whether it is our service men and women in uniform or whether it is an Iraqi civilian in that country, but the truth is there have been fewer American service men and women killed in 2006 than there were in 2005. There were fewer American service men and women killed in 2005 than there were in 2004. Of course, you would never know that fact if you just listened to the national news every night.

There are good things happening, as the gentleman pointed out. The other thing I would just say is this: to get the kind of country that we need there and the kind of things happening that we need to happen, it is going to take a little time. I am reminded that in 1776 we declared independence. We made our quest for liberty and freedom here in the United States. It took us 13 years to get a Constitution that works and is still serving us well today. And we came from a culture that appreciated liberty and appreciated freedom.

It is going to take some time for this nation, which has never really known freedom or liberty, to get to that point where they can value those principles that make our country so great. So good things are happening, and we should talk about those more in our quest to make this country work.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in solemn remembrance of seven Ohioans whose lives were cut short by a tragic bus accident on the morning of Friday, March 2, 2007, in Atlanta, Georgia. Though words cannot express the depth of their loss, we honor their memory and offer our condolences to their families, friends, teammates, and classmates of these seven individuals:

David Betts of Bryan, Ohio

Scott Harmon of Elida, Ohio

Cody Holp of Arcanum, Ohio

Jerry and Jean Niemeyer of Columbus Grove, Ohio

Tyler Williams of Lima, Ohio, and

Zack Arend of Oakwood, Ohio.

In the midst of this tragedy, I was heartened to see the selfless way these families and communities pulled together to support each other in a time of need. It reminds me of what is special about America.

I was also humbled by the outpouring of kindness from concerned families in Georgia and around the country. Just minutes after the accident, complete strangers were opening their homes to our families and offering their condolences and prayers.

While we grieve their passing, we know that they will live forever in the hearts of their loved ones and will eternally be remembered by the Bluffton University family and the people of Bluffton, Allen County and west central Ohio.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman mentioned his recent trip out to the Mexican border in the State of Arizona. I had the pleasure of accompanying you on that trip and found that very insightful.

As we begin to move into this debate this session of the Congress, I think it is important that we keep some principles in mind. And, hopefully, these principles, I think, if they are followed, will help us arrive at the right public policy decision. And I think there are just three key ones.

And the first one is and it has been mentioned by the previous speakers this hour, but the first one is we have to focus on security first. As we discovered down at the border with Secretary Chertoff, it is important that we secure the border and we do that first. I think the former Speaker of the House has made the statement, does an antiballistic missile defense system make a lot of sense when a terrorist can rent a truck and drive it across the border? That is an important thing. It is about security.

When we were down there on our visit, a few things stuck out in my mind, and the American people understand this. The first is how real this problem is. As the gentleman from Iowa knows, we were in a helicopter flying out along the border, and the pilot came over the intercom and said, Look out the window right there and you will see some aliens attempting to cross right now. And we literally saw approximately 20, 25 people coming across. We were flying right along the Mexican/United States border, and we saw 25 people trying to cross the border illegally, and they attempted to hide under a tree. There wasn't much cover out in the desert, as the gentleman remembers, but there they were. And they had the clothes on their backs and jugs of water in their hands and they took off running back to the border. But it just reinforced in my mind what the American people need understand about how real this problem is.

The second thing that I think I came away with from that visit is the fence is working. As the gentleman from Virginia pointed out, where they are constructing it right now is having an impact. And obviously the strategy of our Secretary of our government is to put the fence up first in those areas where it is going to have the best and greatest impact, and that is in the urban areas. And it is working, and it is a double fence, as the gentleman talked about. And it is making a difference.

The other thing that is making a difference out there is our National Guard, our good men and women in the National Guard who are helping build that same fence where I know you welded and we all had a chance to do a little welding there. They are providing more eyes to see the illegals as they attempt to cross, and they are helping with that fence. But security has to be priority number one, as we think about the policy that makes sense for our country.

The second principle that has to guide this debate, and, again, it has

been highlighted already, is the idea that our country is great because we have a lot of great principles that were there at the founding and are still present today. One of those fundamental principles that makes America the greatest Nation ever is the concept that the rule of law matters. And when people willingly, knowingly violate the rule of law, there have to be serious consequences. And that is why amnesty as a policy makes no sense for people who willingly and knowingly violated the law.

And, finally, the third thing I would point out, and I think sometimes as we focus on making sure we are securing our borders and following the rule of law, one of the things that seems to get left out in the debate is we should welcome people, we should welcome immigrants who want to come here legally. I mean, immigrants have always been a great treasure to this country, have always added to the greatness of this country. And for those folks who want to come here and learn our culture, learn our language, learn English, we should welcome them.

And who can fault people who want to come to the freest, greatest Nation in history? So if they want to do it the right way, the legal way, we should work on a policy that also helps the bureaucracy work better to help those people who want to be a part of the American culture and want to be a part of this great country.

Madam Speaker, this is the greatest Nation in history. And for people who want to come here for the right reasons, we should welcome them here. If these three principles drive our policy, I think we are going to get at the right policy and I hope we do, but it has to be driven by these three principles, and security has to be of paramount importance.

And I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa's leadership on this issue and others here in the United States Congress.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill because it will hurt our economy and deny working Americans the right to vote--free from intimidation--by secret ballot.

I'm sure that each of my colleagues can boast of successful union and non-union employers in their districts. I had the opportunity to tour a number of these businesses in Ohio's Fourth District over the recess.

These companies and the workers they employ represent the best America has to offer. They are the reason our economy is the envy of the world.

Today, our economy is growing faster than in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. We've improved our competitiveness with good public policy like tax cuts. But we still draw our strength from good old fashioned hard work and values. This bill is antithetical to every principle that makes America great.

Removing the secret ballot protection for workers invites the type of coercion described by one of our constituents, Clarice Atherholt of Upper Sandusky, Ohio, in testimony before the Senate. She told of unsolicited home visits by union organizers and other high-pressure tactics, saying that ``[m]any employees signed the [union authorization] cards just to get the UAW organizers off their backs, not because they really wanted the UAW to represent them.''

So much for ``employee free choice.''

Madam Chairman, America faces a number of critical challenges. We must continually focus on improving our economy and remaining competitive in the world marketplace.

We're making progress, but this bill represents a step backward. It has drawn opposition from every pro-growth, pro-business voice imaginable, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it as well.