Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his amazing service to our country.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. There have been many good arguments made as to why this resolution is not in the best interest of our military, not in the best interest of our country. But I want to focus on one point, and that is just how real and how serious the threat of terrorism is, because that is what this struggle in Iraq is really about. And I am just going to read the list of terrorist attacks against Americans, and we have heard this list before, but I think it is important to refocus on this:

In 1979, 66 American hostages were taken in Iran. In 1983, 241 Marines were killed in Beirut. In 1988, 189 Americans were killed in the PanAm bombing. In 1993 in the first World Trade Center bombing, we lost six Americans. In 1996, 19 servicemembers were killed in the Khobar Towers bombing. In 2000, 17 American sailors lost their lives in the USS Cole. And, of course, in 2001, that date we all remember, 9/11, 2,973 Americans lost their lives in the World Trade Center bombing, in the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania.

When you think about the actions of these terrorists and how real and dangerous they are, I am reminded of last summer when the Pope made a statement in a speech about the radical element, small but radical element, within the Islamic faith and the violence associated with that element. And the reaction to the Pope's statement about violence among this radical, but small, element, the reaction to his statement about violence was violence. It was the destruction of churches, the destruction of buildings. It was the taking of a life of an innocent nun in Italy. That is what we are up against.

This Democratic resolution puts us on a path towards leaving Iraq before victory is attained. It puts us on a path that will cut funds to our brave men and women already in battle. It puts us on a path that is wrong for America. And, most importantly, I think, it puts us on the wrong path that will most assuredly embolden the very people who are responsible for the terrorist acts I just listed.

If you remember, shortly after 9/11 the President gave a series of speeches where he outlined a policy. He said if you are a country that harbors terrorists, if you are a country that provides financing to terrorists, if you are a country that trains terrorists, if you are a country that is producing weapons that are going to harm vast numbers of people, if you are doing those things, we are going to put you on notice that we are not going to tolerate it.

And if you remember, it was amazing how quickly Moammar Kadafi in Libya found the Lord and saw the light and how quickly he was willing to say, I am going to work now with the United States. He understood that when America says something, we mean it. If we just do what this Democratic resolutions puts us on the path to do, I am afraid of the message it sends to the Kadafis around the world and what that can mean for the future safety of Americans and for our military.

This is a great country. We have been able to overcome whatever challenges have presented themselves to us throughout our history. And it is important that we have the same resolve as we approach this challenge.

I am just a freshman Member of the Congress; and just a few weeks ago it was put on display about what is so great about America, as we said, in this Chamber during the State of the Union address. And during that speech, the President pointed up to the gallery, and he highlighted some great Americans, some American heroes. And the one that stuck out in my mind, and many of you may remember this, was Wesley Autrey, the subway man. And I thought it was so amazing to see what this man had done and how that contrasts with the actions of the terrorists. Wesley Autrey in the subway, willing to jump in front of a train on the track to save a complete stranger simply because he was a fellow human being. Contrast that action with the action of the terrorist who will jump into that same subway, blow himself up to kill as many innocent people as he can.

What is great about this country is the respect we place on human life, the preciousness and sacredness that Americans have for human life. That is the difference between us and the terrorists. That is why it is so important to confront these folks wherever they choose to fight us. Right now that place is Iraq. That is why this resolution is bad.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should not pass a resolution in which politicians second guess our military leaders in the field. We should not pass a resolution that will embolden our enemy. And, most importantly, we should not waver in our commitment to protect human life and to confront the evil that is among us.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the resolution

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

I just want to follow up on the gentleman from Georgia's comments. He is exactly right about the defense portion of this budget. It is critical at this time with the terror threat that we face that we do what is right by the defense budget. In 1945, 38 percent of gross domestic product was spent on the defense. Today it is 3.8 percent at a time, as I said earlier, where we have terrorists around the world who want to do our families and our country harm.

Normally when we talk about budgets, and folks have pointed this out, we get focused on the numbers, on the data, on the policy, and I think all too often we forget about the people, the families out there who are impacted by our decision. And I am hopeful over the next few weeks that we really focus on the impact our decisions are going to have on families and taxpayers and business owners.

I am reminded of a story of a constituent of ours a few years ago who wanted to meet with our U.S. Senator. And our constituent is a successful businessman in the manufacturing sector, and we were discussing the whole issue of trade and competing with China and India. And we sat down with our United States Senator, and our constituent took the piece that they make, and he had taped to that piece two pennies, and he took that manufactured piece of steel and he slid it across the table to our Senator, and he said, Senator, those two pennies, those 2 cents, represent our labor costs in that piece. He said, we can compete with anybody on labor. We are so efficient, our processes, our systems. What we do in our business, we are so good at it, we can compete with anybody. He says, what makes it tough for us to compete is the things you guys do, and he pointed right to our Senator.

It is the things the politicians do. It is the high taxes. It is the high regulation. It is the ridiculous spending we have heard others talk about here over the last hour. Those are the things that make it tough on the families and taxpayers of this great country to compete; to start their business; to go after their goals, their dreams; to pursue those things that have meaning and significance to them as a family.

And I am hopeful, as we proceed on this debate over the next weeks, several months, that we will remember the business owners and the families out there who are making it and doing the things that make this country the greatest Nation in the world.

I appreciate the time we have had here. I appreciate the gentleman from California and this opportunity to share with the American people.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to congratulate a crown jewel of Northwestern Ohio on the occasion of its 125th anniversary.

The University of Findlay was founded as Findlay College in 1882 by the Churches of God, General Conference. Back then, the City of Findlay's total population was less than 5,000; today, total enrollment at the University is approaching that milestone. The 1989 renaming of the College better reflects the size of the student population and the wide variety of academic programs offered: degrees are now awarded in more than 60 undergraduate areas.

Throughout its history, the University has earned accolades for its hands' on learning environment and its excellent faculty' student ratios. Named a 2007 Best Midwestern College by the Princeton Review, Findlay excels in distance learning programs through cutting-edge technologies; all of the required coursework to earn a Master of Business Administration degree may be taken online.

I am especially proud of the University's innovative work on terrorism response initiatives. Following the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, Ken Zirkle, who was then serving as President of the University, came to Congress to discuss how communities could better prepare to respond to terrorist attacks. Since then, Congress has helped the University form the Center for Terrorism Preparedness, a nationally recognized program that is helping first responders deal with emerging threats to our homeland.

Madam Speaker, ceremonies marking the 125th anniversary of the University's founding will take place on campus later this week. On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District of Ohio, I congratulate the administration, faculty, staff, and students of the University of Findlay on this historic occasion. The people of Hancock County and throughout Ohio can take great pride in the work done at the University to prepare students to meet the challenges of the future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a brave young soldier, and one of America's fallen heroes, Sergeant Jonathan Kingman of Ohio.

Sergeant Kingman was a native of Mansfield, Ohio, and graduated from Mapleton High School, where he sang in the school choir, played basketball, and was a member of the track team.

Jonathan Kingman died on January 20, 2007, in Iraq, while serving his second tour of duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Age 21, he is survived by loving family, including his wife, children and parents.

In reading of Jonathan's life and speaking with his family members, Madam Speaker, I was touched by the dramatic impact this young man had on the lives of so many.

Like others before him, from farms, fields, and small towns across our land, Jonathan Kingman stood up and volunteered to serve his country.

He fought to promote freedom. He gave his life in defense of his family, his community, his state, and his nation.

For this, each and every American owes him and his family a great debt of gratitude.

Jonathan will be missed. But the strength of his character, and the courage he demonstrated through his service, will live on.

Madam Speaker, I take great pride in recognizing the staff of Wapakoneta Manor, a skilled nursing facility in my congressional district. Wapakoneta Manor was one of only 11 facilities among the nearly 1,000 nursing homes in Ohio to be designated ``deficiency-free'' by the Ohio Department of Health in 2006.

Wapakoneta Manor has been serving the senior citizens of the Wapakoneta area for nearly four decades. This 97-bed facility excels in a wide variety of assistance and rehabilitation areas, including physical, occupational, and speech therapy.

When you consider that nursing homes may be cited for any number of minor violations during health and safety inspections, Wapakoneta Manor's deficiency-free rating is even more impressive. Such outstanding performance is the norm for the facility's staff, which has received citation-free evaluations in four of the last five survey periods.

A record like that, Madam Speaker, is not compiled through happenstance. It requires staff members who know the value of teamwork, who care about residents and their families, and who give their all to maintain a top-quality facility to best serve the senior population of the Wapakoneta region.

On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District of Ohio, I congratulate the skilled professional staff of Wapakoneta Manor on this exceptional achievement. The people of Wapakoneta and Auglaize County can take great pride in this remarkable record of service.

Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during today's rollcall vote on considering House Resolution 78.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the Founders had it right. We are created with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuits of happiness. It is interesting the order the Founders placed the rights they chose to mention. Can you pursue happiness if you first don't have liberty? Can you ever go after your goals and dreams if you first don't have freedom? And do you ever have true freedom if government doesn't protect your most fundamental right, your right to live?

H.R. 3 devalues human life. It ends human life, and it does so with taxpayer dollars. This is the wrong kind of message to send. It is the wrong thing to do.

On this issue, the science is also clear. The morals are clear, and the ethics are clear. We do not have to end life to protect it. Today, as has been pointed out earlier, American doctors are performing all kinds of positive research without taking human life. Embryonic stem cell research is not producing results, even after 25 years and millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Like other pro-life Members of this body, I support ethical research that protects life, but embryonic stem cell research does not.

Mr. Speaker, the ethical decision is the smart decision. That is why I oppose this bill, and hope others do as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Founders of our great Nation got it right. We are created with certain inalienable rights, and among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is in defense of the first of these rights--the right to life--that I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. Like its cousin, H.R. 810, which failed to pass the legislative process during the last Congress, H.R. 3 would provide new Federal auspices and funding to destroy embryos for use in embryonic stem cell research.

Like the other pro-life members of this House, Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically support the many forms of ethical stem cell research taking place in our country today--research that has already yielded invaluable treatments for over 70 health conditions. Among these are successful treatments for Brain Cancer, Breast Cancer, various forms of Lymphoma and Leukemia, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, spinal cord injury, Sickle Cell Anemia and Krabbe Disease.

Research has demonstrated that various forms of adult stem cell materials, umbilical cord blood and, as described in a Washington Times article from January 8th, amniotic fluid are an excellent source of pluripotent stem cells. Such ethical sources have yielded all of these effective treatments and offer hope for Americans suffering the ravages of disease. In many cases, these materials are taken from the patients themselves and so offer a better therapeutic match than materials taken from the embryos of other humans. Furthermore, expansion of the resources designed to gather and store these materials will increase the number and frequency of successful treatments.

Despite these significant facts, many in this House are pressing for Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which necessitates destroying human embryos and, thus, human lives. The pre-born are precious human beings from the moment of conception. They deserve our protection and love and no benefit--perceived or otherwise--should persuade us to allow their destruction. All of this added to the fact that embryonic stem cell research has never yielded a successful treatment for any disease, in spite of millions in annual funding (the NIH spent $38 million on human embryonic stem cell research in 2005) and 25 years of animal and human research. In recent years, embryonic stem cell research has also been marred by fraud through the falsified cloning reports of Dr. Hwang Woo Suk.

Some people have argued that pre-existing human embryos now in storage must be used for research because they

are destined for destruction anyway. This is not borne out by the fact that the vast majority of human embryos were created for family- building and that families can adopt and have adopted these embryos and had children.

Mr. Speaker, we must not make a morally repugnant choice in the interest of expedience and we must not play God with human lives. We must defend the lives of the pre-born while facilitating ethical forms of stem cell research that have produced concrete results and hold great promise for the future. This is most consistent with a compassionate regard for all life--young and old.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a word of caution about the proposed PAYGO rules which will hurt this body's ability to keep our economy moving forward. By putting more money into the hands of families and taxpayers, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have helped stimulate our economy, create jobs and cut our Federal deficit in half. The proposed PAYGO rules wrongly identify these types of tax cuts as ``deficit spending'' and will all but eliminate our ability to provide additional tax relief to the families and taxpayers we represent.

It will also set the framework for repealing the tax cuts that have already been enacted. This amounts to a two-pronged threat to the pocketbooks of the families and taxpayers across Ohio and across America.

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I wholeheartedly support the earmark reform contained in this rule, and I strongly support the spending restraint at the heart of the PAYGO concept, but I believe these rules will, in effect, take money out of the hands of families and taxpayers, hurting our ability to grow our economy and cut our deficit in a fiscally responsible way.