Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th Anniversary of the Topeka High School building. Topeka High is the largest high school in the Kansas capital, with more than 2,000 students in the student body. It is also a focal point of pride for the entire community.

Most recognized by its 165-foot bell tower, the school owes its gothic architecture to Chester Woodward, a local financier and bibliophile, who led the Board of Education during the school's construction. At least three British landmarks inspired the Troy campus, including Henry VIII's Great Hall at Hampton Court Palace and the College Tower of Magdalen College, Oxford.

But the school's gothic architecture is not its only notable feature. Topeka High also has a unique relationship with the Navy's oldest warship, the U.S.S. Constitution, ``Old Ironsides.'' Its cross jack spar is the school's main flagpole on THS Constitution Plaza. In June 2005, the building was placed on the National Register of Historic Places.

More important than the physical structure though, are the men and women who have taught and studied at Topeka High School since its doors opened in 1871. Over 40,000 students have proudly worn the colors of black and gold since then. Its alumni include a Vice President of the United States, a U.S. Senator, a university president, a Fortune 500 CEO, a World War II fighter pilot, and four Rhodes Scholars among many other distinguished alumni.

Like any venerable institution, Topeka High School's faculty and student body has earned numerous awards. Topeka High has boasted numerous State and National champions in debate, forensics, Junior ROTC drill, music, foreign language, math, and athletic competitions. As an institution, THS has previously been recognized with the Bellamy Flag Award as best school in the State, and the U.S. Department of Education recognized Topeka High in 1989 as a School of Excellence.

So on the occasion of this 75th Anniversary, it is with great respect and admiration that I recognize the students, teachers, and administrators of Topeka High School. The school continues to be a cornerstone of the Topeka community. It is my hope that we can honor the legacy of those who have created this great school by committing to the education of the next generation of leaders for Topeka, Kansas, and the Nation.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege today to rise in support of S. 203, the National Heritage Areas Act. I specifically rise in support of the language in the bill establishing the Freedom's Frontier Heritage Area in eastern Kansas and western Missouri. It is my honor to be the lead author on this language and am grateful to the rest of the Kansas delegation and to Mr. Skelton for all their involvement in this bipartisan bill.

Today's consideration marks a major milestone after years of hard work at the grass-roots level. Countless individuals in my district and surrounding areas have worked tirelessly to bring this to this point, and I am grateful to each of them.

Freedom's Frontier Heritage Area will be pivotal in telling the stories of one of the most crucial periods in this Nation's history. During the lead-up to the Civil War, Kansas and Missouri played crucial and sometimes tragic roles in our struggle for unity and freedom. These are stories worth telling and worth preserving for our children and our grandchildren. Designation of this area is an extremely important act and will benefit many generations to come.

While the approval of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and gave new territories the right to vote themselves into the Union as either free States or slave States, this was only the beginning of the struggle. The real cost of this fight would be paid by those who occupied those regions bordering the traditional line separating free States from slave States.

Today, we stand as a united country and are much closer to the ideals set forth in our Constitution that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The liberty of all Americans is due in large part to the courageous occupants of yesterday's Freedom Frontier.

I am pleased to support this bill today, and I ask my colleagues to join me in ensuring that these stories will be told for generations to come. Support the Freedom's Frontier Heritage Act and National Heritage Areas Act.

MR. WALDEN of Oregon. Thank you for your comments and work on this important legislation. I think it is incredibly important to help people understand these issues and our past.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, House Joint Resolution 88, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

It is on behalf of the many families of the Second District of Kansas that I urge my colleagues to give our State legislators the opportunity to ratify the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Mr. Speaker, we have reached a point in history where some have forgotten that it is the family, not the government, that is the fundamental building block of our society. This constitutional amendment would be entirely unnecessary were it not for the activist judges who are recklessly imposing their creative definitions of marriage upon citizens within their jurisdiction.

They have assailed the very anchor of family, the marriage between one man and one woman. It seems obvious to me and to 70 percent of Kansans who voted for a State constitutional amendment, that when we have strong families rooted in a marriage between one man and one woman, we give the next generation the best chance for the American Dream. When we have strong families, we have strong schools, stronger communities, and a stronger Nation.

Some would say that my beliefs are simplistic and old-fashioned. But the facts are in, and the facts say there are real consequences when society does not protect marriage and the family. But don't take my word for it. Just ask former President Clinton's own domestic policy adviser, Bill Galston, who wrote, from the standpoint of economic well- being and sound psychological development, the evidence indicates that the intact two-parent family is generally preferable to the available alternatives. It follows that a prime purpose of a sound family policy is to strengthen such families by promoting their formation and retarding their breakdown whenever possible.

Dr. Galston's research indicates what many of us, what we already know through studies, that kids are better off in an intact family that begins with a marriage between one man and one woman. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Patriot Guard resolution put forth by one of my fellow colleagues from Kansas. I rise in support of H. Res. 731.

This group of American Legion riders from Kansas provides an honorable service by protecting military families from protesters at funerals. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, 200 Patriot Guard Riders were at a funeral in my district, and they effectively protected the family from unwelcome protesters. I heard that even one of the riders came from as far away as Memphis just to be there and do what he could to help the family.

It is a remarkable show of gratitude and service that the Patriot Guard Riders have taken to honor the courageous and sacrificial actions of helping our service families and their servicemembers and their families pay tribute to those that have fallen.

I am disappointed that these people who are protesting at military funerals dare, but I am grateful to the Patriot Guard Riders, and the fact that they even need to be there is unfortunate. Regardless of anyone's particular political view on the global war on terrorism or any other issue, we should give the utmost respect and honor to those who have died serving our country.

The Patriot Guard Riders recognize that, and I commend them for what they are doing, and I encourage them and urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 731.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise today in strong support of our servicemembers who have worked hard during the global war on terrorism. They are keeping us safe by defeating a very destructive enemy.

I am disappointed, however, that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have lost sight of what our servicemembers are doing and have turned the global war on terror into a cheap political issue. They have forgotten that instead of defeating terrorists on their home turf we could be allowing our citizens to be attacked here at home. I prefer to keep the terrorists outside our borders.

Right now al Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq are busy attacking our servicemembers and our allies, and they would like nothing better than to bring these attacks to America. Even the terrorists themselves admit Iraq is the front line of the global war on terror. Why should we not continue this fight and keep it from coming to our own backyard?

Fortunately, we are fighting this battle in Iraq and our servicemembers are making real progress in the global war on terror. Not only are we capturing, destroying, and eliminating al Qaeda's most brutal leaders, but we are training law abiding Iraqi citizens to defend their own freedom. In fact, over 250,000 Iraqi citizens have stepped forward and responded to the call of duty to defend their country.

I think there are several obvious reasons why so many Iraqi soldiers and citizens are willing to join the Iraqi security forces. First, they know the enemy they are fighting against because they have endured hardship under this enemy for most of their lives. For years they and their families have been brutalized by ruthless dictators. Many of them have been separated from their families and had not seen them for many years.

Second, they have seen the pain that al Qaeda has inflicted on America and other democracies around the world. They know that what al Qaeda did on 9/11 is just a hint of what could happen. Because of this, Iraqi security forces are seizing this opportunity to root out evil.

Third, they can taste freedom and they want to hold on to it. After being liberated from tyranny and introduced to democracy they cherish the freedom and are willing to fight for it just as our servicemembers have fought for our freedom.

Fourth, they are inspired by the work servicemembers are doing in Iraq. As a result, they are joining the Iraqi security forces in the fight for freedom. Not only are their servicemembers fighting against terrorism, but they are also working alongside our members and the Iraqi security forces to train them how to effectively defeat the enemy.

I want to encourage all of our colleagues today to support our outstanding men and women in uniform. May God continue to bless them and their families. Our prayers are with them. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 861.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Chaplain Maury Stout to the House floor. Chaplain Stout is presently an action officer at the Army Chief of Chaplains at the Pentagon. Prior to that he served as the brigade chaplain for the First Brigade, First Infantry Division at Fort Riley in my district.

Prior to coming to Fort Riley, Chaplain Stout served as the Task Force Chaplain at Camp Kabal, Kuwait. He has also served at many other posts and was awarded the FORSCOM Excellence in Ministry Award while serving as the Squadron Chaplain at Fort Polk, Louisiana.

Chaplain Stout is impressively educated, holding degrees from Central Bible College, Harvard University, the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, and Georgetown University.

He has been honored with numerous awards, including the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, the Korean Defense Service Medal, to name just a few.

But I am sure he will tell you that his highest honor is with his family, who is up here seated in the gallery today, his wife, Jeressa, and they have four children.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to welcome Chaplain Stout to the House Chamber. I commend him for his outstanding service, and express my appreciation to him for opening our session today.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Allowing self- funded abortions would simply turn our military hospitals overseas into abortion clinics.

Proponents of this amendment often claim that female servicemembers and dependents overseas are denied equal access to health care, effectively putting their life and health in harm's way. This is simply not true. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, abortion clinics are accessible overseas. If a woman prefers to have an abortion in the United States, that is available to her under current law as well.

Furthermore, these installations already offer self-funded abortions when the life of the mother is in danger or when the pregnancy is as a result of rape or incest.

There is no demonstrated need for expanding abortion access. Furthermore, this amendment does not seek to address operational requirements or to ensure access through entitlement. What it does, however, is unnecessarily insert a politically divisive issue into the defense authorization process.

Although this amendment is presented as providing for solely self- funded abortions, the fact is that American taxpayers will be forced to pay for the use of military facilities, the procurement of additional equipment needed to perform abortions, and the use of military personnel to perform abortions. Even if an additional equipment fee is charged to the patient, it cannot possibly account for all the expenses involved.

Military hospitals or military doctors signed up to save the lives of dedicated servicemen and women, not to end the lives of babies. It would be wrong for Congress to pressure or coerce these doctors into performing a procedure they morally object to.

I ask my colleagues to vote against turning military hospitals into abortion clinics and vote against this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time from this side to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5037, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act. This is a much needed piece of legislation to curb the unfortunate actions of a small minority of people.

Although I am glad to have this opportunity to support the servicemembers in my home state of Kansas and around the world, I am disappointed that we even need this bill.

I have a lot of servicemembers in my district who are courageously serving our country in combat. I have talked to many of them and I have seen their desire and passion to serve their country out of a love for freedom, democracy, and for their country.

Unfortunately, some of these servicemembers have lost their lives and their families must now grieve their loss. The families of our fallen servicemembers--our true heroes--should not be subjected to protests, hate-filled phone calls, and other obscenities. No one should experience that, especially not after losing a loved one. That is why I support this bill that will help protect the families of our fallen servicemembers from unwelcome protestors.

Our servicemembers embody the exact opposite of hate by sacrificing their lives so that we can keep ours. I pay tribute to them, and I wholeheartedly support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will help us find ways to identify and stop shipping containers that contain nuclear material.

Section 202 of this bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to evaluate emerging technologies for container security. My amendment simply stipulates that as part of the Secretary's evaluation of emerging technology, he should analyze portable battery powered nuclear detection devices that can be mass produced inexpensively.

We have a clear need to know what is in the containers coming into our country. Many of the available technologies to screen nuclear devices, however, are difficult and are very expensive.

To my knowledge, the Department of Homeland Security has focused on detection devices that are large, expensive, use a large amount of energy, and cannot easily be placed in or on a shipping container. These technologies may work, but it may not be easy for them to be used, and it may not be possible to procure enough of these types of devices to examine shipping containers headed into our ports. That is why we need to review emerging technology, including portable devices.

I know this type of technology exists because Kansas State University in my district is doing some exciting research in this area. In fact, they have developed nuclear detection devices that are the size of a dime which they believe they can produce for about $20 each. These types of devices are easily placed in shipping containers, and can be used to detect nuclear material before it enters any port.

For this reason, it is prudent to ask the Secretary to thoroughly review this type of technology. We all know that rogue nations and terrorist cells may try at some point in the future to send nuclear materials to our shores. In fact, Iran's pursuit of nuclear materials makes the need to secure our shipping containers even more urgent.

This is a simple amendment that only asks the Secretary of Homeland Security to examine portable nuclear detection devices when he evaluates emerging technology. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a great American, my constituent Gordon Parks.

Mr. Parks was born in Fort Scott, Kansas, the youngest of 15 children. Mr. Parks' accomplishments from this simple beginning are far too many to name in the limited time allotted to me, but allow me to list some of his more significant contributions.

Mr. Parks was the first African American to write, produce and direct a motion picture. He was an award-winning photographer for Life magazine and helped found Essence, the first magazine targeted to African American women.

Mr. Parks won an Emmy in 1968 for the documentary, Diary of a Harlem Family. He received the National Medal of Arts from President Reagan in 1988, and was inducted into the International Photography Hall of Fame in 2002.

Mr. Speaker, Gordon Parks passed away on March 6, 2006, leaving behind an expansive legacy. I come to the floor today to honor his life and to thank him for significant breakthroughs that occurred because of his life.

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this budget process that creates greater priority than what we do as a Nation. When it comes to this budget, Congress has no higher priority than providing for our national defense.

This Congress remains unwavering in support for our troops, both here and abroad. After 9/11, we spent quickly to rebuild New York and the Pentagon. We spent deliberately to enforce our Nation's defenses to prosecute the war on terrorism. Over the past 4 years, the budget for the Department of Defense has grown by $22 billion, or roughly 6.3 percent per year. This figure excludes the money we have committed to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is an additional $317 billion if we assume the most recent supplemental.

So when you add DOD's base budget with the additional funding for the war, the defense budget has increased by an amazing 70 percent since 2002. So, clearly, this Congress has had no higher budget priority than providing for the security of this country, and that is the way it should be.

Even prior to 9/11 and the war on terrorism, the need for a military transformation was evident. So, now, DOD and our Nation as a whole must confront the challenges of waging a very unconventional war, even in the midst of massive transformation.

One of the challenges we confront here today is to provide funding for our country's safety. This budget fully accommodates the President's request for the Defense Department, which increases funding to $439.8 billion in discretionary spending, an increase of 7 percent.

We will also see, as we have in the past two budgets, we have included a $50 billion placeholder for the ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is probably not the right figure, and as we go through the year we will probably write another one; but it is a reasonable place to start and help provide for those fighting for our freedom overseas.

Now, as I said a moment ago, there is no higher priority in this budget than providing whatever is needed to protect and defend our Nation. That said, all the taxpayer dollars should be spent wisely with proper planning and oversight. I urge my colleagues to support the budget for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. Speaker, recently the Congressional Budget Office released its economic and budget projections for the coming decade; and they reiterate what we already know, that is, that mandatory spending is growing at an unsustainable rate.

If we do not slow down the growth, we are going to have some very tough choices in the years to come and the days ahead, because the growth, by 2030, is expected to continue at 60 percent. At a time when the economy is strong and growing, we cannot forget the problems of mandatory spending programs, that they loom very large.

In his State of the Union address, President Bush warned that the retirement of baby boomers will present future Congresses with impossible choices. And these are the choices: staggering tax increases, immense deficit, or deep cuts in each category of spending.

Right now the House has a choice. We can either begin to address the growing entitlement by passing the Deficit Reduction Act, or we can continue to ignore the problem and leave those difficult choices for a future date.

By passing the Deficit Reduction Act today, the House is choosing to address that problem. The Deficit Reduction Act will begin the process of reform in mandatory spending and save the American taxpayers $40 billion over the next 5 years. The American people elected us to Congress to spend their dollars wisely. We cannot assert that doing our job as we have been allows those programs to grow without review.

The Medicare program, for example, has run on autopilot for almost 40 years without any review. The Deficit Reduction Act will make important changes to reform Medicaid and other important programs to ensure that we are being responsible stewards of taxpayers' dollars.

It is important that the House, as we begin 2006, that we show fiscal restraint. It is also important in the House that we unite behind the concept that bigger government is not better government. And it is also important in the House that we pass the Deficit Reduction Act.

Mr. Speaker, when I go back to my district, the people in Kansas want to know what we are doing to control the national debt. I tell them the Republicans are working to find savings in a bloated Federal Government. Then they hear from Democrats that we are cutting vital programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if it were up to the other side, entitlement programs would continue to grow at an unsustainable rate. Within 10 years, we would see the entitlement programs taking up 62 percent of the Federal budget.

If we grow the government as our friends on the left would like us to, we will be faced with three choices: one, we would have to possibly raise taxes; or, two, eliminate all Federal programs other than entitlements; or, three, we will face an ever-expanding national debt that will threaten our entire economy.

There are no easy solutions to this problem, Mr. Speaker, but if we do not act to reform these programs now while we have time, the problem will only grow worse as the national debt will only grow larger.

Today, by passing the Deficit Reduction Act, those of us who believe in limited government are taking the first step to reverse a culture of spending. Today, we are standing behind our belief that bigger government is not better government. Today, we are making commonsense reforms that will result in less waste, fraud, and abuse.

The Deficit Reduction Act is a small step to rein in Federal spending, but I think it is an important step. As we all return home for the Christmas season, let us give Americans some good news. Let us tell them Congress acted responsibly to control Federal spending. Let us pass this rule and pass the Deficit Reduction Act.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, today I offer an amendment to establish the oath of renunciation and allegiance as Federal law so that it cannot be changed without an act of Congress.

The oath of renunciation and allegiance is a solemn vow taken by thousands of immigrants each year to become a United States citizen. The oath is the fundamental statement of allegiance to the United States, and this allegiance is what unites America. We are not a Nation based upon race and creed or religion. We are a Nation based upon loyalty and allegiance to our country and her principles. As a gateway to the United States citizenship, the oath should be given the same respect and protection as our other national symbols, such as the American flag, our national anthem, and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Furthermore, given its title 1 authority over naturalization, Congress has the authority and obligation to protect the oath. The oath took its current form in the 1950s, but parts of the oath date back to 1790.

In 2003, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services proposed changes that would have significantly weakened the oath and its historical significance. Specifically, the proposed changes would have eliminated the call to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. Eliminating these words would have inherently diminished the force of the Constitution, and any measure that reduces the importance of the Constitution is a blow to all American rights.

Fortunately, because of public backlash, the Bureau did not institute these changes of the oath. However, when the Bureau announced its changes, we saw the integrity and the oath was in danger. Accordingly, the House passed an amendment last year making sure that no funds would be used by the Department of Homeland Security to alter the language of the oath. This prohibition should be made permanent.

The oath is currently in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and can be changed at any time by this or future administrations. My amendment would codify the oath of renunciation of allegiance so that Congress would have the sole authority to alter its language. My amendment would also require the Department of Homeland Security to notify a foreign embassy when an individual from that country takes the oath and swears allegiance to the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment establishing the oath of allegiance as the law of the land.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

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

First of all, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for his support and for some of my colleagues who have worked closely on this.

The language in the oath finds its roots way back in the words of our Founders, and the language has existed since 1950. I think it is appropriate. I think we need to protect this language. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we take up the Deficit Reduction Act, I think there are a few things that Americans should know. This bill has been demonized, demonized by those who want to ignore the growing Federal deficit, the waste, the fraud, and the abuse that exist in several Federal Government programs. But we all know that entitlement spending is growing at nearly three times the rate of inflation and that we simply cannot sustain that growth.

Entitlement spending on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security make up 54 percent of the government spending now, and it is projected to double in the next decade. Medicare is growing at over 7 percent annually and Medicaid is at 8 percent annually.

There are no easy answers to this problem, Mr. Speaker, but if we do not act on these programs now, they will only grow worse.

The Deficit Reduction Act simply starts with the most obvious, commonsense reforms to save taxpayer dollars by finding waste and abuse in entitlement programs and eliminating them so that the funds that we put into these programs go to people who really need them.

In my State of Kansas, a pharmacy recently received a Medicaid payment of $1 million for eardrops that only cost $1.95. Mistakes happen, Mr. Speaker. But in a program that is growing at an unsustainable rate, we need to do all that we can to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.

The Deficit Reduction Act takes a very important first step to pay for entitlement spending by making common-sense reforms to outdated programs so that we can help those most in need instead of enriching those who abuse the program.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the Deficit Reduction Act.