Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, in Ohio and elsewhere this week, thousands of Americans are saluting the contributions of a great coaching legend. Mike Cameron, the longtime baseball coach at Moeller High School in Cincinnati, OH, has announced his retirement after 39 seasons--bringing to a close what the Cincinnati Enquirer has aptly described as ``one of the greatest high school coaching careers in Ohio history.''

Coach Cameron compiled a record of 767-303 during his career as coach of the Moeller Crusader baseball team, a record that includes four state championships. His retirement announcement came just weeks after he reached a key milestone in his decorated coaching career: on April 30, 2007, Coach Cameron became the ``All-time Winningest'' Division I baseball coach in Ohio history with a win against LaSalle High School at the new Crosley Field in Blue Ash, OH.

The numbers tell a great story, but not the whole story. As a member of the Moeller High School Class of 1968--one of our school's first graduating classes--I've known Mike for decades. Before he became the baseball coach at Moeller, Mike was an assistant football coach under another Moeller legend, Gerry Faust, where he coached me during my junior and senior years. We also knew each other through our neighbors and our mutual interest in community service.

Since my graduation nearly 40 years ago, I've watched Moeller build a proud national reputation for all-around excellence in Catholic education, and Mike has always been a big part of it. The Moeller tradition emphasizes students' growth in all areas--academic growth, athletic and extra-curricular growth, and spiritual growth. There are few members of the Moeller family who have done as much as Mike Cameron has over the years to help Moeller establish and cultivate this proud tradition.

If you talk to Mike's players, it's clear he's been a positive force in the lives of countless young people in the Greater Cincinnati area. But his legacy at Moeller is not limited to the baseball diamond. During his decades at Moeller, Coach Cameron earned the gratitude and respect of thousands of students he didn't coach, as well as that of countless Moeller parents and faculty members. Coach Cameron also has the admiration of many Americans, from local fans of Moeller baseball to parents who have taken their children to watch one of the multiple players he helped to reach the big leagues.

On behalf of the United States Congress, I salute my friend, Coach Mike Cameron, on a long and distinguished career that is a source of pride for the entire Moeller family and the people of Southwest Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues probably are wondering why at 20 minutes to 1 we are still in the House Chamber debating this issue. I think all of us understand that there is a difference over the amount of money being appropriated in this bill and what is being allocated to all of the appropriation bills.

If we go back and review the bidding on the spending levels over the course of this year, we spent an additional $6 billion in the CR back in February. We spent an additional $17 billion over and above the President's request for the supplemental spending bill for Iraq, Katrina, and a whole host of other issues that many Members did not support.

When we look at the appropriation bills for the fiscal year 2008 beginning in October, we see that we are going to spend an additional $20 billion. So if you add those numbers up, you can see that we are spending tens of billions of dollars, well above what the President requested for not only this current fiscal year, but the next fiscal year.

If that isn't bad enough, let's also remember that this Congress in this first 5 months has already authorized some $105 billion of new spending in their proposals that have been brought to this floor and passed. So for many of us, at some point we have to say, enough is enough when it comes to spending.

The second issue involves the transparency and accountability with regard to earmarks. Last year I went through hell and high water to put into effect an earmark reform proposal that dealt with appropriation bills, that dealt with authorization bills and dealt with tax bills. It required full disclosure, it required names to be attached, and it allowed Members of this House, both on the floor of this House with an appropriation bill or authorization bill or tax bill, or a conference report with regard to an appropriation bill, tax bill or authorization bill, to move under a point of order or to strike that amount of money.

There are 435 of us in this Chamber who are well-equipped to deal with bringing the accountability into this process that all of us want. The Democrat majority in January, when they adopted their rules, gutted the earmark reform proposal that we put into effect last year, while at the same time saying that they were making it stronger.

The fact is, Members do not have access to these earmarks in these bills. We have all heard the stories tonight about what the chairman expects to do after we pass the appropriation bills, with these slush funds included in them, secret slush funds, which will later be allocated based on the decision of one person, one of the 535 of us. It is not right, and the gentleman from Wisconsin knows it is not right.

Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin says we haven't had time to do this. I can tell the gentleman from Wisconsin over the last 3\1/2\ months we have, as he has often said, posed for holy pictures over the fight over funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. We had plenty of time to look at those earmarks, but we didn't do it because we were busy posing for holy pictures.

I can tell the gentleman that to bring a bill forward with no earmarks in it with a promise that we will all see them later is not good enough. I think the Members on our side of the aisle want real disclosure, want real transparency, and I think what the American people want most is real accountability.

Now, let me get to the last issue. For 6 years the gentleman from Wisconsin had the 10 o'clock rule. When we were doing appropriation bills, the majority on our side was not allowed to work after 10 o'clock.

Now, I happen to agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin, because I think working after 10 o'clock is not in the best interests of our Nation. For the nine out of 10 times that we have tried to work after 10 o'clock at night, my colleague from Wisconsin refused to operate after 10 o'clock and threatened all of us that if we worked after 10 o'clock, we would have all of these procedural motions, motions to rise, and we would not be here.

Now, I told the gentleman, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin. I go to bed at 10 o'clock. I don't think good work happens after 10 o'clock at night. So what I told the majority earlier today is that we weren't going to work after 10 o'clock at night because we were going to impose the Obey rule on the institution.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Mr. Obey, I will say this: I will be happy to abide by the 10 o'clock rule if you will give real transparency and real accountability to the American people on earmark reform.

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

Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Boehner

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate, thank, and recognize my constituent Mr. James Detherage for 35 years of service and 30 years as Chief with the West Chester Fire Department.

As a husband, father and Fire Chief, James has given outstanding service and support to the people of West Chester. His lengthy and tireless work in West Chester over three decades is a constant source of pride and unconditional praise. As Chief of the West Chester Fire Department, James has seen the department grow from a volunteer staff to its current state of 40 full-time firefighters. Outside of his post as Chief, he has also served as President of the Butler County Fireman's Association, President of the Southwest District of Ohio Fire Chiefs Association and President of the Butler County Fire Chief's Association.

James' attitude, fierce determination, and community spirit are a source of energy for all those around him. So much of James' work is done quietly and without reward and it is my honor to take this moment to say thank you and congratulate him on his new position as West Chester Township Public Safety Director.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 452) and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

The resolution, Mr. Speaker, will instruct the Ethics Committee to review the serious allegations and evidence against the gentleman from Louisiana and report back to the House whether the gentleman should be expelled for conduct that brings dishonor on this institution.

This resolution is not intended to cast innocence or guilt on the gentleman from Louisiana. It is intended to ensure that the Ethics Committee process, a process that all the Members of this House want to see work fairly and honestly, begin its deliberations of this issue.

This Ethics Committee last year, over a period of approximately 6 months, was looking into this matter, but as of today there has not been a subcommittee established to look at the facts of this case. The Republican pool was announced several months ago, and we have been waiting for the majority party to put their pool members onto the Ethics Committee so, in fact, this investigation could continue. And it is somewhat of a sad state that these members weren't announced until today and it took the indictment of Mr. Jefferson for the majority to outline to the House who the members will be that will make up their pool.

But the point I make is that all of us have been through a very difficult period in this House, and I think that I have made clear to my colleagues on the minority side of the House that I intend to hold our colleagues to a higher standard. And when we talk about the standard here, we all know that bringing honor on this House is a standard that all of us attempt to meet and make sure that there is no dishonor brought. And we are not talking here about a standard that is very different from that of a criminal plea or a criminal indictment. We are talking about behavior that brings dishonor on this institution.

So I believe that the Ethics Committee can, in fact, do its work. I think they can do it efficiently. And the purpose of this resolution is to ensure that the House speaks to our Ethics Committee to make sure that it is doing its job in resolving this case as soon as possible.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's support of our efforts, and in support of the Ethics Committee taking up this case and moving as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that the gentleman refers to has been shown to us just moments ago. The gentleman, the majority leader, is well aware that legislation does not come to the floor without the cooperation of both sides. And to have seen this bill just moments ago strikes me as something that we never, ever, ever would have considered doing on the floor of the House without clear consultation and advisement of the minority. And so, I will look at the bill. I'm not quite sure what it says because, again, we have just received it moments ago.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I would yield to the gentleman from Missouri, the minority whip, for as much time as he may consume.

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

The gentleman referred to when our panel members were named, which was on May 1. The gentleman should be aware that our panel was picked and members had agreed to serve on the panel by the end of January of this year. We held the list, trying to work with our colleagues in the majority so that the panels on both sides could be named as soon as possible. And finally, right before Easter, we filed our 10 panel names and they were certified. That occurred on May 1. I am sorry that it is a fact that your panel members were not named until today, and not until after the indictment of a sitting Member.

So the fact that almost 6 months have gone by in this Congress without any work on the part of the Ethics Committee with regard to Mr. Jefferson's case I think is a sad record.

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

I am pleased to yield for as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) so much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are entitled to see this institution held to the highest ethical standards. They clearly expect more of us than maybe they have in the past. And the reason to bring this resolution here tonight is to not profess innocence or guilt. It is to make sure that the process that we have in this House for protecting the House and protecting the institution and protecting our Members, we want to make sure that that process works the way it was intended.

So I appreciate the support of my colleagues for this resolution.

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

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

Let me thank my colleague for yielding and say, thank goodness that we're finally here.

Mr. Speaker, over 100 days trying to come to an agreement on how to do the right thing for our men and women in the military fighting for our freedom and our safety and our security right here at home. I ask myself, why? What have we done over the last 100-plus days, and why has it taken this long? And there is one image that keeps coming back to me, and it's from my friend, the chairman of the committee, and it is his favorite saying: There are a lot of Members who have been posing for holy pictures over the last 100-plus days. The gentleman knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Put yourself in the shoes of our men and women fighting in Iraq, fighting in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. And think about the message that we have sent them over the last 100-plus days. We sent them there to do a job. We sent them there on a mission. And yet, for the last three and a half months we had a debate going on here that has undermined their efforts, lowered their morale and clearly sent the wrong message to our allies and to our enemies. But thank goodness that we're finally here.

We have no artificial deadlines. We have no surrender dates. We have no shackles on the generals and our troops on the ground. We are going to give our generals and our troops what they need to win in Iraq. And winning in Iraq is important for our country. I don't believe that there is a Member in this Chamber who doesn't understand that winning in Iraq is important to our country. It has been difficult; mistakes have been made. But think about why we went to Iraq. We went to Iraq to get rid of a brutal dictator who was a threat to his own population and to all of his neighbors. We succeeded.

We went to Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Of course they were shipped somewhere else. But we know that they were used against their own Iraqi people. But they are not there. We went there to help install a government to build a basic democracy in a part of the world that has never known it. We are in the midst of it, and we are succeeding.

It is al Qaeda, the sworn enemy of the United States, who wants to kill us, who made Iraq the central front in their war with us. If we don't take on al Qaeda in Iraq and defeat them, where will we draw the line? Will we draw the line when they go into Saudi Arabia? Will we draw the line when they try to decimate Israel? Or are we going to wait and draw the line when we are fighting the terrorists here in America?

Think once again about those young men and women in our military out there doing their duty for us. We, the Congress of the United States, authorized the President to go to Iraq and to do what I've just outlined. We sent them there. And this last 100 days, we've questioned whether in fact we really should have done it. I think it is far too late. They are there. They are on the ground. They deserve our support. And, finally, tonight they are going to get the resources they need to try to win the battle in Iraq.

Now let me just say something about the rest of this bill, the second part of this bill that has some $20 billion worth of additional spending, probably some $8 or $9 billion of nonmilitary, nonveteran spending that does not belong in this bill. It may be well-meaning. It may be well-intentioned, but it doesn't deserve to be put on the backs of our men and women in the military serving our country. It deserves to be done in a regular order.

When it comes to that part of the bill, I am going to have to vote ``no.'' To load this bill up with not only all the additional spending, but we've got a half a dozen pension issues. We've got a minimum wage issue. We've got a whole host of other issues that don't deserve to be put on the backs of our men and women in the military. It is a sneaky way to do business. I wish it was not in there. And on that portion of the bill, I will vote ``no'' tonight.

But I am glad that we're here. I know that there are differences in this Chamber, Members on both sides of the aisle who feel differently about our mission in Iraq and our chances of success there. I know when I came here and every 2 years since I've been here, on the opening day, we all stand here; we raise our right hands and swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. There are a lot of my colleagues that have heard me make the statement that I didn't come here to be a Congressman. I came here to do something. And I think at the top of our list is providing for the safety and security of the American people. That's at the top of our list. After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat them?

Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you, if we don't do it now, and if we don't have the courage to defeat this enemy, we will long, long regret it. So, thank you for the commitment to get the job done today.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Jay Eagen, this body's Chief Administrative Officer, upon his retirement. Mr. Eagen has served with distinction in this executive capacity since July 31, 1997, and has been in continual service to the House since 1982. As Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. Eagen was responsible for managing this body's support services, finances, procurement, and information technology.

Mr. Eagen faced head-on the rapid rise of computer technology in the 1990s that forever changed the worlds of business and government. Through Mr. Eagen's persistence the House's information systems were modernized and placed at the cutting edge of public sector information services.

Mr. Eagen's efforts to modernize the House also extended to financial accounting and auditing. Before his tenure as CAO, the House's accounting systems were found to be byzantine and indecipherable. During Mr. Eagen's tenure, the House has received eight consecutive ``clean opinions'' on its financial statements.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Mr. Eagen, a dedicated public servant who always operated with the highest standards of professionalism and respect for this House. His commitment to improving this institution's services have made a critical difference as we meet the demands of a changing marketplace and in meeting the American public's desire for information and transparency. This body will miss Mr. Eagen's fairness and bipartisanship as well as his spirit of innovation.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, here we go again, a higher spending, higher taxes, and people don't think there is a difference between the two major political parties. One only has to look at what's happened so far this year. We have the continuing resolution that was passed in February, there was $6 billion worth of excess spending in it.

Now we have got an emergency supplemental to fund our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq that has another $22 billion worth of excess spending in it. If you look at the discretionary spending levels in this budget for this next fiscal year, we have another $22 billion worth of additional spending that's outlined.

Now if that's not bad enough, we are only 4\1/2\ months into this calendar year, and my friends across the aisle have authorized an additional $62.5 billion of additional spending. How much spending and how many taxes do we want to impose on the American people?

We all know that the tax cuts of 2001 and the tax cuts of 2003 have led us to one of the most robust economies that we have seen in our history. Why? Because we lowered tax rates, we gave people reasons to invest in our economy. Jobs were created, 5 million new jobs were created, more people were earning money, raising their families, paying their bills, and, guess what else they are doing? They are also paying more in taxes.

That is why revenues to the Federal Government over the last 3 years have increased at over 12 percent per year. They are likely to do the same again this year if we don't impose upon this economy the largest tax increase in American history. It is coming. There is $200 billion worth of tax increases needed to fill this hole. There is this reserve fund, all these promises: If we can raise taxes somewhere, we will give you this extra spending. And so we are going to see the largest tax increase in our Nation's history once again.

I was listening to this debate earlier in my office and I began to ask myself, what is the essence of this? Let me go back to the 1970s.

I grew up in a household with 11 brothers and sisters; my dad owned a bar, and we were Democrats, all of us. And I remember starting a new business in 1975; I remember paying taxes. I remember not owing many taxes because I was starting a new business. But in 1978, as my small business was beginning to grow, the top tax rate in our country was 70 percent. That means 70 cents out of every dollar over that minimum, which was about $75,000, 70 cents of every dollar I got to give to the Federal Government. That is when I began to realize that maybe I wasn't a Democrat any longer.

Here I was trying to grow a small business; I was a subchapter S, so everything that my business made, I had to pay taxes on personally. That meant I could only leave 30 cents of every dollar in my business to help make it grow. And even under those tax rates that were suffocating, I was able to succeed.

But let's think about the last 25 years. When Ronald Reagan got elected in 1980, in 1981 in a bipartisan way we started a process of lowering tax rates. Over the last 25 years, by and large we have lowered tax rates dozens of times, only a couple of bumps, a couple increases along the way. The result of all of that over the last 25 years has been a growing economy. Better jobs in America, more jobs in America, and more revenues to the Federal Government. It is a prescription that has worked.

Look again at the 2003 and the 2001 tax cuts. We reduced tax rates, and the result was more investment, more jobs, and more revenue to the Federal Government.

Now, at some point there is a point of diminishing returns, but I will suggest to all of you that we are nowhere close to it yet.

Ladies and gentlemen, I became a Republican and I came to Congress because I thought that we paid too much in taxes and that government was too big. The heart and core of who I am and why I am here is to fight for a smaller, less costly, more accountable government here in Washington, D.C. This budget represents every reason that I decided to become a Republican, and every reason I decided to come to Washington and to do something about it.

The big difference is simple right here. My friends across the aisle believe that government knows best what to do with the American people's money. More of my colleagues on my side believe that the money that the American people earn is theirs, and that they can make better decisions on behalf of themselves and their family and their future if we allow them to keep more of the hard-earned money that they make.

I can't just sit back and be quiet about higher taxes and higher spending. This is the largest tax increase in American history. This will in fact disinvest money from our economy, will put people out of work, and put us on a path to higher deficits.

And if the largest tax increase in American history isn't the saddest part of this bill, I will tell you what it is: No entitlement reform.

There is an economic tsunami coming at us; it is Social Security, it is Medicare, and it is Medicaid. And while Republicans over the last years have made several attempts and made some changes, and I would argue not nearly as many changes as we should have, there is no entitlement reform in this bill. That means that the amount of debt that will build up over the next 5 years, as outlined in this budget, will far surpass the debt that accumulated over the last 5 years.

You all know what is happening. There is not a Member in this Chamber that doesn't understand that if we don't deal with entitlement our kids and our grandkids can never afford the benefits that we have promised ourselves. We can look the other way, we can act like it doesn't exist, but we have made promises to ourselves as baby boomers that our kids and grandkids can't afford. And yet, we see the tsunami coming at us, we can measure it; we can measure the speed and the size of it, and yet we do nothing about it.

My colleagues, this is not the direction that I believe we should go in. I would ask all my colleagues to stand up and do the right thing and to say ``no'' to this budget resolution.

Good morning to all of you and welcome back for the 37th annual Former Members Day. I look around the audience and see a lot of familiar faces. I just want to say thank you. Thank you for your service to the institution and thank you for what you are continuing to do.

I presume that some of you know, but of your colleagues, Bob Walker's, wife passed away several days ago. Our prayers are with Bob and his family. Bob and I served together. His wife was a great influence on him and on his career, and it's sad to see her go over a fight with cancer that had gone on since last summer.

I had to come today, one, to see all of you, but to see my good friend Bob Dole. Bob and I got to know each other in 1994, when I was this bomb-throwing new Member, relatively new Member--Sarpalius remembers--and then in 1995 after Republicans took the majority, Bob and I sat in many bicameral leadership meetings together. And for some young whippersnapper who didn't know the ways around here, not that I always agreed with Senator Dole, but I always had great respect for him. Especially now, looking back those 12, 13 years ago, I realize how much I learned from Bob. I think Bob represents all that we would expect of ourselves in his demeanor, the way he did his business here. He represents an entire generation of Americans, the World War II generation, and I couldn't miss this opportunity to come and say hello to him.

Now, all of you know that Bob would tend to sit on his porch and work on his tan. Then he would run off to Florida on the weekends and work on his tan. And one night when we could still fly airplanes, private airplanes out of National, I ran into Bob one day as we were going somewhere, he was coming back, and he looked over at me and says, ``Hey, tan man.'' And so this has been a running joke between the two of us, because if there was somebody who always had a better tan than I did, it was Dole.

I could tell other stories, Bob, but I think I'll stop there. Let me just say welcome. Welcome back to all of you. Thank you for what you did for this institution to keep it alive and healthy for our generation. I just hope that those of us who have some guiding hand in where this institution is going today can do as good a job as all of you have in terms of leaving the institution in a stronger way for the next generation of leaders. Thank you and welcome.

Mr. Speaker, 94 days ago, the President of the United States sent to the Congress an emergency supplemental spending request to fund our activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. He asked for, in round numbers, $100 billion, which has now turned into some $20 to $23 billion more than that. But we have been through that fight. The President vetoed the bill, made it clear what he would sign and what he would not sign.

I was at the White House last week after the bill had been vetoed by the President, and there was an agreement in the room, bipartisan, bicameral agreement in the room that we would sit down together and try to resolve the differences that we have over funding our effort to take on al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

What we have seen over the last 10 days or so have been token meetings. There has been no honest attempt to work together, as we all committed to. There have been no meetings where we can actually sit down and discuss our differences and try to bring some resolution to those differences.

So when I heard earlier this week about this plan that was going to be brought to the floor today, I thought to myself, why? Why do we have to play more political games? The President of the United States has made it clear that he will veto this bill. The Senate leaders, Democrat and Republican, have made it clear that this plan has no chance in the other Chamber, but yet here we are playing political games while our troops are fighting for our freedom and our safety in Iraq.

Now, I am not going to go through all the reasons why Iraq is important; I have been through them before. I think every Member of this Chamber understands that Iraq is important to the safety and security of the United States. But I want to remind all of my colleagues that all of our Members in this Chamber, except one, all of our Members in this Chamber, Democrat and Republican, except one, voted to send our troops to Iraq. There they

have been locked in a battle for the safety and security of Americans, helping to try to build democracy to bring more stability to the Middle East. And here we are tonight divided, once again, about whether we should support our troops that are out there fighting for our safety.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, our soldiers are doing their duty in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world, a duty that we have sent them on. And yet we sit here playing political games. That is not what the American people sent us here to do. Now they asked us to come here, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences and to make sure that we are helping our troops. And I think every Member here understands that we have to support our troops. And I think every Member here knows that, at the end of the day, we are going to pass a clean supplemental that doesn't have all this excess spending riding on the backs of our soldiers, that will in fact fund the activities in Iraq. The question I ask tonight is, how long are the games going to go on?

Ninety-four days we have been at this; 94 days since the President asked for this money and we are still playing games. That is not what the American people expect of us. They understand that Iraq is important. They understand that their safety and security is dependent upon what happens there because the consequences of failure in Iraq, which this bill will bring about, are too ominous to think about.

This bill is designed to bring failure to Iraq. Failure in Iraq means chaos in Iraq. It means genocide in Iraq, and it means we are jeopardizing the safety and security of the American people. It is not what the American people want. We should reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the President was right to veto the bill that we have before us. And I believe that the House today will sustain the President's veto because the bill that we have before us that is purportedly there to pay for our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and other issues, in my opinion, ties the hands of our generals and our troops on the ground and almost mandates failure in Iraq.

I think it is time for us to work across the aisle to produce a clean bill that the President can sign into law to sustain our efforts in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and to make sure that at the end of the day we have victory.

The fundamental question that we are all dealing with in this Chamber and elsewhere is, why is Iraq important? Why is winning in Iraq so important?

In my view, and in others, al Qaeda has made Iraq the central front in their war with us. Those aren't my words, those are their words. They started this war when they attacked us all through the 1990s and when they attacked us in New York City on 9/11.

And while we went to Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein and to help build a more stable, democratically-elected nation in that part of the world and bring more stability there, it has turned into much more than that.

According to the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, a nonprofit organization funded by a grant from the Homeland Security Department, Iraq today is home to 77 different terrorist organizations. They have made this, they have made Iraq the central front in their war with us.

We all know that there is a growing movement around the world of radical Islamic terrorists that want to kill Americans and want to kill our allies. They are operating all over the world and they are attacking people all over the world. Just think about where they have been over the last several weeks, whether it was Bangladesh last night or elsewhere. They are continuing their efforts to try to gain control of the world, and part of that effort is aimed directly at us. Americans, freedom loving people, up against people who don't want freedom for people, that want to impose radical Islamic law on all of us. And so they have made Iraq the central front in their war with us.

And if we walk out of Iraq, if we don't give this plan a chance to succeed, we encourage the terrorists. We will encourage them. They will be able to recruit new people all over the world. They will have a safe haven in Iraq itself. We will destabilize the entire Middle East, including the very existence of Israel. And who doesn't believe that if we don't deal with the terrorists in Iraq, that we won't be dealing with them on the streets of America? That is why Iraq is important. And if we are not willing to stand up to the terrorists and defeat them in Iraq, when and where will we draw the line to protect the American people, our ultimate responsibility?

We have a serious responsibility, and there is no greater responsibility for those of us who serve in this Chamber, than to provide for the safety and security of our constituents and our people in our country.

So tell me, if we are not going to stand up to them in Iraq, if we are not going to take them on in Iraq and defeat them there, when and where will we do it?

And the fact is, is that our troops are doing a great job in Iraq under very difficult circumstances. They deserve the support of all the Members of this House.

And so I say to my colleagues, it is time for the games to stop, it is time

for the political points to be taken off the board, and it is time for us to sit down as Members on both sides of the aisle and give the President a clean bill that funds our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, that furthers our effort to take on the terrorists and defeats them, and doesn't do it with some $20 billion worth of excess spending that has nothing to do with this bill.

I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's veto.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate, thank, and recognize my constituents Grace and Nick Vitori. Nick and Grace are a testament to the innate goodness of human nature, the overwhelming positive effect individuals may have on the community and the can-do spirit of America.

For sixty-one years Nick and Grace have been the owners of Vitori's Marketplace in Middletown, Ohio and in less than a month, after some seventy-eight years in business, this landmark grocery, this priceless slice of Americana will close its doors. Nick and Grace are as much a Middletown landmark as the grocery they own. After serving in World War II Nick left college to take over Vitori's from his ailing father, Pasquale, also known as Patsy, who opened Vitori's in 1929. Nick and Grace have been watching over Vitori's ever since. Undoubtedly Middletonians will miss Nick's famous ham salad, Grace's smiling and kind face behind the cash register, and their trademark red jackets.

Through good and bad, Nick and Grace and Vitori's Marketplace has loyally, thoughtfully and generously served their neighbors. Few in Middletown can say their lives haven't been touched by Nick and Grace, and their retirement is certainly well earned.

Grace and Nick Vitori are a testament to the American ethos, to the spirit of community and a devotion to others. I consider it an honor to represent Grace and Nick in Congress, and I wish them a long, happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to think of our institution without the services of our reading clerk, Paul Hays. Before we get back, Paul will retire, after some 41 years of service here in the House.

[Applause, the Members rising.]

Mr. Speaker, Paul's distinctive voice, I think, is familiar to all of us. I think all of you know that Paul is a patriot. He even got married on the 4th of July. From his service in the National Guard, to his service with the Capitol Hill Restoration Society, Paul has given much to our country, and he has given much to all of us and to our institution.

Paul, thank you.

I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

Paul, we all wish you well, and no more excuses about your golf game.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, what are we doing? What in the world are we doing? The President asked for funding for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to meet our commitments to bring freedom to those people and to protect the American people, and here we are with a bill that has some $25 billion worth of spending over and above what the President asked for. And if that is not bad enough, we handcuff our generals and we handcuff our troops and we go about this backhanded way of trying to end the war in a backhanded way because the votes are not there to do it in a straight-up fashion.

Mr. Speaker, we are sent here by the American people. We have grave responsibilities to them and to our allies around the world, and I understand that there are deeply held differences over what is going on in Iraq. But all of us understand what we heard today from General Petraeus. All of us understand what we have heard over the last few months coming out of Iraq.

The real battle in Iraq today is not with the Iraqis. The real battle in Iraq today is with al Qaeda that has made this the central front in their war with us. And let us remember, we did not start the war with al Qaeda; they did.

It is al Qaeda that has made Iraq the central front in their war with us, and if we are not willing to take on al Qaeda in Iraq today, when will we? When will we stand up to radical Islam that is spreading all over the world, endangering our allies and endangering our citizens? When will we stand up and fight? We did not do it like other world leaders for some 20 years because America, like the rest of the world, looked up, looked away, and just hoped the problem would go away. It is not just going to go away.

People who are raised to believe that killing Americans and our allies and killing freedom and hating freedom is the answer to get to Allah is not just going to go away. And so we can look up and we can walk out, we can walk out of Iraq, just like we did in Lebanon, just like we did in Vietnam, just like we did in Somalia, and we will leave chaos in our wake.

Now, if dealing with al Qaeda is not enough of a reason to finish the job that we have in Iraq, what about the issue of the Iranians? The Iranians are trying to spew their hate all over the Middle East and elsewhere. You see Iranians who are bringing new devices into Baghdad to kill Americans and our allies. It is Iranians who are bringing funds and doing training to stir up sectarian violence in Baghdad. Are we just going to look the other way again?

I say to my colleagues, and I have said this before, every generation of Americans has had their obligation. Every generation of Americans has had their obligation to stand up and to protect our country, not for just today but for tomorrow and for the next generation.

After looking away for 20 years during the 1980s and 1990s, what was America to do after 3,000 of our citizens died on 9/11? Just all hope it goes away, hope they do not care anymore?

I say to my colleagues that we have a solemn obligation to the American people to finish the job that we started. And while Iraq may not have started out as the central front in our war with al Qaeda, it may not have started out with a fight against the Iranians, all of us in this Chamber today know, all of us know that this is the central front in our war with al Qaeda, and this is the battleground with Iran. You all know it. You know it as well as I do.

And the question is, are we going to stand up and fulfill our obligation to the American people? Are we going to fulfill our obligation to the Iraqis who are struggling to create a government of the people, by the people and for the people?

I think they are on clear notice that they have got a job to do on their own, but if we step out today, we are ensuring that they will fail. We are ensuring that we will leave chaos in our wake. We will embolden our enemies, and it is our kids and their kids who will pay a very, very steep price.

This is not the right thing to do, in my opinion. I respect those who have opinions that are otherwise, but as I stand here as a Member of Congress, we need to think seriously about what we are doing, think seriously about the message that we are sending to our enemies around the world and ask ourselves, is this what our forefathers would have done? Is this the message that we want to send to the world? I would suggest to all of you it is not. We should vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, on March 24, 2007, the Crusaders of Moeller High School in Cincinnati, Ohio, won the state basketball title, defeating Cincinnati's St. Xavier High School by the score of 43-40 in the state title match. This is Moeller High School's third state basketball title in the past decade.

Under the guidance of Coach Carl Kremer, the Moeller Crusaders have won three state basketball championships--in 1999, 2003, and now in 2007. The 2007 Crusader basketball team ends its season with a record of 25-2, which the school's longtime athletic director, Barry Borman, notes is the best record in the history of the Moeller High School basketball program.

As a proud graduate of Moeller High School and a member of the class of 1968, I congratulate Coach Kremer, Athletic Director Borman, Principal Blaine Collison, and all the faculty, students, and alumni of the Moeller Family on this tremendous achievement. I know the gentlewoman from Ohio, Representative Schmidt, who represents Moeller High School in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District, joins me enthusiastically in offering these sentiments.

Moeller High School has provided a center of learning in the finest Marianist tradition for generations of young men from my congressional district and the Greater Cincinnati area. A Catholic school, Moeller has established a reputation for excellence in academics, athletics, faith, and community service, a reputation that is renewed and reinforced by this latest achievement.

On behalf of the United States Congress, I proudly salute Coach Kremer, the 2007 Crusader basketball team, and the entire Moeller Family for this memorable victory.

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