Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2745, the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005.

H.R. 2745 is a common sense piece of legislation that would mandate timely change to a United Nations suffering from scandal, mismanagement and abuse. Specifically, it would withhold 50 percent of regular assessed budget contributions unless the U.N. enacts 39 specific budgetary, accountability, and human rights-related reforms necessary to providing needed transparency to the world body.

The need for this legislation could not be more evident. Over the past few years we have witnessed a United Nations mired in scandal. The U.N. Oil-for-Food program was a glaring failure that served only to benefit a tyrant and keep the Iraqi people in a state of despondency and despair. As a result, the Oil-for-Food program has become the biggest scandal in the history of the U.N. and one of the greatest financial scandals of modern times.

Scandals involving U.N. peacekeeping operations have also escalated. In Congo and Bosnia, U.N. peacekeepers were accused of widespread sexual exploitation and rape of refugees, betraying the trust of the very people they were there to protect. In Sierra Leone, peacekeepers were accused of systematically raping women. These actions are reprehensible in any society and unbecoming to an organization whose founding charter is dedicated to the promotion and respect for human rights and maintaining international peace and security.

In recent years, the U.N. has also abdicated their role as a protector of human rights. This legislation rightfully prevents some of the world's premier human rights abusers such as Cuba, Sudan and Libya from having a seat on the U.N. Commission of Human Rights.

Without H.R. 2745, we will be sending American taxpayer dollars to support an international organization that currently embraces mediocrity, corruption and waste as the status quo. The United Nations Reform Act will go a long way to employ proper checks and balances to an organization that I believe has lost control of both its purpose and mission, and no longer adequately represents the United States' interests, nor the interests of democracies around the world.

It is time for these common sense reforms. The American people who pay 22 percent of the U.N. dues demand that their tax dollars go to an organization that is transparent, and accountable.

Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma suffered one of the worst terrorist attacks on American soil, killing 168 people and injuring more than 850 Americans. Before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing was the worst act of terrorism ever committed on American soil.

As a native Oklahoman, I was devastated by this terrible act of terror, the innocent loss of life, the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and the hundreds of other buildings that were damaged in the surrounding Oklahoma City area.

The people of Oklahoma responded to this tragedy through the remarkable and valiant efforts of local, state, and federal law enforcement, fire, emergency services, and search and rescue teams from across the United States. Thousands of volunteers from the community came and saved lives, assisted the injured, comforted the bereaved and gave hope to the victims and their families.

This tragedy could have torn Oklahoma City apart, but instead, the tragedy united an entire community and an entire nation. On that terrible day, out of the rubble, the people of Oklahoma City resoundingly stood up against terror to stand as a beacon of light to the rest of the nation and the world, attesting to the fact that good will always triumph over evil, wherever evil may arise.

On the 10th anniversary of this tragedy, I commend my fellow Oklahomans for their

strength, their faith, and for their resolve to move forward in the face of overwhelming odds to build a better Oklahoma and a greater America.

Mr. Speaker, we need an energy policy desperately in this country. We needed it 30 years ago. This is an excellent bill. It addresses the energy policy in a very comprehensive way. It addresses oil and gas. It addresses conservation which people over here say it does not, and it does; environmental issues, electrical, hydropower, everything is addressed, nuclear. It is a very comprehensive bill.

And we need this for many perspectives, but most importantly passing this very important bill is important for National security issues as well as jobs and economic development.

You know, people talk about high gas prices in this country, and people go back to their districts and say that gas is high. Well, one way we can reduce the cost of gasoline for everyone in this country is we expand refining capacity in this country. And we address this in this bill.

Right now our refineries are operating at almost maximum capacity. Like our chairman said in the committee, if we added five new refineries today in America, it still would not address the demand that we have. In many instances when we do get oil and gas drilled here domestically, sometimes we have to send that oil to another country to refine it, and we buy it back at a higher value.

That is what third world countries do, and we need to stop that. It is very important that we address the ANWR situation, and open ANWR. And a lot of the environmentalists will say, we cannot do that, it might hurt some species of some animal or insect. But we need to think of the human species from time to time. If we open ANWR, if you put it in perspective, if it was the size of the OU football field, the area that we are talking about drilling in would be the size of a postage stamp on that football field.

And the beauty of it is, we can produce oil, experts say, at least 2 million barrels a day out of ANWR, and that is exactly what we were importing from Saddam Hussein in Iraq before all of this 9/11 happened.

It is asinine that we rely so much on foreign oil, especially in areas around the world that we have carpet-bombed. It is ridiculous. So we need to spur domestic production, support this very important comprehensive energy bill that is for jobs and economic development, as well as a National security issue for this country. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to introduce our guest chaplain who so thoughtfully and graciously led us in prayer this morning.

The Most Reverend Edward J. Slattery serves as the third Bishop of the Diocese of Tulsa. Bishop Slattery was ordained a priest on April 26, 1966 for the Archdiocese of Chicago by the late John Cardinal Cody.

During his time in Chicago, Bishop Slattery served as Pastor of St. Rose of Lima Parish. This was an inner-city Hispanic parish on the south side of Chicago.

Additionally, Bishop Slattery served as President of the Catholic Church Extension Society, a funding agency for the American home missions.

In late 1993, Pope John Paul II notified then-Father Slattery that he had decided to name him Bishop. On January 6, 1994 the Holy Father ordained 13 men as bishops. Among the 13 men was one American, Edward J. Slattery.

A week later, Bishop Slattery was installed as the third Bishop of the Diocese of Tulsa at Holy Family Cathedral.

By the grace of God he continues to serve over 80 parishes in 21 counties, as a shepherd for the People of God in eastern Oklahoma. It is an honor to have Bishop Slattery as our guest chaplain and I know my colleagues join me in welcoming and thanking Bishop Slattery for being with us here today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise and join my colleagues in expressing my concerns about China's proposed anti-secession law, which is highly provocative and may cause a military confrontation across the Taiwan Strait. Specifically, the proposed law assumes that China and Taiwan are now unified and that China has the right to punish anyone expressing separatist sentiments or engaging in separatist activities. Ultimately, passage of this law can embolden China to legally push for unification of Taiwan by force, which is obviously, a scenario we would not like to see.

Understandably, the 23 million people of Taiwan are very upset over this proposed law, for they have lived under a full-fledged democracy, and enjoyed highest standard of freedom and human rights. Although some people might argue that any country should have the right to enact a domestic law, but if a country's freedom and well-being are endangered because of that law, then the countries who are defenders of freedom and democracy around the world, shouldn't stand aside and tolerate the situation to escalate.

I hope Chinese leaders will exercise their wisdom and not adopt this anti-secession law this March. I also urge the international community to join us to voice their disapproval of this law. Inaction by the United States and other concerned countries will send a dangerous signal to China and encourage China to escalate its political rhetoric against a democratic country.

We do not need any military confrontation in the Taiwan Strait now or ever. I encourage my colleagues to tell our Chinese friends in Beijing that they should appreciate the contributions that the Taiwanese have made to the Chinese economy. China should also know that Taiwan stands ready to discuss and negotiate any issue with China. The Taiwanese people desire a peaceful coexistence with their Chinese brethren and have no desire to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. It is important that the U.S maintain focus and resolve on this issue, and I encourage China to do away with the proposed anti-secession law so as to not upset the balance of peaceful relations in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005. The 9/11 Commission Report stated that the abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity.

This bill will establish common-sense requirements for proof of identification for all driver's licenses and State-issued identification cards. This would stop the abuse of our asylum system by terrorist aliens and finish construction of a border fence that will secure one of the most trafficked corridors for illegal aliens and safeguard the United States Naval base in San Diego, California.

We know that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some type of U.S. identification documents. In fact, the 19 hijackers had 63 driver's licenses among them. These licenses assisted the terrorists in boarding commercial flights, renting cars and other activities necessary to carry out their horrible plans.

This legislation ensures that terrorists will not be able to game our system any longer and we cannot allow mass murderers into our country any longer.

Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, more than 3 million illegal aliens came across our border last year, and I bet probably more than that. We have no idea where they are or where they are from. However we do know that during the 9-month period from October, 2003, through June, 2004, over 44,000 non-Mexican aliens were caught trying to cross the northern and southern U.S. borders. Among these aliens, several hundred were from the Mideast countries unfriendly to the United States. Without this legislation, many more will come; and this is a risk we cannot afford to take.

Mr. Speaker, on this tragic anniversary, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 39, which commends countries and organizations for marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi Concentration Camp at Auschwitz.

On January 27, 1945, the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz, including Birkenau and other related camps near the Polish city of Oswiecim, was liberated by elements of the Soviet Army. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, at a minimum, 1,300,000 people were deported to Auschwitz between 1940 and 1945, and at least 1,100,000 were murdered at that camp. That fateful day marked the end of the horror at Auschwitz.

In total, an estimated 6,000,000 Jews, more than 60 percent of the pre-World War II Jewish population of Europe, were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators at Auschwitz and elsewhere in Europe. Also, hundreds of thousands of civilians from many nationalities, all of whom the Nazis considered ``undesirable,'' perished at Auschwitz and other concentration camps throughout Europe.

It is important that the United Nations General Assembly, in response to a resolution proposed by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Russia, the United States, and the European Union, recently convened its first-ever special session marking the liberation of Auschwitz and other concentration camps. Several countries around the globe are taking part in remembrance ceremonies and honoring the victims of Auschwitz and the Holocaust. We must never forget the tragic events that led up to the Holocaust and we must urge all countries and all peoples to strengthen their efforts to fight against racism, anti-Semitism and intolerance around the globe. If we do not remain committed to teaching the lessons of the Holocaust for future generations, then history will be doomed to repeat itself.

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my congratulations to the Greater Tulsa Area Hispanic Affairs Commission in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for 25 years of service to the Hispanic community.

Then Mayor, James M. Inhofe, and Jack and Aurora Ramirez Helton formed the Greater Tulsa Area Hispanic Affairs Commission in 1979. A city ordinance and county resolution were enacted so that the Commission would continue in the future. In 1979 only a few cities in the United States had such a commission. The Commission's current work includes annual youth exchanges and adult exchanges, which are an established part of their partnership with Tulsa's Eisenhower International School. Eisenhower has the United States' only elementary school international exchange program in its relationship with San Luis Potosi's Instituto Cervantes.

May the commission have many more years of such valuable community service and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Oklahoma Expos, who won the age 14 and under United States Specialty Sports Association's USSSA youth baseball championship on July 18.

This fine group of kids from the First District of Oklahoma was able to defeat close to 90

teams from 15 states in order to win their division's World Series. Needless to say, I am very proud of every member of the roster, all of whom can rightfully call themselves champions.

Of course, they were only able to accomplish this feat through years of hard work and dedication, not to mention teamwork. During their time together, not only did these kids learn how to win at the game of baseball, but also how to win at the game of life. For, whether it be on the baseball fields of Tulsa, Oklahoma or here in the House of Representatives, magical things can happen when people put aside their differences and work together for a common cause. In fact, as I stand here today, I wonder if some of the members of this great body couldn't learn a thing or two from these kids about teamwork.

As we all know, getting a group of 14 year olds to come together as a team does not happen just by chance, there has to be a guiding force. Thus, I would also like to acknowledge the coaches and parents of the Oklahoma Expos for spending so much time with these boys in order to help mold them into champions on the field and off. Your unquestioned dedication to giving back to the community and raising tomorrow's leaders is commendable.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 106. Today, public support for protecting marriage is strong. Forty-four States have enacted laws that provide that marriage shall consist of a union between a man and a woman. These States constitute more than 75 percent of States required to approve a constitutional amendment and they include 86 percent of the U.S. population.

Today, Federal courts are being used by activist judges to redefine marriage for the American people, completely apart from public debate among those that the American people have elected to represent them.

More than 200 years of American law and thousands of years of human experience should not be arbitrarily changed by a handful of unelected judges. The issue of marriage is too important to be decided by judicial fiat.

Our society relies on strong family structure. As trends challenge the family, we need to do all we can to strengthen it and oppose trends that weaken this ideal. Redefining marriage hurts our children because it hurts the institution we rely on to raise our children. We certainly do not want judges changing the definition of marriage for us today and for our children tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is a commonsense piece of legislation that will rightfully restore the second amendment rights of Americans living in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are Members of this House who support gun control. The issue today, however, is not gun control but it is self- defense. The right to be able to protect yourself and your family is always important, but the right to do so in your home is the most important of all.

In America, we consider the home a special place and give greater weight to people's liberties in the home. The faulty bureaucratic logic of allowing District of Columbia residents to defend themselves is refuted by common sense. D.C. has some of the strongest gun laws in the Nation, and yet the recent FBI figures show that the District has regained its former title as the murder capital of the Nation for 14 of the last 15 years. Common sense and the love of life and liberty tells us that D.C. residents should have the right to defend themselves in their own home.

According to the FBI, the street and highway robbery rate has decreased by 59 percent, which is a greater decrease than other types of robbery, so the theory that gun-related street crimes will increase because of this bill is not supported by the facts nor by common sense. That leaves with us only one question really: Are law-abiding residents of this city entitled to the same rights as other Americans? I think our answer can be nothing other than a resounding yes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2028, the Pledge Protection Act of 2004. H.R. 2028 is a commonsense piece of legislation that reserves to the state courts the authority to decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance is valid within each state's boundaries. It will place final authority over a state's pledge policy in the hands of the states themselves, where it belongs.

The role of Congress has always been clear on the limitation of jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. Integral to our American Constitutional system is each branch of government's responsibility to use its powers to prevent overreaching by the other branches. Passage of H.R. 2028, will send a strong signal to the federal judiciary that the will of the people will prevail against judicial activism on the Pledge of Allegiance.

In a Nation where the vast majority of Americans believe in a divine power, it is un-American to place our pledge in the hands of the Federal Judiciary. I believe that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is not only a right, but also a responsibility. While no one is forced to recite it, neither should anyone be prohibited from pledging allegiance to our great country.

It is wrong for any court to impose its will on whether the overwhelming majority of Americans can publicly express a fundamental belief. The people have spoken through their elected representatives on both the federal and state levels on this issue.

I urge passage of this legislation to send a strong message of judicial restraint, and of empowerment of the people in their own government, to protect the Pledge of Allegiance for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule considering H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. This is a critical piece of legislation that will prevent unelected, lifetime appointed Federal judges from arbitrarily determining the definition of marriage for the American people.

In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act by an overwhelming bipartisan margin. Defense of marriage firmly states that no State shall be required to accept the same-sex marriage licenses granted by other States. To this day, 38 States have passed similar defense of marriage laws, demonstrating the overwhelming consensus for the protection of the institution of marriage.

The role of Congress has always been clear on the limitation of jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts. The Marriage Protection Act is an exercise of Congress's authority and is an appropriate remedy to address the abuses of Federal judges on this issue. States with defense of marriage statutes or constitutional amendments on same-sex marriage should not be forced to accept same-sex marriages from other States.

Today the Federal courts are being used by activist judges to redefine marriage for the American people, completely apart from public debate upon those that the American people have elected to represent them.

More than 200 years of American law and thousands of years of human experience should not be arbitrarily changed by a handful of unelected judges. The issue of marriage is too important to be decided by judicial fiat. The American people must have a voice on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 3313.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 857 and H.R. 1078.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment for the record regarding yesterday's passage of the Maloney Amendment to H.R. 4766, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.

The Maloney amendment, which was adopted yesterday by the House by voice vote, stated that no funds may be used to keep a contraception drug as prescription-only if it has been determined to be safe and effective without a doctor's supervision. Let the record state that there is not an oral contraceptive that has been determined to be safe and effective without a doctor's supervision. Current law already requires FDA to make products available over the-counter only when they are found to be safe and effective.

On May 7, 2004, the FDA rejected an over-the-counter application from Barr Pharmaceuticals for the morning after pill because and I quote: ``. . . we have concluded that you have not provided adequate data to support a conclusion that Plan B can be used safely by young adolescent women for emergency contraception without the professional supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to administer the drug.'' The petitioners for over-the-counter status could not prove that the drug was safe and effective without a doctor's supervision. It is important to note that the Maloney amendment has no effect on current law and merely restates current FDA law and policy regarding prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs.

I am concerned that my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle are attempting to use this amendment to chastise the FDA for its refusal to allow morning-after birth control pills to be sold without a doctor's prescription. I understand that the FDA is being lobbied heavily by the business community and social liberal groups for acceptance of Plan B and other over-the-counter pills that would seek to terminate a pregnancy. I'm encouraged that the FDA is willing to place the concerns of public health above other considerations and I am hopeful that the FDA will continue to resist pressure from these outside interests.