Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the amount of money Saddam Hussein socked away by subverting the U.N. Oil-for-Food program was $21.3 billion. Much of it is being used by terrorists in Iraq to this very day. After the Gulf War, the international community set about to make sure that the international community did not add to the suffering of the Iraqi people who already endured under Hussein. Unfortunately, officials at the U.N. and corporate executives conspired with the Iraqi dictator to create a complex web of patronage and bribery.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator who encouraged terror and violence. However, the U.N.'s inability to enforce its own sanctions, 17 of them since 1991, has today been highlighted by its complicity in the suffering of the Iraqi people. There is no excuse. The U.N. must be reformed. Those responsible must be punished. The Oil-for-Food program is a symptom of a much larger problem, a lack of accountability and an absence of resolve.

Mr. Speaker, despite what he says, under John Kerry's tax plan, a multi-billionaire could get away without paying 1 penny more in taxes. The problem is Mr. Kerry does not distinguish between wealth and taxable income. Many truly wealthy do not receive a lot of taxable income. They put their money in tax-sheltered investments. If Mr. Kerry were truly serious about taxing the wealth, he would propose eliminating these tax shelters and penalize wealth directly.

Instead, Mr. Kerry would raise taxes on small business owners, ranchers and family farmers. They all work hard, but many are asset rich in land and equipment and cash poor. They are not wealthy. Many borrow money to start or grow businesses and often have high expenses. But if Mr. Kerry gets his way, these hard-working families would see more of their dwindling resources go to Uncle Sam while the truly wealthy get richer. Mr. Kerry's plan might sound good, but it is just a back-door tax hike on working families while giving the truly wealthy a pass.

Mr. Speaker, most people think this election will be close. Already, the Democrat party has assembled a legal team and campaign account to file a series of lawsuits on Election Day. Democrats are again preparing to sue their way to the White House by raising money to challenge election results.

This is not a new tactic for liberals, and that is what John Kerry and John Edwards are, the first and fourth most liberal Members of the Senate.

This political strategy has been used by liberals for years, to win by litigation what they cannot win through legislation. They have used this method to enact a large part of their social agenda in past years.

Mr. Speaker, it is easier to manipulate words, to dupe a few liberal unelected judges than to collectively fool the American people, but the American people are on to it. We hold elections for a reason: to allow the people to choose their own leaders, not lawyers and judges.

This should not be another ploy to challenge our democratic process.

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, Mr. Kerry calls Iraq a mistake. On the other hand, he says our soldiers are not dying for a mistake. He has failed time and again to make sense of his flip-flops. And while he looked good in the debate last week, he sounded like the same old candidate with 57 varieties of stances on Iraq. His call for a timetable to get troops out of Iraq sends a message that terrorists can outlast us. It is a fancy way to spin the fact that he wants to retreat.

His repeated statements that Iraq is a ``quagmire,'' ``the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,'' repels allies; it does not rally them to our cause. And, talking about real coalitions is a fancy way to spin the fact that, under his watch, other nations would dictate the deployment of our military, and it insults our coalition partners and the Iraqi forces who are risking their lives every day for freedom.

John Kerry just does not get it.

Mr. Speaker, Senator Kerry says that our Nation must pass a global test before engaging in military action to protect ourselves. I wonder who gets to administer the test.

Certainly, Mr. Kerry would ask France and Germany for their opinions. Others would probably add Great Britain, Russia, China, and Japan to that list. Most certainly the U.N. and its member states would have a say where our military goes and why.

Unfortunately, the American people would not in a global test. Mr. Kerry would probably ignore a group of Iraqi women who were here in Washington recently. They said the question is not why we removed Saddam Hussein from power, but what took us so long.

An American President is accountable not to the world in how he protects this Nation, but to the American people who rely on him to act to protect them. Other countries should not be able to have veto power over our sovereignty.

Senator Kerry's global test is a miserable failure of a policy idea.

Mr. Speaker, today we will debate and vote on an issue of critical importance to our society: marriage.

The issue is whether we will stand idly by as a few unelected judges redefine the family for us, or if we will take a stand and say enough is enough. The best home for kids is with their mom and dad. Children cannot do better than that, and we should not try to redefine marriage.

Unfortunately, some claim that this is an issue for the States. Indeed, it is if that is what was happening. It is not. Activist courts are circumventing the States in order to make this happen. We would never debate it. The States would never debate it. The American people would never debate. That is how the activist groups and the activist judges want it. States rights are meaningless if judges ultimately make the decisions.

Mr. Speaker, this House should pass the marriage protection amendment and send it to the State legislatures for their ratification so the courts do not become the final maker of family policy. Kids do best with a mom and dad.

Mr. Speaker, marriage is a universal human institution. It always has been in all societies. But marriage in the United States has been under attack in recent years. And the future of marriage really does matter.

Regardless of where we look, we have seen a gradual weakening of the institution of family that historically we have relied on to raise kids. And while marriage has taken a beating from divorce and other factors, the statistics

still show that the best home for kids is still with a mom and a dad who are married.

This debate is really about what is best for our children. Children living with their mom and dad are safer, children living with their mom and dad are less likely to be abused or neglected, and children living with their mom and dad have fewer health problems and engage in fewer risky behaviors than their peers. These children are more likely to do well in school. They are better off economically and display increased ability to adapt to changing circumstances than peers not living with their mom and dad.

Data shows children who do not have the benefit of mom and dad have unique challenges they would not face if their parents were married and living at home.

And do not try to tell me that people who believe children need moms and dads are bigots. Do not try to tell me that people who believe in moral absolutes are guilty of moral bigotry. We are here to protect our kids. We are here because marriage is healthy for our children.

When marriage ceases to be seen as a means to bring people together for the sake of children, marriage suffers; and when marriage suffers, children pay the price.

Marriage is important because kids need a mom and a dad. History shows that when one aspect of marriage is damaged, the entire institution suffers.

We need to protect marriage by passing this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to share with my colleagues that Ambassador Idriss Jazairy of Algeria will be leaving us soon at the end of a very successful tour of duty in the United States.

It has been a privilege working with this gentleman as Algeria's ambassador to the United States for the past 4 years. His eloquent professionalism, great confidence, and his deep care for his family and country have all been reflected in his life and service here.

Ambassador Jazairy is a true diplomat. He builds bridges and facilitates reconciliation. He has been an eloquent spokesman for his country and the causes of peace and goodwill in the world. He, indeed, is what one would call a peacemaker. He represents his nation's interests with great dignity and has been a wonderful man to work with and call a friend. We will miss him.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the ambassador the very best as he begins his new tour of duty in Geneva as an ambassador to the United Nations, and hope our paths will cross soon.

Mr. Speaker, CBS has publicly apologized for airing the story on President Bush's National Guard service which relied on fraudulent documents. The fallout from this story will be felt for a long time. CBS has discredited itself as a news organization.

Some were surprised to learn that the man who produced those forged documents, Bill Burkett, was in contact with the Kerry campaign. A series of e-mails has surfaced showing that Burkett spoke with Max Cleland, an adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign about assisting the Democrats with a counter attack on Bush.

Also, a senior adviser to Kerry, Joe Lockhart, said that on the advice of CBS producer Mary Mapes, he spoke with Burkett about Vietnam and the Presidential campaign shortly before the piece aired. Lockhart's role in this attack is particularly disturbing.

Fraudulent political attacks by anyone are reprehensible. Joe Lockhart is talented and intelligent, but I believe he should excuse himself from the Kerry campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate an important event in my district coming up on Wednesday, September 29, an event I would have been eager to attend but for my duties here in the Capitol on that important session day.

On that day, residents and staff of sixteen not-for-profit Continuing Care Retirement Communities in my district will gather together for a ceremonial joint signing of a pledge to participate in Quality First, a nationwide, profession-wide effort to ``raise the bar'' on quality and on achieving a process of continuous improvement.

These sixteen communities, large and small, constitute L.A.S.S., which stands for Lancaster Area Senior Services. Together, they serve more than 10,000 seniors and 7,000 employees and have made a commitment to work together to explore ways to address trends and services that will enhance the quality of life for their residents.

Part of that commitment was the decision to take part in Quality First. All 16 members of L.A.S.S. are also members of PANPHA, their 300+ member state association of nonprofit housing and service providers, and of AAHSA, their national Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. AAHSA launched Quality First in 2002, along with other provider associations, to make a commitment to earning public trust and to helping older adults and their families live to their fullest potential. Participation in Quality First is a way to prove to a doubting public, a critical media and a skeptical legislature that the profession is committed to quality and constant quality improvement.

The AAHSA/PANPHA version of Quality First to which the L.A.S.S. members have committed includes 10 Elements of Quality: commitment; governance accountability; leading-edge care and services; community involvement; continuous quality improvement; human resources development; consumer-friendly information; consumer participation; research findings and education; and public trust and consumer confidence.

They in turn are based on seven core principles: continuous quality assurance and quality improvement; public disclosure and accountability; patient/resident and family rights; workforce excellence; public input and community involvement; ethical practices; and financial stewardship.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the boards, trustees, and executive staff of the L.A.S.S. communities on their decision to participate in Quality First. As I indicated earlier, it is unfortunate that I cannot attend the commemoration, but I am pleased to be able to mark the event to my colleagues by way of these remarks.

The continuing care retirement communities comprising Lancaster Area Senior Services are: Brethren Village, Calvary Fellowship Homes, Ephrata Manor, Fairmont Homes, Garden Spot Village, Homestead Village, Inc., Landis Homes, Luthercare, Masonic Village, Mennonite Home Communities, Moravian Manor, Quarryville Presbyterian Retirement Community, Saint Anne's Home, Tel Hai Retirement Community, United Zion Retirement Community, and Willow Valley Retirement Communities.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Congressional Record the unanimously agreed upon Concluding Document of the Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and Religious Freedom, which occurred in Brussels, Belgium in early August of this year. Over 30 different countries from Asia, the Middle East, Europe, Africa and Latin America sent parliamentarians to participate in the conference to discuss issues of ethnicity, religion and citizenship, responses to anti-Semitism, terrorism and religious freedom, religious registration laws, trafficking in persons, and women's rights. In addition, a number of nongovernmental and religious organizations attended and participated. These kinds of gatherings are vital in building relationships and understanding, and ultimately cooperation and partnership, between peoples of all nations.

Concluding Statement of the Second Session of the Interparliamentary

Conference on Human Rights and Religious Freedom, August 7, 2004,

Brussels, Belgium

The Second Session of the Interparliamentary Conference on

Human Rights and Religious Freedom encourages the genuine

expression of opinions from representatives of the peoples of

the world. There is no greater legitimacy than that expressed

by peoples in their choice of representatives.

The great variety of cultures, the different paths to God,

the diverse ethnic backgrounds, and the disparity of historic

goals often lead to conflict and bloodshed between peoples,

but should instead be sources of inspiration in our quest for

valid solutions.

Religious freedom is the first human right and should not

be confined to the private sphere only.

We live in an era characterized by aspirations towards

diversity and tolerance but clouded by tragic failures of

mutual respect. True religious freedom is more than mere

tolerance. It constitutes an embracing of universal human

dignity as a consequence of one's religious convictions.

Every individual has inherent dignity and worth, and the

state is constituted to serve society, not vice versa.

The forceful attempts to build homogenous societies in the

last century led to horrendous human sufferings, to the

carnage of world wars and to genocide.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has become the

framework for a global compact with great moral authority and

the promise of a more just international order.

Lifestyles and social structures rooted in different

religions should be preserved in order to maintain peace and

harmony on all levels, from the local community to the world

order.

Prejudice and repression based on ethnic, religious and

cultural background persist. In some cases these insults to

human dignity enjoy the authority of law and the state.

Ethnic and religious intolerance are unacceptable and

should not be used as a basis for restricting citizenship. A

civic covenant and the rule of law constitute the only

rational basis for creating a just society.

Any cultural and spiritual invocation of undetermined

historic or divine authority as justification for hatred and

rejection of others directly and actively violates

universally proclaimed human rights.

The Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and

Religious Freedom solemnly reaffirms the right to freedom of

religion and belief for each person, and rejects any attempt

to restrict fundamental rights on the basis of religious,

ethnic or cultural identity including restrictions or forcing

any religious dress.

Anti-Semitism is a global concern and never a function of

Jewish conduct. Reducing the magnitude of Jewish suffering

throughout history to politics alienates and distorts our own

humanity.

The alarming signs of recurrence of Anti-Semitism,

especially in some advanced societies of Western Europe,

indicate a deep-rooted prejudice.

The Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and

Religious Freedom condemns hatred on the basis of religious,

ethnic or cultural identity, including restricting or forcing

religious dress.

Security has become a global problem. No nation is able to

protect its citizens and territorial integrity without

international solidarity.

The very concept of great power changes its contour in an

environment where fringe groups are able to disrupt and

damage the very structure of a society.

Where freedom of religion and belief is protected by

governments and valued by citizens, religion-based terrorism

will not take root. It may take advantage of a free society,

but sustained support will not emerge.

Freedom of religion is an antidote to terrorism--especially

religion-based terrorism. It encourages a theological and

political awareness of the need to accept pluralism.

Discriminating on the basis of religious beliefs or

discrediting religious practices are contrary to respect for

fundamental human dignity. They destabilize society by

creating a climate of tension, intolerance, opposition and

suspicion.

Respect for freedom of religion and belief is an effective

means of promoting national and international security and

stability.

The gravest danger in the world today comes from fanaticism

and extremism that exploits ideals of spiritual and religious

movements.

Manipulation of religion and spiritual beliefs for violent

and terrorist purposes, including murder and destruction of

properties, is unacceptable.

The global pandemic of HIV/AIDs constitutes a terrible

assault on human rights and demands effective action and

enforcement of international commitments for education,

prevention, care and treatment.

Trafficking in persons, in particular women and children,

is recognized as a form of enslavement which violates

fundamental human rights.

Steps need to be taken to ensure that the offense of

trafficking in persons is recognized globally as criminal,

and to prevent further trafficking in persons.

It is imperative to strengthen international institutions

and to create new instruments that will address and protect

the rights of religious and ethnic minorities.

The Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and

Religious Freedom appreciates the work of the Secretariat and

recommends to it that it consult the maximum number of

countries in the elaboration of its future programs.

The Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and

Religious Freedom encourages parliaments and governments to

nurture environments of free expression and respect for human

dignity.

In this spirit the Interparliamentary Conference on Human

Rights and Religious Freedom is grateful to His Majesty King

Mohammed VI of Morocco for his generous appreciation of our

work:

``It is therefore appropriate that this sort of initiative

becomes the foundational undertaking of an international

civilization, where complementarity between people is

substituted for confrontation and where faith in the

paramount necessity of cooperation overcomes the illusion of

self-reliance and autarchy.''

The Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and

Religious Freedom accepts the proposal of the delegation of

the Kingdom of Morocco to host the Third Session in 2005.

Mr. Speaker, S. 2634, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, contains some very important language that I would like to point out to my colleagues. The bill requires written, informed parental consent before a child may participate in the programs funded under this bill. The bill provides an exception for this in cases where there is an emergency and the safety of the child or other students is at risk and in cases where parental consent cannot reasonably be obtained.

Mr. Speaker, this language is very important. The topic of suicide and death is very sensitive, especially for younger children who are very impressionable. I believe that parents, not schools, should be the first line of defense for educating against and preventing their children from considering suicide. Studies have shown that in some cases, suicide education has actually led to suicides. Parents should have the option of keeping their child out of such classes. In addition, if parents are aware that their child is in such a class or program at school, they will be able to look for any warning signs that their child is considering suicide.

The exceptions included in the parental consent requirement are intended to be very narrow--emergency situations and cases where parental consent cannot reasonably be obtained. Emergency situations will be obvious--this would be a situation where a student is threatening his life or the life of someone else. Obviously, in such a case, the counselor or teacher should immediately counsel the student to stop the threatened activity.

Some may wonder what is meant by cases where parental consent cannot be ``reasonably'' obtained. This is intended to mean situations where the parent, despite the best efforts of the school or other organization operating a suicide intervention program, cannot personally give consent. One such situation would be where a single parent in the military has gone overseas for duty and the child is temporarily staying with grandparents. But let me be clear--this is not a loophole for those who find obtaining parental consent to be inconvenient or time-consuming. It is for those rare and very limited situations in which a parent simply is not able to provide consent.

I would like to thank Chairman Barton for working so diligently on this important language.

Madam Speaker, on September 11, 2001, some 3,000 innocent men, women and children were killed in an act of war, including 30 from my home State of Pennsylvania. This weekend we will honor the memory and redevote ourselves to defeating the evil that killed them.

We should never forget why they died, for no other reason but that they were Americans, because the agents of evil believe that they can bully us and change our policies by murdering innocent people. And they continue to believe this. We saw it in Russia last week; we saw it in Spain this summer.

Madam Speaker, it is our duty to use every element of national power to defeat them and the conditions under which they thrive. Three years after 9/11 we have made progress. I am proud of the way our country has responded. I am proud of our troops. I am proud of our Commander in Chief, who has led us in the war on terror with a steady hand. Most of all, I am proud of the American people, who have joined together to renew our commitment to what makes America great.

Let us keep praying that the world will be rid of terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, the programs that teenagers watch on television affect their behavior. Advertisers have known this for years and have cashed in on it.

This week, we have a better idea of how television takes hold of our young people. A Rand Corporation study recently found that children who watch a lot of TV with sexual content are twice as likely to be sexually active as those with little exposure to televised sexual behavior.

Sexuality is pervasive on television, present in more than two-thirds of all programming from innuendoes to actual depictions. Kids become absorbed with the characters in their favorite shows and begin to model their behavior. They are simply doing what their role models do. Sadly, the study found that doing what their favorite characters do results in regret, and they cited television as a factor in influencing their behavior.

In a culture increasingly devoid of positive role models, television is filling the void; and many parents are dropping the ball. Excessive exposure to television hurts our kids. Parents need to turn off the TV before more damage is done to our Nation's kids.

Mr. Speaker, there is still a lot to do, but as we speak the Iraqi government is making progress. Iraqi police are rounding up kidnappers. The Kurds have captured 15 foreign militants in Kirkuk, including a key leader and an al-Qaeda affiliate.

The number of Arab and other foreign fighters currently detained in Iraq continues to grow. Iraq's border police have apprehended more than 60,000 foreigners in the past 7 months, most of them Iranians trying to enter Iraq illegally, and there are plenty of signs that the residents of Baghdad are finding a sense of normalcy amidst the transition to democracy.

Five teams participated in the first Iraqi baseball tournament, including two female teams. Nightlife is returning to the banks of the Tigris River, and residents have started frequenting summer cafes.

In Mosul the military is working with Iraqis to dig wells, renew archeological digs, build a laboratory and repair a hospital elevator.

The Iraqi people are making progress despite the ongoing efforts of terrorists to drag them back to the dark ages of Saddam Hussein.