Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, according to rule IV, clause 4(a), the privileges of former Members on this floor, it states, ``is a registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal, as those terms are defined in clause 5 of rule XXV.'' Is it true that if a former Member was a registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal, that they could not be on the floor?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would like to join me in noting that clause 2(a) of rule XX provides that a recorded vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote. On the previous question vote, Rollcall Vote No. 145, I would hope that you would agree that at the expiration of time for this vote the noes were prevailing. Is that true?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Could the Speaker tell me when an instance of the vote being held open would reverse the outcome if it is not when the ``nays'' are prevailing against the ``yeas,'' or the ``yeas'' prevailing against the ``nays,'' and the majority wants the outcome to be the exact opposite?

Sir, that is not a hypothetical.

Parliamentary inquiry.

I am asking you a question about the House rules. If I am not correct, further parliamentary inquiry, you are the arbitrator of those rules; is that true?

Further parliamentary inquiry. According to clause 2(a) of rule XX, it says that a recorded vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote.

Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry to you is: When would this rule apply to a vote where, at the end of the time, the outcome was different than what the majority wanted it to be?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

We are talking about a single vote. We are talking about the previous question vote, rollcall No. 145, which was held open past the 15-minute mark to change the outcome. If clause 2(a) of rule XX does not apply to that, what would it apply to?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, what you just read, is that in the rules?

So it is the Chair's interpretation of the rule, of clause 2(a) of rule XX; it is the Chair's interpretation that the vote can be held open to reverse the outcome of the vote?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Could the Speaker answer me why we have a time limit on votes?

Mr. Speaker, I move we adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to recommit with instructions.

One of the most confusing areas of public life for most Americans involves to what extent a person may express their personal religious views. Everyone believes they have complete religious freedom and yet the media often reports instances where courts or administrators say people may not express their religious faith. The unfortunate result of this confusion is that people tend to self-censor their behavior.

In 1997, the Clinton administration sent out guidelines to all Federal agencies that specifically detailed an employee's right to religious expression in the workplace. As then-President Clinton said in his remarks on the executive memorandum, ``Religious freedom is at the heart of what it means to be an American and at the heart of our journey to become truly one America.''

America continues to see ever-growing and diverse forms of religious expression, and unfortunately we have also seen an increase in the attempts to undermine religious freedom and expression.

So, as we consider this bill, we should be clear that the Federal employees do not have to check their faith at the door of their workplace and are protected under this bill if they do report violations of the current Clinton-era guidelines. In fact, it is often their faith that makes them the compassionate social worker in the employment office, the loving teacher in the Head Start program and the caring medical professionals treating our wounded soldiers.

There is nothing more personal than a person's faith, and our Federal employees deserve to know that they cannot be forced to check their quality of life at the door. As such, this motion provides that it is an abuse of authority for Federal agencies to prevent a Federal employee from blowing the whistle on instances of retaliation against permissible religious exercise and expression in the workplace.

The definition of permissible religious exercise and expression is drawn from President Clinton's 1997 memorandum to Federal agencies regarding religious expression in the Federal workplace. It includes, for example, the ability of Federal employees to have a Bible on their desk, wear a religious emblem on their clothing, or to express their views to other employees. It also includes provisions protecting against discrimination, harassment and coercion.

I believe this is an important addition to this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to support the addition of this language.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you, Congressman Price. Thank you for doing the Official Truth Squad. It is an honor to be here with Colonel Kline. Like he said, the number of our Vietnam veterans is declining every year, and we are fortunate enough to serve with some great heroes from that war in this body.

It is interesting that we have talked about micromanaging, we have talked about different people taking on the role of general. Today in the Committee on Government Reform when we were passing out a bill that I feel is unconstitutional to give the D.C. Delegate the ability to vote and also creating another seat in Utah, I was reading the Constitution and I came across the part where it called the President the Commander in Chief. This is something that our Founding Fathers I think had experienced through the Revolutionary War and through the different militias and the different bands of people, that they understood that we needed one Commander in Chief. So they gave that responsibility to the man who is ultimately responsible for what goes on in this country, the guy that, as Harry Truman put it, the buck stops here. They gave the President the responsibility to be the Commander in Chief.

Now, we have several people in this body who I think want to be the Commander in Chief. In fact, I think we have got probably over 200 people that think they need to be the Commander in Chief. But the truth of it is our Constitution only gives that to one person.

What the Constitution also does is give Congress the ability to put forth funds for this war. If that is what the President decides to do, it gives Congress the ability to do that. It also gives them the ability to declare war.

This House voted and the Senate voted to authorize President Bush to use the military force that he has used, and if they don't like that, then they need to do something to call that authority back or to reauthorize or not to reauthorize. But we need to quit micromanaging and interfering with the affairs of our military leaders. General David Petraeus was approved unanimously in the Senate. Then the very next week they are trying to tell him how to run the war.

The other interesting thing is, and I think Ms. Foxx spoke about all the pork that is in this supplemental bill to fund the war, which, by the way, I think the President asked for about 3 or 4 weeks ago, so we want to make sure we do have these funds for our troops and not just keep prolonging it. But it would be good to hurry and bring this bill to the floor, since they have called it an emergency spending bill. But as Ms. Foxx pointed out, there are several things in there that really aren't what I would consider emergency spending.

One of the other things that has been taken out of that is the Iran language. I don't know if you had seen that or Colonel Kline or any of you had seen that, but they have taken the Iran language out of it.

I wanted to quote something, Congressman, because I think this is kind of what we are seeing out of the majority party, is they will say one thing about one situation and something counter to that on something else.

Here is what was said about the Iran situation: ``I don't think it was a very

wise idea to take things off the table if you are trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way.''

That was a quote from Representative Gary Ackerman, talking about that if we tied the hands of the President, that it would take away any threat off the table that he might have to use against Iran to make them follow the U.N. resolution or some of the things that we have asked them to do. I think that is very unusual, or at least concerning to me, that on the one hand they are tying the President's hands on what he is doing in Iraq, but they don't want to tie his hands on what he is doing in Iran.

Hopefully one day we will see some decisive leadership come out of this Congress. I think that the Republicans gave 12 good years of leadership, and I hope that the American people will miss that one day, as bad as we were at times. I hope that they will miss that and want to put us back in that position where we can earn our way back into the leadership of this country.

But I certainly hope that in the next year and a half that we don't do things that will ruin our reputation with freedom-loving people all over this world, that the American people don't keep their word.

Colonel Kline, I can't help but just think about that picture of that last helicopter leaving South Vietnam and those people standing on the top of that government building with their hands reached out, knowing that after our troops pulled out because of political pressure that some of those people were probably murdered and massacred the next day, or at least within the next 30 days.

Madam Speaker, when we use the term ``slow bleed,'' let's think about what that means. If you are going to torture your enemy or want somebody to have the most painful death possible, you give them a slow bleed. You let them bleed out very slowly. You are a doctor and you know that can be the most painful death in the world.

That is what they are doing, is a slow bleed. It is going to be a painful death, not only for our military and for the victory we want to have in Iraq and Afghanistan, but for those people that the colonel is talking about. And those people have been our allies in this. Those are the people that believe with all their heart and mind and soul and every breath that they want to breathe freedom and liberty. Those are the people that believe in what we believe in, and they have pulled alongside of us to make this work. Those are the first ones that are going to be slaughtered.

So thanks for giving me the opportunity to come down and speak, and thanks for doing the Truth Squad. I just look forward to continuing this debate one day.

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

Mr. Speaker, today commemorates the 95th anniversary of the founding of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America. Founder Juliette Daisy Gordon Low organized the first Girl Scout meeting with 18 girls in Savannah, Georgia. While living in the United Kingdom, Low dreamed of giving the United States something for all girls and envisioned exposing girls to helping their communities and enjoying the outdoors.

The organization went through many different name changes, but it was finally renamed as we know it today in 1947. It was later chartered by the United States Congress on March 16, 1950.

For 95 years, the Girl Scout organization has provided real-world leadership training for over 50 million girls and young women across the Nation. Today, overall membership includes 2.7 million girl members and 928,000 adult members, working primarily as volunteers. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say

that my two oldest granddaughters are members of the Girl Scouts of America.

The important guidance given to girls goes far beyond the eagerly anticipated annual sale of Thin Mints, Tagalongs and Dos si Dos, now made without any trans fat. Through their various programs, the organization instills the ideals of character, conduct, leadership, as well as service to others. They have recently launched a program for girls focused on healthy living that includes education regarding diet and exercise.

This important education has been instituted because of the national concern about obesity among children and the knowledge that a program such as this has been proven to lead to emotional and physical well- being.

The Girl Scouts organization has long been committed to helping girls of today become leaders of tomorrow through activities that build self- confidence, responsibility, integrity, creative decision-making skills, and teamwork. It can be difficult growing up, especially in today's society.

The Girl Scouts is one organization that has consistently guided members to believe that girls can do anything by offering girls aged 5 through 17 a variety of opportunities through their scouting programs.

The Girl Scouts are woven into the fabric of American life and have affected girls' lives, as well as their families, in virtually every community in the country. Girl Scout programs continue to expand, taking into account the diverse population of America today.

They have initiated outreach programs that strive to include all cultures as part of their mission to foster the qualities on which the United States depends. The Girl Scouts not only reach out to girls in the United States but through U.S.A. Girl Scouts Overseas, it is committed to helping girls worldwide become leaders of tomorrow. Their new vision statement sums up all that is good about this organization by saying, ``Girl Scouting builds girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place.''

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 136.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, America began its relationship with the Dutch in 1609 when Captain Henry Hudson, searching for a faster route to Asia, sailed up what is now known as the Hudson River. Although he did not find his way to Asia, he and other Dutch traders quickly saw the potential and opportunity of this country and established the second European settlement in America named Fort Nassau near Albany, New York.

Their growth continued, and eventually a large portion of the early eastern United States was settled by the Dutch. The Dutch and the United States have proven to be extraordinary allies over the past 200 years, where in many instances they came to each other's aid at critical times in history.

Shortly after the Revolutionary War, the Netherlands presented a risky and courageous act by being the first country to salute the American flag. A few years later, on April 19, 1782, John Adams secured the recognition of the United States as an independent government at The Hague. He was the first U.S. envoy to the Netherlands and brokered the first loan for Congress from three banks in the Netherlands, which amounted to the entire U.S. foreign debt at that time.

Consequently, the Netherlands followed France to become the second country in the world to establish formal diplomatic relations with the United States. Also during this time, John Adams purchased a home that became the first American embassy on

foreign soil anywhere in the world. These ties still remain strong and, in fact, constitute one of the longest, unbroken diplomatic relationships between the United States and any foreign country right up until the present time.

The Netherlands have demonstrated its commitment to the United States, even in modern times, by being one of the first countries to ally itself with the U.S. after the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was one of the first to assist in the war on terror; and in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, the Netherlands graciously provided Members of Congress access to their unique and innovative perspective on water management and flood protection.

I would also like to point out that Dutch Americans have contributed greatly to our fine country and have played a significant role in the life of America. This is exemplified by our three Presidents of Dutch descent, Presidents Martin van Buren, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt. Dutch Americans have served at all levels of our government and have served us well in this distinguished body, including the two sponsors of this bill, Mr. Hoekstra, and my colleague on the committee, Mr. Van Hollen.

Dutch Americans and our rich history have many firsts with the Netherlands, and it continues to strengthen our tie with this true diplomatic friend working side by side with the United States to bring peace, freedom, and commerce in the world at large.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 89.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H. Res. 89, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am honored to speak today in support of H. Res. 198, recognizing the significance of Black History Month.

Each February we express our appreciation of the struggles, determination and perseverance of the African American community of the past and present. February is a time to recognize the contributions of black Americans that have enriched our culture and our heritage.

There have been great activists, politicians, artists, writers, poets, scientists, economists, athletes, entertainers and musicians that have all bettered our way of life. These achievements, the achievements of so many, have encouraged today's youth to strive for a more equal and free country.

It is impossible to celebrate Black History Month without mentioning such noted leaders as Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks. These achievers, and others, have helped make this country what it is today.

Today's popular culture is replete with African American icons, through sports, music and the entertainment industry, icons such as Richard Pryor, Halle Berry, Tiger Woods, Arthur Ashe, Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali, and Hank Aaron.

The music industry alone has influenced our culture for decades, Louis Armstrong, Dorothy Dandridge, Billie Holiday, Sammy Davis, Jr., and Georgia's own Ray Charles, each of whom overcame adversity before and during the civil rights movement just to play their music.

When Harvard scholar Dr. Carter G. Woodson had the idea to create a week-long celebration of black history back in 1926, his goal was, and I quote, ``to make the world see the Negro as a participant rather than as a lay figure in history.'' Over time, it has become the month-long celebration and commemoration that it is today. It is with great pleasure that I speak today in support of H. Res. 198.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in supporting this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, I believe on the opening day of the session, did we or did we not pass House Resolution 6, that was the rules package?

Parliamentary inquiry, ma'am, is how many rules of that standing rules package did this Rules Committee waive in order to do this bill?

As my colleague from Georgia just said, I was looking forward to that 5-day workweek, and so far, since January 4, I believe we have experienced one. Here it is, 2:25. And I don't know of many people from the Third District of Georgia that are home right now. Most people are working.

The chairman of the Financial Services Committee said his people were falling sleep. They must be staying up too late at night because it is not from overwork. As my colleague from Georgia said, I think in the last 2 days we have worked an hour and a half.

When the Republicans were in charge, I remember getting home at 10:30, 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock at night from a hard day's work. And when the Democrats took over, I had to really kind of refocus on how to get back to my apartment because I had never seen the daylight hours.

So I want to ask the Democrats on the other side of the aisle, if you are going to say something, let's do it. Let's make sure that we do it, and that these are not just empty promises that you told the American people to get into the majority.

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to come back and talk a little bit more about the majority and the work schedule and the work ethics that they seem to be putting forth. I could come up and read my BlackBerry and my schedule to you. I don't know if that is exactly what our constituents had in mind, was electing us and paying us to come up here and go to receptions and go to dinners and travel around ourselves. That

is understandable. I think what they sent us up here to do was to do the people's business.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) came up and talked about regular order. I just had to come back, Madam Speaker, to address regular order. I have almost forgotten what regular order is because since we have taken over, since the Democrats took over January 4, I guess we have had maybe this bill and one other bill that actually went through regular order.

We had an organizational meeting for my committees, and I think I have had one other meeting in one of the committees, two hearings or three hearings in another committee, not actually about any of the specific legislation.

In fact, the bills that have come to the floor have been taken out of two of the committees that I serve on to be brought directly to the floor without any kind of markup.

So I nicknamed this Congress, Madam Speaker, the smoke and mirrors Congress, and I think that they have done, and I am talking about the majority party that is in control now, have done a wonderful job with smoke and mirrors and fooling the American people.

We did a smoke and mirrors on the minimum wage. We did a smoke and mirrors on the war resolution. We have done several smoke and mirrors, and we continue to do smoke and mirrors.

It is just like the 5-day work week. They never address the 5-day work week. Where is the 5-day work week? Since the first week of January, we have had one 5-day work week. We may be going to have committee hearings, and we may be going to go to all these parties and receptions and other things, but when are we going to work? Because most of my constituents are at work right now. In fact, most of them, some of them, possibly started at 6 o'clock this morning. A lot of the airline people work a 5:00 a.m. shift. A lot of them start at 7:00, but we start at 10:00, and I have not had a hearing earlier than 10 o'clock, and today we finished the legislative business at 2:15.

So, Madam Speaker, I hear all these things, and I hear some good ideas, and I think the people do want us to work, but let us not campaign on one thing and then come to Washington and do something else. I think the people deserve more than that.

Also, I wanted to address the regular order thing. I am elected by 700,000 people in the Third District of Georgia, and they expect some representation up here, and I do my best to do that. They want a voice in the things that happen on this floor, but yet I have been unable to offer an amendment, unable to offer an amendment when the rules of the House clearly state that every Member of this body has the right to amend a piece of legislation. But when the Rules Committee meet, they waive that rule.

It is like the smoke and mirrors PAYGO that we got. People are like, oh, yeah, I like that PAYGO. They cannot increase the deficit or anything without making sure that the money is there to pay it. So, man, we love that PAYGO. The problem is that the Rules Committee, in the bill that came that involved that, waived that rule. Smoke and mirrors.

So, Madam Speaker, I am going to let people rest now. I see that Mrs. Blackburn is here to start her Special Order, but I just want the people, Madam Speaker, to understand that we are up here to do the people's business and not just to talk a good game, but to act a good game. So hopefully they will see that we want to earn ourself back into the majority, and they will have the confidence in us to lead this country once again.

Thank you, Ms. Blackburn. I really want to ask you a couple of questions, if I could, just to have a little conversation here. You talked about taxes and what was being done. How about the alternative minimum tax, the AMT, that was put in under the Democratic majority back in the late sixties or early seventies, that was really targeted to try to get 28 millionaires out of 250 million people that live in this country, to target 28 people, to come up with this alternative minimum tax that says, you know, if you fill out your 1040 and we don't feel like you paid enough tax, in other words, if you had too many deductions or if your tax really wasn't where we thought it needed to be, then you have to pay the alternative minimum tax.

I think the lady from Tennessee may have some numbers. I don't know. I have heard the number that as high as 32 million people are going to be affected, 10 percent of our population or over 10 percent of the population is going to be affected by something that the Democrats did to get 28 people to pay taxes. It should have been a little more simple than that, shouldn't it?

That is exactly right. Here is the Web site right here: [email protected]. And you can go to the Hensarling Web site, our chairman, and let us know how you feel about the AMT. If this thing has affected you, we want to know about it, because we are going to make sure that we do everything that we can to make sure that this AMT does not continue to affect more and more of our taxpayers that go out every day and work hard for their money. And, by the way, they are probably still at work right now trying to earn some money.

Getting back to the Employee Intimidation bill, is it going to be an open rule or a closed rule? I don't want to talk inside baseball or get down in the weeds here, but are we going to be able to offer amendments? Am I going to be able to offer an amendment to perfect this bill? Or is it going to be a closed rule like we have been having where the people of the Third District of Georgia or some of the people from the lady from Tennessee's district or the gentleman from Texas' district that has no say-so in the process? Have you heard if we are going to be able to perfect this bill? Or is this bill perfect? Is this bill perfect and doesn't really need any perfecting?

Mr. Speaker, if this undemocratic, smoke-and- mirrors Congress had been in power throughout our Nation's history, I am not sure we would have much to celebrate this weekend when we commemorate Presidents Day. On Monday, we honor the Presidents who guided our Nation through its toughest moments, Presidents who made tough decisions in the face of public skepticism despite great peril and unimaginable sacrifice.

Not all Americans supported General George Washington's campaign against the British, yet our Nation's father led a ragtag band of underfed and underequipped soldiers to victory over the greatest military of its day.

Not all Americans supported President Lincoln's decision to go to war to preserve the Union. It seems inevitable today, but, at the time, many Americans would have preferred to save the lives, treasure, and misery and just let the Nation cleave into two. But Lincoln decided to preserve the Union, a Union that, in time, would become the greatest, most powerful nation on earth, even though he had to wage the deadliest war in U.S. history, with 600,000 lives lost.

I wonder what the forebears of today's Democratic Party would think of their policy of retreat and defeat? What would they think of the timidity in the face of great danger?

What happened to the legacy of Woodrow Wilson, who faced down American skeptics to lead us to victory in World War I?

What happened to the legacy of FDR, who faced down American isolationists to defeat the evils of German fascism and the militarism of imperial Japan?

What happened to the legacy of Harry Truman, the first President to realize the peril of the Soviets and entered our war-weary Nation into the fight against the spread of communism?

The wisdom of their decisions wasn't necessarily clear to all Americans of their day, but the judgment of history validates their leadership.

Today, our Commander in Chief sees the danger to our Nation's security and freedom posed by Islamic extremist forces in the Middle East. Many in this Congress choose to believe that the violence in Iraq is a local problem. To some degree, it is, but it is also a problem for the United States.

If we were to follow the proposals of Democratic leaders, we would pull out our troops and let Iraq become a failed State. Anarchy in Iraq would give al Qaeda and other extremists a safe haven to train and plot attacks. It was in the failed states of the Sudan and Afghanistan that al Qaeda was able to plan the African embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole and the September 11 disasters.

The smoke and mirrors Democratic Congress wants it both ways. On the one hand, they say this is a nonbinding resolution. On the other hand, they say this is a first step.

Given how Democratic leaders have battled to one-up each other and have allowed their rhetoric to spiral, how can this nonbinding resolution be anything but a first step?

How can Democrats stop with the nonbinding resolution if they agree with Senator Obama that lives lost in Iraq have been ``wasted?''

This nonbinding resolution expresses disapproval of the military plan to strengthen our forces in Iraq and give them the resources they need. By the end of this week, every Member of this House will be on the record and answerable to their constituents about whether they are for or against the military plan.

My colleagues who vote for this resolution are for one of two things. They are either for retreat and defeat, or stay the course.

We all agree that changes need to be made, that changes need to take us toward a stable and peaceful Iraq. Withdrawal would take us in the opposite direction.

Let's reject this smoke-and-mirrors resolution and continue to fight, take the fight to the terrorists.