Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Army Air Corps' legendary Tuskegee Airmen. On March 29, 2007, in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, the surviving Tuskegee Airmen were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the most prestigious recognition that federal lawmakers can bestow. Tuskegee Airmen, from Colorado, that received the Congressional Gold Medal include: James E. Harrison, James H. Harvey III, Samuel C. Hunter Jr., Franklin J. Macon, John W. Mosley, Fitzroy ``Buck'' Newsum, Marion R. Rodgers, David A. Smith, William A. Walters, and Randolph Edwards.

The first African-American airmen unit in the U.S. military trained in Tuskegee, Alabama. A total of 450 Tuskegee Airmen served overseas on various missions. During WWII, the Airmen flew missions over North Africa, Italy and Sicily. Collectively, they flew more than 15,000 combat sorties, shot down 111 German planes, and disabled 150 German planes on the ground. Thirty-three Airmen were shot down and held as paws, and 66 of the Airmen were killed.

The Tuskegee Airmen got their start in 1941 after the NAACP filed a lawsuit. President Franklin Roosevelt started the Army Air Corps training program as the first African-American training program. The Airmen were segregated from other units and endured blatant racism and discrimination while helping win World War II and change our Nation for the better. Their achievements helped contribute to the eventual integration of African-Americans into the military and also helped lead the way for further desegregation throughout the Nation.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating James E. Harrison, James H. Harvey III, Samuel C. Hunter Jr., Franklin J. Macon, John W. Mosley, Fitzroy ``Buck'' Newsum, Marion R. Rodgers, David A. Smith, William A. Walters, and Randolph Edwards for their patriotism and service to the United States of America. Their triumph over racism and discrimination, along with their outstanding service, is inspirational, and they are a source of pride for America and for all of Colorado. I wish them continued health and happiness.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the United States Women's National Soccer Team on its recent performance at the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup in China.

I am pleased to be introducing this resolution with the support of my colleagues Mrs. Bono, Mr. Walsh, Mrs. Capps, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Arcuri, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Watson and Mr. Towns.

In the spirit of international goodwill, the women of our National Soccer Team competed with the elite women of Norway, Nigeria, England, and Sweden exhibiting sportsmanship and determination every moment on and off the field. Furthermore, finishing in the semi-finals, the team maintained its record as being the only country to finish in the top 3 in all 5 Women's World Cup tournaments that have been contested.

Their contribution to American female athletics is a testament to the legacy of Title IX, now in its 35th year, as well as the dedication and hard work of the players, coaches, and trainers. The support of women's soccer fans around the globe for the games of the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup anticipates the coming 2008 Summer Olympics and the 2009 opening of a women's professional soccer league in the United States.

Madam Speaker, I commend the United States Women's National Soccer Team and ask my colleagues to join me in affirming the importance of athletic participation for young women and men across our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Air Force Academy's Board of Visitors, I have been participating in a meeting of that board here in Washington, DC.

Earlier today, I left the floor to return to that meeting and as a result was not present to vote on rollcall No. 976, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 549, recognizing the importance of America's Waterway Watch program.

Had I been present for that vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and urge its passage.

The bill is intended to provide journalists with a limited, qualified shield against efforts by prosecutors or other officials to compel public disclosure of the identities of whistleblowers or other sources of information.

Like 48 other States (and the District of Columbia), Colorado has already provided a similar protection for journalists, but of course that State law does not apply in Federal cases--for that a Federal statute is required, which is the purpose of this legislation.

And while I recognize that the Justice Department thinks no such law is needed--their view is that their own guidelines adequately deal with the subject--I think our experience in Colorado shows that it is possible to provide the assured protection that comes with a statutory shield without compromising the investigation of wrongdoing or the vigorous prosecution of crime.

I think this legislation does a good job of achieving a similar balance between protection for investigative journalists and their sources while maintaining the ability of the government to protect national security and conduct effective law enforcement.

Under the bill, journalists would be required to testify if a judge finds that a prosecutor, criminal defendant or civil litigant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that an applicable test for compelled disclosure has been met.

For a prosecutor, that means showing that he or she had exhausted alternative sources before demanding information, that the sought-after material was relevant and critical to proving a case, and that the public interest in requiring disclosure would outweigh the public interest in news gathering.

The bill includes special rules for cases involving leaks of classified information or involving a journalist's being an eye witness to a crime.

The bill will enable federal law enforcement authorities to obtain an order compelling disclosure of the identity of a source in the course of an investigation of a leak of properly classified information. It also provides that disclosure of a leaker's identity can be compelled whenever the leak has caused or will cause ``significant and articulable harm to the national security.''

And the bill also permits law enforcement to obtain an order compelling disclosure of documents and information obtained as the result of eyewitness observations by journalists of alleged criminal or tortious conduct, as well as cases involving alleged criminal conduct by journalists themselves.

And, in addition to provisions designed to guard against impairing efforts to prevent acts of terrorism, threats to national security, and death or bodily harm to members of the public, there are similar provisions to guard and make sure the legislation will not thwart efforts to identify those who disclose significant trade secrets or certain financial or medical information in violation of current law.

Mr. Speaker, the need for this legislation was well expressed by former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olsen in an article published in the October 4th edition of the Washington Post.

In that article, Mr. Olsen said:

. . . journalists reporting on high-profile controversies

cannot function effectively without offering some measure of

confidentiality to their sources. Their ability to do so

yields substantial benefits to the public in the form of

stories that might otherwise never be written about

corruption and abuse of power. A person with information

about wrongdoing is often vulnerable to retaliation if

exposed . . . Yet it has become almost routine for

journalists to be slapped with federal subpoenas seeking the

identity of their sources.

Reporters do not expect to be above the law. But they

should receive some protection so they can perform their

public service in ensuring the free flow of information and

exposing improper conduct without risking jail sentences.

The lack of federal protection makes for an especially

strange state of affairs because the Justice Department has

had internal standards providing protection to journalists

and their sources for 35 years, and Special Counsel Patrick

J. Fitzgerald claimed to be adhering to those standards when

he subpoenaed reporters in the Plame affair. Thus, as Judge

Robert Sack of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

has noted, the only real question is whether federal courts

should be given some supervisory authority to ensure that

prosecutors have, in fact, met governing standards before

forcing reporters to testify. The answer seems obvious: yes.

The District and the 49 states with shield laws have

experienced no diminution of law enforcement efforts as a

result of those laws. The legislation would not give

reporters special license beyond the type of common-sense

protection we already accord to communications between

lawyers and clients, between spouses and in other contexts

where

we believe some degree of confidentiality furthers societal

goals.

This legislation is well balanced and long overdue, and it

should be enacted.

I agree with Mr. Olson, and I urge all our colleagues to join me in voting for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan concurrent resolution.

Human existence has marched through a great many generations, yet only in this last half century have humans taken to space.

We have been transformed by the space program. We live our lives differently, with long-range weather forecasts and GPS positioning and international cell phone calls and international banking.

We think of ourselves differently. Our space exploration has uncovered information about the universe that surrounds us. We now can conjecture about the first seconds of the life of the universe. We have learned much about where we are, and about what is happening around us, and about existence itself.

We think of our own planet differently. The sight of this fragile, blue ball, seen from a distance in dark space, stirred us, and provided impetus for the fledgling environmental movement. We realized that we had to sustain ``Spaceship Earth.''

As the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I observe the unique role that NASA plays in our technology capabilities.

The aerospace industry is one of America's biggest successes, and one of the strongest contributors to our trade balance. It owes much to NASA's fundamental aeronautics research.

Harder to quantify, but just as important, NASA's incredible achievements in space inspire young people to choose careers in technology fields. NASA recognizes this and has developed fine educational initiatives.

We have many competing societal priorities that must be addressed, but it is vital that we invest in the future, too. Throughout human history, the winner has been the nation that was more technically powerful. Investing in science and technology, with the space program and STEM education, is an investment for a richer and wider future.

If we aren't willing to make the investments to lead technologically, we know that others will take that lead. That isn't the future that I would like to see. Do we want a world in which our smart people are drawn to the work done in other countries, leaving us on the periphery?

There are widespread reports that China and India are building significant R&D capacity by investing in research at universities, and are elevating their industrial policies towards higher end work.

We have been warned. The National Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' laid it out. The investments that earlier generations made brought us our prosperous and secure lifestyle. Now it is time for us to renew these investments.

I am pleased with the American COMPETES Act that Congress and the White House enacted. It boosts STEM education to prepare the next generation for the technological challenges of the future and it strengthens our country's research and innovation environment to keep America competitive in the global economy.

Today when we look back over the 50 years of the space age, we feel proud. And I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution. It tells a success story. Now it is our job to write another success story, by continuing to invest in the fundamentals of a strong technology sector: STEM education, space exploration, and technology research.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.

I am an original cosponsor of H. Res. 736 because it is important to recognize one of the amazing achievements of the Nation's aeronautics R&D enterprise.

I also think it important to honor Captain Yeager and the other brave test pilots who have helped push back the boundaries of flight--with results that have benefited our security, our economic well-being, and our quality of life.

As Chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the Science and Technology Committee, I am well aware that this amazing achievement was not an isolated event. It is just one thrilling chapter in the great story of American aviation and aerospace.

I am pleased that our predecessors in Congress recognized the importance of aeronautics, and invested in it.

Americans were drawn to the challenges of advancing the state of aeronautics, and they gave much of their discipline and intelligence to overcome seemingly insurmountable technical obstacles.

At times, bravery was required, too, and the breaking of the sound barrier is a good example of that.

Today we honor the 60th anniversary of Captain Chuck Yeager's breaking of the sound barrier, but we also take inspiration from it to renew our commitment to ensuring that America remains preeminent in aeronautics R&D.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Concurrent Resolution 222, because I believe NASA's Langley Research Center to be a national treasure. With this resolution we are acknowledging nine decades of outstanding technological achievement.

However, before I continue, I must note with sadness that the driving force behind this resolution, Ms. Jo Ann Davis, is no longer with us. In addition to all of the other important causes and issues for which she was such an articulate spokeswoman, she was an ardent champion of the importance of NASA's aeronautics R&D programs. I shall miss her as we all will, and I am sorry that this is the last time that I will be able to have the opportunity to speak in support of one of her initiatives.

One of the strengths of the Langley Research Center over the past nine decades has been that while Langley researchers are experts in scientific theory, they are able to work with many others throughout the aerospace community. They aren't an isolated research lab, but instead have always worked shoulder-to-shoulder with industry and with dynamic people at other government agencies, including DOD. In short, the researchers at Langley are problem solvers.

Step into the Air and Space museum and with the first glance one grasps how rapidly aeronautics has developed. The X-1, the first manned aircraft to break the sound barrier, was designed by Langley staff. Nearby are biplanes from the First World War. The separation in time is just thirty years, but what a difference!

The folks at Langley played a large role in that transformation, and in further advances in aeronautics and in space exploration, with the latter spanning their work on Mercury, Gemini, the Lunar Orbiter, Apollo, Viking, the Space Shuttle, and Space Station programs. They have been a critical enabler of our modern air transportation system.

Last year, U.S. air passengers exceeded 750 million. To handle even busier skies, the Next Generation Air Traffic Control System (NextGen) is being devised. NASA Langley plays an important role in that effort.

For example, to test advanced concepts of aircraft self-separation, Langley conducted air-traffic-management research in its Air Traffic Operations Lab, in partnership with NASA Ames Research Center, Boeing, MITRE Corp. and United Parcel Service.

As another example, the NASA Aviation Safety Program--a partnership with the Federal Aviation Administration, aircraft manufacturers, airlines, and the Department of Defense that is led by Langley-- recently tested a new way to predict thunderstorm turbulence.

We can't overlook the importance of military aviation to American freedom, and the importance of Langley to military aviation.

For example, during World War II, Langley used wind tunnel expertise to design modifications to fighter aircraft to improve their performance. Aerial dogfights were mostly contests between technologies, and a small improvement could make the difference between life and death.

Like the rest of NASA, NASA Langley promotes private sector participation with the Small Business Innovation Research program and the Small Business Technology Transfer program. The creation and transfer of innovation is a key goal at Langley. The Center delivers a steady flow of inventions and patents, across a range of technical areas.

In aeronautics and in space flight, Langley's parade of achievements has inspired generations of Americans, and has helped set the pace of American technological advancement. We need places like NASA Langley, and I hope that as we look back over its 90 years and celebrate its achievements, we are mindful of our future and work to maintain a strong and vital aerospace R&D capability at Langley and throughout our nation.

Madam Speaker, because my airline flight was delayed I was not able to be present for two votes on October 9th. Had I been present I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall No. 949--passage of H. Res. 32, denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation, domestic violence, ``honor'' killings, acid burning, dowry deaths, and other gender-based persecutions and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that participation, protection, recognition, and independence of women is crucial to achieving a just, moral, and honorable society--I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall No. 950--passage of H.R. 400, War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007--I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the ``National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act.'' This legislation does a great deal to expand safe and affordable housing opportunities for millions of American families.

The bill will initially allocate between $800 million to $1 billion annually to States and local communities for affordable housing projects for purposes such as construction and rehabilitation. Funds may also be used for both rental housing and for down payment and closing cost assistance by first-time homebuyers.

It would reach this worthy goal without increasing Government spending or the Federal deficit. The revenue of the fund is supported through fees from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the increase in the number of FHA loans provided for in legislation already passed by the House of Representatives.

This fund is also targeted; it must be used for low- and moderate- income families, below 80 percent of State or local median income. The bill also prohibits funds from being used for administrative costs or expenses, political activities, advocacy, lobbying, counseling, travel expenses, and preparation of or advice on tax returns. Any misuse of funds is required to be reimbursed.

This legislation, now more than ever, is worth supporting to expand affordable housing and mortgage loan opportunities for families at risk. I urge a ``yea'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill but must oppose the effort to add a provision dealing with the estate tax.

I have long supported reform of the estate tax, not its complete repeal.

I think we should change it in a way that will strike the right balance, protecting family-owned ranches, farms, and other small businesses while recognizing the need for fiscal responsibility in a time of war.

But the motion to recommit would have simply added to the bill a permanent repeal of the estate tax. I do not support that and cannot vote for it.

However, I can and will vote for the underlying bill, which will repeal the use of private debt collection companies to collect Federal income taxes, delay the application of an onerous 3 percent withholding requirement on Government payments, and discourage individuals who renounce their U.S. citizenship to avoid paying taxes.

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 695, the Taxpayer Abuse and Harassment Prevention Act of 2007. Like the bill now before the House, it would amend the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into contracts with private collection agencies to collect unpaid taxes. I support that because of the numerous instances in which private collection agencies have been guilty of taxpayer harassment, abusive calling, and violations of taxpayer rights, the Fair Debt Collection Act, and taxpayer return disclosure protections. I understand that right now the Federal Trade Commission has 130 complaints likely to involve the private tax debt contractors, and the Taxpayer Advocate has many more.

In addition, H.R. 3056 would delay until December 31, 2011, the application of a recently-enacted provision requiring withholding of 3 percent of the value of government payments to contractors and small businesses for goods and services. Local governments from across Colorado have contacted me to urge that the requirement be repealed-- and while this delay falls short of that, it will provide additional time for Congress to consider repeal or drastic revision of the requirement.

Finally, the bill would impose an immediate tax on individuals who renounce their U.S. citizenship in order to avoid paying their taxes and enact a scaled-back version of the Treasury Department's proposal to increase penalties on failures by independent contractors to provide Form 1099 information returns. I think these are reasonable and appropriate provisions that deserve support.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and mourn the passing of a great Coloradan, Brigadier General and Supreme Court Associate Justice, Felix Sparks, who passed away on Monday, September 24th, 2007.

Although Felix Sparks was not originally from Colorado, his roots in the West and his commitment to public service in make him an indelible part of Colorado history. Born in Texas and raised in Arizona during the Great Depression, Felix Sparks epitomizes the ``Greatest Generation.'' Felix joined the service before the World War II, and assigned to the 157th Infantry Regiment of the 45th Division, where he attained the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, leading soldiers in the European Theater.

In addition to his brave service in combat, Felix also bore witness to the Holocaust. Lt. Col. Sparks was in command of the unit dispatched to liberate and secure the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau. In the aftermath of that experience, Felix Sparks struggled to contain the outrage of his men, some of whom took it upon themselves to execute German soldiers in an episode that remains controversial to this day. After the war, Felix Sparks often spoke about the Holocaust and reminded younger generations that we have a moral obligation to prevent such offenses in the future. His service during the war also earned him many commendations, including a Silver Star and a Purple Heart.

Returning to the United States, Felix Sparks moved to Colorado and joined the Colorado National Guard in 1947. This began a long and distinguished career in the Guard, ending thirty years later after Felix had risen through the ranks to become Brigadier General and commanding officer of the Colorado National Guard. His legacy was so important to the Colorado Guard that the Guard's Centennial Armory is named in his honor.

In addition to his numerous achievements in the military, Felix Sparks will be well regarded for his work as a lawyer. He earned his degree from the University of Colorado law school in 1948 and moved to Delta, serving there as District Attorney. He was appointed as the youngest-ever associate justice of the Colorado Supreme Court in 1956. Unfortunately, he left the court at the end of the year because Colorado then elected our judges and he lost his campaign to keep the seat.

Poor luck at the polls inured to the benefit of Colorado's environment, however, because in 1958 Felix accepted a position as the director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, where he was instrumental in crafting an environmentally sustainable and sensible water policy. For his work on the board he was awarded the Outstanding Civilian Service Medal by Governor Lamm in 1979.

As both a civilian and a soldier, Felix Sparks became an icon to all Coloradans. He was not only committed to the ideal of public service, he excelled at it.

I can think of no higher tribute than to simply say that Felix Sparks was a great American.

Colorado has lost a favorite son. America and the ideals we cherish were embodied in his life of public service.

Mr. Speaker I am a cosponsor of this important legislation and rise to support its passage

As we all know, the real estate market is troubled. In Colorado and across the country, some families are caught in a bind--as prices have declined, they are finding that the value of their homes are less than what they owe on their mortgages.

And many of these people are experiencing financial problems-- including increased payments required as the interest rates on their mortgages are adjusted--that can lead to foreclosure or require them to work out other arrangements with lenders.

That is bad enough--but as things stand now, in many cases they find that there is more bad news, because today homeowners are taxed on debt that they are no longer required to pay, either because a mortgage has been foreclosed or restructured.

That is because the tax code today treats the value of cancelled mortgage debt as taxable Income.

This bill will provide relief to people in this situation. It will change the tax laws so as to permanently exclude debt forgiven under these circumstances from tax liability.

It also will help make home purchases more affordable by a long-term extension of the tax deduction for private mortgage insurance. Current law allows certain premiums paid or accrued for qualified mortgage insurance by a taxpayer in connection with financing of the taxpayer's residence to be treated as interest--that is, to be deductible. However, this is now scheduled to terminate for any amount paid or accrued after December 31, 2014.

This bill will extend the deduction through December 31,2014.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good measure. I strongly support it and urge its approval.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2740, the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act. This bill would increase accountability for the actions of the estimated 180,000 contractors now working in Iraq.

The September 16 incident in Iraq--in which 17 Iraqis died when Blackwater security contractors were accused of shooting at civilians indiscriminately--is only the latest in a string of such incidents involving Blackwater. This week a House Committee reported that Blackwater guards had engaged in 195 shooting incidents since early 2005, and in over 80 percent of those incidents, the Blackwater guards fired first. Several guards testified that Blackwater employees fired more often than the report states.

The good news is that the Defense Department, the State Department, and the FBI have all undertaken investigations and are viewing the September 16 incident more seriously than they have viewed other such incidents in the past--perhaps because of the Iraqi government's threat to ban Blackwater from the country.

But this incident highlights the many problems with private security contractors in Iraq. Contracting out inherently governmental security functions to private security firms is yet another example of the excessive outsourcing that has gone on in the Bush administration--and the billions in contract costs and lack of accountability that have followed as a result.

Initially these contractors were brought in to fulfill a temporary need, but now that Blackwater and other private firms are very much part of the fabric of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, we need to ensure that they are held accountable for their actions on the job.

One of Ambassador Paul Bremer's last actions as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority was to issue Order 17, which states that private contractors working for the United States or coalition governments in Iraq are not subject to Iraqi law. But as we have found, it's not clear to what degree they are subject to U.S. law either.

That's why the law needs to be clarified and expanded. The MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act amends the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to ensure that all contractors working in war zones-- not just those working for the Department of Defense--are accountable under U.S. criminal law, and mandates that the FBI enforce MEJA by investigating and prosecuting offenses.

The point of this legislation is not simply to penalize those private security contractors who act as though they are above the law, though that would be the direct effect of this bill. The point is also to ensure that the actions of these contractors don't jeopardize their own safety and the safety of our military men and women in Iraq, who do operate under strict rules of engagement and who are held accountable for their actions.

Madam Chairman, I don't mean to diminish the risks faced by these contractors day in and day out. I understand that they are often forced to make split-second decisions that can mean life or death for themselves and for those around them. But as the events of September 16 have shown, the repercussions of these decisions can be far-reaching. There must be accountability and consequences for decisions made-- whether in the middle of a war zone or under other circumstances. Private security contractors are not entitled to immunity from our laws. That's why I will support this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3087, a bill that I voted for--along with 54 of my colleagues--when the Armed Services Committee considered it in July.

As amended in committee, H.R. 3087 requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a comprehensive redeployment strategy for U.S. troops in Iraq and requires that the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff brief the House and Senate Defense Committees on its contents within 60 days, and every 90 days thereafter.

This legislation underscores the importance of contingency planning-- something I called for earlier this year when I introduced H.R. 1183, the Iraq Contingency Planning Act. It also underscores the importance of requiring the Defense Department to share its planning with Congress. The sharing can be done in a classified way, but Congress needs to be informed about these plans if we are to be prepared to respond to what these plans may call for.

We remember that in 2003, President Bush launched a war in Iraq without a plan for what would come after initial military sucess. We all know where that has led us, and so as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I want assurances that this administration is thinking about and planning for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq--whether it happens tomorrow or next month or next year.

Madam Speaker, this legislation isn't intended to solve the larger problem of Iraq. To do that, we need a policy aimed at escalating diplomatic and political efforts and lightening the U.S. footprint in Iraq. But although there is widespread support for redeploying our troops, there is not yet sufficient support in Congress to override a Presidential veto on any major change in our Iraq policy.

That's another reason this bill is important. So long as we lack a sufficient majority to override his veto, we Democrats can't force the President to change course without Republican support. Only Democrats and Republicans working together can find the path out of Iraq. This bill is a small step forward in building that bipartisan support, so I will vote for it again today, while I continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on further steps we can take to change our broader Iraq policy.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to affirm that our soldiers have the freedom to speak about the war in Iraq. As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I believe it is important to express opposition to the view that American soldiers who do not embrace the policies of the Bush Administration lack the skills to do the job of protecting their country or lack the willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice in service of their country.

Madam Speaker, as a general principle it should not be the business of Congress to condemn or applaud the publicly expressed views of private citizens. If we took note of every stupid, ignorant or asinine utterance in the public square we would have little time to focus on the important issues facing this nation.

Moreover, I believe firmly in the right of every American to speak his or her mind freely. Even the most outrageous and offensive speech is, and should be, protected by the first amendment of our constitution. Our citizens should be free to express their political views without expecting Congress to act as a kind of imperious censor or arbiter of what is acceptable, intelligent or in good taste. Instead of passing resolutions condemning the political views of others, I think the preferred approach for Congress as an institution is to stay above the partisan fray and let individual Members express their personal, as opposed to institutional, views about the free speech of others.

There are times, however, when I believe this body should speak collectively--and that is in those rare circumstances when the speech of prominent Americans, media personalities or political organizations is so outrageous and divisive that it commands the attention of every Member. We can respect the first amendment rights of others without giving up our own right to speak out freely and collectively in this body.

In this regard, I believe remarks by a prominent conservative talk- show personality, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, deserve a rebuke from the Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should find his attack on our men and women in uniform both offensive and deplorable.

Specifically, Mr. Limbaugh suggested that soldiers who oppose the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq are ``phony soldiers.'' The clear implication of his remarks leaves no doubt. Mr. Limbaugh used his syndicated radio program to impugn the character of those American servicemen and women who have spoken out against the policies of the Bush Administration.

I believe that Congress should make clear that our soldiers, whatever their rank and whatever their views, deserve to be honored for their service. I believe Congress should make clear that Mr. Limbaugh's use of the term ``phony soldiers'' is beneath contempt. I believe Congress should remind Mr. Limbaugh that the men and women who serve in our

military do so, not as Republicans, conservatives, Democrats or liberals, but as Americans.

Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to advance a partisan message with this resolution. Nor is it my intention that Congress waste time and effort in exposing partisan hypocrisy, however tempting that goal may be.

It is my intention, however, to make clear to the men and women serving in uniform, many of whom are risking their lives on foreign soil to defend our civil liberties, that it is not acceptable for anyone to accuse them of being ``phony'' or false patriots because their political views may differ from those of their commander-in- chief.

To suggest that a soldier's sacrifice is somehow made less worthy by expressing his or her opinion betrays a view of military service so cramped as to be unrecognizable to most Americans--Republicans or Democrats. I can say with full confidence that that is not the opinion held by those of us who serve on the Armed Services Committee. Congress should make clear that it rejects this narrow view as well.

That is the underlying purpose of this resolution, and I ask my colleagues to join me in embracing the underlying message.