Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 1456, congratulating the University of Dayton men's basketball team for winning the 2010 National Invitation Tournament basketball championship.

This past season, the Dayton Flyers men's basketball team won its third NIT championship in school history. The team won the championship on April 1, defeating the 2009 NCAA Tournament national champion North Carolina Tarheels 79-68. The University of Dayton men's basketball team is second in all-time wins in the NIT with 40.

In addition to their success off the court, as has been stated, the University of Dayton academically is also very successful with its student athletes. The men's basketball team upholds a high standard of academic excellence. The program has graduated every senior student athlete since Brian Gregory was named head coach in 2003, including seven players this season. But in addition, UD graduated 96 percent of all its student athletes in 2008, the most of any Atlantic 10 Conference school, and it tied for 10th in the Nation.

In 2006, the Savior of Our Cities national survey of community revitalization ranked the University of Dayton number one among Catholic universities and number three overall in helping save America's cities from blight. They are very active in our community revitalization. The University of Dayton is also a center of research excellence, with UDRI being a major contributor to research that affects our national security.

Not only does the men's basketball program serve as a significant aspect of campus life, it also plays a major role in bringing people from the surrounding area into the city. The Flyers men's basketball team has been one of the biggest sports attractions in the Dayton area for years. Since UD Arena opened in 1969, Dayton has been in the NCAA's top 35 in home attendance every season. This past season, the Flyers led the Atlantic 10 Conference in attendance for its 13th straight season.

The University of Dayton is one of the 10 largest Catholic schools in the United States and is the largest of the three Marianist universities in the Nation. The students, alumni, administration, faculty, and supporters of the University of Dayton are to be congratulated for their loyalty and pride in their championship-caliber basketball team.

I would like to thank my Ohio colleagues, all of whom are original cosponsors of this resolution. As a proud alumnus of the University of Dayton MBA program, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution congratulating the University of Dayton's men's basketball team on their successful season.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to join my colleagues to honor the life and work of former Congressman Thomas W. Ludlow Ashley.

Thomas W. Ludlow Ashley served the State of Ohio for 13 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, from 1955 to 1981. Mr. Ashley served Ohio's 9th District, which includes the city of Toledo and surrounding Lucas County.

He was a graduate of Yale University where one of his classmates was a future President, George H.W. Bush. Ashley graduated from the Ohio State University Law School in Columbus, Ohio in 1951.

Congressman Ashley was the great-grandson of former Congressman James Mitchell Ashley, who also represented Ohio's ninth congressional district, from 1859 to 1869, and co-authored the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery.

Congressman Ashley's work in Congress has proven very important for American cities. He was chairman of a House subcommittee on housing and community development within the Banking Committee.

In this role, Ashley helped write and pass the Housing and Community Development Acts of 1974 and 1977. These important bills paved the way for the Community Development Block Grant program. In recognition of his role as an advocate for affordable housing, Senator Edward Kennedy remarked: ``Americans sleep in better homes today because of Lud Ashley.''

I join my colleagues in the Ohio delegation in honoring the life of Congressman Thomas W. Ludlow Ashley, and his distinguished service to our State and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 57th day of one of the largest oil disasters in history. Today is also the 166th day this year that this Congress has failed to produce a budget.

Each day, oil continues to flow into the gulf, increasing the catastrophic damage. Also each day, this Congress continues to produce red ink, damaging the American economy. The administration was caught flatfooted, repeatedly underestimating the severity of the oil leak and slowly allocating critical Federal resources to the gulf.

While red ink is flowing out of Washington and while oil is flowing into the gulf, this administration has no plan, and this Congress has no budget. How are we going to stop the oil leak, and how are we going to stop the red ink?

Just as the President has no plan, this Congress has no budget. For the first time since 1974, when the Budget Act was enacted, this House has failed to pass a budget resolution. This is a catastrophic disaster.

Mr. President, stop the leak.

Mr. Speaker, pass a budget.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that caps the temporary authority for the Federal Housing Administration to insure homes in high-cost areas at $500,000. The current temporary authority has the FHA insuring mortgages as high as $729,750.

Only in Washington would a government program insure a mortgage on a home worth $750,000 for a low- and moderate-income program. Permitting FHA loans on a $750,000 home puts American taxpayers at additional risk. Allowing FHA-backed loans on these expensive homes contributes to the overinflated housing values that contributed to the foreclosure crisis from the beginning.

The mortgage foreclosure crisis is not over, Mr. Chairman. There are still too many American families who are confronted every day with the risk that they might lose their homes. Washington should not be in the role of enabling this crisis. We need to begin the process of reducing the dependence of these communities from artificial support, and we need to give the private sector the ability to step back into the market.

The best place to facilitate this is to lower the FHA loan limit to homes under $500,000. The FHA has traditionally focused on low- to moderate-income families who are seeking to purchase homes--and for good reason--as these buyers need the greatest assistance in their home purchases. The FHA should, once again, focus their efforts on these buyers.

Permitting FHA loans to purchase a $750,000 home also means fewer FHA-insured mortgages for Ohio families and for families across America who truly need them. In most of my congressional district in Ohio, the current FHA loan limit is $271,000, which is in line with the loan limit for most of the U.S. I understand that there are high-cost urban areas in our Nation where some homes cost more than in Ohio, but the FHA was designed to help low and moderate homebuyers, and it should focus on more moderately priced homes. Permitting FHA loans for these high-priced homes only limits access to true moderately priced FHA loans for American families who need them.

My amendment seeks to start the process of removing higher income buyers off the government program designed for low to moderate buyers. The effect of this amendment is to limit it to the 179 counties in the country, but it does not reduce the assistance to the moderately priced homes that are the majority of the Nation.

The FHA was intended to assist Americans in achieving the American dream of homeownership. We need to work to ensure that their focus continues to be on those who truly need the help. My amendment would work to that purpose, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Well, I appreciate my good friend Mr. Miller's statement.

There is one that I do want to correct, though, which is that all of Ohio would be under his suggested limit of 415. We certainly could have picked a lower number. My community is at 271.

The issue becomes one of, well, we're in a financial crisis, and we're having bailouts and mortgage foreclosures across the country. We look to this issue as one of basic math. The larger the loan amount, the more the risk. When there is fluctuation in the market, a percentage of a larger number is a larger loss, leading to, certainly, an issue of more increased incidences of a likelihood of foreclosure.

Also, the issue of larger loan amounts means fewer loans which could be provided assistance. There is a limited amount here, and with that limited amount, if it is carved up into

$750,000 home sales versus those that are going to more moderately priced homes, you certainly will have less resources with which to provide that assistance.

This is basic math. When we look across the country during this mortgage foreclosure crisis, we have to be very concerned about how we ensure that we are assisting home buyers, low and moderate buyers. At the same time, we have to ensure we are not overly inflating the market and that we are not putting the taxpayers at greater risk.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, which makes good financial and fiscal sense. It would lower the amount, providing greater assistance because there would be a greater number of loans which could be provided assistance. At the same time, it would lower the risk to taxpayers, and it would lower the risk of bailouts by making these higher-cost areas, the more risky areas, conform to an amount that really would be more reflective of our goal of low and moderate home buyers who receive assistance from the FHA.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1330, recognizing June 8, 2010, as World Ocean Day.

It is particularly fitting that today this resolution gives us the opportunity to take some time and appreciate the beauty of our oceans and to think about ways that we can work to protect our oceans for generations to come.

All Americans, as well as people from around the world, realize the importance of oceans. Millions of people enjoy playing, boating, surfing, fishing, or simply being along the beachscape and along our oceans. Oceans fascinate many children who learn about the interesting aspects of the oceans and the animals that live under the sea.

Certainly, in light of the national crisis that is currently occurring in the gulf with the oil leak, this resolution gives us context in which to understand the risks from the delayed response that is occurring to stop the leak in the gulf.

We rely on oceans every day for our regular way of life. Oceans provide thousands of jobs for fishermen, sailors, and many other professions. All Americans are served by oceans in numerous ways, including for food and transport for the vast array of goods that are transported by cargo ships across oceans.

Mr. Speaker, our oceans are an incredibly precious resource, and we should protect them for the future. I ask that my colleagues join in support of this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress takes this time to recognize World Ocean Day, I think it is absolutely appropriate for us to ask the administration for answers on the gulf oil leak and the tragedy that is occurring there. I think the American people are outraged, and they want to know how did this happen, they want to know how is it going to be stopped, and how is it going to be cleaned up. I think the administration needs to tell us what their game plan is and what their actions are.

Currently, it is as if the administration is merely telling what BP is saying. And I think the American people want to know, and as Congress takes this action, it would be appropriate for the administration to step forward and say how did this happen, how are we going to stop this, and how are we going to clean it up, and how are we going to make certain this doesn't happen again. I know that in Ohio people look down to the gulf with just outrage of the risk that is occurring to wildlife, our beaches. And they want to know what is this administration going to do, what is the plan, and how is this going to be stopped.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again as we take up this resolution for World Ocean Day, America has questions for this administration on how they are going to stop this leak, how we are going to protect our oceans and the wildlife, and how this is going to be cleaned up.

You know, most administrations when they take office say, We are ready for the job day one. Well, day one was a year-and-a-half ago, and we still have a crisis in the gulf, and people want to know, Well, where is the administration? We are on day 51 of the leak down in the gulf. Day 51.

Perhaps in addition to World Ocean Day, every day Congress should pass a resolution proclaiming a day in honor of the tragedy that's occurring down in the gulf. Day 51 and we still don't have an answer, we don't know how this is going to be stopped, we don't know what the administration's plans are, and we don't know what the administration's plans are for cleaning this up.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Kucinich from Ohio's comments on the issues of how we need to look at how we are treating the environment. And as we are into day 51 of this crisis in the gulf, Congress has begun to have hearings, the House and the Senate, asking questions about what happened. But I think the administration needs to come forward and give some serious answers to the American people. As people look to the news and to the Web cams of the leak, they want to know from this administration what's the answer. How is this going to be stopped? How is this going to be addressed? How is it going to be cleaned up?

Fifty-one days into this, we don't know yet how this is going to be stopped or what manner by which it should be stopped. We are still listening to BP give us the answers instead of the administration telling us, well, what is the standard? What should be happening? How should we be protecting the coast?

And it makes you wonder, a year-and-a-half into this administration, well, how are we doing on the other oil rigs that are there? Is this administration prepared in determining whether or not the other oil rigs currently represent a threat? What inspections are they doing? What compliance are they doing?

As Congress passes World Ocean Day, the administration should pause and turn to the American people and give us some answers as to what their response is going to be to this 51 days into a terrible crisis down in the gulf.

I reserve the balance of my time.

With all due respect to the gentleman from Oregon, since the Democrats have been in charge of the House for the past 3\1/2\ years, if there were any regulatory or legislative issues or resolutions that needed to be passed, certainly we would have seen those and they would have moved forward out of this House. Unfortunately, what we see out of this House is a resolution for World Ocean Day, a resolution for World Ocean Day while we have this crisis going on down in the gulf and the administration is still not giving us answers as to how is this going to be addressed.

The big question that everybody has in the news is not what is BP doing or what is it going to be doing next or is the fix that they currently are pursuing going to work, but what is this administration's answer to how this should be addressed, what should be done. This administration has been in office for 1\1/2\ years. This crisis has been going on for 51 days. Surely in the past 51 days the administration should be able to step forward and give the American people a clear answer as to how did this happen, how is it going to be stopped, and how are we going to clean this up. This is something that I think everyone, as we pause for World Ocean Day, would certainly pause for those answers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the prior speaker indicated that the President has pulled together a task force for a national ocean policy and is looking for public input. I think we know what that public input is. It's, Mr. President, tell the American people how this leak is going to be stopped. Tell us how this cleanup is going to occur, and tell us how this is going to be avoided in the future. The public input is, Stop the leak.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress takes up World Ocean Day, we are 51 days into a crisis in the gulf where this administration, 1\1/2\ years into this administration, still has not provided the American people with answers as to how will this leak be stopped, how will this be cleaned up, how will this be avoided in the future. The American people, as we take up World Ocean Day, pause, looking at the 51 days of the continuing crisis in the gulf, and look for answers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 5278, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 405 West Second Street in Dixon, Illinois, as the ``President Ronald W. Reagan Post Office Building.''

Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois in 1911. He attended high school in Dixon, Illinois, after which he worked his way through Eureka College. While at Eureka College, Mr. Reagan began acting in school plays, along with his studies of economics and sociology.

After graduating college, he had a life led with achievements. He was a sports radio announcer, a noted actor appearing in 53 films, two-time president of the Screen Actors Guild, and host of a long-running television series.

As a self-described citizen politician in 1966, he was elected as the 33rd Governor of California by over a million votes. He was then reelected Governor in 1970. His many successes while Governor in California made him into a national political figure as he became a standard bearer within the Republican Party.

After a failed attempt to receive the Republican nomination in 1976, he was selected by his party and was elected by the American people to President in 1980. Shortly after taking office as President of the United States in 1981, he was shot and wounded by a would-be assassin but soon recovered and returned to work showing his trademark of grace under fire.

During Ronald Reagan's Presidential terms from 1981 to 1988, he dealt successfully with a number of momentous economic, political, and foreign affairs challenges. Even as he was faced with matters involving the global interests of the United States in various areas of the world, he did not neglect serious problems in the Western Hemisphere. His style of seeking peace through strength while in office proved to be a tactic that was highly successful and very popular with the American people.

Ronald Reagan remains one of our most popular and beloved Presidents. His two terms as President were marked with many achievements, none greater than being a catalyst for the end of the Cold War. One of Ronald Reagan's most memorable sayings, ``Trust, but verify,'' remains appropriate for us today.

His life was a truly unique American story as he rose from humble beginnings, persevered through hardships, and enjoyed the bounty of dedication and hard work, which was indeed a movie script story that became reality.

Madam Speaker, Ronald Reagan embodied the American spirit, the American Dream. And as he said in his farewell address to the Nation in January of 1989, he spoke of the determination to rediscover our values and our common sense. Ronald Reagan trusted and believed in ``We, the people,'' and I believe he was one of America's greatest Presidents.

And today his statue, which was placed in the Capitol dome, includes pieces of the Berlin Wall which he called to be torn down, ending the grip of communism in Europe.

I ask all Members to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise today to express my support of H.R. 5133, designating the post office located at 331 First Street in Carlstadt, New Jersey, as the Staff Sergeant Frank T. Carvill and Lance Corporal Michael A. Schwarz Post Office Building.

Carlstadt, New Jersey, is home to 6,000 residents and is barely 5 blocks long. Losing two of their own in the line of duty truly affected everyone in the close-knit environment.

Staff Sergeant Frank T. Carvill and Lance Corporal Michael A. Schwarz had very different careers; however, the unfortunate similarity of the two was their fate. Both were killed in action while bravely serving the United States in the war on terror.

Lance Corporal Michael A. Schwarz is described by friends as an all- American and fun-loving guy, knowing what was at stake when he joined the Marines right out of Henry P. Becton Regional High School in 2004. Schwarz was passionate about the Marines. It was his dream. His father recalls, ``Since he was maybe 10 years old he didn't like regular clothes; it was always Army clothes. Even when he graduated high school, under his cap and gown he had his camos on.''

He was said to have understood the danger of being in the Marines and was ready to face it head-on. He loved his country, the idea of being a soldier and preserving freedom. He willingly sacrificed his life to better the people of Iraq and to protect the United States. On November 27, 2006, at the age of 20, Lance Corporal Michael A. Schwarz was killed while conducting combat operations in the Iraqi province of Anbar. He was part of the Marine Expeditionary Force of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division.

Army National Guard Sergeant Frank Carvill, a paralegal, left his office at the World Trade Center minutes before the first jetliner hit the towers on September 11, 2001, and was not injured in the terrorist attack. Years before, he had helped assist others in the 1993 bombings of the north tower office. He was an American patriot, assisting others and making personal sacrifices to help those in need while a civilian and as well as being in the military.

Having been enlisted for 20 years in the National Guard, Carvill was 51 when his unit was deployed to Iraq. Carvill was a member of the National Guard's task force in Baghdad to protect convoys and set up traffic control points.

Always willing to help, the day he was to head home on leave, Carvill gave up his seat on the plane to another soldier who had a family emergency. Sadly, on June 4, 2004, the same day he gave his seat to a fellow soldier, Sergeant Frank Carvill was killed when his Humvee was ambushed in a suburb of Baghdad.

The families express that both men made a personal choice to go to Iraq because they believed that what they were doing was right. These men were true American patriots.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill honoring these brave and courageous men who gave their lives to protect and preserve our great Nation. They sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, and they should forever be remembered.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of our time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 1121, congratulating Clinton County and the county seat of Wilmington, Ohio, on the occasion of their bicentennial anniversaries.

For 200 years now, Clinton County, Ohio, which is in my congressional district, has been an interesting part of American history. What is now Clinton County was initially called the Virginia Military District because the government had reserved the land to give veterans of the Revolutionary War as a reward for their service.

Clinton County was established in 1810 and was named Clinton County in honor of George Clinton. Clinton was one of America's Founding Fathers and served as Vice President under both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Clinton County was a very important part of the anti-slavery movement before the Civil War because it had a station that was part of the Underground Railroad, helping thousands of slaves escape.

Also, a less serious aspect of Clinton County's history is that it is the place where the first banana split was created. And every year Wilmington has its annual Banana Split Festival.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my Ohio colleagues, all of whom are original cosponsors of this resolution, and thank Chairman Towns and Ranking Member Issa for their support in moving this bill through the committee process.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution and congratulate the more than 43,000 residents of Clinton County on the bicentennial anniversary of their county.

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

I want to thank Ranking Member McKeon and also our chair, Mr. Skelton, and the chair, Mr. Langevin, of our Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

I support the committee-passed version of H.R. 5136, and particularly by the way that it strengthens our Nation's strategic forces. It endorses an increase in funding for the modernization of our Nation's nuclear deterrence capabilities, although this funding must be sustained in the outyears.

It includes a $362 million increase in funding for missile defense, which I strongly support, and holds the administration accountable for deploying missile defenses in Europe to protect the United States and our NATO allies. It establishes a sense of Congress that there would be no limitations on U.S. missile defenses in Europe in the new START treaty, despite Russian statements to the contrary.

There is an area, however, in which I am concerned in that the bill does not go far enough to provide a sufficient hedge to protect the United States from missile attack. The Phased Adaptive Approach for missile defense in Europe is not planned to cover the U.S. homeland until 2020, yet the ICBM threat from Iran to the U.S. could materialize as early as 2015, according to the latest intelligence assessments. Regrettably, an amendment I offered in full committee to address this gap was rejected.

Another area which I support, I want to thank our chairman, Mr. Skelton, for his support of the custody rights of our military parents. This bill includes protection for the fundamental custody rights of those military parents. Once again it highlights the need for a baseline of child custody protections for our men and women in uniform, and it also includes language that criticizes an unofficial DOD report as an incomplete product that does not ascertain the full scope of this problem.

Equally important in this bill is it strengthens the safety and family rights for military personnel. I want to thank Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson for incorporating bipartisan language from the Tsongas-Turner Defense STRONG Act that seeks to enhance sexual assault protections as well as improving training requirements to protect our members.

I thank my colleagues in the Armed Services Committee for their work on the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act. It is certainly my hope that we can retain the language passed by the committee so the House can have a bipartisan report.

Mr. Speaker, over the past year-and-a-half the administration and the majority in Congress have enacted legislation authorizing an unprecedented amount of government spending and intervention in private enterprise. I opposed many of these measures because I believed they spent money we don't have on programs that would not stimulate the economy.

An Ohio-based economist recently released a report stating that the State of Ohio has lost a staggering 587,000 jobs since 2001. In particular, the report indicated that at the end of the last decade each of Ohio's 88 counties lost employment, a total of 338,000 jobs, or 6.6 percent of all employment that year.

Specifically, my home county, Montgomery County, was one of the hardest hit counties in the State and the Nation. Over the past 9 years, Montgomery County has lost 20 percent of its total jobs and 53 percent of its manufacturing sector jobs. Today, current unemployment rates in my district for Montgomery County total over 12 percent, Clinton County over 17 percent, Highland County over 17 percent, Warren County over 9 percent.

The American people are looking for both sides to find reasonable solutions to these critical challenges. Congress needs to curb our out- of-control spending and enact bipartisan, commonsense solutions to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, as we turn on the news networks and we listen about the oil spill in the Gulf, the American people want to know, how could this happen? As Americans read the news about this particular oil platform having had problems over several years, and how equipment meant to prevent an oil spill malfunctioned, they want to know where was the enforcement of safety regulations to prevent this disaster?

The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have called for an energy policy that includes more drilling. Americans are concerned, however, that if the administration can't manage this current crisis, how can we manage even more drilling?

I agree with most Americans that we need an ``all of the above'' energy plan that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. However, the American people expect answers from this administration. How did this happen? How should this have been prevented? Why was there a delay in the administration providing a response to this disaster? And what will the administration do now? Our Nation awaits these answers.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the members of the House Armed Services Committee as well as Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their support in bringing this bill to the floor today. I also appreciate their leadership in incorporating language from the Turner Amendment into the en bloc amendment in Committee, which was approved when the bill was reported out last week.

Our effectiveness on the battlefields of tomorrow relies in part on our ability to foster the innovation and technology that have made American armed forces the strongest in the world. As is the case with so many military issues, as we consider this bill we must ensure we consider our most important and precious resource: The service members who serve our country in the military. My amendment seeks to assist service members in their training and education.

The Turner Amendment also seeks to ensure that DoD leverages the acquisition educational centers of excellence already in place. These organizations of excellence--such as those at Defense Acquisition University and the Air Force Institute of Technology, known as ``AFIT,'' located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base--do an excellent job of educating acquisition professionals.

By enhancing and improving the programs at these existing institutions, my amendment will validate appropriate and effective acquisition curricula, and leverage institutional knowledge, educational professionals, and best practices. Finally, the amendment directs organizations to identify sufficient funding amounts required for training and education.

Training requirements for personnel are important, and we must ensure that our educational institutions provide the updated and improved curricula to meet these requirements. We must also ensure the Department of Defense is planning ahead and providing the necessary resources to train the next generation of acquisition professionals.

I thank my colleagues for their unanimous bipartisan support for the Turner Amendment language incorporated in this reform legislation.

Dayton, Ohio.

I appreciate your leadership. We serve in the Armed Services Committee together so these are issues that we take up frequently.

We held a hearing today on the Nuclear Posture Review and on the START Treaty, and there are a number of things as you outlined that I think people should be very concerned about.

One, of course, is what they're referring to as the negative assurances where in the Nuclear Posture Review they've included a statement where the President has taken off the table the prospects of using nuclear weapons in defense of this Nation in circumstances where we are attacked by a nation that is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty, and even if that attack is with either chemical or biological weapons.

Before we always had the posture of we'll do whatever it takes, whatever is necessary to defend this Nation. And the President himself last May said--he clearly stated, I don't take options off the table when it comes to U.S. security. Period. Unfortunately, this administration's Nuclear Posture Review does just that. It delivers a muddled message to both our allies and our adversaries that only seeks to weaken the strength of our deterrent.

It's really unclear as to why the administration has done this if you look at the issue of threat. Certainly the threat has not been reduced to the United States. So to take a posture where you're going to restrict what we would use in order to defend ourselves is not based upon some change that has occurred in the threats that the United States is facing.

They have said that they are pursuing this policy of restricting our use of our own defensive weapons in order to encourage others not to seek nuclear weapons. But there is no historical basis for that. The United States has continued to reduce the overall number of nuclear weapons, as has Russia. As we've seen, Iran is seeking to be a nuclear power; North Korea is becoming a nuclear power. Without any historical basis for an assumption that others would not seek nuclear weapons if the United States agrees to not use theirs, this administration has proceeded down this path.

That is what this policy is. It's a what-if.

The administration is saying the what-if is if this country is attacked by someone who is in compliance with the NPT, even if we're attacked with biological or chemical weapons, they would not use everything that we have in our arsenal that might be necessary in order to protect ourselves.

Well, here is, I think, the most important thing. You invoked Ronald Reagan and you were saying how you shouldn't answer hypotheticals. I think here is what the blanket statement should be.

The blanket statement should be, when it comes to defending the United States against a devastating attack, our message should be clear and simple. If our Nation is attacked, we will use all means necessary to defend ourselves, period. There shouldn't be an issue of whether they signed, whether they agreed that they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons and so we are not going to use nuclear weapons.

I mean, first off, nobody is for using nuclear weapons. I mean, there is no advocacy group that says we need to be using nuclear weapons or no one, certainly--from a human value statement, the President's statement of a world without nuclear weapons is something that everyone would want to achieve.

It's the reality, though, of the issue of defending our Nation. And here this President has said, I won't take anything off the table. I will always do what's necessary to defend the United States. Period.

That was last May. And then now, with the administration's nuclear posture review, he is saying, but I am going to, in advance, tell you that if you are in compliance with the NPT, if you attack this Nation, if you attack the United States, even if you attack the United States with chemical or biological weapons, I am going to take off the table the nuclear weapons that are in my arsenal, even if it's necessary to protect the United States.

Now, they go on to say, the administration says, well, we have overwhelming conventional forces and so that will make a bit of a difference. We don't really need our nuclear weapons. But they say they are doing this to try to encourage others to not develop nuclear weapons. Again, there is no historical basis for it. As we have reduced our stockpiles and Russia has reduced their stockpiles, other nations have continued to seek nuclear weapons.

But the other issue is, what is the true message then to those other nations? Well, we have overwhelming conventional force. They don't have overwhelming conventional force. Certainly, developing nuclear weapons is an equalizer that they can look to.

I think it's disingenuous to say that we are not going to use our nuclear weapons, but we might change our mind, but at the same time we want you not to use them. But it's in that framework of the hypothetical of saying that this, this country, if it's attacked, won't defend itself to the full extent when it might be necessary.

Let me go back to that for a second. You said the administration is actually calling this an assurance policy, that they are providing assurances. But usually I think and the American people think of the word ``assurance'' being something you give your friends and allies. And, in this instance, this is an assurance that the administration is giving to a nation that would be an attacker to our Nation, someone who is attacking us. That's not the circumstance of what I would think of assurance.

It's a very good point. Because those nations that depend upon us, who have not developed nuclear weapons, who believe that they are part of our nuclear umbrella, that they believe that we extend, in cooperative understanding, our deterrents for their benefit. If that deterrence is removed, then, of course, there is the prospect that these additional nations will feel the need to develop their own weapons.

Exactly.

I think it's also a false accomplishment. When the administration promotes this statement of a world without nuclear weapons, again, it's a human-value statement that I think everyone would wish to be true. But in translating it then to a to-do list or a policy from the United States, going from a human-value statement to an actual to-do list and policy without a change that has occurred in the

world dynamics, that's where we get dangerous for the United States.

Here is the false accomplishment. This President will talk about his accomplishment of limiting the role and the number of U.S. nuclear weapons. I think what people are interested in is this President limiting the nuclear weapons risk that we are facing as a Nation.

We will have to see what comes out of the conference that the President has held. He was identifying the increase, that threat that we have for nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation issues. And certainly those are the correct issues for him to be raising at this point, and we certainly wish him great success in accomplishing some visible reduction in the threat to the United States, besides just the visible reduction in the role and the number of U.S. deterrents.

Absolutely.

Congressman, you had also mentioned the the point of START and the issue of missile defense. I think one issue that people are concerned about that relates directly to this issue is any limitation on the United States' ability to defend itself in deploying what is a provable, workable technology in missile defense. The START treaty has in its preamble or recognition between the United States and Russia the correlation between defensive and strategic weapons.

The Russians have stepped forward and said that this language, they believe, was essential in order to get their approval for START, because they want the United States' missile defense system to be counted against the issue of our nuclear deterrent--their nuclear deterrent.

They haven't gone as far as to say that they might withdraw from START, depending on the extent to which we deploy a missile defense system. Well, what's really concerning is that the administration, at this same time that they are agreeing to and pursuing the START, which has been signed, with language that ties missile defense to our nuclear deterrent, the administration is pursuing for Europe a missile defense system.

Now, it's unclear whether the President's own plan for a missile defense system already violates the Russians' concern under START. We may be in a situation where the President is pursuing a policy that will already cause the relationship with Russia start to be a terminal relationship. In the hearing today, I asked Secretary Tauscher, where are we with the Russians on this issue?

The administration already knows what they want to do with missile defense. It is certainly something knowable by the Russians at this point. The Russians are saying they will withdraw if the missile defense is pursued. My concern is that the administration will get down the road, where they will have supported START, received ratification of START, be pursuing a missile defense system that Russia objects to and that it might weaken this administration's resolve for deploying that system.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose a government takeover of our nation's healthcare system. It is irresponsible for Congress to approve a vastly unpopular and costly measure at a time of unprecedented budget deficits and uncertainty about the future of the economy. Despite overwhelming opposition by the American people, the Majority in Congress, led by Speaker Pelosi, has resorted to manipulating longstanding procedural rules to rush through an overhaul of our nation's healthcare system. My constituents understand that any bill that requires backroom special deals to pass is fundamentally flawed.

Obtaining quality medical care is a top priority for Ohioans and their families. Instead of forcing an unpopular, one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare reform, Congress and the White House should listen to the American people and return to the drawing board to negotiate a real bipartisan agreement in order to achieve true reform.

Real health care reform does not have to undermine the strengths of our current system, nor limit doctor choice or care availability. A series of commonsense measures will go a long way toward improving health care for all Americans. For example, insurance companies should be prohibited from excluding a person for coverage based on pre- existing conditions.

Medical research is also essential to bringing health care costs down. Private ingenuity is the strength of our current system and should be preserved and encouraged. The federal bureaucracy cannot stand in the way of such important research.

When employees change jobs, they should be able to take their health insurance with them. Continuity of coverage can be critical for a person in the midst of important health-related treatment.

Our litigation system forces doctors and hospitals to raise operating costs. For decades, the cost of medical liability has risen much more rapidly than actual medical care. Limiting frivolous lawsuits would have a significant effect on containing health care costs and promoting accessibility to care.

Individuals should be allowed to deduct the full cost of their health insurance premiums from their federal income taxes. Furthermore, we should expand the ability to put tax-free dollars into Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to be used for lifetime medical expenses. These measures alone would make health care more affordable for many.

These are reasonable reforms that don't rely upon the creation of a new, massive government health system. Although I oppose this bill, I will continue to fight to replace this government takeover of our healthcare system, and I remain committed to supporting Southwest Ohioans' call for commonsense solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill.