Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this week we're very busy in the House, and last night we didn't get out until well beyond midnight. But there's also something that's happening this week that's very important not only to this body, but the whole Nation, and that's Mother's Day.

The father of our Nation, George Washington, said of his mother:

All I am I owe to my mother. I attribute all my success in

life to the moral, intellectual, and physical education I

received from her.

The role a mother plays in her child's life is unlike anything else. She is the life-giver, the caregiver, and the source of strength and guidance throughout her children's life. She wipes away the tears, she cleans the scrapes, and heals the hurts we all experience. And not just through our childhood, but beyond. We owe everything to our moms, and they deserve the recognition and respect they've rightly earned.

My mother raised my brothers and sisters and me with a level of tenderness shown by no other. She taught us the virtues of hard work, humility, and selflessness by living each of those virtues herself. My mom is no longer with me, but this weekend I will celebrate her and remember and honor the legacy she and every mother leaves behind.

Our Nation must always value the work that mothers do and their incalculable contribution to our society. If we ever fail to recognize the work both inside and outside the home, then we begin to lose sight and the strength of our Nation. Without our moms, we fail to realize the promise within each of us, for they are our greatest supporters. They are central to our lives and vital to our success.

Happy Mother's Day to every mother in America. We thank you, and we honor you for your invaluable service, endless love, and sacrifice.

I thank the gentleman.

In a perfect world we wouldn't be having this discussion. And in my office, I have a really attractive little snow globe that is very nice. You turn it upside down and the snow drifts down on this beautiful little scene in Washington. It would be nice if the global economy worked that way. But actually, we're in a global economy that you'd better be able to swim with the sharks, and you better have the same set of teeth that they have.

So when we talk about the Ex-Im Bank and the advantages of what we're trying to put together for our companies, we're asking these people, we're urging them, and we're encouraging them to make capital investments to go out and hire people and expand their markets. And we're saying, We're going to send you into battle, but by the way, you're not going to have the same tools and the same weapons that other people have.

So this is such a commonsense approach to what we're facing. Again, I say in a snow-globe world it would be wonderful to sit back, where everybody played by the rules, everybody played fair, and we could compete on an equal basis without everybody getting gamed. That's not the way it works. We know what we need to do. If we're really going to create jobs, if we're going to move this economy, if we're going to do the things that we need to do to create the revenues that we need to create to fund this wonderful government of ours, then we've got to look at this Ex-Im bill and pass it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. Having had the opportunity to visit Israel last summer, I think that Netanyahu put it best when he says: In this region of the world, we are you and you are us.

We not only share the same value systems, we share the same beliefs and the same threats that Israel faces, not just from time to time but every day. So it is absolutely critical for this partnership that we have, the relationship between the United States and Israel, to go forward.

And the message needs to come from this House that from today and forever more, the United States will always be standing strong with Israel, standing with Israel in every issue. And in the neighborhood which has been referred to by our colleagues that Israel exists in, the most dangerous and unstable area in the world today, it is absolutely critical that we reaffirm our relationship with Israel and our support for Israel.

The Iron Dome is actually the most critical piece of defense that Israel has. It protects it from a neighborhood that wishes to destroy it and annihilate it.

I would like to thank my friend from New York (Mr. Reed).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the things that are certain in life. People always say there's two things you can be certain of. One is death and the other is taxes. There's another one that we're going to be certain of after January 1, and that is you're going to continue to pay taxes after death.

In a government that borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends, it comes as no surprise that we can't even let the dead relax. They're still going to be taxed beyond what they ever could have possibly imagined in real life.

So we look at a country that now has the highest corporate tax in the industrial world; we're going to have the highest or the second highest death tax in the world. And why? Because of a town that's never learned to do what it tells all of its citizens to do: live within your means, play fair, pay your fair share.

Well, I would just suggest to you that, in addition to that, what we're telling people is, look, you don't have the certainty anymore that you have planned your estate the right way, because after January 1 this government is going to come up with heavier taxes on its citizens--not the ones that are on the ground and living, but the ones that have already died, that have paid their fair share, that have played within the rules, that have done everything they're supposed to do as good citizens of this great country. They're going to be told at the end of their life that you cannot go to your final resting place in peace. No. Everything that you have accumulated in your life and already paid taxes on is going to be taxed again.

And who is it that's going to face that burden? All those people that we tried to work so hard for, that we tried to put things aside for. Our children and our grandchildren are facing a hockey stick of spending that goes up and off the charts. Again, a country that cannot live within its own means, and yet an administration that tells its citizenry you have to pay your fair share, the rich are not paying their fair share.

Listen, farms are not only going to go away because those assets are going to have to be liquidated to pay death taxes, small businesses are also going to be harmed by this new tax. They're going to have to liquidate in order to pay the estate taxes that are left over after somebody has worked their whole life, paid their fair share, done what they're supposed to do, lived within their means. But that's not enough. That's not enough for this administration. They will continue to rip off from your pocket after death that which you have worked so hard to earn over your lifetime.

There is nothing more prickly; not even the sharpest cactus in the desert has more prickly pins on it than this law and this rule in the way it's coming.

So I would just say to all my friends, if it's really about being fair, if it's really about playing by the rules, if it's really about a stewardship where you take what is given to you and you pass it on to the next generation in better shape than you got it, my goodness, how have we strayed so far from a basic American principle as that? How have we strayed so far as to tell those who have worked so hard in their lifetime that even in their death they cannot rest, they cannot be assured of that which they have worked so hard in order to pass on to the next generation is going to be vulnerable? Fifty-five percent tax on your estate.

The liquidation of family farms, the liquidation of family businesses, the liquidation of the dreams of our children and grandchildren, all of them go up in smoke as this tsunami of tax increases that this administration will be forcing on the American people after January 1.

I thank my friend from New York for bringing this issue up.

Will the gentleman yield?

I think the other thing that is very important to understand is that we talk about competing in the global economy. Now, our friends to the north in Canada do not have a death tax. Our friends to the south in Mexico do not have a death tax. This, again, is an example of an administration that is so out of touch with the real world, that has never had any skin in the game, never understood that in order to produce a profit you must first know how to create one and not just how to tax it. But we are, again, taking ourselves out of the global economy and we are telling our people, You know what? You may be better off living in Canada or in Mexico, especially if you've accumulated anything in your lifetime, because you're not going to be able to pass it on to the next generation.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 103, my voting card would not register. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Ellison

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4105.

Where I'm from in northwest Pennsylvania, western Pennsylvania, we relish competition. In fact, we can't wait to go head-to-head and toe- to-toe with anybody, anytime, anyplace in the world. The only thing we ask for is a level playing field, something that's fair for everyone.

And when you look at markets in Vietnam and China and other nonmarket economies that are able to game us, we don't like it. So places like Sharon Tube and Wheatland Tube, those are the workers I'm talking about. And those are workers who I will tell you today would stand here with us, arm-in-arm, in saying, Bring it on. Bring it on. We want the competition. We can prove to the competition that we are the best and always will be the best, but keep it a level playing field, keep the rules where they should be, and enforce them.

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of visiting with an outstanding new company in western Pennsylvania called Cabot Guns, a company whose belief in American exceptionalism and dedication to uncompromising quality have resulted in a new standard of precision- made handguns. In fact, Cabot Guns are already being described as the finest pistols in the world by the Blue Book of Guns. Cabot Guns embodies the best of what this great Nation's finest machinists, engineers, and master craftsmen have to offer, and is proof of the enduring prowess of the American dream.

These highly prized firearms provide a new industry for my district and are made in collaboration with Penn United Technologies, a pioneering manufacturer of precision components for the defense, aerospace, medical, energy, and nuclear industries that was founded 40 years ago by the great innovator and patriot, Carl Jones, a man whose legacy lives on through Cabot Guns and Penn United's strong belief in family, God, and country and a firm commitment to our Second Amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, where I come from in western Pennsylvania, there's an old saying that goes something like this: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

And I think that tonight, my colleagues and I come before you and come before this House to talk about some very egregious action that this administration has just taken. And for the President, who at one time was a professor of constitutional law and who knows better, he relies on constitutional convenience. When it's convenient, he follows the Constitution; when it's not, he follows what he wants to do. And then he looks upon us, saying, You just didn't get it. Maybe I didn't use the right words to frame it.

And so he takes policy that is horrible policy, policy that is against our First Amendment, policy that restricts our free speech, restricts our freedom of religion, and puts an onerous burden on people not to be able to choose what they want but what this administration wants. And he says, You know what? Let me take what I just told you, put it in a little different box, a little different color paper and put a little different bow around it, and this is what we're going to use.

And some people sit back and say, Oh, my gosh, I'm so glad he was accommodating. That is not accommodating.

Now, I'm a Roman Catholic, and I will tell you that for many, many months and for many years I have wondered why our religious leaders, the people we look to for spiritual guidance, have been silent and have taken a back seat and have let things happen that they should not have let happen.

Bishop Zubik from Pittsburgh, Bishop Trautman from Erie, and my

priest, Father Steven Neff in Butler, have all spoken up from the pulpit, and they have spoken very clearly about this violation, and they have articulated much better than any of us can. They have done it from the pulpit. They have done it in the papers. They have done it on the radio and on the TV. The American people now know what is going on.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. No way.

And we are here tonight because we have had enough of an administration that continues to trample on our Constitution, marginalize it, and use it only when it's convenient. And when it doesn't meet their means, we talk about constitutional niceties. We talk about a Constitution that was well written at the time, really doesn't address the needs of today.

I would tell you that the needs of today have nothing to do with the needs of the American people, the rights of the American people, the freedom of the American people in speech or religion. It has to do with an administration that finds it a little too onerous for their agenda.

So I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I would hope that all Americans, not just Catholics, not just Christians, but all Americans, are outraged by this attempt to violate our First Amendment rights.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2079) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10 Main Street in East Rockaway, New York, as the ``John J. Cook Post Office''.

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

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2079, introduced by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10 Main Street in East Rockaway, New York, as the John J. Cook Post Office. The bill was introduced in June of this year and was favorably reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on November 3 of last year.

Mr. Speaker, John J. Cook served the community of East Rockaway, New York, for more than six decades, working as a letter carrier at the facility to be named after him. Serving his community for 60 years and 4 months, Mr. Cook went above and beyond to serve his neighbors and exemplified professionalism and courtesy each and every day on the job.

Mr. Cook delivered mail on the same route for nearly all of his 60 years on the job and, according to many in his community, he continually touched the lives of countless people spanning many generations.

According to one East Rockaway resident, he was quite simply ``the best.'' He knew all of his customers very well and gave personalized service throughout his career. The resident went on to say that, you know what, ``they just don't make people like him anymore.''

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cook passed away in 2005 at the age of 78. He left behind his wife, Roberta, and many who will miss this true public servant and model postal employee.

I urge all Members to join me in naming the postal facility in East

Rockaway, New York, after John J. Cook, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 2079, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3247) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1100 Town and Country Commons in Chesterfield, Missouri, as the ``Lance Corporal Matthew P. Pathenos Post Office Building''.

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

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3247, introduced by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1100 Town and Country Commons in Chesterfield, Missouri, as the ``Lance Corporal Matthew P. Pathenos Post Office Building.''

The bill is cosponsored by the entire Missouri State delegation and was reported favorably by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on November 3 of last year.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting and proper that we name this post office in Chesterfield, Missouri, for Marine Corps Lance Corporal Pathenos, a true American hero who gave his life courageously defending freedom. More than a selfless marine, Mr. Speaker, Lance Corporal Pathenos was a loving son, brother, and friend.

As one of his fellow marines reflected after his tragic passing, the best thing about Matt was his ability to wake up every day with a smile and hold it all day long. Even while in the midst of war, Lance Corporal Pathenos strove to bring joy to his fellow marines and friends. That's just the kind of guy that he was; and for his service and sacrifice, Mr. Speaker, we are truly grateful.

I now yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished friend and colleague from the State of Missouri and the sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Akin.

Mr. Speaker, I am truly grateful for the brave and heroic service of Lance Corporal Pathenos and for all of those who serve and defend our Nation each and every day. I urge all Members to join me in strong support of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3248) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 112 South 5th Street in Saint Charles, Missouri, as the ``Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver Post Office Building''.

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

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

H.R. 3248, introduced by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 112 South 5th Street in Saint Charles, Missouri, as the Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver Post Office Building. This bill is cosponsored by the entire Missouri State delegation and was reported favorably by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on November 3 of last year.

Mr. Speaker, it is altogether fitting and proper that we name this post office in Saint Charles for Marine Corps Lance Corporal Weaver, a selfless patriot who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq at just 20 years of age. Remembered by many for his tenacious spirit, the ability to find the positive in every situation, Mr. Speaker, for being a true hero, Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more.

Lance Corporal Weaver and all of our brave and courageous fighting men and women are true heroes, and I'm thankful to have this opportunity to stand before this Chamber and express my sincere gratitude for all that our servicemembers do and all that they sacrifice each and every day.

I will now yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague and friend from the State of Missouri, the sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Akin.

Mr. Speaker, I am truly grateful for the brave and heroic service of Lance Corporal Weaver. Let us not forget the ultimate sacrifice that he and so many other young Americans have made in promoting freedom and in protecting our great Nation. I urge all Members of this House to join me in strong support of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I'm glad to be here with my colleagues from Pennsylvania.

My thoughts of Coach Paterno go way back to the time when I was a really young guy in Butler, Pennsylvania, and Coach Paterno at that time was an assistant coach for Rip Engle. Coach Paterno would come into our high school, and he was very close friends with my high school coach, Art Bernardi.

But the thing I remember most about Coach Paterno, he had the ability to inspire you to do things that maybe you didn't think you could do. He had the ability to get you to go beyond being tired into being better. As a young guy growing up, he would come into our study halls and he would come into our halls, and I had the chance to go to Penn State many times to see him as an assistant coach, and always enjoyed the moments we had, and then go over to his house with Mrs. Paterno, and he would say to Mrs. Paterno, Hey, these guys are hungry. Can you get them a sandwich? Can you get them something to eat? They were always so nice to us, and the kids were small then.

So I can understand the sense of loss that not only the Paterno family has but the State of Pennsylvania, and in particular, Penn State University, because Coach Paterno was part of the fabric of that which is Penn State. He was the leaven that held Penn State together. He was the man that transcended not just football, because football was only a very small part of our life, but it was that game that taught us about life that was to come and the adversity that you would face and the problems that you would have to solve, and the idea that, yeah, well, you may not have done it real well on that last play. The only sin was not getting up off the deck and getting ready for the next play.

So I join my colleagues from Pennsylvania, and there's a deep sense of loss for all of us in Pennsylvania, and especially all of those folks at Penn State who have lost a true leader and a true icon--not just for college football and not just for athletics, but for the American life.

So I am deeply indebted to Coach Paterno for what he taught us. I also am grieving with the family and with the rest of the State of Pennsylvania for the loss of a truly great American, Joe Paterno.

I thank the gentleman from California.

I do stand in strong support of the Civilian Property Realignment Act, and I'll tell you why. I come from the private sector where sometimes assets become liabilities. An asset becomes a liability when it costs you so much to insure it, secure it, and maintain it that it no longer serves the purpose it was originally designed for.

When you look at this, I look at this as almost--there's a TV show. I haven't seen it, but they tell me it's called ``Hoarders.'' This is where people hoard things that they have no use for, but it takes up all space in their house and it takes up their personal wealth.

We are looking at a situation right now in this country where we have to reduce the size of government and reduce the cost. Why? Because it's the hardworking American taxpayer that foots the bill for all these properties that are being unused or underused. Wouldn't it just make sense to take them from the liability side and put it on the asset side? It no longer will cost the American taxpayers money to secure, insure, and maintain. It would go into the private sector. It would create jobs. These people would convert these into a use that makes more sense for today, and they would start paying taxes on it. This is a win-win situation for the American taxpayer.

I would submit to you, if this were not a reelection year, we would not be going through gymnastics in this House of things that make absolutely no sense to the people who pay for them; that's the American taxpayer.

After sitting here for 1 year and watching this ridiculous tennis match and trying to figure out if we really came to reduce the size of government, if we really came to reduce the debt that we have, if we really came to create jobs, if we really came for something that makes sense for America, why are we wasting America's time by debating issues that don't make sense for the people that pick up the tab, and that's the American taxpayer? It is not this House that pays for it. It is those homes around our district and in this country.

I have gotten to the point where I cannot stand listening to this garbage that comes out of here. It does nothing but create animosity. It does nothing to fix the situation. We have absolutely reached way past the midnight hour.

So I strongly support the gentleman's bill, the Civilian Property Realignment Act. Let's change these things from being liabilities into assets. Let's take the government's foot off the throat of the American taxpayers. Let's turn this country around and make it a useful situation.

I thank the gentleman. Please stand strong. We need to get these issues done.

Announcement by the Chair

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

I come from a family that in 1953 started in the automobile business. My father came from being a parts picker in a warehouse for General Motors, surviving World War II and then coming back home and starting his own dealership in 1953. So, not only can I talk the talk, but I've actually walked the walk.

When we sit back and when we see what this administration is doing, while they say on one side they're very concerned with jobs and that they're very concerned with the recovery of the automobile industry, they propose legislation that will take 7 million buyers out of the market. That is a staggering number of cars that we will not be able to build. If we can't build them, we don't need folks there in the factories. We don't want to mess with the fragile recovery that the automobile industry has right now. Again, as I said, in having walked that walk and in understanding the cost of these vehicles as they go up, it is a terrible thing that this administration is considering. It does not surprise me because we are talking about people who have never in their lives actually had their own skin in the game. So, when they talk about these measures that they're taking, when they talk about all these well-intentioned ideas, they forget that the ultimate sacrifice made is by the buyers, by the American consumer. We are going to raise the average cost of these vehicles by $3,200. As I said earlier, 7 million prospective buyers will not be in the market. We have jumped the standards that we had by 3 years.

I was there in the early seventies when the CAFE standards came into existence. The corporate average fuel economy had nothing to do with green energy; it had nothing to do with a carbon footprint. What it had to do with was our reliance on foreign oil. We are making great strides to that effect. Now, I do know that my friends in the automobile manufacturing business have agreed to these new standards. I also know that there are so many resets in this new standard that they opted to go along with this administration's directions and that they bought into this idea knowing that each electric car that they build, which is subsidized by $7,500 in taxpayer funds--hardworking American families who have paid their taxes will not have the same benefit that people buying these electric cars--the metrics on that is $175,000. That is their average income.

Now, who are we appealing to?

We give the industry a double count on those. That's how they get to the 54.5 miles per gallon, and they understand with the resets that it's much easier to go along with this administration than to try to fight them up front. I will tell you, of my friends in the automobile dealer business, who are the folks who go to work every day, who have to put bread on the table, in my dealership there are 110 folks who come in there every day to solve the transportation needs of the people in our community.

The other side of this is safety. When my wife and my four children get in their cars--and keep in mind there are five grandchildren involved now--we're going to start asking those folks to start driving lighter cars, cars that will not be as safe as the cars we have on the road right now. And why? Because we are catering to an administration that puts its agenda ahead of the American public's safety.

So I appreciate what the gentleman from Texas is doing. I understand the unintended consequences of this, so it's time for us to blow the whistle on an administration that refuses to acquiesce to what the public needs and continues to drive its own agenda. I appreciate what you've done.

Yes, absolutely. We talked about that.

The loopholes in this program are not for the hardworking American families that go to work every day to support their kids and their families and their well-being. The folks really don't buy these cars to drive; they buy them because they can. We are giving people $7,500 in Federal loopholes. Then in my State of Pennsylvania, it throws another $3,500 towards the purchase of an electric car. Those cars, by the way, are 200,000 cars per manufacturer. It's not 200,000 cars in total, but 200,000 cars per manufacturer. The cost of this and as you see the trajectory of this expense, it goes off the charts. The answer is it is not going to improve fuel economy. What really drives fuel economy is the number of miles you drive each year and the cost of gasoline. Yet they start to talk about, No, no. We've got to tell people that they can only drive a car that gets 54.5 miles per gallon.

You know, sir, as well as I do, that that is not the case. We've been gamed again. I think there should be an outrage over this with the American people now. This is a regulation that does nothing but push an agenda and does not push the well-being of the American citizen.

Again, I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this topic up. We have to understand that, if we are really going to get this economy back on track, it is the people who make

things--and we talk about making it in America. If we're really trying to support the domestic automakers, then you don't raise the price of the car by $3,200. With each price increase, we eliminate somebody who would have bought a new car. As we eliminate the purchase of new cars, we also affect the long-range market for used cars. A new car eventually becomes a used car.

We are eliminating personal transportation in this country by upping the bar in a systematic way, and people aren't noticing it. There should be an outrage among the hardworking American families of whom sometimes Dad works two jobs and Mom works a job--all to put food on the table, to educate their children, and to somehow get them from where they live to where they need to be, whether it be for their jobs or for education or for after-school activities. We are eliminating private transportation in this country by upping the price and by making it impossible for the average American to own his own car.

It's all price point and it's all affordability, and it comes down to: How much per month does it cost for the average, hardworking American family to keep private transportation?

We are raising the price by $3,200 per car. We are eliminating 7 million people from having the opportunity to own their own cars, their own transportation, which has been the hallmark of this country and which has driven this economy for many, many years. It has allowed the people to move out of the cities and into the suburbs because they had a way to get to work, and they didn't have to rely on public transportation.

In this country, what is very unique is that you can get up in the morning, and you can drive to wherever it is you want to go, and you can get there by yourself or with your friends; but that's the uniqueness and that's the greatness of America, and it has always been. It is the one thing that the rest of the world looks at. Private transportation is absolutely critical, and we are going to eliminate the ability for 7 million Americans to have that opportunity.

I agree with the gentleman, and I will tell you that I join in your fight. This is not only a fight that we must fight; this is a battle we must win.

I will fight with you every step of the way. We cannot continue to take a free and self-governing people and tell them not only what foods they can eat, what houses they can live in, what light bulb they can use, or what car and truck they can drive.

So I thank you for being a champion of the American people and the hard-working Americans that pay for every single thing that this government does.

Mr. Speaker, under the Constitution, Congress has the solemn responsibility to the American people ``to provide for the common defense.'' Congress exercises this responsibility through passage of H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Three guiding principles for this legislation are discussed below.

First, the conference report for H.R. 1540 provides the members of our armed forces with all of the resources necessary to complete their missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. The brave men and women who make up our armed forces have a high calling--to protect the American people--and it is incumbent upon us as the Congress to do everything we can to give them the resources they need to get the job done quickly and safely.

Further, this conference report provides military personnel and their families with the support that they need and which is rightfully theirs. Serving as a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine is no ordinary job, and members of our armed forces as well as their families need to know that no matter what happens here in Washington, DC, there will be no interruption to their pay or benefits as they work night and day to keep us safe.

Lastly, this conference report provides for investment in the future of our nation's security by ensuring that our armed forces are capable of responding to the threats of today and the threats of tomorrow. Our enemies around the world are not standing still; they are actively probing for any weaknesses in our nation's defenses, and we must be vigilant in maintaining both our current capabilities and developing future capabilities. For the sake of our country and our allies who depend on us, we must sustain a strong, flexible, and effective force structure.

The conference report provides authorization for national defense spending in the following amounts: $554 billion for the base budget and $115.5 billion for overseas contingency operations, i.e. the war on terrorism. This is a significant reduction in funding from the original House-passed version to comply with the first tier of the Budget Control Act's

requirement to cut defense spending by an estimated $465 billion over ten years. Specifically, this authorized funding has been reduced $19 billion from the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, $21.8 billion from the House-passed version of the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, and $24.1 billion from President Obama's budget. While our nation's economic plight has forced us all to tighten our belts, we cannot put Americans at risk by engaging in irresponsibly deep cuts to our defense spending that would hollow out our nation's military. This conference report strikes the right balance between the important priorities of reducing wasteful government spending and providing for a strong, robust, national defense.

The conference report also sets forth key policies that will help to ensure the safety of our nation and the effectiveness of our military. A few examples are discussed below.

The conference report provides for new sanctions on entities that engage in financial transactions with the Central Bank of Iran, including other state central banks. The provisions apply to the purchase of petroleum, which is of course one of Iran's key natural resources. The threat from Iran has only grown in recent weeks and months. Iran has continued its relentless drive towards developing nuclear weapons; continued its unceasing promotion of terrorism, including a brazen attempt to assassinate the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia to the United States, on American soil; sought to exert its malign influence over key countries in the region, including the nascent democracy of Iraq; and threatened America's strongest ally in the Middle East, the nation of Israel. Cutting off Iran's access to international financial transactions will help stop Iran from making progress towards any of these harmful goals.

Further, the conference report codifies conscience protections for military chaplains. Chaplains are crucial to the well-being of the members of our armed forces, who rely on them for guidance and spiritual nourishment especially when they are serving overseas. Chaplains shall never be forced to act against their consciences. Accordingly this conference report protects chaplains from being forced to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their conscience or their moral principles.

Lastly, the conference report forbids government funding from being used to transfer or release Guantanamo Bay detainees into the United States. To permit known terrorists to enter the U.S. would create an unacceptable threat to the safety of the American people and the conference report rightly prevents such an unthinkable scenario from occurring.

In short, this conference report provides crucial funding and sets forth key policies to ensure our nation's defense.

I unequivocally urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.