Floor Statements

I thank the distinguished majority whip for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pledge Protection Act and commend its author, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for his yeoman's work on this thoughtful legislation.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I admire my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their intellectual acumen and their commitment to their view and their philosophy of government. But while each of us may have a different philosophy of government, we don't get to have different facts.

The clear policy of Article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution reads, ``In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have developed jurisdiction, but it is the law and the fact with such exceptions and under such exceptions as the Congress shall make.'' It is black letter law in the Constitution of the United States of America that this body, this Congress, shall have the authority to set the jurisdiction of the courts.

So if I may say, respectfully, let us stop with all the conversation about anticonstitutional action being taken. In fact, restricting the Federal courts' jurisdiction is a common practice in the House of Representatives, and a long litany of recent legislation, like the Black Hills National Forest, the recent Class Action Fairness Act, attests to that.

But we are here about the business of protecting the contents of the Pledge of Allegiance, which some Federal courts have either resolved as unconstitutional or left unresolved.

We stand here today to say those words, which appear above you, Mr. Chairman, in the phrase ``in God we trust'' in our national model, words which were reflected in our founding documents that speak of a Nation that believes its rights are endowed by our Creator, and words that President Abraham Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, that this is one Nation under God, be protected and vouchsafed in our Pledge.

Let us take this jurisdiction away, which is our constitutional power to do, and leave that power with the people of the United States and the States severally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the marriage amendment and offer heartfelt thanks and congratulations to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) for her principled, compassionate, and courageous leadership on this issue from her very first term in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of ominous decisions by activist courts across the land, I come to the well today to defend that institution that forms the backbone of our society: traditional marriage. Like millions of Americans, I believe that marriage matters, that it was ordained by God, instituted among men, that it is the glue of the American family and the safest harbor to raise children.

I believe first, though, marriage should be protected, because it wasn't our idea. Several millennia ago the words were written that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. It was not our idea; it was God's idea. And I say that unashamedly on the floor where the words ``In God We Trust'' appear above your chair, Mr. Speaker.

And let me say emphatically that this debate today is not about discrimination. I believe that if someone chooses another life-style than I have chosen, that that is their right in a free society. But tolerance does not require that we permit our courts to redefine an institution upon which our society depends. Marriage matters, according to the researchers. Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that throughout history, societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family.

And marriage matters to kids. As my Hoosier colleague and friend Vice President Dan Quayle first accurately observed, Mr. Speaker, marriage is the safest harbor to raise children. Sociologists tell us that children raised by married parents experience lower rates of premarital childbearing, illicit drug use, arrest, health, emotional and behavioral problems, school dropout rate, and poverty.

And marriage even matters to adults. A recent 5-year study in 1998 found that continuously married husbands and wives experience significantly better emotional health and less depression than people of other marital status.

Let us say ``yes'' very humbly today to the marriage as traditionally defined. Let us say ``no'' to activist courts bent on redefining it.

Marriage matters, Mr. Speaker. It was ordained by God, instituted in the law. It is the glue of the American family and the safest harbor to raise children. Let us put in that most sacred of documents an affirmation of that institution upon which our society demands.

I urge my colleagues to embrace H.J. Res. 88, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in the coming days, Congress will consider legislation to make taxpayer dollars available for what is known as embryonic stem cell research.

Stating the case for an imminent presidential veto, in 2001 President Bush made the moral dimensions of scientific testing on human embryos clear.

These are the principles: It is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research. Also, it is morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to finance research that they find morally objectionable. The choice of our time was described millennia ago: ``See, I set before you blessings and curses, life and death. Now choose life that you and your children may live.'' I urge my colleagues to stand for the sanctity of life at every level. Stand with President George W. Bush. Reject taxpayer funding of human embryo research.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jim Morris, who over the last five years has guided the U.N. World Food Programme through five years of vital, life-saving support to millions of victims of war and natural disaster across the globe.

A former Indianapolis business executive, president of the Indiana University Board of Trustees and head of the Lilly Endowment, Jim Morris could have retired to private life. Instead, Jim accepted the call and rose to the challenge to manage the world's largest food aid organization. Since 2002, Jim has been an eloquent spokesman and tireless administrator for relief programs stretching from Sudan to Iraq, Africa to Asia.

Under Jim's stewardship, the World Food Programme (WFP) provided food aid to over 4 million Ethiopian drought victims in 2003. That year, he also successfully guided WFP in carrying out the largest humanitarian operation in history, feeding 26 million Iraqis.

When tropical storm Jeanne struck Haiti in 2004, WFP showed up big for the 160,000 flood victims. In Darfur, Sudan, WFP battles insecurity and bad roads to get food aid to the 2 million refugees who have fled their homes in response to the conflict.

Reacting to the 2005 tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people from Indonesia to Somalia and left hundreds of thousands more without their homes or livelihoods, WFP mounted one of its most complex emergency operations ever. Using helicopters, aircraft, cargo ships, landing craft and traditional trucks, WFP provided essential food aid to 1.75 million tsunami survivors, averting starvation and widespread malnutrition in the wake of the disaster.

Under Jim's leadership, the WFP has made a difference, time and again by quickly getting food to millions of hungry and hurting people who desperately need it. Jim Morris is to be commended for his tireless advocacy for the world's poorest children, which has raised awareness and support for hunger programs, including in this body.

To this heroic Hoosier, who for five years has led the global effort to combat the daily hunger faced by more than 800 million people worldwide, I say, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in gratitude to Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. It is historic in its scope, and I admire his thoughtfulness and the dignity with which he has gone about this process.

I also rise, although in opposition, with deep respect for the gentleman from Iowa, whom I would support for anything, including Pope. Even though, from time to time, we differ on issues, he is a man of integrity and principle.

The arguments have been made today by the chairman, and they will be by others in opposition to the King amendment, in a substantive way, that even though section 203 only affects 12 percent of the counties of this country, it was enacted for sound reasons and we still need it; that to support the King amendment could literally hurt the elderly, who in many cases were excluded from the English proficiency requirements of naturalization and,

therefore, would, if this amendment passed, be denied the language assistance to participate as American citizens in the voting process.

There has also been the thoughtful discussion that we are not just talking about choosing between candidate A and B, but rather, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about ballot initiatives that can oftentimes be written in double negatives, and so language assistance is appropriate for Americans in exercising their blood-bought right to vote.

So I just simply rise today in opposition to the King amendment; to say that language requirements belong in immigration law, not in the ballot box.

I myself have authored an immigration reform proposal that would require all new guest workers within 2 years to pass a 40-hour course in English proficiency. And I believe, as many of my colleagues who support this amendment believe, that it is central to assimilation and to becoming a part of the American experience to achieve English proficiency. But I say with deep respect to my sincere colleague, Mr. King, not here, not in the ballot box, and not for Americans.

There is a certain amount of sacred soil in America. I tend to think this floor, Mr. Chairman, is sacred soil in democracy. But I think the four corners of that curtained ballot booth are also sacred soil, and we ought to do everything that is necessary in our power to make sure that Americans can exercise their blood-bought, God-given right to vote in an informed manner.

And so I rise to oppose the King amendment and to thank again the gentleman for his sincerity.

Mr. Speaker, the White House Office of Management and Budget just released its annual midyear budget update. Under article I of the Constitution, the House of Representatives has no higher priority than to see to the wise expenditure of the resources of the American people, and the word is, the news is good.

This year's budget deficit is now forecast to be $296 billion, 2.3 percent of our economy, essentially equal to a historic average. The really good news is, the deficit is 30 percent below the administration's February forecast. Revenues grew by a dynamic 14.5 percent last year and are forecast to grow this year by $245 billion, or 11.4 percent.

Revenues to the Federal Government are increasing because of the progrowth tax cuts that President Bush and this Republican majority brought forward. The tax cuts are working. The economy is growing. Revenues to the government are up. The deficit is down.

All in all, not a bad day's work.

Mr. Speaker, within the hour, the people of Indiana will hear the news firsthand: 2,000 jobs and a $550 million Honda plant is coming to Greensburg, Indiana, in the heart of the Sixth Congressional District. Thanks to the leadership of Governor Mitch Daniels, Mayor Frank Manus and other State and local officials, Honda will soon break ground on a vehicle plant that will produce 200,000 automobiles in southern Indiana every year.

Through its decision today, Honda has chosen to partner with the people of my congressional district. While many deserve credit for seeing these 2,000 jobs come to this city of 10,200 citizens, Honda's decision today is mostly a reflection of its confidence in the hardworking people of Indiana. Honda said yes to Indiana and yes to the skill, integrity and ethic of working Hoosiers.

On behalf of the people of the Sixth Congressional District, I rise to express my profound gratitude and best wishes to Honda for providing this extraordinary economic boost for the citizens of Greensburg, Indiana, and the surrounding area.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time on this important issue. I do rise in support of the permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006, although I am mindful, as I listen to my good friend who just spoke about the estate tax, of what Confucius once wrote a millennium ago. He said: ``When words lose their meaning, men lose their liberty.''

I would prefer in the balance of my remarks to speak not about an estate tax, because I do not know too many estates in eastern Indiana, but I would rather talk about the death tax, because this is a tax that is death to the American Dream for small business owners and family farmers all across eastern Indiana.

It is why, Mr. Speaker, I have dedicated myself in my nearly three terms in Congress to the principle of ending this immoral tax, a tax which, by the way, was instituted in 1916 primarily to raise revenues for World War I. It was a product of a time where the redistribution of wealth was seen globally to be an acceptable practice of economics. It was the very nascent time of socialism on the world stage, and America embraced this principle of redistribution with the estate tax in 1916.

Let me just say that I believe death taxes are immoral. I believe it is morally wrong to make death a taxable event. I believe it is also morally wrong to say to small business owners and family farmers and any American, whatever their means, that after a lifetime of obeying the law and a lifetime of paying your share honestly and legally to the Federal Treasury that we will make your death a taxable event.

So I want to say today that I still believe that we ought to repeal the death tax, and the legislation we will consider under this rule does not repeal, but I want to say that it is relief and it is progress and this Congress should embrace it.

The estate tax relief provided in previous legislation is scheduled to end in 2010, and what we will pass today will literally bring permanent estate tax relief to millions of American families, especially increasing the exemption to $5 million per person effective January 1, 2010. So let me emphasize that what we will do today is not repeal, but it is relief; and I want to recognize that progress and embrace it.

Let me close with a word of caution to our colleagues who may think of this as a starting point, that this is a deal, Mr. Speaker, that we can send down the hallway and we can negotiate from: let me say, having spoken to many of my colleagues who share my belief that we should repeal this onerous death tax outright, that if this is the deal, it is a good deal for the American people. But we say with conviction: this far and no farther. We must demand, at the very minimum, this relief stand when this bill goes to the desk of the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I was away earlier this evening and thus unable to cast a vote on a number of measures before the House. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall 289 (on Passage of H.R. 5540)--``yea''; rollcall 290 (on Passage of H.R. 5504)--``yea''; and rollcall 291 (on Passage of H. Res. 826)--``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and commend the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives for facilitating this extraordinary debate over the war on terror and our military efforts in Iraq.

I have made three trips to Iraq over the last 3 years. I have led delegations to Baghdad, Basra, Ramadi, Balad and Mosul, and I have two messages to contribute to this discussion.

In the course of those trips, I have met with our soldiers in mess halls. I have flown in the belly of C-130s. I have talked with soldiers far away from anyone with any brass on their shoulders, and I have never met a soldier that did not believe in the effort in Iraq. Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, in all of my three different travels throughout the lengths and bounds of Iraq, I have never met a U.S. soldier in uniform who did not believe in the mission. Each and every one I met believed in the nobility of the cause.

Each of them expressed the view of an Indiana soldier by the name of Jim Newland from Washington, Indiana, in Baghdad. I will never forget the day I said to Jim, what do you think, Jim; are we doing the right thing here? He looked me in the eye and he said, Congressman, we are out on patrol every day on the streets of Baghdad. We look this enemy in the eye every day, and he said to me very solemnly, we have got to stop these people right here. They kill Americans because they like it. That is the sentiment I heard from our soldiers.

My other message is very simply and plainly and humbly, while it will be hard for some around this country to hear, we are winning the war in Iraq. We are defeating the enemy in every engagement. The enemy has never taken down so much as a full platoon in any military engagement. It is an extraordinary credit to our soldiers.

We have had three national elections. We have stood up a quarter of a million Iraqis in uniform, and there is now a freestanding elected government in Iraq. We are winning the war in Iraq, Mr. Speaker. It is a message that I would deliver and from the hearts of the soldiers that I met. I would also say I believe in this mission.

Support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is Flag Day, and I rise in support of the Flag Protection Amendment. February 23, 1945, after surviving the bloodiest battle since Gettysburg, a platoon of marines trudged up Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima with a simple task, to raise the American flag above the devastation below.

When the flag was raised by SGT Mike Strank and his platoon, history records that a thunderous cheer rose from our troops on land and on sea and in foxholes and on stretchers. By adopting the Flag Protection Amendment, we will raise Old Glory again.

We will raise her above the decisions of a judiciary that were wrong in the law and the history of our values. We will raise her above the cynicism of our time. Out of respect for those who served beneath it and those who died within the sight of it, we must say that there are boundaries necessary to the survival of freedom.

Let us pass the flag amendment and restore to Old Glory the modest protection of the law that she represents.

Mr. Speaker, I was detained the evening of June 6, 2006 and wish to clarify any confusion as to how I intended to vote, most notably on rollcall 225, the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall 223, King Amendment to H.R. 5441--``aye''; rollcall 224, Kingston Amendment to H.R. 5441--``aye''; rollcall 225, motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair--``aye''; rollcall 226, on passage of H.R. 5441--``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rejoice in the death of no man, but today I will make an exception. As America and the world just learned, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. The President of the United States said it was an opportunity to turn the tide and that the ideology of terror had lost one of its most visible and aggressive leaders, and it has.

But this was not simply a tactically significant strike by U.S. and Iraqi forces. Somebody dropped a dime. It is also evidence, as U.S. General George Casey in Iraq said earlier today, of increased cooperation.

I commend U.S. and Iraqi forces for this extraordinary accomplishment. The leading enemy of freedom in Iraq is dead. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is gone. Let freedom reign in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I was detained earlier this evening. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall 223 (Campbell Amendment to H.R. 5441)--``aye''; rollcall 224 (Kingston Amendment to H.R. 5441)--``aye''; rollcall 225 (Mo-

tion to Recommit H.R. 5441)--``no''; rollcall 226 (On Passage of H.R. 5441)--``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, one week ago President Bush set out his views on immigration reform to the American people. He stated, ``There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program of mass deportation.''

I agree with the President that there is a rational middle ground that can be found between amnesty and mass deportation, but amnesty is not that middle ground.

Today at the Heritage Foundation, here in Washington, DC, I will unveil the real rational middle ground on immigration reform. I call it the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act. It sees the solution to this crisis as a four-step process. First, secure the border. The second step is to make the decision once and for all to deny amnesty to people whose first act in the United States was a violation of the law. Third, is to put in place a guest worker program without amnesty that will efficiently provide American employers with willing guest workers who come into America legally. The final step is tough employer sanctions that ensure a full partnership between American business and the American government in the enforcement of our laws on immigration.

There is a real rational middle ground on immigration reform, and I hope and humbly submit the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act might just be it.