Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this weekend with the news of the adoption of a new government in Iraq, the silence was deafening. You could hear a pin drop among the critics of U.S. policy in Iraq.

But there it was. Prime Minister al-Maliki kept his word. He named 39 cabinet ministers, each of whom was approved by more than 90 percent of the 275-member elected Iraqi Parliament, the first government of Iraq formed since the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

May God bless Prime Minister al-Maliki and all those brave ministers in his new government; for despite what you read, despite some of what you see, freedom is winning in Iraq and this new government's formation stands for that truth.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and more to the point, I thank Representative Ros-Lehtinen for her extraordinary leadership of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia where it is my privilege to serve. My heartfelt appreciation to Chairman Henry Hyde to demonstrate that the lion still roars. His leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor is meaningful and of global significance. And to my mentor and friend, the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) I rise with gratitude for your moral leadership again demonstrated on this floor this evening with your eloquent and powerful words.

I rise today in strong support of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. As an original co-sponsor of the act, I come to this floor tonight saddened. I am saddened at what seems to be a diminishing opportunity for peace. In the wake of a world hopeful with the election of President Abbas, we saw it followed with the election of a legislative majority within the Palestinian Authority of a terrorist organization known as Hamas. I am saddened tonight by the story of Daniel whose family's loss will be remembered, not just as it was poignantly this evening by Congressman Cantor on this floor as he spoke of his own flesh and blood, but will be remembered later this week as the Prime Minister of Israel comes with some of Daniel's family at his side.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) reminded us of the human cost about which we debate tonight, and the policies and the messages that we will send from this well to a waiting world will speak to real human loss, a loss of opportunity, a loss of promise, to the loss of Daniel. It has been said many times tonight, and I take my colleagues at their word, that the State Department has said that this legislation is ``unnecessary.''

But let me say, as one of 435 Representatives in the United States House of Representatives, that the world waits for the leadership of this Congress and this Nation, and they wait for moral leadership that is clarion, and this serious debate tonight about which there are serious differences that I deeply respect, this debate tonight about the future of American financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority is such a debate.

Let us say plainly, Hamas is a terrorist organization that advocates for its political ideology the murder of innocent civilians. This Congress, this President, his administration and the American people have been clear, the United States does not support, negotiate or fund terrorist organizations, even those that have won a majority of a legislature. Tonight we will say clearly in this Palestinian Anti- Terrorism Act: Not one penny for Hamas.

The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act promotes, however, a democratic Palestinian Authority that denounces and combats terrorism, de-arms and dismantles terrorist agencies, networks and facilities, and works to eliminate anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement and the commemoration of terrorists; one that agrees to respect the sovereignty of its neighbors and acknowledges, respects and upholds the human rights; and one at its very core that has agreed to recognize our cherished ally, the State of Israel, as an independent, sovereign, Jewish, democratic state.

Now, there are criticisms tonight well spoken and no doubt well intentioned that say that the administration and our country will lack the flexibility to meet the humanitarian needs on the ground. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, with the clear language of this legislation that I would argue otherwise; that this legislation excludes funding for ``basic human health needs.'' There is also the allowance of security for President Abbas, and then perhaps the broadest exception that has even met with some criticism tonight, an exception for nonsecurity expenses that are ``related to the facilitation of a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the Palestinian people and Israel.''

Back in southern Indiana, we call that a hole that you could drive a truck through, and it is precisely the kind of flexibility that we need in these uncertain days. In these days, even in the last 24 hours, where we have seen nascent evidence of even a civil war emerging within the Palestinian Authority, as much as I might like a much more narrowly construed bill, I am prepared to endorse this legislation, carefully crafted for the exigencies of our time. I pray for the peace of Jerusalem and for all the people that live there.

Mr. Speaker, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act sends a clear signal once again that the United States will not tolerate terrorism, and we take a critical stand at this moment in history in advocating for meaningful reform to the very center of the Hamas charter. I salute my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, for bringing this critical and moral legislation to the floor of this Congress, and I speak my heartfelt condolences to Daniel's family. May we act in such a way that Daniel and his loss will soon, some day soon, be simply a part of a history of a time gone by, a history that will be remembered as other violent pages of the history of mankind have been remembered, with respect, with grief but representative of a time that is past. And that will be my prayer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Ron Zimmerman of Connersville, Indiana. He died this week in Afghanistan when a suicide bomber hit his vehicle while he was working as contractor on a U.S. State Department police training project.

Ron was working in Herat, Afghanistan, near the border with Iran and Turkmenistan. Among other things, he was training local police forces in methods of combating the illicit drug trade of opium poppies. He was in a convoy going to work to continue these training efforts when the vehicle he was traveling in was attacked by a suicide car bomber. He had been in Afghanistan since early April of this year.

Ron graduated from Connersville High School. Before going overseas, Ron served in the Fayette County Sheriff's Department, volunteered as a local firefighter, and most recently worked as a police officer in Brookville, Indiana. He left the police force in December 2004 to become a contractor. Prior to going to Afghanistan, he had worked for 1 year as a contractor training police forces in Kosovo.

Ron's courage and selfless dedication to others are shown through his willingness to travel to dangerous areas of the world in an effort to help those areas become safer and more secure. His wife Marla stated, ``He was the type of person that felt like he had to do what he had to do. He was a very giving person.''

I offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Marla; his two daughters, Mel Walker and Cheyenne Zimmerman, his son, Matt Walker, and all other family and friends who loved and admired this fine man.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I am still trying to recover, Mr. Chairman, from the remarks just made by the distinguished gentleman from Texas, raising objections to the good-faith efforts of the Members of this majority to live within the budget that we just adopted 2 days ago. Let me say, by way of compliment, that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of this subcommittee are not only my good friends, but my friends, men that I admire and respect, who are using the tools in the box they have been given to meet the needs that they believe represents the Nation's priorities. And I respect that. But, along with my colleague, Mr. Hensarling, I respectfully disagree.

I rise, though, particularly animated at this moment, Mr. Chairman, because I am reading the minority views of the gentleman who just spoke, minority views listed in this legislation as additional views of Representative Chet Edwards, as well as other colleagues, including the distinguished ranking member of this committee. And I will quote it for the record. Speaking to the point of order issue that has been raised and will continue to be raised, the gentleman who just spoke wrote this: ``The second Democratic amendment,'' speaking of their bill, ``would have eliminated the budget gimmick that designated $507 million for 20 routine military construction projects as an emergency so this funding would not count against the bill's allocation.''

Mr. Edwards continues: ``None of these projects were unforeseen. The administration budget requested 310 military construction projects, including these 20 projects. They are all conventional military construction projects, things like hangars, barracks, and unit headquarters. These are projects selected through long-term planning exercises.''

He went on to say, ``Democrats recognize these projects as valid and continue to support them. However, the minority has a more fiscally disciplined and balanced approach to addressing these needs.'' And there I close the quote.

In the minority views, precisely that to which we are objecting was objected to, described as a budget gimmick that had no place in this legislation so conceived. And so I just say, I agree with what Mr. Edwards wrote.

It is time that we leveled with the American people. It is time that we stood for the principle that we mean what we say. And when we adopt a budget, we made the hard choices to live with within the budget. And those of us in the Congress who are committed to doing just that rise today and take this tough stand among friends to say, let's level with the American people, and let us not use what Mr. Edwards rightly wrote to be a budget gimmick to find our way around the budget discipline that we just embraced.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, with record deficits and national debt, today the House of Representatives will take on one of our most important duties every year. We will consider a budget resolution.

Thanks to the leadership of Speaker Dennis Hastert, we will be bringing a budget to the floor that will reaffirm our commitment to fiscal discipline and reform. By holding the line on the President's number on domestic spending and by including a rainy day fund for the first time ever, Republicans will say to millions of Americans, troubled by a sea of red ink, we hear you and this Republican Congress is ready to make the hard choices to put our fiscal house in order.

I urge all of my colleagues to stand together today, Republicans and even Democrats, to support this budget resolution.

Mr. Chairman, with record deficits and national debt, the time has come to level with the American people. We are not living within our means. Therefore, House conservatives, under the capable leadership of Jeb Hensarling of Texas, have put our own budget alternative together. We call it the Contract with America Renewed.

The Contract with America Renewed is a balanced budget based on the budget passed by the House of Representatives in 1995 as part of the Contract with America. That budget passed this House by all but one Republican vote, and this budget deserves the same level of support tonight.

House conservatives believe that this Republican Congress should return to our roots of fiscal discipline and reform. The Contract with America Renewed would balance the Federal budget by cutting wasteful government spending and ending outdated bureaucracies. It would protect the tax cuts that have made our economy thrive, would strengthen Social Security and provide for our veterans and national defense. And the Contract with America Renewed would keep our promise to future generations by reforming entitlements that threaten to bankrupt our national government.

The American people know that unbridled government spending threatens our future and our freedom, and they long for leaders who tell it like it is and are honest about the choices we face.

In the original Contract with America were these words: ``America stands at a crossroads. Down one path lies more debt and the continued degradation of the Federal Government and the people it is intended to serve. Down the other path lies the restoration of the American dream.'' Those first Republicans in the majority in 40 years said, ``We choose the second of these roads.''

I urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and reform. Support the Republican Study Committee budget, and say yes again to the Contract with America Renewed.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I had the privilege of leading a delegation of Republicans and Democrats to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and despite what you see on television, there is a lot of good news in Iraq, thanks to American and coalition forces and the good people of Iraq.

We were in Mosul, the ancient site of the city of Nineva. And where Mosul, over a year ago, was inflamed with insurgent violence, today Mosul is secure, thanks to the 101st Airborne, but also thanks to a local Iraqi police chief who is leading 1,500 Iraqi police into the streets daily to capture insurgents.

We also met with the new Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, who told us of his plans to appoint a cabinet maybe as soon as this week, a clear agenda for stabilizing his country. He greeted us with the words, ``Welcome to a new Iraq.''

It will be our hope and our prayer that the American people will stand with the good people of Iraq to see freedom's fruition in that ancient land.

Mr. Speaker, today I am happy to congratulate Matt and Amy Lloyd of Bowie, MD, on the birth of their daughter, Charlotte Alathea Lloyd. Charlotte was born April 26, 2006 at 6:28 a.m., weighing 9 pounds, 1 ounce, and measuring 20\1/2\ inches long. Her name has special meaning for this family. ``Charlotte'' is a family name on the mother's side and means ``womanly'' or ``feminine'' and ``Alathea'' is the Greek word that means ``truth.'' God has blessed this child with a loving home, wonderful parents, and all the freedoms we enjoy in these United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am happy to congratulate Paul and Maxine Teller of Washington, D.C., on the birth of their son. Joshua Ben Teller was born this morning, May 4th, 2006, at 8:31 a.m., weighing 6 pounds, 11 ounces, and measures 19 inches long. Joshua is blessed to have been born into a loving home, with wonderful parents, and his birth is a blessing to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, today on Capitol Hill and in churches large and small across America, our Nation, many of our citizens, are huddled in the National Day of Prayer remembrances.

The Bible tells us that the effective and fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. And what is true of a man is true of a nation. And I am confident that the prayers offered today all across this land on behalf of the men and women, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives in this institution, and who serve in this great city and this great Nation are reaching the Throne of Grace.

The first time I saw President Bush after 9/11, I told him I was praying for him, by name, just about every day on my knees. He looked at me and he said, ``Mike, keep it up. It matters.''

And so I say humbly to all of those millions of Americans who are remembering the likes of us on this day, keep it up. It matters. And thank you on this National Day of Prayer.

Mr. Speaker, gas prices are too high, and so Washington has already begun to posture.

I know how angry people can become when gas prices rise. I spent 5 years working my way through college pumping gas at Ray's Marathon. And it is important that Washington respond. But we ought to respond with the real answer, which is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by opening up America's own domestic reserves in the intercoastal regions and the Alaskan National Wildlife Region.

If the U.S. Geological Survey is correct, if we opened up ANWR, we could increase our domestic reserves by 50 percent. If President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation opening ANWR to environmentally responsible exploration in 1995, we would be pumping millions of barrels from ANWR today.

Let's reduce the price of gasoline for future generations of Americans. Let's reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I commend the chairman of the Rules Committee for his outstanding leadership and no small amount of perseverance and courage in evidence today.

I also speak in commendation of Speaker Hastert and our leadership for bringing the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act to the floor in this rule.

After months of scandal and years of deficit spending, we have come to a moment of truth. We will show today on this floor in less than an hour who in this body is committed to reform and who is not.

This legislation has significant lobbying reforms: enhanced disclosure reporting for lobbyists, civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance, and imposes a moratorium on privately funded travel. But as we change the way lobbyists spend their money, this Congress also understands that we must change the way we spend the money of the American people, understanding that you cannot complain about the sharks when you are holding a bucket of chum.

This bill contains historic and significant budget reforms. Under the reforms we will consider, Members will have unprecedented opportunities to challenge so-called earmark spending at every stage of the legislative process. And we can do more earmark reform, applying it to all committees, as has been suggested, but we dare not do less. Lobbying reform must be married with spending reforms that give greater transparency and accountability to the process and the American people.

This country longs for a Congress that will renew its commitment to fiscal and ethical reform, and this is such a moment. This is a moment of truth. I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule for the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act.

Madam Speaker, after months of scandal and years of deficit spending, millions of Americans fear that this Congress is fiscally and ethically bankrupt.

This week, thanks to the bold leadership of Speaker Dennis Hastert, Congress will consider historic lobbying reform legislation that will bring new transparency to the relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers, and I applaud it.

But as important as these changes are, we must also change the way we spend the people's money here on the floor of this Chamber. And this legislation also includes commonsense reforms in earmark spending that will end an era of unaccountable pork-barrel spending in Congress.

It is said that righteousness exalts a nation, and meaningful lobbying reform and earmark reform will lift the spirits of the American people demoralized by years of disappointment from Washington,

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this bill be extended by 40 minutes equally divided, and I yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) which I ask he be permitted to control.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, debates of this nature, I think, are wholly constructive in the life of the Nation. I rise today not just to support the Iran Freedom Support Act, but to engage in a thoughtful debate.

I commend my colleagues, 360 of whom have cosponsored this legislation brought forward by the admirable Representative Ros- Lehtinen of Florida and supported strongly by the International Relations Committee. But I also speak with admiration on behalf of my colleagues who are here debating and opposing this measure. In fact, the gentleman from Oregon just made some eloquent comments in which he called, and I paraphrase, with respect for strong, smart, diplomatic efforts.

And while we may disagree on the meaning of those words, I would borrow them, Madam Speaker, to say that I believe that is precisely what the Iran Freedom Support Act is. It is strong, it is smart, and it is a diplomatic measure expressed by the Congress, the will of the American people, into a circumstance that is real, that is meaningful, and for which the clarity of the position of the United States of America is essential at this moment.

Let me speak for just a second about the Iran Freedom Support Act, which does just a couple of things that are worth restating, and then I want to talk about the nature of this confrontation.

This legislation attempts to deny the Iranian regime critical technical and financial resources to pursue unconventional weapons, incite terror and oppress the Iranian people. It is important to note that H.R. 282 does not authorize the use of force against Iran, despite the tone and tenor of some of the debate today.

Specifically this bill requires that WMD-related U.S. sanction controls and regulations on Iraq remain in effect until Iran has verifiably dismantled its WMD program. It also authorizes the President to provide democracy assistance to foreign and domestic individuals and organizations promoting freedom within that country, and engages in a host of additional economic measures and sanctions, including amending the Iran-Libyan Sanctions Act to recognize the historic gains that Ranking Member Lantos referred to in relation to our relationship with Libya.

Now, that being said, I just want to talk as a Hoosier from the Midwest about the real stakes here, and about the nature of the present leadership in Iran, and the importance of us to speak as the one people and as one Nation forcefully into this diplomatic engagement.

Listen to some of the quotes of the leadership of Iran today. President Ahmadinejad said in September of last year, ``Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.''

We are not just dealing with nuclear proliferation within a country that has a long and profound history of association with terrorism, but one that desires to export nuclear technologies.

President Ahmadinejad said in October of last year, ``God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and without Zionism.'' And it was not long ago that he said that Iran would inflict both ``harm and pain on the United States.''

And his threats against Israel in particular should be deeply offensive to every freedom-loving person in the world, and every American who cherishes our relationship with our ally, Israel. President Ahmadinejad said in October of last year, ``As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.'' And the President of Iran also said, ``Anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic Nations' fury.''

This is real, Madam Speaker. This is a confrontation that I pray we will be able to resolve with strong, smart, diplomatic efforts. But if the United States fails to act with clarity, including adopting the Iran Freedom Support Act, the potential consequences of inaction could be catastrophic.

I urge my colleagues to join the 360 Members, Republicans and Democrats alike, who have supported this legislation when it comes to the floor later today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our distinguished majority whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), our chief deputy majority whip.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished majority leader of the House of Representatives and an original cosponsor of this legislation.

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

There have been repeated assertions by several of my colleagues today about the administration's position on the bill we are considering today. In fact, it has been characterized repeatedly by several colleagues that the administration ``strongly opposes'' this legislation.

With great respect to my colleagues, they are referring specifically to an administration letter that expressed an opinion to the chairman of the Committee on International Relations before the bill provided further flexibility to the President, and it is not a response to the text of the bill we are considering today. The administration has not taken a position on the legislation, as amended, that we are considering today.

In specific reference to the concerns that were addressed, I would like to address title II of the legislation before I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Title II of the bill was the focus of the administration's letter, and it had to do in particular with that section concerning the ability of the President of the United States to waive certain provisions of this act in the national interest. The legislation that we consider today states that the President may on a case-by-case basis waive for a period of not more than 6 months with respect to national security the certifications required in this bill if such a waiver is ``vital to the national security interests of the country'' and the country of the national has undertaken substantial measures to prevent the acquisition and development of weapons of mass destruction.

What we in effect did here is we lowered the threshold significantly for the President's waiver in this case. It is significant that the administration has not expressed opposition to the legislation, as amended. For the sake of clarity of the record, I wanted to add that to our debate today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the distinguished vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding and for his strong leadership on the international stage today and at other times in his career.

To the gentlewoman from Florida who is in our thoughts and prayers today, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who authored the Iran Freedom Support Act, I express gratitude.

Mr. Crowley of New York just said it best. The bill we will consider today codifies U.S. sanctions on Iran and requires that they remain in place until Iran has verifiably dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program. It does not, this legislation today does not authorize the use of force against Iran. It does a host of other things that represent economic sanctions. It supports independent human rights and peaceful prodemocracy forces within Iran.

But the Iran Freedom Support Act is the right bill at the right time. It is a strong diplomatic measure. The potential consequences of inaction could be catastrophic. Congress and this administration must act before it is too late, before our options are severely limited, and this diplomatic measure today, the Iran Freedom Support Act, is such a measure.

I ask my colleagues to render their overwhelming support of this legislation.

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