Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this House in a joint session of Congress listened to the new Prime Minister of our ally, Iraq, earlier today. The Prime Minister outlined his plan for freedom and security for the Iraqi people and for a free, safe and secure Iraq.

As an ally, we in the United States have an obligation to see this through. We have an obligation to ensure freedom and democracy. However imperfect it may be, as freedom and democracy always is, we have an obligation to see that through in Iraq, today, tomorrow and for years to come.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that the United States, Israel and Iraq have the same mutual enemy, and those are Islamic extremists, in our country, in Israel, in Iraq and around the world, and we have to fight together for freedom today, freedom tomorrow, freedom forever.

Mr. Speaker, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria's armed militia of Islamic extremists attacked Israel, giving Israel every right to unleash fury on these terrorists.

Israel is not only fighting to protect themselves, but every other reasonable, freedom-loving person sharing this planet.

A Hezbollah spokesman said they are fully ready to send trained and armed volunteers to every corner of the earth to jeopardize Israeli and American interests.

The attacks of September 11, the bombings of London and Madrid, the terrorist roundup in Toronto and the present day insurgency in Iraq all forecast an unsettling but winnable trend, Mr. Speaker.

We are in a war against Islamic extremists, and the battle lines do not start and stop in the Middle East. They extend to the far reaches of the globe, and will do so until democracy replaces theocracy, freedom replaces tyranny, and equality replaces injustice.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation stands beside Israel as they protect their homeland and fight our common enemy, Islamic extremists.

Madam Speaker, scientific discovery should never compromise our moral integrity. Embryonic stem cell research, which they call hope, which some call hope, destroys human life.

What they do, in essence, is they create a new human life. They fertilize an embryo, the essence of life. Then they take that embryo and destroy it, the essence of human life. It is a destructive concept for our society. And government has no business funding research that creates life in order to destroy it. And at its essence, that is what embryonic stem cell research does. It is not progress. It is a breakdown in medical ethics, and government should not support it or endorse it.

Additionally, embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single medical treatment, whereas ethical adult stem cell research has produced 27, at least, disease and condition recoveries for cerebral palsy and spinal cord injuries.

We need to actually encourage human life, not destroy it. And I urge the President to veto this unethical research.

Mr. Speaker, we must defend traditional marriage. Marriage, family and community are not catch phrases. They are the backbone of our American society. Sadly, however, there is an organized effort by judicial activists and the radical left in this country to destroy our traditional American culture.

The Federal Marriage Amendment provides a national definition of marriage and leaves marriage laws to the State legislatures. It adds a layer of protection against court-imposed arrangements other than marriage and protects States from being forced to recognize same-sex unions created by other States.

Years of social science evidence confirms that children respond best when their mom and dad are married and live in the home. That is why it is important that we defend traditional marriage and this traditional notion of family law that emphasizes the importance of the foundational principle of family and to address the needs of children in the most positive and effective way.

We must defend what is sacred in our Nation against reckless actions of a dangerous few who seek to impose their liberal lunacy on our society. That is why we must fight for families, and this is a war worth fighting.

Mr. Speaker, while America marked the anniversary of our independence, North Korea demonstrated the danger of oppressive regimes.

International threats are often distressing, but the silver lining in there is that there is a galvanizing effect. Threats test our mettle and express not our weaknesses but our strengths as a Nation.

And make no mistake about it, this Republican majority in the House stands strongly in defending our Nation while Democrats have waged a two-decade-long campaign to undermine our national defense capabilities.

In May, just May, 117 Democrats voted to cut more than half the funding, $4.7 billion, from our missile defense program in the national defense authorization bill. In other words, the Democrats are applying their national defense strategy in Iraq to North Korea. It is called ``ostrich'': you stick your head in the sand and ignore the threats.

Well, at least there is consistency in their policy, Mr. Speaker. Maybe they will propose to cut and run from Alaska and Hawaii too because they could be attacked by North Korea with their missiles.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to begin by thanking my colleague from Pennsylvania for offering this substitute. I think it is important that on large issues coming before Congress that both sides are heard.

We dealt with this issue in committee. This bill, sponsored by my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) was voted out of committee by a voice vote, certainly not a very controversial piece of legislation. Mr. Kanjorski's amendment, offered in the nature of a substitute as well in the committee, which is substantially the same as he is offering here today, was voted down. So we have already dealt with this and wrestled with this issue in committee.

I also want to talk about the substance of his amendment today. What it does is retain the status quo. In essence, the SEC has endorsed an anticompetitive model for credit rating agencies. There are two dominating credit rating agencies that control 80 percent of the marketplace, and this is because of SEC regulation.

What Mr. Fitzpatrick's bill does is enable the private sector to come forward and actually increase the number of credit rating agencies in the marketplace so investors can decide. So it is a free market piece of legislation.

What Mr. Kanjorski's bill does is retain the status quo that is anticompetitive, and beyond that, it has no accountability. It is a voluntary regime which Mr. Kanjorski endorses, without any real mechanism of enforcement, and beyond that, it codifies this chicken and egg problem within the credit rating agencies today.

You have to be a nationally recognized credit rating rated agency in order to be a national recognized credit agency. Now here is the deal. You can operate all you want and call yourself a nationally recognized credit rating rated agency, but unless you are recognized by the SEC you cannot operate.

So, therefore, you are codifying in law a very complicated procedure that the SEC has put in place. It says you cannot actually function in the marketplace without the SEC endorsing it, but in order to get the SEC to endorse you, you have to be in the marketplace and operating. So, in essence, we have a very complicated piece of procedure that the SEC's put in place that is anticompetitive.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would say that what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is offering in the nature of a substitute is a question of who, not what. This is truly

about politics today. I think it is a question of who is sponsoring the legislation, who is moving the legislation, not what the underlying legislation does.

I would ask my colleague to vote with us on final passage, to move forward past this substitute and let us do the business of the House and the business of the people and endorse a free market solution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following as an extension of my remarks regarding the series of votes for Thursday, June 29, 2006. I was detained from votes due to a scheduled event in my district.

Rollcall votes: No. 350, vote ``aye'', Previous question on the Rule for H. Res. 895; No. 351, vote ``aye'', Adoption of the Rule for H. Res. 895; No. 352, vote ``aye'', Previous question on the Rule for H.R.

Mr. Speaker, the Washington Times reported today that a Senate immigration bill, the Kennedy bill, would prohibit State and local police from helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials combat illegal immigration. The Senate bill bars State and local police from detaining aliens simply for being in the U.S. illegally. Police could arrest the aliens only if they commit certain additional violations of Federal immigration law.

So the Senate bill wants to base our national security on get-out-of- jail-free cards and second chances? Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that four of the September 11 hijackers committed immigration violations and had been stopped by State and local police before the attacks on our Nation. Just 2 days before September 11, one hijacker, who had overstayed his visa, was stopped and given a $270 speeding ticket. That was later found in his rented car in the Newark airport just a couple of days after September 11.

Mr. Speaker, those who don't learn from their mistakes are destined to repeat them. The Kennedy bill in the Senate does just that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome home Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Gerald Murray, who is returning this fall to Boiling Springs, North Carolina, after 29 years of dedicated service to our Nation.

Chief Murray grew up in Boiling Springs, a town in my district, and entered the Air Force in October of 1977. He was stationed in Florida, South Carolina, Washington and Georgia, and also served overseas in Turkey and Japan, before being deployed to support Desert Storm and Southern Watch.

As the 14th chief master sergeant, the highest noncommissioned officer in

the Air Force, his many years of devoted service to our Nation deserve the highest praise. Chief Murray's numerous tours and operations clearly demonstrate his drive and determination to protect our country and ensure our freedoms.

Chief Murray answered the call to protect our country and to serve with valor, class and integrity; and he represented Western North Carolina and America well. He deserves the highest phrase; and we are happy to have you home, Chief Murray.

Mr. Speaker, Islamic extremists from the group Hamas attacked an Israeli army post on Sunday, killing two Israeli soldiers and holding hostage a 19-year-old corporal. Hamas militants called for the release of Palestinians from Israeli prisons in exchange for information on the soldier.

Mr. Speaker, Hamas's attempt at life-or-death blackmail once again shows its true colors. They are not a legitimate party promoting the democratic process. They are a terrorist organization, plain and simple.

The American taxpayers must never be asked to fund this terrorist organization that seeks to destroy the very existence of its democratic neighbor, Israel. We are in the business of eliminating terrorist funding, not authorizing it.

Our mission is to promote the spread of democracy in the Middle East. We must stand beside Israel, our most trusted ally in the Middle East, as they face down this terrorist organization in government clothing.

Mr. Speaker, democracy and terrorism cannot coexist, and I am putting my money on democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding this time to me.

This is a very important bill offered by my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). The legislative line item veto is something that is necessary for us to get our fiscal house in order. What this will do is enable Congress to work with the executive branch to root out special- interest projects.

Case in point. We just passed an emergency spending bill not 2, 3 weeks ago on this House floor. It included $38 million for funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to fund ``activities involving oysters.'' This is an emergency spending bill. Certainly something that is not reasonable. I like oysters, I like them baked, I like them fried, I like them raw. They all really taste great, but does that mean that we should spend $38 million for this?

That is a great case in point for the President to be able to use a legislative line item veto and for us to act to root out this wasteful spending.

Washington big government has an infinite appetite for more, more programs, more spending, more taxes. We have to take a principled stand to reform this, to fix this problem, to root out that waste, and this will put us on a diet if we pass this legislative line item veto.

I encourage the House to approve the rule today and to vote for the underlying bill.

Doomsday. That is what the Democrats have to offer. But, actually, we have been waiting for weeks, months, actually over a year now for the Democrats to offer an agenda, and they did that last week, although agenda may be a little too strong of a word. It should be more appropriately called the Cliff Notes for Liberal Lunacy.

Case in point. They say they need to require fiscal discipline. Is this some kind of joke coming from the Dems? This is the same party that has proposed $45 billion in new spending on this House floor to appropriations bills over and above what we as Republicans want to fund.

Where do Democrats propose eliminating the deficit, by cutting the size of growth? Do they do that? No. They actually just want to go back to raising your taxes for all hardworking Americans.

The Democrats are calling from the same old playbook: Promise, tax, spend. Promise, tax, spend. And what we have with their agenda is more of the same.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats gave the Republicans a gift last Friday. Let me give you a drum roll here. It is a wonderful gift given by the left to the conservatives here in Washington, D.C. Let me tell you what that gift was. It was the Democrat agenda. They call it the new direction. Someone said after they released this agenda that it was a new direction. When you are going in circles, you are constantly going in a different direction every time you go around that circle. And that is what the opposition party here in this Chamber is doing, they keep going in circles. It is the same old ideas.

They call it an agenda, but it is more like the Cliff Notes for Liberal Lunacy, Mr. Speaker. The theme of their agenda is best described as, well, promise, tax, spend. Promise, tax, spend. It is what they do best. And it is encouraging to see, and it shows a stark difference between the two parties and where we want to take our country, Mr. Speaker.

They say fiscal responsibility. That is one of their agenda items. Well, that is a wonderful thing to advocate, but it is laughable coming from Democrats. Here on this House floor, just this year, the opposition party has asked for $45 billion in new spending; $45 billion. And they call that fiscal responsibility. That is just amazing. And do you know what? They want to have all these new spending programs and call it fiscally responsible. Well, how are they going to do that? How are they going to pay for it? By raising every American's taxes. That is how they will do it.

They say roll back the Bush tax cuts. What that means is every American will pay more next year if the Democrats are in control than if Republicans are in control. That is what it means.

Energy policy. Energy policy. They want to lower gas prices and achieve energy independence. It sounds good. It is very good. Their voting record is far different from that. As we proposed ways of exploring for new energy sources, oil and gas, renewable energy, putting forward bold ideas here on the House floor, they just vote ``no.'' We want to put out tax incentives for new innovation and new ideas for energy production. They say ``no.'' We want to drill and explore for energy in Alaska. They say ``no.'' One hundred eighty-four Democrats voted against exploration of ANWR; 196 Democrats voted against the passage of the Gas Act to relieve high fuel prices for every American; 124 Democrats voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provided tax incentives and energy production improvements.

Look, the Democrats' rhetoric is far removed from the reality of their voting here on the House floor. But let us talk about what they have done to energy. When you constrict the supply of energy and the demand goes up, costs go up for the consumers. As demand rises and supply is constricted, prices go up. It is very simple, basic economics. Well, the Democrats are in favor of constricting that supply and making the costs go up. That is the policies they have advocated.

But let us move on to taxes. As I said, they have all these new spending proposals, but what are they going to do? Let us talk about the tax cuts the President has implemented in the last 5 years. One hundred eleven million American taxpayers have seen their taxes decline by an average of $1,800. That is a wonderful thing for the American people. Over 5 million individuals and families will see their income tax liabilities completely eliminated because the President cut taxes across the board. So if you pay taxes, you have received a tax cut, Mr. Speaker, but those that don't pay any taxes didn't receive a tax cut. That is who the Democrats are saying are left behind by tax cuts. Well, it is a basic notion of fairness, Mr. Speaker. If you pay taxes, we have cut your taxes. But if you don't pay taxes, how can we cut your taxes? So I think the American people should remember that when the Democrats talk about Republicans not cutting everyone's taxes.

Let us talk about the economic growth that we have implemented as a conservative party here in the House and the Senate with a good President working hard. We have had real per capita disposal income growth of 8.5 percent increase since 1999.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans understand that fiscal restraint is not an option. It is a necessity.

Since 1991, Federal spending on special-interest projects has increased by 900 percent. It is interesting just in the last emergency spending bill we passed out of this Congress, there is $38 million in oyster research money. Now, I certainly like oysters. I think they are great whether they are raw or steamed or even fried. I am Southern, so fried oysters are great. But I do not think the Federal Government should be spending $38 million.

That is why I support the Presidential line item veto, and I think it is important that the President have the authority to root out those wasteful spending projects and make sure that pork-barrel spending does not continue to grow.

Mr. Speaker, this initiative will make Congress more accountable and help us eliminate the government gluttony that plagues our current budget process.

Mr. Speaker, resolve, untested, is only an idea.

Today we are fighting a war against Islamic extremists. Make no mistake about it, this is a generational challenge. It was my grandparents' generation that fought the Nazis. It was my parents' generation that fought the communists. It is our generation that is fighting Islamic extremists wherever they are.

The left in this country have a policy that they are advocating here today, and they are advocating a policy called cut and run. They are advocating a policy of waving the white flag to our enemies. It is a policy, make no mistake about it, that the left in this country are advocating.

But we are fighting a war. We are fighting a war against Islamic extremists that hate the very fiber of our being as Americans. They hate our freedoms and they hate the fact that we embrace equality here in this country, although imperfect. They hate the fact that we have religious freedom and freedom of speech in this country. Make no mistake about it, these are important things to Americans, and our enemy hates those important things.

We are having a great debate here, 10 hours of debate here in this Congress on this war policy, and I am proud that the majority in this House will stand to fight and win this war. It is not about status quo, it is about victory.