Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am in full support of this postal naming.

At this time, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California, Representative Capps, the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation.

At this time, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from

California, Representative Hahn, the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my good friend who is the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate what Mr. Sessions said, and thank you for your tremendous service here in this body. So thank you for acknowledging that too.

Mr. Speaker, Congress is broken. We know it, and the American people know it. The difference between us and them is that we can actually do something about it. In fact, that is our job.

But here we go again, ducking our responsibility and not doing our job. We ducked when we failed to pass a long-term transportation bill. We ducked when we failed to meet our constitutional responsibility to debate a new, long-term military commitment in the Middle East.

And now, here we go again with this tax extender bill.

We need tax reform. 435 Members of Congress agree. Both parties agree. This year we had an opportunity. The Ways and Means Committee, under Chairman Dave Camp, presented a real plan, real simplification and lower rates, and all of it was paid for.

There were many points of disagreement, as well as agreement in that bill. In a functioning legislature, we would have debated the Camp bill, modified it, and passed some version of it to move America forward.

Instead, Speaker Boehner said the Camp bill was dead on arrival. No discussion, no debate, no progress. More ducking and dodging instead of Congress doing its job.

This tax extender package adds insult to the American people who want tax reform to the injury Congress inflicts by failing to do its job. When we pass tax extenders instead of tax reform, Congress, once again, is back to doing business as usual.

This bill, considered on December 3, is retroactive to January. How can we expect businesses and families to plan when we don't let them know what the rules for the tax year are until the year is nearly over?

It is business as usual when we preach fiscal responsibility, pledging allegiance to a balanced budget, and then pass a bill which adds $44.7 billion to the taxpayers' credit card.

Mr. Speaker, how can Congress assert today that we will do tax reform next year, tax reform that the American people are demanding, when we are about to repeat the irresponsible practice of passing short-term, retroactive bills, something Congress has been doing year in and year out?

This bill says to the American people that Congress is up to its old tricks. Meet the new Congress--same as the old Congress. Congress says one thing: ``We need tax reform,'' but Congress does another, kicks the can down the road.

Mr. Speaker, I do support some of the provisions in this bill and I would like to vote for them, but Congress must do its job, not dodge its responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from California. There is nothing I can add, really, to the eloquence of his remarks, and it is fitting that he made them as the person in this body who is representing the men and women of Camp Pendleton.

I have been there, but I don't serve it. My brother served in the Navy, and I visited him many years ago when he was at Camp Pendleton, and I remember then, as a very young person, being awed by just the incredible display of patriotism that was embodied in that.

The other thing, as I listened to you, Mr. Chairman, what I thought was so good about this is that the whole ethic of the military is that you are in it for everybody else. As for the story about the Medal of Honor winner who was in the band but, before he was in the band, was on a burning tank and provided covering fire at great peril to himself, that is the ethic of the military that, I think, all of us here so admire.

So having a postal naming which doesn't specifically identify one person but identifies all of the recipients at the highest award that we can give to a military leader is a tremendous idea. In fact, I look forward to my next visit to Camp Pendleton, where, I think, like many Americans who will go visit, I will read this roster and will just stand in awe of the bravery that has been demonstrated by these people throughout our history.

So I really am glad that our remarks are recorded because this statement that the chairman gave, I think, is going to be very good reading for all of us. I do join, of course, in supporting this naming. I think it is particularly suitable.

Mr. Speaker, 230 years of Camp Pendleton's existence, think about it. It is just an amazing facility, but more importantly, it has had hundreds of thousands of wonderful Americans who have learned about how to be a patriot, who have gone from there to face very difficult challenges when we needed their bravery to defend our country.

So I join the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) in urging our colleagues to support this naming--it is an especially glorious one-- honoring all men and women of the military.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am delighted to join in support of this postal naming, and it is just such a pleasure to listen to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cook) talk about a friend he knew who was a fellow colonel and then to see what he did after his life of service in the military, his life of service with his own folks back home, and I look at some of the things he did, and I am just amazed.

He served in 46 combat missions. He earned four Purple Hearts. That means, basically, he dodged death at least four times. How he managed to do this and then put it all behind him--he probably never talked about it; instead, he preferred much more to just find a way to help folks back home when the bullets weren't flying.

But he knew service in the military and service back home were equally important. This is an extraordinary person, and we are very honored that the gentleman is bringing this bill forward and that we will be able to recognize his contributions in the memory of a postal naming.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cook), and Mr. Issa also thanks you.

It is a tough business we do here, but one of the things about these namings is that it allows us to remind ourselves of what we can aspire to be. I mean, these folks, in war and in peace, who just give themselves to public service selflessly and effectively and then earn the gratitude of the people back home, regardless of party, regardless of politics, they just are trying to do a good thing to make their community a better place and their country a stronger country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank the gentlelady for her eloquent description of a brave and strong person and a life well-lived, and I am touched by seeing that photograph of the young, strong, healthy, vibrant man who meant so much to his family, as he did to his country, and your story about him as a 5-year-old boy, I found quite touching.

There was just something in him that probably did come from his family that made him, even without knowing why, want to serve, and you can just imagine that that carried forward not only to people in his community and family but to the people of Iraq.

I also was reading about how his original objective in the military was to serve as a pilot. We don't know what the story was as to how he ended up in a tank, but what you know about that story is that his fundamental goal was to serve. How he served was secondary.

He was in a tank, which, as we all know, was one of the most dangerous places any of our men and women in service could be during the war in Iraq.

So I want to thank the gentlewoman for a very inspiring and eloquent statement about a life well lived, about a man who gave his life on behalf of all of us in the United States of America.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.

Likewise, we thank you for doing this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting this postal naming bill. I see that we have the sponsor of the bill here.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) to speak directly about this brave American.

I want to thank the gentleman for his remarks and for bringing this forward to our attention.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment, too, on how this individual, this man, two times in Korea and then decides he is going to go to Iraq, despite the well-known dangers to his own personal safety, again, another example of a brave American who is willing and did sacrifice his life on behalf of the security of this country.

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

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

My colleague mentioned that it is unusual we reach back. I think he would agree with me that it is wise that we do.

World War II changed the world; and we were so committed to the cause of freedom in World War II, and so many of our predecessors, citizens who served and died before we were born, won a war that would have changed the whole future of the world had we not succeeded. It was individual acts of heroism that made the difference.

Mr. Speaker, this life was a life well lived. His life was one dedicated to service, and First Lieutenant Alvin Cockrell deserves to be remembered. It is our responsibility to honor all of those who came before us, the members, as Mr. Issa said, of the Greatest Generation, who won the most brutal but consequential war that has changed the history of the entire world.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join with my colleagues in fully supporting the naming of this post office after an American who served his country and gave his life, First Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell.

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

I thank the gentleman. He is up to his usual courteous efforts, and I really do appreciate it. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are pretty proud in Vermont of Thaddeus Stevens, and we are here today in support of the naming of the post office at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, a tiny community, a proud community, in what is called the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont, to name the post office there the Thaddeus Stevens Post Office.

Thaddeus Stevens was born in Danville, Vermont, in 1792. He attended Peacham Academy. It is still there. He went on to the University of Vermont and then graduated from Dartmouth College. That was is in 1814.

He then made a big decision and moved to Pennsylvania to study law, but he never left his Vermont values behind. He was elected to the Pennsylvania State House of Representatives. He served 4 years as a member of the Anti-Masonic Party. In 1849, he was elected to the 34th Congress of the United States, serving as a Whig until 1853--and Mr. Issa, you'll be happy to know--as a Republican from 1859 until his death in 1868.

As a member of the House of Representatives, he was a very strong voice of opposition to slavery, advocating against the fugitive slave provision in the Compromise of 1850 and actively helping runaway slaves to escape to Canada using the Underground Railroad. We are all proud of that, but in Vermont we are particularly proud that Thaddeus Stevens did this. Our State, Mr. Speaker, was the first State in its Constitution--and we were the 14th State in the Union--to ban slavery. And Thaddeus Stevens took that Vermont point of view and advocated it in the United States House of Representatives.

By 1866, Stevens had helped the Republicans gain control of Congress and set the stage for post-Civil War reconstruction in the South. In his role on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, Thaddeus Stevens helped draft the Reconstruction Act of 1867 as well as the 14th Amendment, prohibiting States from denying citizens of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law, a constitutional amendment that has done so much to extend the dream in this country of equal opportunity to all of our citizens.

Since Vermont, as I mentioned, was the first State to ban slavery, doing so in its Constitution, I would like to think that Thaddeus Stevens' Vermont beginnings did inform his actions later in life. Today his legacy for promoting and defending equality lives on in Vermont and across the country. I am proud that we are honoring his life's work through the passage of this postal naming bill.

As we prepare to send S. 885 to the President's desk, I would like to thank Senator Sanders for his leadership in working with the Danville community to draft this bill. Senator Sanders, when he first came to Vermont so many years ago, lived up to the Northeast Kingdom. I also want to thank Senator Leahy for his very important support. And I want to thank, of course, Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings for helping to shepherd this piece of legislation through before the end of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill to acknowledge Thaddeus Stevens' public service and steadfast dedication to the equality of all citizens regardless of race.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of this bill, S. 1512, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service at 1335 Jefferson Road in Rochester, New York, as the Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende Post Office.

As was mentioned, Mr. Glende was born in Rochester, New York. He graduated from McQuaid Jesuit High School in 2007 and studied military science at Niagara University. Theodore always knew he wanted to be a soldier and defend his country. A participant in the Niagara University ROTC program, he joined the Army and was assigned to the Airborne Brigade Combat Team in Italy. But after just a few months, Specialist Glende was deployed to Afghanistan.

On July 27, 2012, his unit was attacked and Specialist Glende began caring for five of his fellow soldiers after the unit's medic was injured. Tragically, Specialist Glende was hit by mortar fire. But because of his efforts, the testimony confirms, the five men that he was assisting all survived.

Specialist Glende is survived by his wife, Alexandra, to whom he was only married a short time; his parents; and his younger brother.

Mr. Speaker, we should pass this bill to honor the courage exhibited by this young man in the face of overwhelming danger. Because of Specialist Glende's brave actions, five American lives were saved on the battlefield. He deserves our respect for his honorable service. I urge passage of S. 1512.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

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

I thank the gentlewoman.

I want to thank the Speaker, and I want to thank Leader Pelosi for working together to give us an opportunity to vote on this question of developing a Free Syrian Army. Make no mistake: the decision that Congress will make on that question is of great importance because it is, in fact, a major escalation in U.S. involvement.

Mr. Speaker, there is a collective revulsion at what ISIS did in the beheadings of two young Americans, and there is a good people here in this country, where parents saw the possibility of their own sons being in that circumstance, and everything in all of us wants to react to that.

The question is: Is the prospect of creating a Free Syrian Army a good step at this time?

The administration is briefing us. All of us are doing all of the consideration we can. We are going to have a debate on that. I want to ask some questions that I think are important for us to come to a conclusion.

First, I want to compliment President Obama. He did use air power to stop the slaughter of the Yazidis. In that circumstance, he had ground forces, the Peshmerga, and a reliable ally in the Kurdish Government.

Number two, the President was wise not to bomb when they were threatening Baghdad because he saw rightly that the problem was Mr. Maliki, who had created sectarian division and who had really undercut the capacity of his army by putting cronies in instead of good leaders.

Then, third, the President has exercised great restraint about not having us be involved in the maelstrom of the Syrian civil war. That is a Sunni-Shia civil war that is out across the entire belt of Syria and Iraq.

But what do we do?

As for our allies who are in the region--Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt--what are they going to contribute when they are the principal objects of this threat? They have over 1,000 planes among them, and they have armies. We haven't yet seen that.

Second, the vetting process: How on a practical level will that work?

We want the moderate Syrian rebels, but, in fact, we are going to be working with Egypt and with Saudi Arabia. They would nix Muslim Brotherhood participation. They want extreme folks who support the very conservative regime in Saudi Arabia. We are creating a very practical dilemma in the potential success of the so-called ``Free Syrian Army.''

Finally, is the fundamental issue here one of military leadership or is it one of political reconciliation between Sunni and Shia? Is that a problem that can be solved by our military or is it a problem, ages old--centuries old--in that region, the conflict between Sunni and Shia?

When I consider the contributions that the men and women of our Armed Forces made to Iraq, in which they threw out Saddam Hussein and gave stability and gave an opportunity for the people of that country to decide to live civilly together or in civil war forever, we gave them the chance they deserved.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2569, the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That bill would designate those two rivers as Wild and Scenic.

We are pretty excited about this in northern Vermont. As has been said, any landowner along the way is going to give permission in order for it to be part of it. Also, before this even was brought to a legislative committee, town meetings in all of the towns along the designation area had discussions in their town halls and, at town meeting, voted and requested that this designation be given.

So what we have to show that there really is excitement about this in Vermont is a town vote, and then we have got it built into the legislation that the landowner who is directly affected has to give permission. So those are good safeguards, and as the chairman said, it means that there is no Federal coercion. It is a reflection of local desire. So thank you for that.

These rivers are really beautiful. I hope in your time off, Mr. Chairman, when you don't have the burden of this committee and this duty, you might come on up and take a look.

As Mr. Grijalva said, these rivers flow through beautiful farm fields and valley floors in northern Vermont. They go under covered bridges and through small villages on the way to Lake Champlain, and they have served in Vermont as important routes of early trade, sources of water and food for local farming communities, and sites for some of the best recreational opportunities in the country.

The community members just love these rivers. They enjoy the recreational activity they provide, especially canoeing and kayaking. There is a lot of fishing and hunting, swimming and hiking, wildlife viewing. It is a place where folks bring their kids, teach them how to swim, teach them about nature, teach them about fishing.

So they also connect up to a canoe trail that spans the entire northern New England States. Having that web of rivers that flow one to the other accessible is enhanced with this legislation.

The Wild and Scenic designation, as has been mentioned, would recognize that these waterways do have exceptional recreational value, something that local proponents have known since they undertook the designation process 5 years ago.

And the folks involved--it is local farmers, town leaders, river enthusiasts--they have all had to work together, and they have had to talk and knock on doors to the folks who own property along the river. As I mentioned, voters in eight towns within the designation area strongly affirm the plan for their towns' participation in the Wild and Scenic Rivers program.

This designation is Vermont-based and locally grown. It requires no Federal land acquisition or management. It relies on those local and State and regional partnerships.

I want to thank the folks who have helped Mr. Bishop, the chair of the subcommittee. Thank you so much for your work on this and for putting up with my pestering requests. Ranking Member DeFazio, thank you very much for hanging in there. Mr. Grijalva, thank you.

But I also want to especially thank, on behalf of the State of Vermont, the citizens of Berkshire, Enosburg, Enosburg Falls, Montgomery, Richford, Troy, North Troy, and Westfield. They worked hard in this, and it means a lot to them.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope I am not violating any rule of the House, but I want to say something personal about the man from Washington, my former colleague on the Rules Committee. I am going to accuse him of being a good guy. He worked hard on the Rules Committee when I was there. He worked hard in his responsibility as chairman of this committee.

You have worked hard for many years serving the people of your district and the people of this country over all your years in Congress, and I want to thank you that one of your last acts is a generous shepherding of this legislation that means so much to the folks in northern Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, there is one really good idea in this bill, and that is the $40 million that is going to be used to help repatriate kids with their families. This is what ideally should happen. Children want to be with their parents in their own country. I thank Kay Granger for her leadership on this.

Regrettably, the rest of the bill is a mess. Just think about it: $70 million to the National Guard. Why are we seriously thinking that we have to have combat-ready troops at the border to greet 9- and 10- and 11-year-old kids, who, if they made the journey successfully, are famished, exhausted, and terrified?

Also, $405 million to the Department of Homeland Security--they have got a big budget, and there is not any evidence that this will make a dime's worth of difference.

What this really does is raise the question: Where did this bill come from? Yesterday, we were all on our way home. Some Members were at the airport. There was no bill yesterday, but then people figured out if the House didn't even act on a bill, we wouldn't be able to blame the do-nothing Senate--but, Mr. Speaker, wait.

The do-nothing Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform on June 27, 2013. The do-nothing Senate passed that bill in a bipartisan manner, 68-32. The get-the-job-done House hasn't even taken that bill up, even though it has been here for over 13 months.

This bill has a House designation on it, but bills usually get considered by committees. We had no committee hearing, no consultation with any Democrats, no consultation with the President--basically, no consultation with other Republican Members of the House.

We should kill this bill. We should put our best folks together, like Granger, Barton, Gutieerrez, and Lofgren, and do the right thing.

I thank the gentleman. I know we are all proud of our Guard. Our Guard in Vermont lost more lives per capita in Afghanistan and Iraq, and many of our Guard members, as you know, played that role. So I do think of our Guardsmen and -women across the country as prepared to do whatever they are asked to do, including combat.

Mr. Speaker, I have been kind of scratching my head as to why it is we are filing this lawsuit. Why is it that the independent House, the Speaker of the House, second in line for the Presidency, instead of passing a bill, is filing a lawsuit? I think I have kind of figured it out. The power of the majority is being used in a way to make that power useless and impotent.

They can pass any laws they want in this House. They can repeal any laws they want in this House, in fact, have repealed health care 55 times. But once it goes across this hall into the Senate, it dies. It is not taken up. If it were taken up, it would never be signed by the President.

I have got another idea. Instead of filing a lawsuit, let's do our job. We have got some disagreements. We think--and I think the American people believe, and I know the President agrees--we should raise the minimum wage. You don't. Let's work it out.

We believe--and the President believes, the American people believe-- we need comprehensive immigration reform. Let's take it up and have a vote.

We believe it is time for equal pay for equal work.

What are we afraid of? Why don't we take it up?

Is the judge going to help us decide this, or should we have an out- of-court settlement, which, in our case, would mean we actually have a discussion, a discussion that includes the members of the Republican Party who have different points of view, as opposed to simply the narrowest views from the most gerrymandered of districts. It means we talk to Democrats on the House side of the floor. It means we work with our counterparts in the Senate. It means we do our job.

So, Mr. Speaker, you have got a job to do that can't be done by a judge. You have got a job to do that won't be resolved in a court of law. It will be resolved here in the United States House of Representatives. And the fact that we disagree and the fact that the issues between us are difficult and contentious is no excuse for us to not do our job.

The Republicans represent a lot of Americans, but the Democrats represent at least half of America. And never in the history of this country have we made progress by refusing to legislate.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore