Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor to represent the people of greater Cincinnati in public office for more than 35 years now. I thought I would take a few minutes to sum up those years.

I first ran for office, Cincinnati City Council, when I was 26 years old. When this, my last term in Congress, expires next month in January, I will be turning 70. 26 to 70, that is long enough. It is somebody else's turn.

I had seriously considered retiring and not running this past election cycle, but it was a redistricting year. The congressional lines were being redrawn, and I was concerned that if I didn't run, our district was going to be written off and drawn in a way that only a Democrat could win it as had been done 10 years ago in Columbus and prior to that in Cleveland.

I didn't want to see that happen to the people of greater Cincinnati who depended on me and trusted me to represent them as a commonsense conservative for so many years.

Redistricting turned out to be a pretty rocky process. I ended up with a 9-point Biden district, making it the toughest Republican-held seat in the country outside the State of California.

Despite starting out in a 9-point hole, I hoped that with a lot of hard work and a little luck we could hold it anyway. I was wrong. That is water over the dam.

There is a Chinese proverb, ``May you live in interesting times.'' My 26 years in Congress have certainly been that. I was first elected in the 1994 Republican Revolution, Newt Gingrich, the contract with America. Republicans took over the House for the first time in 40 years, which was my proximate age at the time, and 73 freshmen Republicans were elected. I am the last one in the House out of 73, and I will be gone in a few weeks.

I have been asked a number of times: What are my proudest accomplishments during my time here in Congress? At the top of the list was leading the effort to pass the ban on partial birth abortion. I fought that battle for 8 years, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. They upheld the law, and it has been described as the most significant pro-life legislation since Roe v. Wade. It is estimated that it saves about 20,000 innocent unborn babies every year from a particularly brutal death. Some have said my strong pro-life positions were a factor in my defeat this election. If so, it was worth it.

Another accomplishment was having served as both chairman and ranking member of the House Small Business Committee. I was in the position to introduce, pass, and implement the PPP, the Paycheck Protection Program, during the recent pandemic. As a result, the First Congressional District received more money, almost $3 billion; got more small business loans, over 27,000 of them; and most importantly, saved more jobs, over 247,000, than any other congressional district in Ohio. A lot of people's lives, both in our community and across the country, were positively impacted.

Rather than list a whole bunch of other bills I have got passed over the years--I am limited to just 5 minutes here this morning--let me just tell you this: the University of Virginia, UVA, and Vanderbilt, have together done three studies of Congress over the last 10 years in order to determine who are the most effective Members of Congress.

I am proud to say that I was rated in the top 10 most effective Members each time. When you consider that there are 435 of us, I would say that is pretty good. Of course, I could have accomplished none of this without the hard work of my tremendous staff both here in Washington and back in Cincinnati, and without the support of my family.

My wife, Donna, and I will be celebrating our 50th wedding anniversary this coming June. We were blessed with a daughter, Erica, and a son, Randy, both adults now, and the two cutest

grandchildren anywhere ever, Reed and Keira. And I thank my son-in-law, Kevin, for creating and then overseeing my blog over the years.

Finally, let me conclude with this: Despite all the rancor and controversy and partisanship that routinely goes on in this place, it was truly an honor to serve here in the people's House. This extraordinary country, the United States of America, is still the greatest country that ever existed on the face of the Earth.

Goodbye.

Mr. Speaker, America's small business community is near and dear to my heart, and one of the closest partners that I have had in our congressional district has been the Warren County Small Business Development Center.

Having served on the House Committee on Small Business as both the chairman and ranking member, I am very familiar with their work and the local impact that they have had on so many small businesses throughout the greater Cincinnati area, particularly, obviously, in Warren County.

And since 2018, the Warren County SBDC has been recognized twice as the best performing SBDC in southwest Ohio. They were also selected as the SBA Columbus District winner of the Excellence and Innovation Award, and their executive director, Mike Stater, was chosen by 70 of his peers as the Ohio SBDC State Star.

I have relied on and enjoyed working with the Warren County SBDC for the last decade, for 10 years now, and I thank them for their terrific work on behalf of the many small businesses throughout our community.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would note if there has to be a Democrat in that seat, there is no Democrat I would rather see than the gentleman from New York. He is a fine gentleman who I have worked with over the years and respect greatly.

As the ranking member of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee and a co- chair of the U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus, I would submit that our alliance with the Philippines is one of our most important relationships across the globe. We have partnered with them for over 70 years now, and cooperation between our two nations is just as important today as it has ever been.

In the face of territorial aggression in the South China Sea by the People's Liberation Army, which of course is the military wing of the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP, our partnership with the Philippines serves as a geostrategic counterweight to China. As Chairman Xi seeks to control international maritime trade routes, including key waterways like the Luzon Strait, the Philippines remains a critical partner in checking his nefarious ambitions.

As with all our strongest alliances, our relationship with the Philippines extends beyond military affairs, for example, to cooperation in law enforcement. Our joint efforts with the Philippines in this regard are really critical to strengthening maritime security as well as tackling the evils of human trafficking and narcotics trafficking.

Of course, we have all been appalled by former President Duterte's brutal drug war, particularly its extrajudicial killings. Such brutality was the primary reason why Congress suspended International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement assistance to the Philippine National Police.

However, it would be self-defeating to simply cut off all cooperation with Philippine law enforcement, as this amendment seeks to do. The amendment would end maritime law enforcement activities that strengthen U.S. national security. It would block joint efforts to pursue drug traffickers and child traffickers, and it would stop human rights and rule of law assistance.

Fortunately, the June 30 inauguration of President Marcos is an opportunity to strengthen the U.S.-Philippines relationship to address not only threats to maritime security in the Indo-Pacific but also human rights and respect for rule of law.

This amendment would undermine the Biden administration and those of us in Congress who are working towards these efforts. It would curtail cooperative efforts between our security forces at a time when Chairman Xi seeks to dismantle our more than 70-year mutual security partnership with the Philippines. It doesn't make sense.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues for all the reasons that I just mentioned to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to conclude and actually reiterate some of my previous remarks, I have been the co-chair of the Philippines Friendship Caucus, the Republican co-chair, along with my colleague Bobby Scott from Virginia, for quite a few years now. We were both appalled by President Duterte's looking the other way and actually probably being involved to some degree directly in the command of a lot of the extrajudicial killings as well as the loss of life and brutality that took place for quite a few years.

We agreed with him on the war on drugs. Drugs kill far too many Filipinos and kill far too many Americans. But we do not agree on extrajudicial measures which take human life.

However, this is an opportunity now, because that government is in the past, and we have a new government. This is a new opportunity to build up this relationship once again between these two key allies, the United States and the Philippines. It is an important relationship, particularly when one considers that our principal challenge across the globe right now is countering the nefarious actions of the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party.

So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Although well intentioned, I think ultimately it would do more harm than good.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this legislation represents an unfortunate missed opportunity. After witnessing the horrible tragedy that occurred at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, we should be coming together and working in a bipartisan manner to take every constitutionally permissive step to make our schools safer and more secure and to protect our most valuable resources, our children.

That is what we did after the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida. Back in 2018, Congressman John Rutherford, a former sheriff, led a bipartisan group of Members, myself included, in reauthorizing the COPS Secure Our Schools grant program. The legislation we passed increased Federal funding for school security and expanded the safety measures for which the money could be used.

As a result, the Department of Justice announced over $125 million in grants last year to help improve security at local schools. Overall, it is a good program that will benefit millions of students and teachers, but there is always room for improvement.

That is why we should be looking for ways to get more money to schools to increase security, but the legislation before us today contains nothing that will really help make our schools safer. In fact, efforts to add school security provisions to the bill were rejected by the majority.

For example, during the Judiciary Committee markup, I offered an amendment to encourage the hiring of retired police officers and honorably discharged military personnel as school resource officers. After all, no one is better trained and better prepared to protect our schools. Unfortunately, the majority rejected this commonsense proposal to help improve safety and security at schools across the country.

Then, at Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to allow unspent American Rescue Plan funds to be used on school security programs. Billions set aside for schools under that legislation hasn't been spent and could be lost forever if schools don't meet certain deadlines.

While we do, or did, need to protect students and teachers from COVID, more children under 11 died at Robb Elementary in 1 hour than have died from COVID in the entire State of Texas this year. Yet, we have $100 billion--billion with a b--in unspent education funds to fight COVID while only $125 million--million with an m--available for school security.

It seems logical that we should allow these unspent funds to be spent to protect our children and our teachers. The money could be used for metal detectors, to adopt security plans, to train school officials, to hire school resource officers, including, as I mentioned, retired police officers, and to help identify students with mental health issues and get those students the treatment that they need.

Yet, this commonsense amendment, too, was rejected by the majority.

Instead of school security measures, we, unfortunately, have a bill full of likely unconstitutional provisions that won't pass the Senate anyway.

The crux of my argument against this legislation is the majority is acting quickly when they ought to be doing the right thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, this week is National Police Week, a week we set aside to honor the brave men and women who tirelessly work to protect us and keep our communities safe.

Unfortunately, their jobs are becoming more and more difficult, more and more stressful, and as a result, they need our support now more than ever.

Over the last 2 years, violent crime in this Nation has soared. Nationally, we saw a 30 percent increase in murders from 2019 to 2020, which is the largest increase during a single year in our Nation's history.

That troubling trend continues in 2021 with FBI data indicating that homicides rose another 5 percent in the Nation's 22 largest cities over the already inflated levels of 2020.

Overall, in those 22 cities, homicides are up 44 percent since 2019. Think of that--44 percent. Not surprisingly, these disturbing increases have accompanied calls in many cities, including in my hometown of Cincinnati, to defund the police. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is the last thing that we should be doing during a violent crime surge.

That is why the legislation that we are considering today is a welcome bipartisan step in the right direction.

Law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and corrections officers are frequently called to respond to dangerous and often traumatic situations. As a result, these officers are at a greater risk of developing stress and trauma-related disorders.

Studies show that public safety officers are 25 times more likely to develop PTSD compared to the general public. Tragically, more public safety officers die by suicide every year than those who lose their lives in the line of duty.

Yet, trauma-related disorders are not covered by the primary Federal disability benefits program for police officers, and that is the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, or PSOB, which is run by the Department of Justice.

The PSOB program currently provides death and education benefits to the family members of public safety officers who die in the line of duty and also offers disability benefits to public safety officers who become totally and permanently disabled.

However, the PSOB program does not currently offer death benefits to public safety officers who tragically take their lives as a result of PTSD, acute stress disorder, or other stress and trauma-related disorders.

This bill, H.R. 6943, the Public Safety Officer Support Act, addresses this oversight. This bipartisan legislation recognizes just how stressful and difficult being a police officer is nowadays. It makes sure that those officers who have experienced traumatic events on the job, and are struggling as a result, receive the support they need and deserve.

The men and women in law enforcement need to know that they have our full support and that they will not be punished or stigmatized for human emotions.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense, compassionate proposal, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1125, which clearly and vigorously condemns anti-Semitism. During Jewish American Heritage Month, it is critical to, once again, call attention to this vile form of bigotry.

Persecution against any person, or any group on the basis of religion is absolutely wrong. It is a fundamental value upon which this Nation was founded, which is why the free exercise of religion is protected in the very first amendment to our Constitution.

The historic and pervasive nature that makes anti-Semitism a truly unique problem has, unfortunately, proven to make it difficult to overcome. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, the world realized just how pernicious anti-Semitism was and has been for centuries, and rightly sought to eliminate it.

Unfortunately, despite this recognition, Jewish Americans have experienced a rise in anti-Semitism. From their places of worship to their neighborhoods, Jewish Americans experience anti-Semitism all too often. And the incidents range from mere slurs all the way to outright violence.

Regrettably, Jewish Americans have even been attacked in major cities such as Pittsburgh, New York, and Los Angeles just to name some.

At the same time, our Nation's collective memories of the Holocaust, unfortunately, continues to fade. That is why it is critically important to condemn anti-Semitism in no uncertain terms, without drawing false equivalencies or diminishing anti-Semitism just as another form of bigotry.

I am concerned about the references to government intervention in the online speech, and I do wish my Democratic colleagues had been willing to work with us to ensure that that particular portion actually represented the sentiment of the entire House on those issues. We cannot allow our shared desire to combat anti-Semitism to lead to censorship and control, which may only exacerbate the problem.

Our Jewish friends deserve our respect and admiration and appreciation. That is why, for my time in Congress I have always tried and always sought to support Jewish Americans, as well as Israel. So while I am not happy with every aspect of this resolution, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers and would be willing to close at this time unless the gentleman has additional speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill on both sides of aisle, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Member of the Asia-Pacific Subcommittee, I rise today in support of H.R. 5497, the BURMA Act, bipartisan legislation Chairman Meeks and I introduced last year in response to the coup in Burma. And I want to thank Ranking Member McCaul and Ms. Tenney and all those who have supported this legislation on both sides of the aisle.

As everyone who follows the situation in Burma knows, on February 1, 2021 the Burmese military perpetrated a coup against the civilian government, detained its elected leaders and set up a junta.

This is by no means the first time the generals have seized power but this time the response has been different. The people of Burma, in all walks of life have courageously stood up against the military with peaceful protests, mass strikes, and other civil disobedience.

The military's response bas been predictable--they initiated a crackdown that continues today. They've killed over seventeen hundred people and imprisoned thousands more. This repression has pushed the country into civil war, essentially, as the generals stubbornly refuse to restore democracy.

Let me be clear, this coup is a blatant violation of the rights of the Burmese people. Self-government and self-determination are rights of all people around the world, not a gift from a small handful of elites who pretend to be entitled to rule over their fellow citizens. The generals cannot simply back out of democracy when it no longer serves their purposes. It's a right that's owed to the people of Burma.

In response to the coup, Chairman Meeks and I introduced this BURMA Act. Briefly recapping the history of this legislation, in September 2017, the Burmese military began a genocidal campaign to permanently drive the Rohingya out of Burma which resulted in over 700,000 Rohingya refugees fleeing from Rakhine State, Burma into neighboring Bangladesh. They remain there today without any meaningful hope of returning home.

This campaign consisted of widespread, systematic, and premeditated human rights abuses, including barbaric killings, gang rapes, and the burning of around 400 Rohingya villages. According to a partial State Department report on these atrocities, about half of the Rohingya surveyed said they personally witnessed a rape while about 80 percent witnessed killings and the destruction of villages.

In response to these atrocities, Ranking Member Eliot Engel and I wrote the original BURMA Act which would have imposed sanctions on the military, and deployed several other tools to address longstanding concerns with Burma. While the legislation passed in the House several times, the Senate failed to take it up.

Last year, in response to the coup, Chairman Meeks and I updated the BURMA Act to provide some measure of accountability for both the genocide in 2017 and this year's coup, and to reflect the sanctions the Biden Administration has already imposed on the Burmese military. The new version of the legislation will levy stronger sanctions against the military, and provide additional assistance to the people of Burma.

I would specifically like to point out that this legislation deals specifically with accountability for the crimes committed against the Rohingya, and has for the last several years required the State Department to determine whether this was a genocide. I'm pleased that last month Secretary Blinken took this step, and declared officially and on behalf of the United States what many of us have known for some time that the crimes were indeed a genocide. This decision is one we can all support--and probably one of the few things this Administration has done that I can really get behind.

As the coup and its aftermath continue to drag on, we must use this determination to renew focus on the situation in Burma and intensify our efforts to see that the Burmese Military comes to terms with the fact that the people have chosen a different path. The BURMA Act would go a long way in that effort, so I would urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly support Mr. Lucas' motion to instruct conferees on the American COMPETES Act.

The House-passed version of the bill should really have been called-- as a number of my colleagues have mentioned--the American concedes act. Democratic leadership cobbled this legislation together from mostly partisan bills without Republican support, in stark contrast to what our colleagues in the Senate did.

As ranking member of the Asia-Pacific Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over China, I am deeply disappointed by the partisan nature and the substance, in many ways, of this House-passed bill.

Competing with China should not be a partisan issue. On every front, the Chinese Communist Party is aggressively challenging the free world and our belief that open societies and free markets, and, yes, rule of law are the way to a prosperous and equitable civilization.

After decades of inaction, it is time to reevaluate our basic approach toward engagement with China. The Democrats' bill doesn't do that. When Republicans attempted to amend the bill to make it better, the Democrats rejected virtually every one of those attempts.

I would like to highlight two particularly concerning omissions from the House bill. First, we should have adopted provisions to modernize and strengthen our relationship with Taiwan which, by the way, got bipartisan support in the Senate.

Second, we should also have used the opportunity to advance strong export control policies to ensure that our critical technologies do not advance the PRC's own drive for technological supremacy.

Moving forward, as we seek to bridge the gap between the House and Senate bills, let's have these three priorities in mind. First, the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, is an adversary. No amount of cajoling or diplomacy is going to get them to drop their hegemonic ambitions. They want to be the top dog.

Second, the legislation must not include irrelevant pet projects like money for the U.N. climate slush fund.

Third, at a bare minimum, we must ensure that any new technology or grant funding doesn't end up going to China. A bill aimed at competing with the Chinese Communist Party that simultaneously funds their military modernization simply makes no sense.

Mr. Lucas' motion to instruct would go a long way towards making sure that American tax dollars don't go to fund the Chinese Communist Party. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I had the honor to serve 26 years here in the House with Don Young.

There is an expression some of our Texans have about not messing with Texas. Well, with Don Young, you knew not to mess with Alaska.

We butted heads on that several times, but we remained friends. When my family and I went to Alaska some years ago, he told us the places not to miss. It was a family vacation. It was wonderful. We stopped by the State fair there, and we picked up ``I'm a Young Man'' buttons-- this is one today--and ``I'm a Young Woman'' buttons for my wife and daughter. Periodically, I would wear it here in the House, and he always got a kick out of that.

Now, Don Young is gone, and as they said about Lincoln, he now belongs to the ages. He will be long remembered in this place, and he will certainly be long remembered in Alaska.

May Don rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also want to thank Chairman Meeks and Representative Spartz for their leadership on this very important measure.

Last week, the world watched in horror as Vladimir Putin shattered the peace in Europe and began an unprovoked assault on Ukraine and its innocent people. Put simply, this is the largest land war in Europe since World War II, a war that we hoped would never come again. We cannot condemn this senseless, brutal, and illegal invasion in strong enough terms.

In the face of this onslaught, the Ukrainian people are demonstrating incredible bravery as Russia brings to bear its overwhelming military firepower, at least in terms of soldiers and weaponry and equipment. But in terms of the combatants on the ground, one side is fighting for conquest. The other side is fighting for their homes and their families, and most importantly, their freedom.

Thus far, at least, freedom is prevailing. The Ukrainians, and President Zelensky especially, are rallying the free world and demonstrating once again that free men and women would rather die than submit to the forces of tyranny.

As we stand here today to support the people of Ukraine, let us remember that their fight for freedom is far from over. We must ensure that they get the support that they need, that Putin is held accountable for his war crimes--and they are war crimes--and that he does not snuff out forever the light of democracy in Ukraine because that is what he wants to do. Freedom must prevail.

Mr. Speaker, greater Cincinnati is in the grips of Bengals fever.

From pep rallies at Paul Brown Stadium, to celebrations at bars and restaurants, and at home, to wall-to-wall coverage on the nightly news, everyone is celebrating the Bengals' third trip to the Super Bowl.

In that spirit, the city of Cheviot, on Cincinnati's west side, just renamed a number of streets after Bengals players. Cheviot residents will be driving down Joe Burrow Way rather than Harrison Avenue and Chase Drive instead of Glenmore Avenue.

It reminds me of the last time the Bengals went to the Super Bowl, back in 1989. Yes, it has been a while. We faced legendary 49ers quarterback Joe Montana for the second time at the Super Bowl. I was on the Cincinnati City Council at the time, and Montana Avenue became Esiason Street--that is Boomer Esiason, the Bengals quarterback--all in good fun, of course.

Well done, Cheviot. And I will just close with this: Who Dey.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), for her leadership in putting together this Special Order this evening to honor our local law enforcement officers. I can think of few people more deserving of this honor than the men and women in local law enforcement, as their daily acts of heroism, bravery, and courage keep our communities safe.

Tonight, we have heard numerous examples of officers displaying acts of heroism while in the line of duty. I would like to include a few more from my district back in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Officers Tiffany Mountjoy and Chris Keene of the Franklin, Ohio, Police Department, ran into a house engulfed in flames, without protective gear, to save the life of an 82-year-old woman who was trapped inside.

Cincinnati Police Officer Sonny Kim was shot and killed in the line of duty by an individual whose apparent motive was to lure and murder as many police officers as possible.

Colerain Township Police Officer Dale Woods was responding to a traffic accident when he was hit by a truck. Officer Woods, a father of three children, who had served the community with distinction for 15 years, died 3 days later.

Finally, one of most heroic occurrences by police officers in my congressional district in recent memory took place a couple of years back when Cincinnati police officers responded to an active shooter situation in downtown Cincinnati at the Fifth Third Bank on Fountain Square. Their quick actions saved the lives of countless civilians who were in the building that day, whose lives probably would have been lost but for their heroism.

According to the FBI, there were 73 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty last year by felonious homicide, meaning they were killed with firearms, vehicles, knives, or assaults. That is nearly twice as many as were killed in the line of duty the year before. Of those, 32 officers were killed last year by ambush attack, which is twice as many as the previous 2 years combined.

These numbers are quite disturbing, particularly when you consider that many Democrat elected officials across the country, and in this very House, support policies which are antipolice, like defunding the police or dismantling police departments or eliminating qualified immunity, which means they could be sued personally as police officers.

We need to be supporting our police officers all across the country, not implementing policies that put them at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Asia-Pacific Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over China, I rise today in strong opposition to the America COMPETES Act, which should really be called the America concedes act.

After decades of inaction, it is high time we reevaluate our basic approach towards engagement with China. On every front, the Chinese Communist Party is aggressively challenging the free world and the premise that open societies, free markets, and the rule of law logically result in a prosperous and equitable civilization.

The CCP's ambitions have thrust us into a new Cold War that we did not start, and we do not want but which we must win. Because if we fail, the Chinese Communist Party will replace the post-World War II order with one that revolves around Beijing. This moment calls for bold policies to ensure that we win this struggle.

On this score, today's legislation is woefully deficient. It is stuffed full of irrelevant provisions. The Committee on Foreign Affairs' section of the bill is a prime example. It fails to take advantage of serious tools, like export controls and security assistance, and instead, spends twice as much money on climate policy as it does on China-related matters.

Democratic leadership has refused to even allow debate on Ranking Member McCaul's serious amendment or in the package that I offered that includes 13 tough, relevant proposals crafted by subcommittee Republicans. We must take the Chinese Communist Party's threat seriously. If we don't, we are going to see China continuing to eat our lunch and steal our jobs.

This Democratic effort was an opportunity for bipartisanship and actually doing something that mattered. They blew it, let's face it. And that is most unfortunate.

Therefore, I have to encourage my colleagues to oppose their misguided legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening along with several of my Ohio colleagues to honor the life of a great Ohio Congressman, Clarence ``Bud'' Brown, Jr., who sadly passed away last Wednesday at the age of 94.

Congressman Brown represented the people of Ohio's Seventh District with great distinction from 1963 through 1983. As ranking member of the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, Congressman Brown crafted legislation to help his constituents and the American people overcome the 1970s energy crisis.

Congressman Brown hailed from an impressive Ohio family. His father represented the Seventh District for 27 years in Congress. His son, Clarence ``Clancy'' Brown, III, is an actor who has appeared in many movies, including Shawshank Redemption, but is probably best known to American parents as the voice of Mr. Krabs in SpongeBob SquarePants; and Congressman Brown's nephew, Zac Haines, currently serves on Miami University of Ohio's board of trustees.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that all Members keep Congressman Brown's family and loved ones in their prayers as they mourn this profound loss. I would ask for a moment of silence in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his long-time leadership in protecting innocent, unborn lives. He was here at the beginning. The fathers of the pro-life movement here in the United States Congress were Chris Smith and Henry Hyde.

Speaking of Henry Hyde, we have had for a long time something called the Hyde amendment, which basically said U.S. tax dollars could not go to pay for abortions, but we have a radical pro-abortion group of people that control this Congress now. They think that tax dollars ought to go to pay for other people's abortions.

They also believe that not only should we pay for abortions here in the United States with the people's tax dollars, but they ought to pay for abortions across the globe, and that is a reversal of the Mexico City policy.

The Supreme Court is currently considering two cases that may fundamentally alter abortion in this country, and it is my hope, my sincere hope, that this Court will finally right a grievous past wrong and give the rights to the most vulnerable among us, the unborn, and protect lives in the future rather than what has happened in the slaughter of over 63 million of our fellow citizens.

I want to thank Mr. Smith and all the other Members who will be speaking here today for their leadership on this vital, vital issue.