Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 6116) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 362 North Ross Street in Beaverton, Michigan, as the ``Colonel Alfred Asch Post Office'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5349) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1320 Autumn Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ``Judge Russell B. Sugarmon Post Office Building'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5784) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2650 North Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as the ``Vel R. Phillips Post Office Building'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 606, H.R. 4913, H.R. 5737, H.R. 5868, H.R. 5935, H.R. 6020, H.R. 6116, H.R. 5349, and H.R. 5784.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. on Monday, September 17, 2018.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Wyoming.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't realize that this was going to be a defend Oklahoma debate. I invite my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, to come and look at our thriving economy, our sustained economic growth of nearly 6 percent since 2008 when my colleague's State has been on the wane.

This thing about deficits and deficit spending, we have a balanced budget amendment, unlike my colleague's State. And further, we don't borrow from the Federal Government to bail out our State; instead, we pay the bills ourselves.

Now, I thought that this was a measure to support our military and to support the United States Air Force, and in that we will wholeheartedly agree. But, Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in the people of Oklahoma. With one-tenth of the population, we can do everything that my colleague on the other side of the aisle's State does itself, and I take great pride in that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for her important leadership in the strengthening of our military and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I work with well on the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, nothing is too good for the troops, and nothing is what they get--at least on time, year after year, by this Congress. Our lack of diligence and commitment to provide timely funds in Congress erodes military readiness and weakens our Nation. H. Res. 1007 helps fix that for the United States Army.

For me, these are not academic or political issues but, rather, experiential. Having served as a combat infantryman in more than two decades of uniformed service prior to coming to Congress, these are not issues that I take lightly. I have lived the hardships created when Congress is derelict in its duty.

When supply transactions are delayed, the Army is forced to order parts outside the Department of Defense supply system, pay for more parts, and risk getting any spare parts at all. Soldiers are severely hampered in their training, being forced to stay at home stations with limitations on equipment, fuel, and ammunition. Consequently, the readiness of units diminishes, and their morale flags.

Even if the Army were to somehow make the best of those circumstances and attempt to send their warriors to school in the time that is created because they can't train to maybe increase their vital skills, they can't. Their funds are delayed, so their schools get canceled, and the time is gone forever.

Adding insult to injury, many people who were promised schools to make important promotions have those schools taken from their grasp, and, disillusioned, they exit the force, affecting recruitment and the trained warriors who had invested years up to that point.

Another insult to injury is the relocation of families. It gets postponed, and it causes undue family hardship on those in uniform, missed school for their children, and stresses on the warrior at home which not only affect his performance, but what is sad is that it was all preventable, while we in this Congress who are responsible for this and the timely delivery of funds fly home to our families weekend after weekend without interruption.

Our founding documents state that we should promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense. Both sides of the aisle need to be mindful that these founding documents do not say provide the general welfare and promote, somehow, the common defense. If we cannot defend the Republic, all of these other things are simply not going to matter.

Our lack of diligence in Congress creates reduced readiness, a less capable military, cancellation of training, untold family hardships, and a less secure nation. It is so easily solved. We simply do the work, sign the bills, and get them to the President by October 1.

It is pretty simple, and it is extraordinarily important. Today is the 25th of July. There is plenty of time.

The question that I and warriors who still serve in uniform ask is: Will this Congress have the heart and the guts to do what is right?

The clock ticks. Let's stop the madness. Let's stop the debate of ancillary things that don't have anything to do with providing for the common defense, and let's end the continuing resolutions that affect our military funding. Run a clean defense measure.

If we are in so much agreement about funding our military, then my challenge to both sides of the aisle is let's run a clean measure. Let's not attach anything else to it, no Labor-H, no other appropriations measures, a simple, clean measure that we all agree to anyway and we pass year after year. Then we can get it to the President's desk, and our warriors who give us our freedom and allow us to continue with this great Republic for generation to generation will have what they need.

We have not done it in years. This could be a first and could be a hallmark of the 115th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, due to unavoidable travel delays, I was not able to be present for the first vote in the vote series yesterday evening. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on roll Call No. 365.

Mr. Speaker, due to travel delays out of my control, I was unable to be present for votes on July 10, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 314 and YEA on Roll Call No. 315.

Mr. Chairman, the Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental is a program that leverages brilliant engineers at places like the Silicon Valley or MIT to invent such amazing things as saline cooling to save the lives of badly wounded soldiers on the battlefield or create improved communications.

In just the last year, the DIUx program saved the United States Air Force hundreds of millions of dollars by replacing a whiteboard management system for managing refueling with an integrated app that saved millions of pounds of fuel each week, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars and, ultimately, billions of savings.

This never would have happened without DIUx. It pays for itself many times over. In fact, we would not have things today like Predator or key anti-missile defense systems without it.

Perhaps some big defense contractors might wish to cut DIUx, but only in Washington would we cut a program that integrates Silicon Valley and MIT engineers, develops products in months instead of decades, and saves billions of dollars. This amendment protects that from happening by restoring the $14 million in funding, something it already saved in fuel in just a couple of days with the United States Air Force.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, and I thank my colleagues for their work on this bipartisan measure. I urge support.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Kevin Portteus, professor at Hillsdale College, made an interesting observation in his excellent study, ``Immigration and the American Founding'':

America's immigration problem is not with immigrants, but

with Americans. In order for the Founders' policies to be

intelligible and effective, America must return to the

Founders' principles of justice. If America is not based on

those principles, then it is like the other nations, and the

idea of America as an asylum becomes muddled and incoherent.

If we accept feudal obligation and its modern incarnation,

birthright citizenship, then the ideas of government by

consent and the right to emigrate become obscured. If we

forget that consent is reciprocal and that the purpose of

government is to protect the inalienable natural rights of

its citizens, then the right and duty to restrict immigration

and naturalization becomes nothing but an expression of

racism and nativism. If we forget our heritage as a refuge

for the virtuous and oppressed of the world, then we lose a

significant part of what makes America exceptional.

Mr. Speaker, I am not an immigration expert. I do, however, know and love the history of our great Republic. I speak before America, not as a member of any party, but as an American who has nearly given my life on multiple battlefields in defense of her Constitution. As such, I am disturbed at the abandonment of principle by both sides of the aisle, the acceptance of sound bites in lieu of facts, and the framing of popular, even if opposing sentiments that are used to leverage political power.

In our national immigration debate, we suffer much bitter contention, with political power being used to divide America on her foundations in the hopes that one side may force the other into its will. But what of it? What if we had no respect for the law? What if we closed the door to the poor and wretched masses? What if we had no security on our borders? What if we allowed privileged classes to have distinction in immigration? Either side prevailing on such a course would end the great experiment of liberty and equality among mankind as embodied in the very fabric of our Nation.

And with all the critique about the use of Biblical passages to support various views on immigration, how about this one from Proverbs 29:12 that can be leveled against both sides of our national government:

If a ruler pays attention to lies, all his servants become

wicked.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Portteus is correct that America's immigration problem is not with immigrants, but with Americans. We should take his counsel to examine how a people bound by liberty and equality, rather than birthright and obligation, should govern themselves and accommodate those seeking the same.

Our Founders were driven by the premise that all are created equal, endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In that vein, they categorically rejected the notion of obligation to government or servitude to landholders simply by the happenstance of one's birth.

Washington framed it simply, but effectively: ``The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct, they appear to merit the enjoyment.''

Thomas Jefferson conveyed it along these lines:

If an individual chooses to depart from the regime of his birth and to associate with a new one, he has an inherent right to do so.

Jefferson, in his first address to Congress, put it this way: ``Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress . . . hospitality . . . ? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? . . . Might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us.''

To redress the dilemma of various States creating a patchwork of standards for who should be allowed or not allowed as immigrants, the framers of the Constitution settled the issue by granting Congress the power to ``establish an uniform naturalization rule.''

Enjoying the fruit of such immigration policy, the French-born immigrant J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, in his ``Letters from an American Farmer'' praised the political liberty and economic prosperity of America, saying: ``Europe contains hardly any other distinctions but lords and tenants; this fair country alone is settled by freeholders, the possessors of the soil they cultivate, members of the government they obey, and the framers of their own laws, by means of their representatives . . . It is here that the idle may be employed, the useless become useful, and the poor become rich.''

The first Federal naturalization law passed by this Congress under the Constitution required 2 years' residency in the United States, 1 year's residency in the State he was applying for citizenship, an oath of loyalty, and as an indication of the times, rather than many of the framers' expressed wishes, that the applicant be a free white person. Subsequent statutes increased the length of time to as much as 14 years, but by 1802, Congress settled on the 5-year residency requirement that persists to this day. No other restrictions were imposed. No incentives or encouragements by class were instituted.

Later, Congress abolished the immigration slave trade in 1808 and further eliminated the notion of class structure with the Passenger Act of 1819 to end indentured servitude immigration. It would take another 50 years to secure the rights of all men under the law, but the steady efforts of many were realized without any alteration of the framers' original principles. After the Civil War, the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Amendments simply and rightly applied those principles to all Americans, naturally born, freed, or naturalized.

American anathema to class distinction guided her well in the first century, culminating with the Civil War, as all men truly became equal under the law along the framework of the Founders' principles. Rejected was an obligation to government by birth, but rather, the American ideal was to voluntarily consent to government by choice. This ideal in its purist sense was upheld until the 1898 Supreme Court decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark which somewhat returned the feudalistic citizenship by birthright contrary to the views of many of the Founders. While doing good in securing certain rights for certain individuals, it also set up the construct to eliminate the rights of those not naturally born who wished to associate as law abiding immigrants by choice.

American immigration historically has largely been driven by world events. Prior to the Great Depression and World War II, annual immigration comprised .64 of 1 percent of the United States population, with spikes as high as 1.61 percent. Immigrants expanded the country, cultivated the fields, spiked the railroads, and laid the cities across the Nation. By the time we entered the First World War in 1917, fully one-third of the Nation's population had been born overseas or had a parent who was an immigrant. A full 20 percent of the doughboys we sent to France in World War I were not even born in the United States, fighting to secure our liberty and also a new place in the world in what became an American century.

Immigration dropped sharply due to economics, fear, and war with the Great Depression and World War II, but migrant workers still came by the hundreds of thousands during the war. Laborers from Mexico and Central America entered the agricultural fields and farms as we fed our armies and ourselves.

An inseparable bond between agriculture and the guest worker resulted in demand for farm workers and industrial labor during the war. The United States Government recognized this with the Bracero accord that allowed for these workers to come annually to

meet a crisis during the war and a vibrant economic growth thereafter.

Succumbing to fears about uncapped workers in our fields and farms or on our machines at home, this Congress ended the Bracero accord in 1964. And with the institution of new immigration caps in 1965, an almost immediate spike in illegal immigration rose as seasonal workers, with no guarantee that they would make the next season's quota, stayed instead. The problem became so bad, that Congress again struggled with what to do and by 1986, took a stab at accommodating those that some argued would have likely been citizens at normal immigration rates in exchange for strengthening our southern border. We only got the immigrants when both were sorely needed.

Now we are here today. Only .32 percent of our population are immigrants arriving annually. That is markedly lower than when we were fighting the Civil War. While the agricultural industry and the housing and construction industries are symbiotically entwined, we instead address immigration issues separate from what used to be handled under the Bracero accord.

And while the economic drivers are pulling immigrants to seek a better life in our country, we, in turn, will restrict already small percentages of our population to even smaller ones, despite the fact that our unemployment numbers are lower than our job openings for the first time in American history.

What could we do? Some low-hanging fruit would be to secure our border and to provide some type of permanent residency for minors known as DACA recipients to address the immediate need. A bipartisan majority could readily vote for such a clean measure. Then, once that is done, we can establish a uniform naturalization rule to address further issues.

Yet the solutions offered to us this week, instead, are to demonize family migration, accommodate only those with some station in life or those able to pay a million bucks to get a permanent residency and, thus, end the hopes of those wishing to come here legally with an already reduced system.

We have many claims floating around these august Chambers. Here are some of them:

Immigrants are taking our jobs;

Immigrants are destroying our American way of life with chain migration;

We are flooded by a wave of illegal and legal immigration unlike any time in our Nation's history.

Here's the reality: The percentage of native-born workers to fuel our construction and agricultural economies do not exist. We can either import workers or we can import our food.

In a study published in 2013, economist Michael Clemens did a 15-year analysis of data on North Carolina's farm labor market, concluding there is virtually no supply of native manual farm laborers in the State. This was true even in the depths of a severe recession.

In 2011, with 6,500 available farm jobs in the State, only 268 of nearly half a million unemployed North Carolinians applied for those jobs. More than 90 percent of them--a whopping 245 people--of those applying, were hired, but just 163 even showed up for the first day's work. Only seven native workers completed the entire growing season, filling only one-tenth of 1 percent of the open farm jobs.

This is not an abnormality. Since World War II, migrant workers have fueled America as the breadbasket of the globe. That may change. As I stated, we can either import workers or we can import food.

The problem with the workforce may be even deeper than we know. In 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control, there were about 60 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44, which is 3 percent lower than the rate in 2016 and the lowest recorded rate of birth since the government started tracking birth rates in 1909.

Our actual birth rate is now 1.84. A nation must have at least a 2.1 birth rate to sustain itself. Plus, we abort about 1.2 to 1.5 million children a year. We immigrate approximately 1 million people a year, and many of those have children. If one were to subtract the 39 million immigrants in our population since Roe v. Wade, our actual birth rate would even be lower. As in the past, immigrants are sustaining our national growth in spite of ourselves, and just barely.

The issue of family immigration, now demonized as chain migration, was originally conceived as a way to ensure immigrants arriving had a support base structure, negating or reducing the need for government assistance. It has largely achieved that aim. Now, if current proposals become law, instead of acquiring a more stable and skilled workforce, the opposite is likely to occur, as it did before family migration was instituted.

And what of this dastardly diversity lottery? Is it the ``diversity'' name that offends us?

The reality is the diversity lottery visas ensure immigrants come from a wide spectrum of nations rather than just those south of the border.

Further, a study published just a couple of months ago showed that diversity lottery recipients and family migrants, far from being unskilled and ignorant, are actually better educated than naturally born citizens. The study showed that 47 percent had a college degree or higher, as compared to 29 percent of the naturally born American population.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, we could use more of this type of ignorance and lack of skill.

Americans of all generations have had concerns about immigrants: Irish, Dutch, German, Chinese, Eastern European, Mexican, Vietnamese, Persian, Lebanese, Syrian. We fret over language, even though studies show second-generation Americans are fully engaged lingually, and third-generation Americans speak virtually nothing of their old tongue.

In our current national debate, immigrants south of the border carry such worrisome traits as strong in their faith, close-knit families, hardworking, and small business entrepreneurs. As a conservative, it sounds a lot like the things that I stand for. As an American, it sounds a lot like the America I fought for.

Immigrants of all stripes have defended this country with their lives. Forty percent of the soldiers I lost in Iraq were immigrants or had immigrating parents. One was not even a citizen but earned his citizenship posthumously.

While our Nation has ever been sustained by immigrants defending their newfound freedom along with ours, we must reject a dangerous proposal creeping into the immigration measures on this floor, namely, that nonpermanent residents can earn a residency by military service.

Now, we have long accommodated permanent residents to earn their citizenship, but to place people with no status or allegiance into uniform makes us no better than a foreign legion or, worse, a Roman legion.

The Statue of Liberty does not wear a blindfold. That is reserved for Lady Justice. Ms. Justice must continue to hold her scales in balance, with the laws of Americans on one hand balanced by those seeking citizenship to also, themselves, be law-abiding in pursuit of a new citizenship.

Americans are not flooded by immigrants. We are well below the norm, historically. We are, however, starved by restrictive, unaccommodating policy that meets neither the lamp lit by our Founders nor the economic engines needing hands to turn them.

Lady Liberty must continue to raise her arm and keep her torch burning brightly rather than exchange it for a stiff arm and a middle finger. The words inscribed at her base must not say ``Send me only your physicians, your scientists, and your Nobel laureates.''

If we use our passions, anger, and fear to snuff out liberty's flame by xenophobic and knee-jerk policies, the enemies of liberty win, and what makes America exceptional dies, period.

We have so lost our way on immigration that we even have those across our land rejecting those fleeing tyranny. I want you to listen carefully to these statements by Members of Congress in response to a refugee bill--not illegals, not permanent residents, but refugees, people fleeing for their lives. Listen to these statements by Members of Congress:

Fighting immigration is ``the best vote-getting argument . . . The politician can beat his breast and proclaim his loyalty to America.''

``He can tell the unemployed man he is out of work because some alien has his job.''

Here's another one. Congress must ``protect the youth of America from this foreign invasion.''

And how about this one? ``American children have first claim to America's charity.''

There are many more, but these quotes were from 1939. The refugee bill was not for Muslim and Christian Syrians or Iraqi Muslims, Christians, and Yazidis. It was for German and Eastern European Jews. Namely, it was for 20,000 children whom they were trying to receive into the country.

Not only could we not allow 20,000 Jewish children to enter our country in 1939, that same Congress, with the same speech and rhetoric I am hearing in recent days in this august Chamber, passed hurdle after hurdle to make it more difficult for those refugees and immigrants to enter our country.

See the gap during that time? They were, unfortunately, successful.

Mr. Speaker, America protects her liberty and defends her shores not by punishing those who would be free. She does it by guarding liberty with her life. Americans need to sacrifice and wake up. We must not become enemies of the very liberty in the fabric of our Republic. The enemies of liberty win if we give up who we are and, even more so, without a fight.

We guard our way of life by vigilance. We must be watchful. We have to have each other's back as Americans, not as Republicans and Democrats. By maintaining who we are amidst the threat, amidst the hatred, amidst the trials, we win.

Patrick Henry did not say: ``Give me safety and economy or give me death.'' He said: ``Give me liberty.''

We have defended our way of life for roughly 240 years. Now we as Americans must defend it again. We must defend it when the critic sitting on the couch eating his bag of cheese puffs is pecking out hatred and vitriol. We must defend it and have courage when voters are caught up with sincere passion, demanding security that might kill our liberty based on facts that are not true. We must defend it with our warriors who have worked hard to keep the fight for freedom off of our shores.

We will always have threats to security and economy, but liberty, when lost, takes generations, if ever, to regain.

Will and Ariel Durant, those epic recorders of human history, wrote this warning: ``Civilization is not inherited; it has to be learned and earned by each generation anew; if the transmission should be interrupted . . . civilization would die, and we should be savages again.''

I am asking all Americans to please pray for this Congress and specifically for our President. How much time have we really spent on our knees at home for our leaders, regardless of what we think of them? How much counsel have we sought from the Almighty?

It is God who has given us the spark of freedom. It is God we must return to. He will take us and guide us in times of crisis if only we ask Him and humble ourselves and seek His face as a nation.

The Apostle James instructs us:

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives

to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given

to him.

Mr. Speaker, maybe our lack of doing that is how we got here in the first place.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this week, we saw major world leaders interfacing with the United States on topics covering the economy, diplomacy, and security engulfing the major hemispheres of the globe. Worldwide and domestic reaction suggests that no clear outcomes are perceivable. An uncertain and perhaps less secure future seems to loom.

Consequently, Americans today are faced with many questions, some formulated by ourselves and some offered by our world neighbors.

They ask: What is the role of the United States in the world?

We ask: ``What right do we have to take on that role? What responsibility would we shed if we took no leadership in global affairs?

Our allies and even our enemies may be asking: What can we expect from the United States in the future?

My own question would be this: How can the United States continue to be a force for good in the world?

To answer these questions, we need to look no further than how we govern ourselves and what we even believe is the purpose of any government.

What is the purpose of government? Simply put, it is to protect against evil, to execute justice against those committing wrong to others, to promote what benefits society, and to deter what harms it.

When the United States was established, we held some basic truths to be self-evident, namely, all of us are created equal, and we have been endowed with certain inalienable rights. Among them are the right to life, the right to live free, and the right to pursue one's happiness. We believe that governments are instituted to secure those rights, not take them away, and that the best form of government to do that would therefore be one that could only draw its power from the consent of the people, not by the people's coercion or coercing them.

Therein lies the insight that the world seeks on U.S. motivations, that the consistent role of the United States in foreign policy in the last century found our Nation in conflict with those that would use coercion, not only abusing their own people, but extending that abuse to others.

In looking to the future, no single week of diplomacy, no statements of mixed signal, no amount or shift or heft can erase the fundamental nature of how Americans view our relations with each other and other nations. It is in our DNA, whether clouded by temporary setback or assertive advance.

After World War I, when the entire system of governance of the most dominating power shifted from monarchies, nations struggled to find some form of governance for their own self-determination.

The competition between self-rule and authoritarianism saw the rise of Imperial Japan and their violation of human rights and the sovereignty of China, and that set the United States on a policy of economics, trade, and military defense that ultimately would place us in horrific conflict in the Pacific Coast.

The rise of European dictators that swept the rights of man off the map of Europe compelled us to energize our entire industrial might and willpower to ensure their complete destruction.

The realignment of governments of dominant nations into two spheres of thought after World War II meant that those that would govern themselves and enjoy the fruits of their labor and pursue happiness would come into direct conflict with those that would coerce their own people into centralized, socialist servitude in exchange for their security, for some respect, and a place on the world stage. Consequently, the United States found itself in conflict along these lines on the Korean Peninsula, in Southeast Asia, and in the Middle East.

Upon examination of our policies in the last century, many have been hypercritical, suggesting that the United States somehow used its position and power to promote its own brand of coercion rather than to be a force for good in the world. Whether one holds a bias towards one view or the other, the answer can be found with these questions:

Would the world have been better or worse economically and politically without our intervention into the defense of South Korea in 1950?

Would the world be better off economically and politically without our collective security efforts in Europe and the formulation of NATO?

Would the world be better off without our securing of the planet's oceans for all the world to use in free trade and commerce?

Would the world be better or worse economically and politically without our policy of the right of Taiwanese defense?

Would the world be better or worse without our support to Columbia, our intervention in Kuwait and the Balkans as we closed the last century?

These are questions to ponder, but as we examine what our economic and political map of the last century might look like if all of these nations were tipped in favor of coercive governments vice those of self-determination, one thing is clear: the actors promoting coercion rather than liberty appear much the same as we enter a new era.

Our lines of conflict today are much as they have always been with nations that lack democratic rule, that show disregard for the rule of law, that fail to respect basic human rights, that violate intellectual and private property, that manipulate their economies, that restrict commerce, and that close their doors to cultural and educational exchange.

So we find ourselves with old enemies in a new era, not always defined by particular nations, as governments shift and what were once bitter enemies 50 or 100 years ago are now vital partners and friends with us. But the old enemies will always be those against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

While our enemies ideologically may be consistent, we would not always know it when examining our foreign policy and economic efforts in this century. For much of this century, under bipartisan administrations, we have experimented with the notion that we can somehow embrace those with a diametrically opposed form of governance and view of liberty and that our goodwill will somehow be reciprocated with their conversion to good behavior.

So far, that path has led us to political and economic imbalance with lasting consequence. Worse, it may be placing us on a path of monumental conflict as enemies of liberty and self-determination use newfound resources to coerce global spheres beyond what the world ultimately will be willing to bear.

The path to that conflict, though, is not inevitable, but it will take a strategic vision that is severely lacking in our Nation today. Rather than focus on sovereign states or regions of the globe to maintain our security, we need to embrace the idea of curbing enemies of liberty and their ability to extend their reach wherever they may be found.

The task is not impossible. In fact, the ingredients of it are all around us, already identified by our practices rather than by our politics. What is needed is to articulate a long-range strategic vision, something rare in Washington, to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And here it is. Here is the vision: The answer lies in the collective efforts of the nations who have democratic, free, stable governance.

What if the vast bulk of our trade were exclusively with those nations? What if the economic systems, to our mutual benefit, were intertwined exclusively with those nations? What if our information and innovation sharing were only with those countries? What if our militaries partnered in mutual security with these countries?

Now, I know what you are thinking: Don't we already have some of this? Ingredients, yes; a baked cake, no. We find ourselves still embracing those that would use their power to coerce rather than to promote, to thieve, to steal, to manipulate, and use our openness to advance their power, and we worry that our individual effort may not be enough to contain the dangers that lie ahead economically, diplomatically, or, worse, even militarily.

And yet, if our discourse with other nations were to place the bad actors on the outside rather than on the inside, there is no collective effort that they could muster to withstand our combination.

If we were to form a federation of freedom among the no-kidding democratic nations of the world, we could simply do what our own individual governments do, but on a mutually benefitting scale: protect against evil, uphold justice against those committing wrong to others, promote what benefits society, and deter what harms it. Those standing against these principles would find themselves on the outside of trade, on the outside of diplomacy, on the outside of military security, and they would be unable to leverage our freedoms and use them against us.

Ask yourself these questions:

Is a superior economy better in the hands of those that would protect intellectual and physical property or with those who do not?

Are diplomatic alliances better made with those that respect the rule of law and national sovereignty or with those who do not?

Is the sharing of information better exchanged with those who use knowledge to promote good, empower, and entrust their own citizens with the free-flowing press or with those who use it to take away those things?

Is superior military might better in the hands of those that promote the value of life and individual liberty, or is it better in the hands of those who do not?

Is the existence of a collective superior strength better in the hands of partners using their force for good or in the hands of those who will use it to usurp, suppress, and oppress?

The ingredients of a federation for freedom are all around us. Like it or

not, the United States may be the only nation with the resources to lead such an effort as it accidently found itself in the last century.

For those rejecting such a notion that America must lead, I am reminded of Obadiah 11, where it says: ``On the day you stood aloof . . . you became as one of them.''

We can no more abrogate our mantle of leadership of the free world than the free world can wish for a global construct absent American security and economy. What remains is to ditch the notion that the United States is somehow a force for bad in the world and that we need to recede our position.

We must ditch the notion that the United States violates human rights rather than is foremost in securing human rights globally, and we must abandon the premise that we have no right to lead on the ideals with which we have governed ourselves since 1789. We know no other path. It is in our DNA.

If the United States were to lead and form a federation of freedom, we would have the commercial development to create competitive markets and unite in mutually beneficial innovative advancements. We would have the diplomatic strength to unite on human rights. We would have the ability to promote underdeveloped nations with the skills and structure necessary through our cultural exchanges and our institutions of higher learning, while exchanging the same through our partners.

We would have the collective strength to protect shipping lanes and ward off those wishing to usurp free trade or pirate the commerce as it passes by, and we would have the collective strength to withstand the most active of coercive actors. We would be a beacon for those wishing to find their way into such a federation rather than falling subject to coercive friends and neighbors wishing to enslave others into an authoritarian future.

What of the federation? What would these nations look like. How about this: 7 of the G7; 16 of the G20, and 75 nations, whose democratic index places them high enough on the list to maintain a government ruled by their own people as they secure their liberty.

A federation of freedom nations would have this in common: free elections, respect for the rule of law, basic human rights, stable economics, a free economy united in free trade among federation members, protections for intellectual and private property, and open arms for cultural and educational exchange. The good news is much of this exists, it is just not organized and it is not led.

To our authoritarian competitors, or worse, the pariah states of the globe, here is a simple truth: History has shown that our historical enemies do not have to be our future enemies. However, one thing is certain: Our future enemies will continue to be those that are opposite of the ideals that formed our American mindset for freedom and liberty, whether we want to recognize that as the American people or not.

So to the American people, I urge you to call on this Congress to support such a federation.

To the President, I say, Mr. President, this could not only be your moment, but it could be what the freedom-loving people of the world hope you would be in a leader. Organize and lead such a federation.

The concept is simple; its execution most difficult. Its reward: prosperity and security on a grand scale.

And let the world be assured, despite mixed signals, spurtive advancements or setbacks, the habits of the American people still offer hope because of how we govern ourselves. To our enemies, that hope should also offer warning.

Let us, therefore, embark with such democratic like-minded nations to secure such a federation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses but redirects; it does not eliminate any funds from the Value Added Producer Grants.

These $18 million worth of grants are designed to generate new products, expand market opportunities, and assist beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, family farms, and even veterans entering farming.

Unfortunately, millions of these funds go to fund alcohol products.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with alcohol products, of the government funds that are used for promotion of these products through the program, we also note that the alcohol industry spends $7.6 million a year in lobbying costs.

Not only do these tax dollars used to fund the promotion of alcohol take away from non-alcohol-based farmers and ranchers, they also compete with the Government itself.

Every year, we spend millions of dollars to curtail the use and abuse of alcohol.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the impacts and loss of alcohol abuse results in $249 billion a year in economic, workplace absence, healthcare loss, criminal justice expenses, and vehicle crash costs.

Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense that the Government should spend money to both promote and curtail an industry.

This amendment preserves the Value Added Grants for farmers that have no $8-million-a-year industry to lobby for them, and it ends the duplicitous practice of the Government being both for and against something that costs the Nation nearly $250 billion in annual economic loss.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, ``a bad situation worse''? You want to see a bad situation? How about this: Just in the District of Columbia, $3.5 billion in 2010 in direct economic costs; $179 billion of the total cost of alcohol consumption comes from a loss in workplace productivity.

Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything for or against, or want to promote prohibition or anything of the like. The matter is that these crops can stand on their own. They receive $8 million a year nearly, $7.67 million from the alcohol industry in lobbying costs. They already have their promoters. These crops can stand on their own. However, of the $18 million in this Value Added fund, $8 million of that goes to the alcohol industry.

So when we are talking about picking winners and losers, I think we have already seen who is being picked here, and it is the fleecing of the American people.

What about those that are new farmers, family farms, even veterans that are trying to enter the farming industry but they don't want to grow hops? Maybe they want to grow something that we eat that doesn't have a detrimental $250 billion a year of an impact.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would argue that I would probably have to be drunk to think that the Government should both promote and curtail something at the same time.

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

Mr. Chair, it is my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I certainly have the deepest respect for my colleague from Oklahoma, and he and I see eye to eye on most issues, but on this one, it makes no sense that we spend nearly 40 percent of the Value Added program--which, by the way, I never addressed Market Access Program, that was never even mentioned--but the Value Added program is not adding value when $250 billion of economic cost hits the United States; $27 billion comes from healthcare expenses; $25 billion to criminal justice; $12.5 billion to vehicle crashes. We all pay for this.

But why should we both promote and curtail it? We spend millions of dollars in the Federal Government to control and contain abuse and also rehabilitation programs, which are good.

So we need to choose, Mr. Chairman. Are we for something, or are we against something? We may be one, we may be the other, but we cannot be both.

Mr. Chairman, I know these are contentious issues, but it is interesting to watch in the course of our politics over time. This is not a partisan issue; this is an American issue.

I say it is not partisan because if we were holding this debate 30 years ago you would have had a flip-flop, but as we have seen shift in parties in States and regions of the country, we might politically have parties go one direction or the other, but it seems like the special interests remain in the middle.

And if we are really talking about promoting value-added crops and entering new farmers in the workplace, then we don't need to give 40 percent to the alcohol industry when we already see nearly $8 million given to them by lobbyists.

Mr. Chairman, I ask people to support this amendment. It saves the taxpayer dollars. These crops can stand on their own, and they can do it without the taxpayer subsidization and then our further spending to try to curtail it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1496) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4040 West Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, as the ``Marvin Gaye Post Office'', as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to speak in support of H.R. 1496, as amended, introduced by Congresswoman Karen Bass. The bill names the United States Post Office at 3585 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, California, after Marvin Gaye.

Marvin Gaye was born in Washington, D.C., in 1939. After serving in the United States Air Force, he joined Motown Records and went on to compose and record some of the most memorable music in American history. His rendition of the national anthem at the 1983 NBA All-Star game was an instant classic.

His life was, tragically, cut short only 4 years later, 1 day before his 45th birthday.

Marvin Gaye was posthumously inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Songwriters Hall of Fame. Mr. Gaye's music will endure for generations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.