Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, our House Chaplain, Father Daniel Coughlin, is retiring from his duties after 11 years of serving the United States House of Representatives.

Since our forefathers established this tradition in Congress in 1789, the House Chaplain has provided spiritual guidance, hope, and heavenly blessings through prayer every day.

Each new day, Father Coughlin enters the House Chamber with his happy Irish spirit and a twinkle in his eyes, and prays to the Almighty so that Members will walk humbly and wise in the Lord's sight. Father Coughlin has been here during the troubling days of 9/11, during good times, and times that aren't so good.

Father Coughlin, from Chicago, has been ordained for 50 years, and has found time to be an angel to the poor in Calcutta, India, where he lived with members of Mother Teresa's community. Over the years, this House has needed Father Coughlin's guidance, for, after all, you have to be in good with the Lord to pray for politicians every day.

My prayer for Father Coughlin is that he continues to be a blessing to our Nation and to the people he encounters who need spiritual help-- and as he often says when ending his prayers--``both now and forever.''

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, the Victims of Crimes Act, or VOCA, as it's called, is a wonderful idea that requires convicted criminals to pay into a fund that is used by crime victims. It is the idea that criminals pay for the system they have created. They pay rent on the courthouse, so to speak, by putting money in a fund that goes to these victims. This VOCA fund is about $6 billion. This is not taxpayer money. It is money that belongs to victims. But Federal bureaucrats seem to want to rob this fund and pay for other Federal programs.

We cannot allow this money to be taken from victims of violent crime. This money should be placed in a lockbox so it is only used by crime victims and victim services.

During this National Crime Victims Week, our Nation must constantly be sensitive to the needs of people who have been robbed, assaulted, and harmed by criminals. We as a nation are judged not by the way we treat the rich, the powerful, and the famous, but by the way we treat the innocent, the children, the elderly, and victims of crime. And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, Arizona border ranchers tell me that when illegals enter Arizona with their maps and their lists of churches that give sanctuary, they also know about U.S. courts. When some illegals are actually captured, they oftentimes ask the Border Patrol if their case will be in the ninth court or the 10th court. Illegals want their cases in the ninth circuit court because they believe, based on history, the ninth court is liberal, tolerant and more lenient regarding illegal immigration and border security than the nearby 10th court.

The ninth circuit court proved the illegals correct when the liberal court wrongly threw out the Arizona law that allows State law enforcement officers to enforce laws against illegal entry. Arizona had to enact this law because the Federal Government doesn't adequately secure the border. And how can a court possibly say it's unconstitutional for a State to protect its citizens?

But there is hope. The ninth court has been reversed more than any other court by the Supreme Court, and hopefully the Supreme Court will rule that Arizona and the Federal Government have constitutional authority to protect the border from illegal entry.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, last week Iraqi forces unleashed a surprise attack on Camp Ashraf, the home of thousands of Iranian exiles, including innocent men, women and children; 2,500 members of the Iraqi military, armed with military weapons, attacked those 3,000 unarmed Iranian exiles.

These Iranian civilians are pro-American. They are exiles from Iran because of their opposition to the evil dictator, the little tyrant of the desert, Ahmadinejad.

The Iraqis showed no mercy in their attack. They used live ammunition against these people who could not defend themselves. They ran over these citizens, smashing them with their American-made Humvees. Reports indicate an estimated 300 people were injured and 33 people were murdered in their vicious attack.

And it doesn't stop there. Iraqi soldiers still occupy parts of Camp Ashraf. We don't even know if the attackers are all Iraqis. It has been reported that some of these occupiers could be Iranian agents who seek to harm the Iranian dissidents living in this camp.

The international community cannot tolerate this unprovoked, violent attack by the Government of Iraq. We have a legal and moral obligation to ensure the safety of Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf.

The innocent people who live in Camp Ashraf continue to be in danger as we speak. It has been reported that the Government of Iraq blocked the delivery of American humanitarian aid to the wounded until Sunday, 2 days after the attack. And just yesterday the Iraqi Government announced that they plan to close Camp Ashraf and move its residents out of the country. This is exactly what Ahmadinejad wants.

If this happens, Mr. Speaker, these people's lives are in total danger. Why? Right now, some citizens of Camp Ashraf are members of the MEK. The MEK is on the United States' list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

The FTO organization designation by the United States is still being used by Iran to justify the harsh treatment of its own citizens, of the MEK worldwide. Many nations have already removed the MEK off the FTO list. So the Government of Iran uses our designation as a justification to harm the MEK citizens. That is why the Iranian Government praised the attack in Camp Ashraf on the Iranian dissidents.

Mr. Speaker, by not taking the MEK off the FTO list, we are endangering innocent people and empowering the Governments of Iran and Iraq to harm them. They are on our side. They oppose the evil dictator in Iran.

This is just another example of the inconsistency the United States presents with our foreign policy. In one breath we say publicly we need to protect Camp Ashraf. Yet in the second breath we won't take MEK off the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.

Fifty-four of my colleagues have joined me on a resolution urging the Secretary of State to immediately remove the MEK from the FTO list. The State Department has yet to give convincing evidence that the MEK is an FTO. It is time they make their case or remove them from the designation.

Failure to do this sends mixed signals to both the Iranian and Iraqi Governments. These governments think they have a license to kill these dissidents.

This is a matter of life or death for the people in Camp Ashraf. If more Iraqi attacks occur against these people, the blood will be on the hands of the Iraqi Government and the little tyrant of the desert, Ahmadinejad.

We must make it clear to the Iraqis that they do not have the right to attack Camp Ashraf just because America is leaving town. We must not tolerate these crimes against innocent civilians that we have legally and morally promised to protect.

And that's just the way it is.

``Houston, we have a problem.'' These were the words from space when Apollo 13 was in trouble. The NASA folks in Houston, Texas, helped bring Apollo 13 back to Earth safely.

Now, Houston, we have another problem, because for obvious political reasons none of the four shuttles are going to be retired at Space Center USA--Houston, Texas--the home of NASA, the Johnson Space Center, and the home of the astronauts.

For nearly 50 years, Houston, Texas, has been the center of world space exploration. Why the apparent shuttle snub to Houston and to history? Well, it's blatantly political. Texas is a red State, and the four winners of the shuttles--one of which has nothing to do with NASA--all are States that voted for the President.

When the U.S. won its race to the Moon in 1969, the first word on the Moon was ``Houston,'' not ``New York City.'' Now it should be said, ``Houston, the shuttles have landed, but only in the blue States that voted for the President.''

This ought not to be, but that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, according to a Center of Immigration Studies report cited in the Houston Chronicle, 70 percent of Texas' illegal immigrant families with at least one anchor baby collect welfare from Uncle Sam. People illegally in the United States should not receive welfare. American citizens shouldn't pay for the welfare of people who violate the law to enter this country.

Illegals are also draining our health care system. Sixty percent of the births over the last 4 years at a public hospital in Houston, Texas, were by women living here illegally.

I was recently in Cochise County, Arizona, where they have been forced to shut down almost all of their maternity wards because they can't financially support all of the illegals coming into the country.

Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration is breaking the bank. Let's take care of our citizens and legal immigrants first. Are you in, Mr. President?

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, today we are engaged in a debate about out-of-control government spending, but there should never be an issue about fully funding our military. They should never worry that Congress will not provide them the resources to defend this Nation.

So this House just passed a CR that fully funds the military and also cuts $12 billion, but the White House has issued a veto threat with no explanation. Why? Does the Commander in Chief intend to command a military with no money? Doesn't he know we are engaged in three wars?

I just received an e-mail from one of our troops. He asks, ``How would the

citizens of America feel if we, the military, did not defend our Nation one day because we went on strike?--but we won't go on strike. We will live in tents, eat MREs, and hope our families can survive without pay, food and shelter.''

The House has voted to support the military. The Senate needs to pass this bill. The President needs to sign up to support our troops.

Are you in, Mr. President?

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, the United States is engaged in a new concept of war. No longer will the United States go to war only when it is in our national security interest. The Obama Doctrine is ``war in the name of humanity.''

Secretary Gates said military intervention in Libya is not necessary for our national interest. So now we drop bombs in countries when we self-righteously decide the ruler is mean to his people. Is this a lawful reason, a legal reason for war in Libya?

My concern is that the Constitution does not give the President unilateral authority to commit our military to foreign entanglements in the vague philosophy of humanity. There has been no prior consulting and consent of Congress. The War Powers Act only gives the President authority to enter into war without consulting Congress when a national emergency is created by an attack on the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.

There is no such national emergency. So what is the legal authority for military intervention in Libya? We need some answers. Are you in, Mr. President? And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the EPA is on a mission to destroy American industry. Their damaging plan to regulate the so-called carbon emissions will cost every household in America at least $1,600 per year. These unnecessary regulations will strangle the economy by driving up the cost of energy. Gasoline is $4 a gallon, will soon be $5 a gallon. It will put more Americans out of work, especially in the energy industry.

Congress must take immediate action to stop the EPA and its out-of- control concepts from ruining American industry. Earlier this year, I introduced similar legislation to what we are considering today. I introduced it during the first CR. It passed this House with bipartisan support. And what it would do is similar to what this legislation is going to do: that would be to prevent the EPA's attempt to regulate so- called greenhouse gases.

I support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, when regulators, especially those at the EPA, go to work every day, they go down the street here to one of these marble palaces, they get in a big room with a big oak table, they drink their lattes, and they sit around and say, ``Who can we regulate today?'' because that's what regulators do. Regulators regulate. And they figure out new ways to regulate the entire United States, all on the so-called premise of protecting us from ourselves.

In my opinion, it has nothing really to do about protection, but it has to do about power. EPA has a power agenda and they have a political agenda, and they are trying to claim it is an agenda to protect all of us from ourselves. The EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases, in my opinion, lacks proven scientific basis. And the EPA is out of control.

You know, the EPA overregulates, and it's driving energy businesses out of this country. It's hammering the American energy industry, and I doubt whether or not it is doing so with scientific basis.

The United States is in an energy crisis. It's a national security issue. And what is the administration's energy plan? Let's not drill here. Let's not drill there. We can't drill in ANWR. We can't drill in any new lands in the United States. We are certainly not going to promote permitting in the Gulf of Mexico at a rapid pace so that we can drill there. But our energy plan, sayeth the administration, is to send money down to Brazil and let the Brazilians drill off of their coast so we can buy their crude oil. Now, that doesn't make any sense to me.

It's time for us to drill in the United States safely. It's time for America to take care of America.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 235, I voted ``aye'' and I intended to vote ``no.''

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dingell was allowed to speak out of order.)

Rahall Casts 20,000th Vote

Mr. Speaker, the President says that he wants to cut the country's oil imports by one-third over the next 10 years. Well, that's fantastic and well-timed for the announcement of his reelection campaign yesterday. But let's face reality. Gasoline is up to $4 a gallon. Americans don't want to hear about what's going to happen 10 years from now.

The President's answer to the energy crisis and $4 gasoline is to give money to Brazil while at the same time stonewalling drilling in our gulf. Why are we doing that?

Instead of propping up energy companies in Brazil and letting them drill off their coast, let's keep jobs and money in America and drill off of our coasts and on our land. Let's develop our own domestic energy instead of developing Brazil's.

Are you in for that, Mr. President?

And that's just the way it is.