Floor Statements

I rise this morning to express my support for the Russian accession to the WTO and for our need here in this Chamber and in Washington, D.C., to grant Russia PNTR status so that we can establish a strong, forward-looking trade relationship with Russia.

Madam Speaker, it's simple. American trade opportunity, as represented by the Russian market, equals American job opportunity here on our soil, and I am proud to support this need to get PNTR trade status for Russia.

I am also joined this morning by a good friend from North Dakota to whom I would like to yield, Mr. Berg.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I also thank the folks who came to the Chamber this morning, Madam Speaker, in a bipartisan fashion to recognize the need to grant PNTR status to Russia in order for us--American manufacturers, American job creators--to take advantage of that trade opportunity that is represented by the Russian accession to the WTO.

If we go forward and grant PNTR status to Russia, United States exports could double or, perhaps, even triple as a result of the trade opportunity that Russia represents to our American job creators; and in the great State of New York, that means tremendous numbers of jobs will be created.

As we all know, the number one issue facing us in this Chamber, in this city, is: How are we going to grow jobs across America? As I said in the beginning and as I will say again, American trade opportunity, such as represented by Russia, equals American job opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my significant concerns over the negotiations with the United Nations regarding the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). As it stands currently, the actions of the United Nations indicate that this treaty will pose serious threats to the personal freedoms, national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States. Yet, the Administration has voted to participate in negotiations, despite this impact.

Our Second Amendment rights are fundamental individual rights that must be protected. However, the United Nations Arms Treaty poses a potential threat to this right held by every United States citizens. This treaty cannot be allowed to jeopardize our ability to own small arms, rifles or ammunition. Furthermore, the ATT must recognize and respect one's right of self defense and our nation's legacy of hunting and participation in shooting sports.

This treaty also has the potential to threaten our national security and foreign policy. Democracies and totalitarian regimes should not be given the same arms transfer rights, nor can we legitimize the arming of terrorists or countries that do not recognize the International Criminal Court. Importantly, the ability of the United States to provide arms to trusted allies, such as Israel, should not be infringed.

Finally, the United Nations Arms Treaty should not do anything that would hurt our economic interests here at home and abroad. American businesses should not be burdened by increased regulatory and reporting requirements that could damage domestic manufacturing, particularly in our already difficult economic times. We cannot allow the ATT to jeopardize American jobs or American industry.

Unfortunately, I am concerned that this treaty will impact all of these interests, and potentially more. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support and urge the Administration to consider and uphold the sentiment displayed in the bi-partisan letter that my colleague Mike Kelly and 130 co-signers sent to President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize St Ann's School of Hornell, New York for educating the youth of the 29th district for 148 years. On Wednesday, June 20th, St Ann's school closed its doors for the final time, bringing to a close a long legacy of providing a strong Catholic education to the children of the Southern Tier.

Since its founding in 1863, St Ann's School has committed itself not just to the development of the skills necessary for learning, but to the development of the whole child. Operating in an atmosphere permeated by Christian values, St Ann's School has long provided families with an affordable option to instill in their children the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual values necessary to become outstanding citizens.

It has been my privilege to represent St Ann's School for the past 2 years, and although I regret the decision that was made to close the school, I am truly thankful for its deep commitment to the education of the children of the 29th District of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening and come to the floor to talk about an important issue of the day. A few hours ago in this Chamber on this floor, this House voted to repeal ObamaCare.

The Affordable Care Act to me is a classic example of what is wrong with Washington, D.C. It is a philosophy that this city has the arrogance and the vision to think that if we take over an area such as health care from Washington, D.C., somehow magically the bureaucrats and the folks here in Washington are going to wave a magic wand and cure the problems in the health care industry.

What ObamaCare is, it's simple: it's an expansion of government, it's 130 agencies, newly created agencies, to enter into the health care arena, 22 taxes to pay for that expansion of government to take on health care. You got half a trillion dollars of cuts to Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard for the last 18 months, as a freshman Member of this Chamber, how the folks on this side of the aisle came here to Washington to kill Medicare. We literally had campaign ads where we were supposedly rolling Grandma and Grandpa up the Niagara Gorge to somehow represent that that's the mission of our side of the aisle. That's ridiculous.

Here we have a bill that cuts Medicare $500 billion, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have the audacity to say that we're the ones who are trying to kill Medicare. Well, $500 billion worth of cuts to Medicare goes a long way to jeopardizing that program.

I just come here tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I am joined by some of my fellow freshmen who will be coming in and out over the next hour, to really try to articulate to the people of America that with what the Supreme Court did--and I've read the decision at least five times, and I disagree with it--but I do agree with the one sentiment the Chief Justice represented in the majority opinion.

He said, we're going to call, essentially, ObamaCare what it is, an expansion of government, and it's a tax; it's a tax increase. If that's what the people of America want their elected officials in Washington to do, then so be it. That is not for the Court, and that is not for the Chief Justice to decide. It's up to the people.

The vote that we took this afternoon is done on the backdrop of the Supreme Court decision saying exactly what ObamaCare is, an expansion of government, tax increases to pay for it, and cuts to Medicare of $500 billion. Let's be honest with the American people. The American people deserve their elected officials to come to this floor, to this Chamber, and deal with the issues in an open and honest way.

I was proud to cast the vote today to stand for repeal of ObamaCare because we can do better. We can do better than continuing the traditional Washington, D.C., tactics of, well, let the government take it over, let me raise your taxes to pay for it. You know what, we can do better than trying to say, well, it's a penalty and therefore we will argue until we're blue in the face that it's not a tax, but then the Supreme Court comes and says it is a tax. Let's just be honest with the issues that are before us tonight.

I am joined by a great freshman colleague from the State of Mississippi. For his introductory remarks, I would yield as much time as he may consume in regards to this pivotal issue.

Well, I appreciate the gentleman from Mississippi's comments, and I hope he continues to stay with us here this evening and we have this conversation as we move forward.

The gentleman from Mississippi touched on something, Mr. Speaker, that is extremely important when it comes to this issue. With the adoption and the repeal of ObamaCare, what we're trying to send to the American people is a message that the folks on this side of the aisle, in particular, want to make sure that we tackle health care reform and, one, we take care of the critical issue, and that is how are we going to change the cost escalators that are occurring in health care every year. How are we going to do that?

Now, the fundamental principle over here on our side of the aisle that I firmly believe in is that we are going to do that, once we repeal this law, by taking reforms from the perspective of the individual, from the patient, and from the doctor's point of view, not from the ObamaCare model of handing it to administrators and bureaucrats and somehow thinking that the government has the solution to this problem.

What we're going to deploy, in my opinion, are good old-fashioned market forces, forces of individual choice, having individuals and patients and doctors control their health care destiny rather than having some unelected bureaucrat under the Independent Payment Advisory Board making determinations as to what type of health care you're going to receive. We can do better than that in America.

The gentleman from Mississippi makes a great point when he talks about the expansion and the tax burden that this law puts on all Americans. In particular, many folks, I heard the debate over the last couple of days, said we have used up floor time when we should be focusing on jobs.

Well, you know what, this is related to jobs. Because of the expansion of government, the mandates that come from this and the higher taxes that are placed on all Americans as a result of this will saddle our private sector, will saddle our individuals, they will saddle our job creators with a burden that they just can't overcome. What we should be doing is relieving those burdens so that they can hire the people of today and tomorrow.

This expansion of government just doesn't stop today. If it is allowed to go forward--and I hope my colleagues in the Senate take this bill up so the American people know exactly where they stand--but if this bill is allowed to go forward, we are saddling Americans with a burden, both tax and government regulations and mandates, to a point where we are just asking them to do something where they have just got a load that is too heavy to bear, and that's just simply to hire people. But you can't hire people if you have more taxes and you have got more burdens and obligations of government regulations to comply with.

I see my friend from Mississippi may have a couple more comments on the topic.

I appreciate the gentleman from Mississippi, a great Member of the freshman class, joining us tonight. I know we have some other colleagues to continue this conversation.

One point before I yield to the gentleman from Florida. We're talking about job creation. Back in the district, back in upstate New York, in Corning, my hometown, we get out and we have town halls and we meet with constituents, we meet with business owners. And I'll tell you, one meeting really resonated with me. I went up to Hornell, New York, a great community up in our district, Mr. Speaker, and met with a company called Dyco Electronics. He employs about 48 employees. And he had me in his office, and we're walking down the floor watching his shop where he's assembling different electronic components and we're talking about the issues of the day. Mr. Speaker, he had a point that resonates when it comes to this issue.

He said, You know what, Tom? I'm not going to hire any more people. I've got business. I've got some opportunities that I can potentially expand. But the CEO of Dyco electronics, 48 employees, said, If I go over 50 employees, I've got to then comply with ObamaCare. These mandates, these regulations. You've got 2,700 pages of statutory text, you've got tens of thousands of pages of regulations that ultimately will be created. And he just says, I can't take that chance.

So this is all related to jobs also, as we continue this debate. It's not just about health care but it's about job creation. And I agree that it is a primary issue of the day. But that is a classic example and that resonated with me when I came back down here to stand for repeal, because so many small businesses, I think, are in the exact same situation as Dyco Electronics back in Hornell, New York, where they are shocked in a deer-in-the-headlight type moment where they're saying, No, we're not hiring because we don't want to go over that 50- employee threshold.

With that, I'm pleased to yield to a great member of the freshman class, the gentleman from Florida.

Well, I so appreciate Mr. West's comments. The gentleman from Florida speaks very clearly and directly on the issues with this bill. And as the gentleman articulated, 139 different agencies are now created under ObamaCare.

I've come to the well of the House, Mr. Speaker, to display to America what our health care system now looks like under ObamaCare. This diagram goes through the 2,700 pages of statutory language and identifies those 130-plus agencies. This is what American health care looks like after ObamaCare.

We can do better. As the gentleman from Florida mentions, we need a mulligan. And what we need to do is listen to the American people. That is one of the fundamental problems down here in Washington, D.C. People down here think: I'm in Washington. I got elected and I got a title. I'm Paul Congressman. Of course I know what's best for everybody in America.

Do you know what? I trust the American individual. I believe in the American individual. We need to listen to him. That's why we go back to the district and we talk to so many constituents. We have town halls because of the commonsense ideas that people have around their kitchen tables and the conversations they are having around their sofas in their living room.

We should be listening to the American individual and the American people because the common sense of America is what makes us strong, not some bureaucratic thought process of some person reading a book who sits in a cubicle down here in Washington, D.C., and comes up with a monster of a health care program that's got 130-plus agencies.

And this is how the personal relationship of a patient and a doctor is handled under ObamaCare. We can do better. We need a mulligan.

I so appreciate my other friends in the freshman class coming this evening to meet with us.

With that, I would like to yield to a good Member, a great friend from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

I think you're touching on something when we talk about the Senate and what we can control here in the House. And I think today's exercise of voting to repeal ObamaCare again was time well spent, because it's time to be open and honest with the American people.

Look at this bill, the 2,700 pages that created this health care system with 139 agencies that you see on this board. Look at the timing of when these requirements and these mandates kick in. Look at the whole argument of the last 2 years in the debate on the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. Look at the argument over whether it's a penalty or a tax.

I can remember Kathleen Sebelius in front of me on the Ways and Means Committee still fighting me as the arguments were going on in front of the Supreme Court whether or not this was a tax or a penalty. Essentially, she fought that tooth and nail and said, no, it's not a tax; it's a penalty.

You saw the President repeatedly tell different reporters and go on the record and say it's not a tax; it's a penalty. There's a lot of politics going on under this bill. And they all want to do it in a way that makes sure that they're not held accountable, in my opinion, because November 6, 2012, is a critical date. When you look at most of the dates under this bill, when most of the mandates and most of the tax increases are kicked in, they happen after November 6, 2012.

What's so magical about November 6, 2012? Well, obviously we have a Presidential election. We have a Senate election. We have a House election. So today, what we did, after the Supreme Court spoke and called the bill what it is--an expansion of government, a tax increase--we went on the record so that the American people, come November, know where we stand.

Now, I'm not as hopeful as my colleague was talking about the Senate may take this up, or asking Harry Reid to take this up. What I think is going to happen is the Senate is going to run from this. They're not going to go on record in regards to how they feel on the repeal of ObamaCare, if they're either going to reinforce it or reaffirm it. They're not going to take it up. Why? Because November 6, 2012, is coming down the pipeline, and they don't want to go on record after the Supreme Court has spoken and called it what it is--expansion of government and a tax increase.

That's not how elected officials lead. Elected officials lead by putting their name up on the board and standing in front of their constituents and in front of the American people and being honest and open with them because hardworking taxpayers deserve no less. And as a freshman Member of this Chamber and as a freshman Member of this body, I firmly believe we can tackle more of our problems if we adopt that attitude, just being open and honest with the American people.

With that, I'm so pleased to be joined by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

I so appreciate the gentleman from Colorado joining us tonight.

When you talk about Dr. Washington, it is a great analogy. What we're really talking about--are we not?--is the Independent Payment Advisory Board as kind of the primary example of the agency of Dr. Washington.

What is the Independent Payment Advisory Board? It's 15 unelected bureaucrats that, under the law, will be making recommendations to Congress as to where to cut in Medicare, the types of services that are going to be provided under American health care going forward under ObamaCare.

Now, the argument I've heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, well, those are just recommendations. But they go to Congress, and if we disagree, we can take a vote in the House and take a vote in the Senate and the President signs it into law, and we overrule those recommendations.

Look at the law. Read the law. I trust the American individuals. Read the law. What do those recommendations do?

Those recommendations come to Congress and require a two-thirds vote of the House and the Senate to approve or disapprove those recommendations if we want to do something differently than what the agency recommends to us. Why stack the deck? Why have a two-thirds voting requirement on such a critical issue as to what health care is going to be delivered in America? So let's just be open and honest with the American people and call it what it is.

You've got 15 unelected bureaucrats--under the law, not obligated to conduct their conversations or their debates in public--make recommendations to Congress so that they can say that we're having Congress ultimately have the ultimate decision, but then make Congress have a two-thirds voting requirement to override those 15 members of that unelected Independent Payment Advisory Board when it comes to health care decisions. What kind of health care system is that?

We can do better. We don't need to rely on Dr. Washington. We need a mulligan, as my colleague from Florida said. We can do better. We can do it by repealing this and listening to the American people and adopting reforms that are patient-centered and doctor-centered at the end of the day.

With that, I am so pleased to be joined by a great colleague from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a colleague of the Ways and Means Committee. I'm proud to yield to her.

I so appreciate my colleague from Tennessee offering her comments. And I know we're coming to the end of our hour with a few minutes left, but we have plenty of time for two more colleagues that have joined us this evening.

I yield to a great gentleman from Texas, a member of the freshman class, Mr. Flores.

I appreciate the gentleman for joining us this evening.

I know we have another freshman colleague from the great State of Georgia who has joined us this evening and who will bring us to a conclusion.

Mr. Woodall, I am proud to yield to you.

I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia and my colleague from Texas and all of my colleagues for joining us.

As we wrap up tonight, you're absolutely right. We can do better. Health care, obviously, needs to be reformed. The costs that we are seeing and the increases in costs in health care need to be addressed, but this law doesn't do it. This law compounds the problem. Just look at its track record. I've been contacted by numerous constituents over the last year who were talking about premium notices with increases of 10 to 15 percent in the State of New York. It's not delivering on the promises.

As my colleague from Texas says, read the law. Absolutely, read the law. We have. We have spoken in this body on behalf of the people and have said we stand for repeal. My colleague from Georgia is absolutely correct, and the Chief Justice's closing comments are absolutely correct--it's up to the people. That's when they will speak, in November 2012.

I know that we stand on their side with the vote that we took today to say that we can do better. We need to stop this government takeover and these tax increases that are coming down the pike to pay for it. We need to stop it before it's too late, and November 2012 is the last stop to allow us to turn this back.

With that, I am so pleased to yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding 2 minutes to me to address this important topic.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand strong for repeal of ObamaCare. I think at this point in time it is only right and just that we be open and honest with the hardworking taxpayers of America. That is why it is important that we have this vote on the floor tomorrow so that the American people, with the backdrop of the United States Supreme Court decision clearly articulating what ObamaCare is--it is clear, it is a government expansion of 130-plus agencies. It's a significant tax increase, with 20-plus tax increases that are now clearly delineated and described by the Supreme Court as such.

So when we vote tomorrow, we vote on a clear record. And I gladly came here to Washington, D.C., to stand up to downsize the Federal Government, to cut taxes, not increase them.

Also, as we stand in regards to this repeal, we must be cognizant of the fact that, under ObamaCare, Medicare is cut $500 billion. There can be no mistake about it. Let us be clear with the American people, as we go through this upcoming debate that will be ultimately decided in November, that we need to protect Medicare, preserve it, reform it, not cut it like this bill does.

So when the votes are cast tomorrow, I think ultimately the record will be clear where each and every one of us stands. I stand--and I hope all my colleagues stand with me--to repeal this legislation, which increases taxes, expands government, threatens the job creators of today and tomorrow with a burden that scares them from making the hiring decisions that are going to put people back to work today, which is the number one issue that we face in America and that we are here in Washington standing firm to stand for.

Mr. Speaker, I was detained on June 20, 2012, and was unable to be on the House floor to vote. Had I been there, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall 389: H. Res. 691, On Ordering the Previous Question: ``yes.''

Rollcall 390: H. Res. 691, Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4480: ``yes.''

Rollcall 391: Walz of Minnesota Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4348: ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 150th anniversary of the writing of ``Taps,'' a song I have worked tirelessly here in Congress to recognize as the National Song of Remembrance for those who have served our country.

Much like ``The Star-Spangled Banner'' and ``The Stars and Stripes Forever,'' which were born from the winds of war, ``Taps'' shares a similar history. In July 1862, following the Seven Days battles, Union General Daniel Butterfield and bugler Oliver Willcox Norton created ``Taps'' at Berkley Plantation, Virginia, as a way to signal the end of daily military activities. Since that time, ``Taps'' has become known throughout the United States as part of the military honors accorded at funerals, memorial services, and wreath ceremonies held for members of the uniformed services and veterans who have faithfully served our nation during times of war and peace.

The designation of ``Taps'' as the National Song of Remembrance is timely because the 150th anniversary of the writing of ``Taps'' will be observed with events culminating this month, June 2012, with a rededication of the Taps Monument at Berkley Plantation, Virginia. I am proud that the House of Representatives passed this language as a tribute to honor those that have fallen in service of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Rockwell Museum of Western Art as the 29th District of New York's most recently accredited museum. The Rockwell Museum was just awarded accreditation by the American Association of Museums, the highest national recognition a museum can receive for their commitment to public service and excellence in education.

The American Association of Museums states that there are over 17,500 museums in the United States and less than 800 are accredited. These numbers would place the Rockwell Museum of Western Art in a very elite category and I am proud to represent this museum.

The Rockwell Museum of Western Art inspires and educates people of all ages. Its vision inspires the staff to strive towards making the museum a resource for study, knowledge, and entertainment by local and national audiences. I encourage everyone to stop in and visit the Rockwell Museum next time you are in Corning, New York.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent to consider the amendment out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment in a bipartisan fashion with my colleague, Mr. Higgins from New York.

What we're looking to do here, Mr. Chairman, is amend the proposal before the committee to restore $36 million in funding to non-defense environmental cleanup. Mr. Chairman, last year, a similar amendment passed the House with total votes of 261 people in favor of the proposed amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the dire fiscal situation that we find ourselves in America today. What I have proposed here is putting that $36 million out into the field to deal with nuclear waste and nuclear waste cleanup sites across America. I have one of those nuclear waste sites in my district, the West Valley Demonstration Project in western New York that abuts where Mr. Higgins' district is located.

What we're trying to do is take that $36 million that is otherwise going to be used in the bureaucracy of Washington, D.C., for administrative purposes here, and allocate that money out to the field, to the sites where it can be best utilized to clean up these nuclear waste facilities and make sure that the threat of nuclear waste to all of our citizens is completely remediated and taken care of so that we do not have to deal with this year after year after year.

There are numerous reports out that show that by cleaning these facilities up sooner than later, we can potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars. So to me, at this point in time, this amendment makes sense. It recognizes the fiscal situation we find ourselves in in America and takes care of a true public safety threat to all citizens of our great country.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from New York (Mr. Higgins).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of a great citizen of my district who passed away earlier this month. Phyllis Marie Muccini of Corning, New York, was a dear friend and family member to many in the 29th District of New York.

Phyllis was employed by my hometown's Corning Incorporated for over 35 years. Outside of work, she spent her time volunteering at organizations that included the Girl and Boy Scouts of America, Cinderella Softball, the American Cancer Society, and the Corning Lioness Club. She received numerous awards for these activities, but that was never her goal or intention. Phyllis' activities allowed her to impact the lives of countless individuals over the years. She will forever be missed. However I, like many others, have been touched by her compassion and generosity that will provide a legacy of her life for many generations to come.

Thus, it is right and proper for Phyllis Muccini to forever be enshrined in the records of the United States Congress as a true American heroine for all of us to pause and pay tribute.

Today, I welcome to the House Chamber a great individual from our district, Pastor Ken Chroniger. Pastor Ken is the spiritual leader of 70 in my district in Alfred Station, New York, for the Seventh Day Baptist Church there. It is an honor to have Pastor Ken with us.

I have great respect for Pastor Ken, not only for what he does for his congregation, but for what he does for the community, in particular, the baseball games that we have attended together for the youth as they have participated in their summer leagues in Alfred Station.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I welcome Pastor Ken as we from the Southern Tier and the Finger Lakes, the beautiful area of New York, join him in starting off our deliberations here today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for H. Res. 568. It is imperative that the United States takes necessary steps to ensure that Iran is unable to acquire the capability to produce nuclear weapons.

The United States and all our allies must respond to this threat immediately. The stability of the entire Middle East region hangs in the balance as Iran seeks this technology. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly threatened both the United States and Israel in the recent past and as a result, swift and harsh sanctions must be put in place against the Iranian regime.

The United States' security and interests are clearly in danger. Satellite intelligence provides us with enough information to confidently assess that Tehran is concealing their true actions. International inspectors have been denied entry into the facilities, a troublesome act if there is nothing to hide. The containment and appeasement of Iran must not be considered. Instituting aggressive sanctions against this radical regime is a prudent and necessary course of action.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to join with my colleague from Alabama (Mrs. Roby) and applaud her leadership in establishing and taking the lead this evening to discuss a critical issue that we are dealing with here in Washington as we go forward with the debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is the authorization bill that takes care of our men and women in our military ranks. Mr. Speaker, I tender my comments this evening based on the fact that I am the son of a career military officer who spent 20 years in the Army, saw active duty in World War II and Korea, received the Silver Star, multiple Purple Hearts, multiple Bronze Stars, for his efforts and his sacrifices that he made in those forums defending America and standing up for all of the freedoms and the beliefs that we all hold dear in America coast to coast. So I am honored to be a son of such a distinguished individual in our Armed Services, and though I never did wear the uniform, I carry with me the commitment that he passed on to my 11 older brothers and sisters that you always stand with our military, you always stand with our veterans, Madam Speaker, and that's why I join you tonight to come to the floor and discuss this important issue, because as we face the national debt crisis that we all know on both sides of the aisle is real, $15.7 trillion of national debt, it is clearly unsustainable.

We have to have a conversation, an open and honest conversation with all of the hardworking taxpayers of America and say here in Washington, D.C., we are going to try to get our act together, and to make the commonsense decisions when it comes to our fiscal house. And in that conversation, and as we go forward as we did last week with the issue of sequestration and the replacement, the reconciliation that Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin led, as we go forward with the debate on the National Defense Authorization Act this week, we need to go forward recognizing the cuts that have already occurred on the defense side of the ledger.

It is my understanding, looking at some of the numbers, that essentially 50 percent of the deficit reduction efforts to date has come at the expense of defense expenditures. That is approximately 20 percent of our Federal budget dedicated to defense spending.

So that 20 percent of defense spending is already absorbing 50 percent of the deficit reduction efforts that we have led here in Washington, D.C., primarily with the leadership of people like the lady from Alabama and other leaders in the freshman class.

So we have to make sure that when we go forward in this debate, we recognize the sacrifice and the hard decision--and rightfully so--that defense has been part of this conversation of getting our fiscal house in order, and every dollar has to be scrutinized, and that does include the defense budget.

But I think we're at the point, Madam Speaker, where we have to be very sensitive to any additional cuts--or those cuts that are going to be necessary because of the fiscal condition we find ourselves in America--that we do not cross that line in the sand that we must never break. That line in the sand is making sure that our men and women in harm's way are given the resources, the equipment, the tools to not only protect them when they're afield fighting for us and defending freedom of America, but when they come home as veterans and enjoy the benefits that they've earned by engaging in that sacrifice, by being in harm's way for all of us. We must make sure that we never cross that line with our cuts to our military that put those men and women in harm's way or those families that sacrifice so much with them, to have to endure the situation where those benefits that they earned are taken away. So we will stand, I think, united in a strong voice to make sure that doesn't happen. I know I am committed to it, Madam Speaker. And I will always stand--as my father taught me and taught my older brothers and sisters and my mother--you stand with the vets, you stand with the military. And though they have to be part of this conversation because of the harsh reality that we find ourselves in with $15.7 trillion worth of national debt, we cannot go that far that we jeopardize their very well-being and their sacrifices that they have recognized on our behalf.

So I was pleased to see in the proposal out of the FY13 National Defense Authorization Act the fact that we were able to beat back the administration's proposal to make significant fee increases in the TRICARE program--TRICARE being the health benefits that our veterans earned and enjoy--and which serve over 9.3 million beneficiaries, including 5.5 million military retirees. I am glad to see that the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, stopped that approach to dealing with the cuts on TRICARE or in fee increases on the TRICARE side. I will always want to stand for those commonsense principles that say: Cuts, yes, we have to do them, but we cannot do them across that line.

There is one area that I would like to also address before I yield to some of my colleagues that have joined us here on the floor, and that's the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, which is the language in the bill that deals with making sure that the rights that we enjoy as American citizens are protected when it comes to the detainment of individuals in America.

I am pleased to see that language that I cosponsored with gentlemen such as Mr. Rigell, who has joined us this evening from Virginia, and Mr. Landry from Louisiana. When this issue came up in previous debates in last year's National Defense Authorization Act, there was a spirited debate, if you recall, Madam Speaker, in which the issue came up: Do American citizens still retain the rights as guaranteed under the Constitution when it comes to the writ of habeas corpus? There was a spirited debate, and I clearly came down on the side that we need to make sure that we protect those rights for American citizens, and that any issues of detainment are done in respect to the Constitution and all the rights that we enjoy as free citizens in America. I believe the bill did address that last year, but there was a legitimate question raised about it. So I'm pleased to see in this bill language, it is my understanding, that will make sure and be very clear that any American citizen detained in America has the rights as guaranteed under the Constitution. I hope my colleague from Virginia will touch on those issues, and I'm proud to stand with him to make sure that we send a clear message that American citizens continue to enjoy and will always continue to enjoy the rights and freedoms and protections as afforded to us under the Constitution, and that the writ of habeas corpus is secure and will continue to be secure as we move forward.

We can go on and on, but I know I have some colleagues. I notice I've got

a non-freshman Member to join us tonight, Madam Speaker, to address this critical issue, and we are pleased to have our senior Members down with us.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his comments and for coming this evening and spending some time with us. And your comments, before I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, have spurred some thoughts that I would like to add to the conversation.

One of the things you touched upon is the fact that, as we make cuts and we downsize government, defense has to be part of that conversation, and the gentleman from Kentucky recognized that in his comments, and I recognize that.

But I recall a conversation, as a freshman Member I came here and we've met some individuals over the time, and one conversation that really sticks out in my mind when it comes to this issue is a conversation that we had, a handful of us, with Secretary of Defense, then-Secretary of Defense Bob Gates. And what Mr. Gates expressed to us is he says, Lookit, we can go through this process, and we need to go through this process and downsizing our military and downsizing and tightening our belt where we can because of the national debt crisis that we now found ourselves in.

As former Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mullen advised the President, the biggest threat to America was not a military threat; it was the national debt. And that type of sentiment is shocking to me, and it should scare all of us in that we have to get this fiscal threat under control.

But the conversation with Bob Gates was we're going to do this. But as we were engaging in that conversation, Madam Speaker, he pleaded with us

and said, as we do this, as we make these cuts, please do not take these cuts or these dollars and apply them to other government spending or expand government in other areas because, what he was essentially saying was, if you take the money from defense and you put it in another area and further expand government, every year we are going to have this problem. We are going to compound the problem so that you take money from defense, grow government on other sides of the ledger, or other areas, and you're going to continuously take meat and bone eventually out of the military spending, and you're going to downsize the military to a point where it will not be able to do fundamentally what we need it to do, and that's to protect American citizens.

And the other thing I wanted to comment on, as the gentleman from Kentucky has rightfully pointed out, is that the threat that we face as we downsize and pull back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and I'm glad we're coming to an end in those engagements, and I see the finish line, obviously, in Afghanistan and the Iraqi situation where we have downsized ourselves and pulled ourselves back, and that's good.

But what we cannot do is we cannot get into a situation where we downsize our military, where we put them into a position where they no longer can be effective to annihilate the threats that are out there, because the threats are still there. The threats are still real, and we need the platform across the world to make sure that we have the ability to use the brightest and strongest people we have in America, the men and women of our armed services, so that they have the platforms to go, strike, annihilate that threat, and then come back home.

And that is what we need to make sure we do not cross and we go too far in these cuts, that the men and women, when we ask of them to go and defend America and annihilate those threats so that we can fight them over there, rather than here on American soil, because we never want to have that experience of 9/11 again.

We have to make sure they have the resources and we stand with them so that they have those platforms in which to deploy and protect us, as they have been doing for generations.

With that, I would like to yield to my colleague from Virginia, and I'm so happy he has joined us this evening.

General Leave

I so appreciate the gentleman from Virginia for being down here and expressing the sentiments that he did.

Before I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, I had a thought as you were

expressing your words for the Record and were addressing the Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I think it needs to be clearly laid out because I have seen some reports in our national media that have kind of set the stage a little bit, in my opinion, that what is going on here in Washington, D.C., with the sentiment and the debate is to try to avoid sequestration. Yes, that is true. We're trying to have an open and honest dialogue with all Americans as to how we can make sure that our men and women are not put in harm's way in our armed services, but what we cannot do is in any way deflect from what is causing this debate to occur, Madam Speaker. The reason this debate is occurring is that the national debt is forcing this debate to occur. What we are having is the conversation of how to address the national debt and to make sure that defense and the cuts are part of this conversation, but we cannot go too far and cross that line in the sand that I referred to earlier.

What I am deathly afraid of is that this is going to turn into some folks trying to paint us on this side of the aisle as just trying to avoid making cuts to the military. Yes, we are trying to do what is responsible and make sure that our military is protected, that our men and women are protected, and that we stand with our veterans and stand with the benefits that they have earned and that they so deserve. But we cannot let the debate end there. The debate has to reflect what is causing this.

This is why I truly do believe that Admiral Mullen echoed those words to the President--that the biggest threat to America is our national debt--because with the national debt, what Admiral Mullen was pointing out to Madam Speaker and to everyone across America is that the national debt is going to cause us to have the debate in Washington, D.C., as to whether or not we are cutting too much out of defense and putting our men and women in harm's way. That is where we are in Washington today, and we cannot have the simple conversation that we are trying to avoid cuts for the purposes of avoiding cuts. No. Madam Speaker, we are dealing with a national debt crisis that is forcing us to have this debate.

What we are trying to do on this side of the aisle is to make sure that we do the responsible thing and to make sure that our military is strong--that she is ready to defend us on a moment's notice from any threats, foreign and domestic--and that we do not put men and women in harm's way when we ask them to go and fight for our freedom.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, who has joined us this evening on this important topic.

I so appreciate the gentleman from Colorado coming and offering his comments on this important issue.

Just briefly before I yield, I am reminded from the gentleman's comments when he referenced leadership and the story that the gentleman tells of the 85-year-old veteran who put his hand on his shoulder and said, We're counting on you, because that is the sentiment that forced or caused me to run for Congress in the beginning and to become a part of this freshman class of 2010.

I look at the national debt, I look at the economic turmoil that we find ourselves in, the fact that we cannot create jobs in America to the level so that people can put food on their table and put a roof over their head and go to bed comfortable and confident that they're going to get up tomorrow with a job to go to. I see the turmoil we face in America right now at the same magnitude as that generational crisis that that 85-year-old war veteran stood up for in World War II to stand as a united country to save Lady America and the freedom that she represents.

What I'm hearing in Washington, D.C.--and I'm sad to say out of the gentlemen in the administration, I see leadership that is trying to divide this country when we face a crisis the magnitude of such that is generational. Ladies and gentlemen of America and Mr. Speaker, the time is now to unite, not divide, and conquer this issue of the national debt because it is forcing us to have the conversation of cuts to our military that is going to put men and women in harm's way. That is not acceptable on our watch.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I know the gentleman from Virginia would like to speak, but I'm going to yield the balance of the time to the leader of the freshman class, the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby) who scheduled this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to once again reaffirm my interest in maintaining a strong working relationship with Israel. Unrest in the Middle East has once again brought national security concerns to their doorstep.

Our two unwavering democracies in the United States and Israel have held firm together against outside threats for more than 60 years. As a close ally and trading partner, it is imperative that we provide training and materials for their military for years to come.

The nations surrounding Israel continue to seek nuclear weapons, an action that directly compromises the United States' security and interests. We must work together to ensure that Israel is able to defend themselves if such an event occurs. With the passing of H.R. 4133, I am pleased to see our nation again confirm its support for Israel's right to self-defense. This security cooperation will provide Israel with necessary aircraft and weaponry against the ever-present threat of attack.

The continued violence against the Israeli people must be condemned. However, as there is no immediate end in sight, the United States must stand up and continue to support Israel as they look to enhance their national security.

Mr. Speaker, the recent launch of a three-stage rocket by North Korea was a clear provocation that cannot be ignored. Although the launch was a technical failure, it was an aggressive statement that shows the new regime in North Korea intends to continue down the dangerous path of saber rattling to intimidate other nations, particularly South Korea.

For years now, the United States, South Korea, and other countries have been trying to engage the North Korean regime diplomatically to end its program to develop nuclear weapons and the delivery devices that could threaten Northeast Asia and the Western Pacific.

Despite offering many positive incentives in the form of humanitarian aid, the Stalinist government of North Korea has persisted in its belligerence and has stubbornly refused to adhere to peaceful international protocols that engender stability and economic prosperity.

By contrast, South Korea is one of the world's most economically successful countries. Many of us have seen that dramatic satellite image of the Korean peninsula at night, which shows South Korea lit brightly while North Korea is in near total darkness. This image serves as a metaphor for the freedom and enlightenment that governs South Korea and the enslavement and barbarism in North Korea. Indeed, were it not for its dalliance with advanced technologies in rockets and nuclear bombs, North Korea could truly be said to be living in the Dark Ages.

My father served in the Korean War. He fought side by side with South Korean soldiers who were struggling to save their homeland from the onslaught of communism. For 60 years, the two Koreas have lived under a fragile armistice that masks a tinderbox threatened by a match held by the Kim family dynasty.

I visited South Korea just last year. I saw economic prosperity and political liberty that never could have been imagined when my father was there in the 1950's.

South Korea is one of the largest trading partners of the United States. The recently-implemented U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement will open up many more opportunities for American businesses to engage our Korean partners.

In the 29th congressional district of New York, which I am privileged to represent, farmers, small business owners, and larger firms are already benefiting from the Free Trade Agreement's Launch of North Korean Missile effects. That doesn't even take into account the substantial benefits to consumers who are able to buy high-quality products at lower prices.

Political stability and the security of the Korean Peninsula are vital to U.S. interests and to our allies. Beyond South Korea, nations such as Japan and the Philippines could be threatened by the existence of North Korean nuclear missiles. Further North Korean provocations could easily and seriously disrupt the trans-Pacific trade relations that have developed over the past six decades.

It is the obligation of Congress to speak out when U.S. security and our economic interests are under threat. Even though North Korea's ill- considered missile experiment failed last week, that does not mean that the next launch will fail.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in condemning the Pyongyang regime's belligerent behavior as a threat to regional and global security.