Floor Statements

I thank the gentlelady, as always.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand here today in strong, wholehearted support of our cherished ally, the nation of Poland, and in strong support of House Resolution 266. And I want to thank Mr. Lipinski, a cherished friend of mine, for his willingness to put forth this resolution.

After the recently announced decision by the Obama administration abandoning our promised missile defense interceptors in Poland, our allies' newspaper headlines stated the situation in rather stark terms, Mr. Speaker. One Polish newspaper had the headline, ``Betrayed! The USA has sold us to the Russians and stabbed us in the back.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, it's a travesty beyond words that the United States of America, the bastion of freedom throughout the entire world, would give reason to a loyal ally like Poland to write headlines like that. Poland has strongly supported the United States diplomatically and militarily and has joined with us courageously in combating global terrorism and has contributed troops to the coalitions led by the United States of America both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

For these reasons and so many others, Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to stand here today with my colleagues to warmly congratulate the Polish people on their remarkable accomplishments as a free nation and to express our gratitude for Poland's steadfast partnership with the United States and to affirm our clear and unwavering support for the free democratic nation of Poland.

Mr. Speaker, I would go one step further by stating that one of the best ways we could demonstrate our deep love and appreciation for the nation and people of Poland would be to prove that we mean this by extending the Visa Waiver Program to our Polish allies. We've already extended the Visa Waiver Program to 35 other allies, including other European nations like Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, and I strongly believe we should have extended this same courtesy to our allies in Poland long ago. Poland repealed its own visa requirement back in 1991 and allows Americans to travel throughout Poland without the use of a visa.

The nation of Poland has proven time and again, Mr. Speaker, its steadfast dedication to the cause of human freedom as well as its friendship with the United States, and it is appropriate that they understand that America is grateful. And I just reiterate my gratitude to Mr. Lipinski and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. Speaker, recently this body moved to cut off all funding, all Federal funding, from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.

By now we have all seen reports of several recent videos revealing ACORN employees coaching two young individuals on how to obtain government-subsidized housing to set up an underground prostitution house with underage girls brought into this country illegally.

But this is only the beginning of ACORN's criminal activities, Mr. Speaker. ACORN is under investigation in at least 14 States for voter registration fraud. And ACORN workers have consistently employed criminal tactics, including establishing an illegal quota system and illegally compensating canvassers. ACORN has repeatedly reported false information to the IRS and to the Department of Labor. And to cap it off, Mr. Speaker, ACORN and its affiliates have received more than $53 million in Federal funds from 1994 to 2008 and were eligible for up to $8.5 billion more from the economic stimulus bill and the 2010 Federal budget.

Mr. Speaker, I believe one of the most overlooked and astounding trophies in ACORN's criminal hall of fame is its role in fighting for policies that led to the mortgage crisis and ultimately catalyzed our current economic recession. ACORN fought vigorously for regulatory reform of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 bill that drastically weakened mortgage lending standards. The result of the new regulations ACORN lobbied for was that banks were no longer rated because they made good loans or their standard of equitable lending, but rather, they were rated based on the number of loans they made, regardless of the ability of the borrower to pay back the loan or to qualify for a loan in the first place.

Banks were hit with large fines if they refused to dole out these toxic loans, the majority of which they knew would not be repaid. And if they still dared resist the government's mandate, ACORN would publicly picket them or threaten to hit these banks with lawsuits to force them to comply.

Mr. Speaker, although the mainstream media has been largely silent on the ties between ACORN and President Obama, it was actually during this time in the early part of President Obama's career when he was working with ACORN that President Obama was part of the lawsuit to force Citibank to abandon its time-tested lending standards and disperse millions and millions of dollars in high-risk loans. Now this isn't speculation, Mr. Speaker. His name is listed on the records of the lawsuit. President Obama played a significant role in helping to shape the mortgage debacle that caused America's recent and ongoing economic crisis.

The result of the lawsuits like the one filed by Mr. Obama and ACORN has been that millions of dollars in toxic loans were made as a result of ACORN and its subsidiaries using the CRA regulations to bludgeon America's financial institutions into making loans they never should have and otherwise never would have made. As we all know now, those toxic loans were packaged and resold on Wall Street, and the entire system began to crumble.

If those original loans, Mr. Speaker, that were sold to Wall Street had been made under the traditional, financially sound practices based on income, down payments and credit histories, rather than the politically correct and financially fatal criteria that Barack Obama sued to achieve, the entire financial meltdown might have been avoided.

But how many Americans know that, Mr. Speaker? How many Americans are aware of the role that ACORN and one of their lawyers and close allies by the name of Barack Obama played in creating the housing and financial crisis?

Mr. Speaker, the ironic reality now is that President Barack Obama is put in the schizophrenic position of signing a bill to defund the very organization that helped to launch his career and ultimately helped get him elected. And the silence from the Obama administration on the ACORN issue has been unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.

The Obama administration and liberal Democrats in Congress now have a choice. They can take a sincere stand against corruption by launching investigations into ACORN and work with Republicans to pass the Defund ACORN Act to stop all Federal funding for ACORN, or they can throw their supposed commitment to transparency and accountability out the window for good.

Mr. Speaker, let us hope that they will choose to stand against allowing ACORN or any other corrupt organization to receive one more dime of taxpayer dollars now or ever again.

Mr. Speaker, I stood on this floor about 3 years ago and called upon the United States to clearly define its position toward what is now the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I then called upon the IAEA to refer Iran to the Security Council because I believed then that what Western intelligence has long suspected about Iran and what it seems that President Obama is now just beginning to realize, Iran is systematically and relentlessly pursuing the development of nuclear weapons.

Today's revelation that they have a second uranium facility at Qom should remove all doubt in any reasonable person's mind about their inevitable intentions. Yet today's announcement at the G-20 summit by the leaders of Britain, France and the United States reveal that Iran has been covertly operating and developing a new underground uranium enrichment facility at Qom.

It is disgracefully ironic that today's announcement comes only a week after announcing our abandonment of the European missile defense site which could have protected the homeland of the United States against Iranian long-range missiles, and only one day after President Obama chaired a United Nations Security Council specifically addressing the need to halt the spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world. Unbelievably, the resolution passed by the Security Council, under President Obama's leadership, omitted any mention whatsoever of either North Korea or Iran.

But regardless of the Security Council's failure to explicitly address the real and present danger that the peace-loving world faces because of Iran's nuclear ambitions, the fact is that Iran has already disregarded three previous rounds of Security Council sanctions and has continued to aggressively pursue a nuclear weapons capability, including building this underground facility and testing the long-range ballistic missiles that could be used to deliver a nuclear payload.

We have reached a crossroads with Iran, Mr. Speaker, that will result in one of two outcomes: either Iran transforms the geopolitical landscape by becoming a nuclear power that proliferates nuclear and missile technology to terrorists throughout the world and then threatens the very existence of countries like Israel; or, by the world's inaction, we place the tiny country of Israel in the unavoidable position of having to act unilaterally with military force to protect themselves and humanity from the threat a nuclear Iran would represent to the entire civilized world. We must not place Israel in that position, Mr. Speaker.

President Obama's announcement today also offered no assurance and, in fact, was a weaker statement than the statement given by Prime Minister Brown and President Sarkozy, who

rightly said that we live in the real world, not the virtual world, and that the real world requires leaders to make decisions to act.

With its languishing economy and literally centuries' worth of natural gas reserves, Iran's claim that it seeks nuclear capability solely for peaceful purposes is ridiculous beyond my ability to express.

It is now open knowledge that for years North Korea gave false overtures that it would engage in negotiations over its nuclear program while holding every deliberate intention to continue its covert development of its nuclear program. We are lying to ourselves and to the world that similar overtures, if made from Iran, will be any less disingenuous. And the implications for our children and our future generations are profoundly significant, Mr. Speaker.

The world must act. As one former Israeli Ambassador put it, ``The game is over.'' Iran is no longer progressing but has now reached the endgame of diplomatic relations.

Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of every sanction and diplomatic effort possible to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capabilities. However, ultimately I am convinced the only two things that will stop Iran from becoming a nuclear armed nation and proliferating nuclear terrorism globally in the future will either be a direct military intervention from America or other nations, or the absolute conviction in the minds of the Iranian regime that that will occur if their march toward gaining nuclear weapons continues.

The world must act, Mr. Speaker. For the sake of freedom and for all that free people love, Iran must not be allowed to progress one step further in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

I appreciate the gentleman very much. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I think all of the previous speakers have covered critically important points.

Before I give a statement related to the European site primarily, I just want to say I was struck by the chairman or chairman-to-be, we hope, of the Strategic Forces Committee, your comments saying that the statement that was made by the IAEA related to Iran's nuclear capability came on the same day that the President decided to abandon the European site, I thought were profound. Because, in reality, this ostensible alternative that the President suggests that we can put in place of the ground-based system, we were going to build anyway.

That's nothing new. All we have done is to take out the equation of the ground-based system that, as Mr. Akin says, would have had the actual capability of interdicting ICBMs. That's all we have really done.

Of course, the system we were building in Europe could have protected the American homeland. Any ability to do that in this so-called alternative that we were going to build anyway will be out around 2020.

I just appreciate the gentleman being able to point out that critically important point, because I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Obama administration's decision last week to abandon the European site will go down in history as a crossroads in European and American relations.

I am afraid that this and future American generations may be greatly affected. When the administration decided to abandon U.S. plans for a ground-based missile defense site in Europe, I believe the President fundamentally disgraced and weakened this Nation by breaking his word to our loyal and courageous allies in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Mr. Speaker, America has become the greatest Nation in history because our word has always meant something. The announcement to abandon the protective missile defense shield in Europe has fundamentally altered that paradigm. After the decision was announced, the newspaper headlines in Poland and the Czech Republic stated the situation in the very starkest of terms.

One Czech newspaper had the quote: ``Betrayed, the U.S.A. has sold us to the Russians and stabbed us in the back.'' That's an incredible statement. In the Czech Republic, the daily Lidowe Noviny commented, that's one of their major newspapers, Obama gave in to the Kremlin. This has weakened America's place in the world.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama's decision to abandon our faithful allies and instead placate Russian belligerence came on the 70th anniversary to the exact day of the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland after two of humanity's notorious monsters named Stalin and Hitler insidiously agreed to divide the nation of Poland between themselves.

Our allies deserve better than that, Mr. Speaker, after they stood bravely in the face of Russian aggression and paid a tremendous price politically and otherwise to stand by us. They had a right to expect America to keep her word and to stand by them. But, ironically, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Obama's terribly flawed reasoning for the abandonment of the European missile defense site really has everything to do with Russia, because Russia has always hated the missile defense plan because they don't want American presence in their quote former ``empire.'' Knowing that this would diminish Russia's influence in the region, even though the Russian military would not be threatened in any way by the European site, it would not be any real defense of any kind against the Russian federation strike.

Russia's leaders know that if an American radar is placed in the Czech Republic and the American missile interceptors are placed in Poland, those two sovereign countries would be stepping further away from the shackles of Russian oppression in the East and joining with the Americans in the West for the cause of democratic independence and human freedom.

Yes, sir. Of course, as Mr. Turner said, on the exact day that the IAEA said that Iran was gaining nuclear capability.

You are exactly right. Here is the thing that is most profound to me. Since the timeframe that you mentioned is correct, that means that any alternative system could come far too late to have any influence on Iran's calculus to go forward with its missile program or its nuclear program.

The idea if we had the ability to knock down anything they threw up, anything that they should launch, if they knew that America could interdict those missiles, all of a sudden they might say we are taking a tremendous chance, maybe on a military intervention here. You never know, and if the Americans can knock this down anyway, maybe we should reconsider. That was the hope.

Well, I absolutely do not. You know, we have had a lot of Russian belligerence lately, as you know. They have spoken against this for a long time. But the report surfaced in March of this year that the President was going to offer Russia a promise that the United States would not build the missile defense site if Moscow would commit to helping us to discourage Iran's nuclear program. That was the so-called equation.

But you have to recall that Russia was actually the one who has already delivered nuclear fuel to Iran. They were the one who was paid $800 million to help build the Bushehr power plant in Iran that could have implications for building fissile material in the future. Of course, they have been complicit in helping them with their missile program.

Moreover, it is just this week--I think this is an important thing to know--Venezuela's Hugo Chavez announced the purchase of more than $2 billion in arms from Russia, including rocket technology, and has declared that Venezuela will get started on a nuclear program with Iran's help. This is some sort of unholy alliance here. To somehow suggest that Russia is going to be a help here, I think, is naive beyond degree.

I agree. I guess I just repeat that we were trying to build out these systems anyway. This was something that was already on the drawing board. We want to have a robust system that is able to interdict short-range, medium-range, and long-range. And THAAD and Aegis, none of us on the Republican side would argue one moment that those aren't important, but the challenge is that we're taking away our ground-based system, which these other things are still on the drawing board, in many cases.

I thought that Mr. Bishop made a point that was so critical. It might be my last point here, Mr. Chairman, if you would let me make it, because it's really a quote to Mark Helperin in the Wall Street Journal after the President's decision last week to abandon the plans for the European missile defense site. He stated it this way, kind of that historic, 50,000-foot view thing that we're talking about. He said, ``Stalin tested Truman with the Berlin Blockade, and Truman held fast. Khrushchev tested Kennedy, and in the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy refused to blink. In 1983, Andropov took the measure of Ronald Reagan, and, defying millions in the street, Reagan did not blink. Last week, the Iranian President and the Russian Prime Minister put Mr. Obama to the test, and he blinked not once, but twice. The price of such infirmity has always proven immensely high,'' Mr. Speaker, ``even if, as is the custom these days, the bill has yet to come.''

Mr. Turner, I would just say this in closing here. If the Obama administration continues down this road of appeasement and denial, the Nation of Iran will gain nuclear weapons capability and pass that technology on to terrorists, as well as perhaps even the weapons, and this generation and so many to come will face the horrifying reality of nuclear jihad.

Those of us who have been blessed to walk in the sunlight of freedom in this generation will relegate our children to walk in the minefield of nuclear terrorism in the next generation.

I just hope that somehow reason can somehow be injected back into this system and we can understand, from a historical point of view, that when we stood up to despotism in the past, it was always a good thing. When we counted on appeasement, it always hurt us. I just pray that we can catch it soon enough here.

I thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. King.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to express my gratitude to Steve King. The gentleman from Iowa is not only a precious friend, but I truly believe that he is a friend of freedom and a friend of America. All of the things that he has laid out related to the health care reform plan put forward by the majority I completely embrace. There are so many things that are important to discuss in the country today. I mean, one of the things that can be said for the Barack Obama administration is that they're moving fast in a host of different areas. I happen to disagree with the vast majority of those areas, and it makes it very difficult sometimes to pick the priority to speak to.

But let me just say, the priority that I would like to speak to tonight, with the permission of the gentleman from Iowa--and maybe we can speak to it as we go here--is this whole issue of missile defense. Mr. Speaker, last week the Obama administration did something that could go down in history as a crossroads in European-American relations. I am afraid that this and future American generations may be gravely affected by his decision. The administration decided to abandon U.S. plans for a ground-based U.S. missile defense site in Europe, and I believe the President fundamentally disgraced this Nation by breaking his word to our loyal and courageous allies in the Czech Republic and in Poland. Mr. Speaker, for many reasons, America has become the greatest nation in the history of the world because our word has meant something. The announcement to abandon the protective missile defense shield in Europe has fundamentally altered that paradigm.

After the decision was announced, the newspaper headlines in Poland and the Czech Republic stated the situation in the very starkest of terms. One Polish newspaper had the headline, ``Betrayed!''--betrayed, wow, that's heavy stuff, Mr. Speaker--``The USA has sold us to the Russians and stabbed us in the back.'' The Czech Republic, the daily Lidowe Noviny commented, ``Obama gave in to the Kremlin.''

Mr. Speaker, President Obama's decision to abandon our faithful allies and, instead, to placate Russian belligerence came on the 70th anniversary to the exact day of the Soviet Union's invasion of Poland after two of humanity's most notorious monsters named Stalin and Hitler insidiously agreed to divide the Nation of Poland between themselves. Our allies deserve better than that, Mr. Speaker. After they stood bravely in the face of Russian aggression and paid a profound political price to stand by us, they had a right to expect America to keep her word and to stand by them.

Mr. Speaker, ironically, Mr. Obama's terribly flawed decision for abandoning the European missile defense site has everything to do with primarily Russia. Russia has always hated the missile defense plan because they don't want an American presence in their former empire, knowing that this would diminish Russia's influence in the entire region, even though the European site would not threaten in any way Russia's military capability. There is no way that 10 ground-based interceptors can have any real effect on the Russian Federation nuclear strike, if they chose. Russia's leaders know that if an American radar is placed in the Czech Republic and American missile interceptors are placed in Poland, those two sovereign countries would be stepping further away from the shackles of Russian oppression in the East and joining with America in the West in the cause for democratic independence and human freedom.

But Russian belligerence notwithstanding, reports surfaced in March of this year, indicating President Obama had covertly offered Russians a promise that the United States would cease moving forward with the deployment of the ground-based missile defense site in Europe if Moscow--now this is unbelievable to me, Mr. Speaker--if Moscow

would commit to helping to discourage Iran's nuclear programs. Now let us just recall for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that it was Russia that actually delivered nuclear fuel to Iran, and Russia was paid $800 million by Iran for its work on the Bushehr nuclear reactor, which will help Iran make their own nuclear fuel for weapons. Russia has been strongly suspected of aiding Iran's already advancing missile program itself.

Moreover, just this week, Mr. Speaker, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez announced that they were purchasing more than $2 billion worth of arms from Russia, including rocket technology, and Mr. Chavez has already declared that Venezuela will get started on a nuclear program with Iran's help.

Mr. Speaker, asking Russia to choke off Iran's nuclear program while ceding our only defense against Iranian long-range ballistic missiles is as illogical as a police officer offering his bulletproof vest to a gang of violent criminals in exchange for verbal assurances that they won't use their guns. Our allies, potential allies, rogue nations and terrorist groups all over the world were watching President Obama's capitulation. President Obama swore he would restore America's relationships in the world, relationships the liberal Democrats accuse the Bush administration of destroying. But instead of restoring America's relationships, he has diminished our credibility across the world and possibly beyond repair.

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to be told the truth about what we actually lost when the President abandoned the European missile defense site in Poland and the Czech Republic. Today the nation of Iran is defying the Western world in its determined pursuit of nuclear weapons, which would allow Iran and its proxies to hold the entire peace-loving world under nuclear threat. The most devastating aspect of the President's decision--of course aside from forfeiting our ability to intercept long-range ballistic missiles aimed at the American homeland--is that it removed a strong disincentive for Iran to continue with its nuclear weapons program, and that was one of the critical purposes of the European missile defense site from the very beginning, Mr. Speaker. It was meant to create a strategic disincentive for Iran to develop a nuclear long-range missile capability. Iran would have had to face the fact that they were pursuing a long-range missile technology for which we already had a defense.

In other words, it would have been like trying to spread a virus when we had already been inoculated against it. Instead, Mr. Speaker, we have forfeited that strategic advantage, and we have gained nothing in return. As timelines exist now--and this is such an important point--as timelines exist now, any alternative to the system the President abandoned will come too late to be a significant factor in preventing the nation of Iran from developing a nuclear missile capability that will threaten the peace of the entire free world and its children.

Mr. Speaker, if Iran does achieve a nuclear capability, it will officially launch a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It will allow a corrupt regime--whose leader hates America, whose leader hates Israel and the Western world, and who considers Armageddon to be a good thing--to be able to hold the United States and our allies at risk from a ballistic missile carrying a nuclear warhead, much like the Soviet Union did during the Cold War.

As former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has stated, ``There is no harm in deploying our missile defenses before ICBMs can reach America. But there is incalculable risk if Iran is ready before we are.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Iran may be ready far sooner than the Obama administration seems ready to admit. Recent reports state that Iran may reach a nuclear weapons capability within as little as 1 year, and The New York Times recently stated that Iran now possesses at least 7,200 centrifuges capable of producing weapons-grade enriched uranium and that they have already produced enough low enriched uranium to make at least one nuclear warhead.

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes have the hardest time just stating the facts as they are without sounding like an alarmist. But I truly believe this. And I will go on record to say that I hope that the listeners and anyone--including you, Mr. Speaker--are really paying attention. This needs to be said. If the Obama administration continues down this road of appeasement and denial, the nation of Iran will gain a nuclear capability, and they will pass that technology and those weapons on to the most dangerous terrorists in the world. And this generation and so many to come, Mr. Speaker, will face the horrifying reality of nuclear jihad.

Those of us who have been blessed to walk in the sunlight of freedom in this generation will relegate our freedom to walk in the minefield of nuclear terrorism in the next generation. Mr. Speaker, the preeminent responsibility of the President of the United States and even of this Congress is to protect the national security of the United States. I believe that President Barack Obama's abandonment of the ballistic missile defense site in Europe fundamentally betrays that responsibility.

I am stunned that he does not seem to understand that, and I am sincerely in fear that our children and our children's children may pay a tragic price for that betrayal.

I thank the gentleman for the time, and I will be glad to enter into any kind of colloquy or discussions. Thank you, sir.

Well, I believe that Mr. Helprin is exactly correct. These things don't happen overnight. It takes a certain timeline in order to build both an offensive capability and a defensive capability. We were on track to have our defensive capability in place by around 2012, which would have probably been before Iran could have actually launched a full-blown intercontinental ballistic missile against the homeland of the United States.

As it stands now, the ostensible alternative that the President is offering will not even be in place until 2018 or until 2020, at which time the Iranians will be fully capable and will just be ignoring us at that point.

It just gives us no real opportunity to use the European missile defense site as a factor to help play in the calculus or to prevent Iran from gaining that nuclear capability. Once they do it, it's just hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Well, let me just say this first with the gentleman's permission: I believe, if the free world places Israel in the untenable position of having to defend itself, which it will have to do if no one else has the courage to stand up to Iran, Israel will have no choice. It has no room for error.

Ahmadinejad has said that they want to wipe Israel off the map. One warhead could virtually destroy Israel. We can put eight Israels in the size of my State of Arizona. They're only a one-bomb nation. They cannot abide an Iranian lunatic like Ahmadinejad, who has his finger on the nuclear button with a Shahab-3 that can reach Israel in about 12 to 14 minutes. They cannot possibly abide that.

We in the free world know that. If we stand by and force Israel to respond like we've done in times past, whether it be with Syria or with the nuclear power plant in Iraq sometime ago, the Orissa plant, if we put them in that position, then we really fail the whole world because that will enflame the passions of the entire Arab world; and it will, I think, set us on a path of great contention.

Tragically, Mr. King, the Israelis will have almost no choice. This will be a defensive action on their part because they've already been told by the Iranian leaders that they intend to wipe Israel off the map. This would give them the capacity to do just that.

I just think it's a tragedy, beyond my ability to articulate, that we don't have the understanding of what we're really facing here. I think Mr. Obama is simply naive as to the danger and as to the mindset of jihad and as to how serious they really are.

You know, they played rope-a-dope with us in North Korea for many, many years; and now we know that they plan and continue to plan to come to a full-scale nuclear weapons capability. The same thing exists with Iran.

Unfortunately, I believe only two things will stop Iran from gaining a nuclear capability: either military intervention or the conviction in Iranian leaders' minds that nuclear intervention will occur if they don't stop their march towards a nuclear weapons capability. I'm afraid that Israel understands that. If we don't respond or if some coalition of the Western World doesn't respond, then Israel will be left with no choice.

Well, I guess my first postulation here was that Iran, having a nuclear capability, changed everything, because it potentially worked on this coincidence of jihad and nuclear proliferation, where it empowered Iran to give nuclear weapons to terrorists. It's so hard for me to see a world like that, that I guess that's my central focus.

The only thing that I can put forward at all is that the President was somehow assured by Russia that that wouldn't happen if we work with Russia. But the problem is that Russia has sold us their influence about half a dozen times now--and we've gotten nothing for it.

And, secondarily, the most critical component in a nuclear program is not missile technology. Missile technology is beginning to proliferate the world over. I mean it is astonishing how much missile capability even smaller countries are beginning to have now. That mule is out of the barn, as they say.

But the fissile material or the material for making nuclear weapons is really the crux here. And Russia has delivered nuclear fuel to Iran already. So how do we somehow take their word for this situation? It's always amazing to me.

I think that Mr. Obama, in all deference to the President, is somehow ignoring the lessons of history. Where we see malevolent individuals or countries push forward to try to push back the forces of freedom, and someone blinks, as Mr. Halpern put it. Someone blinks.

There was a time when Gorbachev stared in the eyes of Ronald Reagan. And Gorbachev had to blink because Ronald Reagan didn't. He transcended hundreds of millions because Reagan had the courage to stand strong, even above the din of the liberal media in his own country.

There was a time when one of the other Russian premiers tried to stare down President John Kennedy. John Kennedy stood strong and wouldn't back up. Where would we be had that not happened?

In just recent days, Mr. Putin stared President Obama in the eye--and Mr. Obama blinked. And it has historic and grave consequences, I believe, for the free world, and especially for America and our future generations. And I am just very concerned as we go forward now that this President is going to somehow say, Well, Iran probably can have a peaceful nuclear program.

Well, let me just say to you, by the way, that Iran has so much natural gas that it would be scales of 10 cheaper for them just to produce their electricity with natural gas than to build a nuclear power plant to produce electricity. So that's a completely ridiculous notion.

But here's what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid this President is either going to naively or somehow, in the hope that he, in his broadmindedness, will convince jihad to change their mind, which they have had for hundreds of years, to change theirs--and it's just not going to happen that way.

I fear that he is going to allow Iran to go forward with a so-called peaceful nuclear program that will allow them in a very short period of time to become a nuclear weapons power in the world and translate that to not only proliferation to other rogue states, but to terrorists and, again, take us into that Samarian night when our children may have to face nuclear terrorism.

I just feel like if we let this happen now, that we're making a terrible mistake, and future generations will pay that price.

Thank you, Mr. King, for yielding.

I guess you said it best a moment ago when you just talked about history. Someone a long time ago said that those who don't learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. Someone said that the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

But Dostoevsky said it this way: he said, He who controls the present controls the past and he who controls the past controls the future. And I think he capsulized what the liberal intelligencia have done today. They have tried to rewrite history in order to try to shape the future.

And it concerns me greatly because if you look just in a cursory glance at history, especially since the nuclear age came upon us, when we had a great enemy in the Soviet Union, they had thousands of warheads aimed at us with nuclear missiles; we had thousands aimed at them. There was almost a fearful tension there because they knew if they launched against us that we could launch against them while the missiles that they'd launched were still in the area and we would destroy each other. So we called this ``mutually assured destruction,'' and there was a kind of a grim peace that was achieved because we put our security in their sanity and they did the same for us.

But some things have changed in history since then. First of all, terrorism has come upon us, and, second of all, nuclear proliferation has begun to make a march across the world. And now we live in a generation that sees terrorism or this jihad coming together with nuclear proliferation. And when you put those two things together, all of the historical precedents seem to fade because now you face an enemy with an ultimate capacity, whether it be just a nuclear warhead in one of our cities or launching a missile at us or even launching an EMP attack, that we haven't talked about tonight, but I hope that Members really try to learn about that. We face a situation where an enemy that has no regard for its own life, that they will be willing to kill their own children in order to kill ours, are eventually, if we continue down this path, going to find their way to the nuclear button. And if they do and terrorists the world over gain this technology, it will change our concept of freedom forever.

I am convinced that there's nothing that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda would like to do more than put a nuclear weapon about a hundred yards off the steps of this building and decapitate this country. And you say, well, that's an impossible scenario. It's an unthinkable scenario, but I assure you it's not impossible.

And to somehow blink and take away our capability to devalue nuclear programs in the world, as missile defense does, or to stop an incoming missile when we have to, to somehow blink in that situation is to hasten a day like that. I hope that somehow we regain our sanity in time and realize how serious the equation really is.

I appreciate so much the gentleman yielding to me tonight.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 711 I inadvertently missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on budget requests, I am submitting the following information regarding budget designations I received as part of H.R. 3326: FY 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill.

(1) Recipient: Robertson Aviation

Budget Designation: $3,000,000

This designation funds the procurement of internal 200 gallon A-kits and B-kits for installation on UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters operated by the Army National Guard. The Internal Auxiliary Fuel Tank System is a crashworthy, ballistically self-sealing, single-point pressure refuelable internal auxiliary fuel system that has been developed and fielded to H-60 helicopters operated by the U.S. Army Special Operations, the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force Combat Search and Rescue, and certain units of the U.S. Army National Guard. Having this system installed on an H-60 helicopter saves lives by reducing the risk of post crash fires by using military standard crashworthy self sealing bladders integrated into rugged aluminum honeycomb fiberglass outer containers. The resulting system provides ballistic protection for aircrews operating in hostile environments and crashworthy protection for all operations.

(2) Recipient: Southwest Gas Corporation

Budget Designation: $3,000,000

This funding request is for a Gas Engine Heat Pump (GEDAC) demonstration. GEDAC provides essential peak electric and winter gas load reduction. GEDACs not only provide increased energy efficiency, reduced peak electricity demand, costs savings to the U.S. military, resource reductions (water), and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, it also diversifies energy sources and provides the foundation for grid independence in electricity production. This type of energy independence is invaluable to a military installation, or other facility of national interest, that has to continue to function in the event of a national emergency.

(3) Proposed Recipient: USAF, Air Education and Training Command

Budget Designation: $1,500,000

This funding request is for Air Education & Training Command (AETC) aircraft range upgrades, specifically Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) improvement projects. Air Education and Training Command ranges have an unfunded requirement for enhancements to bring them more in line with the operational capabilities of the F-35. The Barry M. Goldwater Range has an identified unfunded requirement to secure a sensor training area and new instrumented target area as well as two ground moving target sets to conduct real world training which mirrors Global War on Terror requirements. Acquisition of ground moving targets, and development of a sensor training area/instrumented target area within the Barry M. Goldwater Tactical Range addresses the operational requirements which F-16 and future pilots (F-35) will face in defeating urban and moving targets with high precision.

(4) Proposed Recipient: Advanced Ceramics

Budget Designation: $2,000,000

This funding request supports efforts at the U.S. Army Battle Command Battle laboratory at Ft. Huachuca to aggressively pursue experimental deployment efforts and spiral development of sensor and micro- transponder technologies using the Silver Fox and Manta unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Silver Fox and Manta systems' uniquely compact size and stealth technology coupled with the use of advanced sensors and transponders enable them to detect, track, and isolate the smallest enemy movements, including the emplacement of improvised explosive devices (IEDs)--the enemy's weapon of choice against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Chair, my voting record has consistently demonstrated my support for a full investigation of The PMA Group, its lobbying activities, and the relationship between Member budget requests and campaign contributions by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I also publicly maintain that all budget requests that The PMA Group lobbied on behalf of should not be funded by the taxpayers. I intend to vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

Mr. Murtha. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 670, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

En Bloc Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on budget requests, I am submitting the following information regarding budget designations I received as part of H.R. 3288: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Recipient: Arizona Department of Transportation, 206 S. 17th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Budget designation: $1,000,000

The Hoover Dam Bypass project was authorized by Congress in P.L. 98- 381. Hoover Dam is a strategic national asset. This project will protect the Dam while ensuring safer traffic flow between Phoenix and Las Vegas.

Recipient: Arizona Department of Transportation, 206 S. 17th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Budget designation: $250,000

The Hassayampa Study corridor is located in the Phoenix West Valley. The request would fund an Environmental Impact Statement of the Hassayampa Freeway and the Hassayampa Study Region. This project holds tremendous potential for the West Valley and entire Southwest region by linking Phoenix to Las Vegas through the proposed Interstate 11 corridor.

Mr. Speaker, America is facing an unemployment and mortgage crisis unlike anything we have seen since the Great Depression.

Only months ago, President Obama pledged that he would create 3\1/2\ millions jobs by the end of 2010 and told us that the unemployment rate would stay below 8 percent if we passed the allegedly urgent trillion- dollar ``economic stimulus'' bill.

But, Mr. Speaker, since the President has assumed office, employment has dropped by over 2\1/2\ million jobs. We've lost 8 million jobs since the beginning of the Democrat-led 110th Congress, and half a million of those were in June alone.

The jobless rate stands at 9.5 percent, and the President himself admits that it's likely to climb over 10 percent.

This Congress and this administration must be reminded by the American people that what comprises true economic growth are jobs and economic productivity by the people. Higher taxes, increased regulation, reckless spending, bureaucratic selection of economic winners and losers and out-of-control deficit spending, these are the Democrat policies of the last five months, and they diminish productivity instead of encouraging it. They will kill jobs. And unless we change course, Mr. Speaker, this country faces an unprecedented economic failure.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I support the Hastings amendment because it tries to make sure that groups determined by the Attorney General to be of violent or extremist nature are not recruited into military service. But I take some offense that one of the Cabinet-level officials of our government categorized people who are, quote, dedicated to a single issue such as opposition to abortion or immigration as right-wing extremists, and I am concerned that the amendment might be misunderstood.

And I would like to hear from the other side that this is not the intent of the amendment and that we would make sure that someone that was dedicated to the patriotism and protecting their country, which it takes a certain amount of extreme dedication to go out and pour one's blood on a foreign battlefield for the cause of human freedom, and I want to make sure that those individuals are not considered extremists under Mr. Hastings' part of the en bloc amendment.

Would anyone speak to that on the other side?

Yes, I would yield to the chairman.

I guess I am asking the chairman of the committee that the Hastings amendment would not include--the definition of right-wing extremists would not be included in the amendment that's being offered by the Hastings amendment under the en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, maybe I could just ask for your assurances that people dedicated to single issues in this country such as opposition to abortion or immigration would not be considered extremists and not be disallowed into the military; at least, that would not be your intent under this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 9.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, nuclear weapons, especially those connected to intercontinental ballistic missiles, represent the greatest danger, the greatest weapon ever devised, threatening the human family. The enemies of the United States are defiantly developing delivery systems for those devastating weapons.

Mr. Chairman, to be clear, ballistic missile threats are increasing in the world, and while that threat is increasing, our budget in Congress to effect missile defense is decreasing. My amendment would restore the $1.2 billion that was cut from last year's appropriated amount.

The administration and those who support these cuts have created a false choice between theater defense and homeland defense. If this Congress can find $787 billion for a so-called stimulus economic package, then we have no excuse but to also fund both theater defense and the national defense of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, North Korea has recently conducted a nuclear test and missile launches, and President Obama has called Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity ``a real threat.'' Despite the threat increase, this bill slashes by 35 percent the only system that we have that is tested and proven to protect the homeland against ICBMs, our Ground-based Midcourse Defense system. My amendment would restore these cuts.

Mr. Chairman, North Korea is right now planning a ballistic missile launch, and yesterday in fact declared it is ready to ``wipe out the United States.'' We have a chance this moment to restore the funds to make these systems viable to protect the American people from this exact threat.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of protecting the American people and to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just respond by suggesting that to say $1.2 billion in missile defense spending would be wasteful, in the light of the fact that when three airplanes hit this country, it cost us $2 trillion in our economy and nearly $100 billion to clean it up, I think that is shortsighted.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Mr. Turner.

Mr. Chairman, haven't I yielded just 4 minutes thus far? I yielded myself 2 minutes in the beginning, Mr. McKeon 1 minute and Mr. Turner 1 minute?

I yield the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Griffith) 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to the remainder of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

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

Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, an ICBM landing in the United States or over the United States could subject us to an EMP tragedy or destroy one of our cities and change our concept of freedom forever. The only system that we have to defend us in a tested and proven way from that threat is our Ground- based Midcourse Defense. The budget, as it

stands now, cuts it 35 percent. This amendment would restore that money to protect our children and families from such a threat.

We need to protect this country from madmen like Mr. Ahmadinejad and madmen like Mr. Kim Jong-Il. It is our first duty under the Constitution to do so, and I adjure this body to pass this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, on Rollcall No. 356, I intended to vote ``yes.''

The motion would have struck $97.4 million from the Federal Prison System in the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. It would have brought funding in line with the President's request.

I believe the level of spending in the underlying bill was irresponsible in light of the crushing level of debt that America is facing. This amendment was a small step in a broader effort that I supported to make this a fiscally responsible bill.

Madam Speaker, today, June 19th, marks the anniversary of what has become known as Juneteenth,'' the name given to emancipation day by African-Americans in Texas. On that day in 1865, Union Major-General Gordon Granger read General Orders, No. 3 to the people of Galveston. It stated:

``The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with

a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all

slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of

personal rights and rights of property . . .

It was an event in the early days of the 19th century, and especially in the darkest of hours during the Civil War that turned brother against brother and cost nearly 600,000 American lives, that few would ever have believed was possible, Madam Speaker.

And yet here in America, where the words ``all men are created equal'' were formally recognized by government for the first time in history as a self-evident truth, we recognized that reducing the status of a black man to less than human simply because he was black was something that was both abominable to God, and fundamentally incompatible with the principles of human freedom on which America was built.

Abraham Lincoln realized that truth, Madam Speaker. He said this about our Founding Fathers:

``In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the

Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be

trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows. They

grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they

reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They

erected a beacon to guide their children and their children's

children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the

earth in other ages. Wise statesmen as they were, they knew

the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they

established these great self-evident truths, that when in the

distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should

set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white

men, were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of

happiness, their posterity might look up again to the

Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the

battle which their fathers began--so that truth, and justice,

and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues might not

be extinguished from the land; so that no man would hereafter

dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which

the temple of liberty was being built.

Mr. Lincoln helped us decide as a nation, Madam Speaker, that regardless of what it cost, we would choose to once again recognize Imago Dei, the image of God in man, and although millions never would have believed it possible, the United States chose to abolish slavery once and for all.

Yet today, Madam Speaker, few people who remember and celebrate Juneteenth realize that freedom has not yet fully come to all in the African-American community.

Today, Madam Speaker, in the land of the free and the home of the brave; in the same nation that threw off the yoke of slavery and overturned the abomination of a Supreme Court decision that said the black man was not a person and not worthy of protection under the law; today in America, Madam Speaker, the lives of one in two black unborn children are lost before they ever see the light of day for the first time.

And though some, captive to an invincible blindness, would deny this reality, Madam Speaker, we are all witness to what has been the deadliest form of discrimination in our country's history: the systematic elimination of millions. Today, fully one-half of all black Americans conceived in this country are killed before they are born, primarily at government-funded abortion clinics placed in our inner cities.

Every day, Madam Speaker, almost 1,500 unborn black children are aborted. Black babies are aborted at between four and five times the rate of that of white babies. The daily killing of 50 percent of unborn black American children has cost the lives of close to 14 million black children. That equates to no less than a genocide against black America. It is a tragedy that beggars my ability to describe.

This Juneteenth, as we recognize a great victory for human freedom and equality, Madam Speaker, we must also recognize that the most fundamental freedom and basic civil right of all--the right to live-- especially for black Americans, has never been more threatened or under attack.

But Juneteenth should also give us hope, because it shows us that nations caught up in something as tragic as slavery can rise to victory and change history.

Madam Speaker, I have a painting in my office depicting this floor and this chamber on Juneteenth, celebrating the end of slavery in America. It is a scene of pandemonium and celebration, illustrating the feeling of that day among men and women who realize something truly historic and great had happened--that an entire race of human beings had been recognized for the children of God that they were, and that America had been used to end the 7,000-year reign of the acceptance of human slavery in the world.

That picture gives me great hope, Madam Speaker, because it shows that even something as evil and entrenched in human society as was human slavery can be changed.

And Madam Speaker, because I have the privilege of living in America, I am just idealistic enough to believe that we can also rise to the occasion in this country and change history again, and end this tragic genocide called abortion on demand.

And you know the irony, Madam Speaker, is that it may be African- Americans, who were once enslaved in this country and who are now recognizing that abortion on demand is killing more of their little brothers and sisters than did slavery, who will be the ones to help lead America to place this modern day genocide behind us forever.

By the grace of God may it be so, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2847: Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

(1) Recipient: City of Glendale, Arizona, 5850 W. Glendale Avenue, Glendale, AZ 85301

Budget designation: $1,000,000

The purpose of this budget designation is to upgrade and enhance the computer aided dispatch and records management system that is used by law enforcement to respond to emergencies in the Glendale community. These upgrades will include modules for booking, records management, dispatch, homeland security, court/prosecutors and wireless ticketing, as well as automatic vehicle location, a system that is currently used by the fire department which results in a much quicker response to calls and includes mapping so that officers can be directed to the call location. Over the past several years, the City of Glendale has become an entertainment and sports destination. The City is home to the University of Phoenix Stadium, a 73,000-seat multi-purpose facility which hosts the NFL Cardinals football games, the Fiesta Bowl, an annual BCS Game and just hosted the 2008 Super Bowl. The adjoining Jobing.com arena is home to the NHL Phoenix Coyotes and hosts numerous events and concerts. The national and regional events held at these facilities have significantly increased the public safety needs and demands on the City of Glendale. In order to protect the public that attends these events, the City of Glendale is pursuing the acquisition of infrastructure equipment that will enhance emergency response time. The Glendale Police Department currently uses a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management System (RMS) which was built in-house in the mid-1980s. The system is difficult to work with and sometimes it is not possible to make changes that reflect the current needs of the Police Department. This project will make the technology improvements necessary to meet the Glendale area's increasing public safety needs.

(2) Recipient: City of Surprise, Arizona, 12435 W. Bell Rd, Surprise,