Harold Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. If the gentleman would continue to yield, with regard to the efforts the Congress made on behalf of the airline industry right after September 11 and not long ago in the war supplemental, which I thought was the right thing to do and I support it, does it not make sense also, because part of the argument on this side, and I think from some in the other body, to provide greater resources to States that are having to lay nurses and teachers off? And I could go on with our rhetoric, and the other side has rhetoric; but the reality is State governments are forced to make some bad decisions largely because the Governors cannot borrow money, and we can. I am just curious, the $20 billion that was added on the Senate side, is that something that the other side would be supportive of? That was not included in the House bill.

Mr. FORD. So we bear some of the responsibility, but some on the other side of the aisle also bear some of the responsibility.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk, and my colleagues on my side of the aisle have suggested that we are traveling down a course we traveled before from 2 years ago when we were promised that a tax bill would create millions of new jobs and new opportunities for people. In fact, it did not. Some will say there are reasons for that. The President will say, as he has said in speech after speech, that this country was attacked. We were. Our Nation responded with great resolve, determination, courage and charity; and our military has responded with unprecedented swiftness and effectiveness. Yet we in Congress have failed the American people, and the President has, in large part, as well. Instead of tailoring and adjusting a plan to conform to the realities of the day, we continue to offer the same rhetoric and the same plan that we offered when things were good, when things were bad, when things were really bad, and now at a time when things are compounded. Some of my colleagues have come to the floor to detail the challenges that their States face. My colleague on the other side of the aisle, whom I have great respect for, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), comes from a State which is running a big deficit. The President's brother is the Governor of that State. My Governor is faced with a $500 million shortfall. Things are so bad in some States that they are releasing prisoners early to help meet or to close budget shortfalls. Something is wrong here in Congress and wrong with us in government when we pretend that these issues are either not ours to confront or not of our making, or somehow our ideas are the only and best ideas. We could probably come up with a number of ways to stimulate the economy, a number of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. I have heard some say this dividend tax is unfair. The Tax Code is polluted with areas that unfair; inequities litter it. We should prioritize if we are going to clean up and undo some of the unfairness of the Tax Code. It would seem to me the best thing we can do is to help our States. The President reluctantly agreed to include a $20 billion package. I applaud him on that front. If anything, we should provide more for the States. Not only do we help governors avoid doing the two worse things during an economic downturn, which are to cut services and/or raise taxes, we also help them create more jobs because as you cut State programs, more and more people are laid off. Those of us from rural areas understand the importance of rural hospitals and rural health care. When you close hospitals, not only do you compromise care, you cause a decline in the job market in those areas as well. I can only say to my friends, and there are those who have come to the floor and have talked about marching orders and even rubber-stamping, and there is great truth and great humor in a lot of the things that they have said. It is my hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will pay some attention to what we are saying. We understand that they have the votes to ram things down and do what they choose to do. But remember, all of us represent people and all of us have to go home and explain to our Governors, to our mayors, and, more importantly, to our bosses whom we call constituents why we have not done more to assist cities and States, and for that matter the private sector, in creating more and more jobs.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FORD. If my reading is correct, and I have not been a part of any of the meetings, it appeared to me that one of the reasons that the tax cut was reduced from $726 billion to $550 billion to $350 billion was because there was disagreement in the gentleman's own party between the two bodies, between the House and Senate.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I am just curious as a Member of the body and as a voter, when does it become President Bush's economy? You said this started back with Bill Clinton.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of George Selby, a Shelby County Sheriff's deputy killed in the line of duty. Officer Selby, 33, was shot and killed December 4th, 2002 at a home where he was serving a warrant. Sadly, he was struck in an area not covered by his protective vest. Officer Selby died bravely doing what he and so many other countless individuals across the country do everyday--protecting and serving their communities. All too often we get busy in our own lives and forget that we have brave men and women who put on the badge day-in and day-out in order to keep our communities safe. Having made the ultimate sacrifice, George Selby is a hero to this nation and a reminder to all Americans of the precious nature of human life. Officer Selby is survived by his wife, Jessica Selby, who was in Washington, D.C. Tuesday, May 13, as part of the 15th annual National Candlelight Vigil at the Law Enforcement Memorial. My thoughts and prayers are with Ms. Selby, as she struggles with the loss of her husband. Tuesday was the culmination of a week of events honoring law enforcement in the nation's capitol. The Memphis Police Department also held a formal ceremony Thursday, May 15, to honor fallen officers from West Tennessee.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, this debate has boiled down to simply a difference in priorities. I agree with a lot of my colleagues that a tax cut is probably needed; but we followed the advice of the other side of the aisle 2 years ago, and we have heard my colleagues, and the other side knows the facts because they hear from their constituents as well. Their package produced 2 million less jobs, 1 million people with fewer insurance. What we are asking for on this side is that more people have the opportunity to enjoy a tax cut, not simply rich people or poor people, the wrong people. I do not accept some of the language. I just think more people should benefit. The Republican Party used to stand for that. The Republican Party used to stand for balancing budgets and not running a deficit. I guess power breeds a different kind of mentality here. Mr. Speaker, the last thing I would say is this, every State for every Member here is running a deficit. My State is running a $400 million deficit, North Carolina has already cut $2 billion and has to cut $400 million more. Michigan has a $1.8 billion deficit; and I would say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), we should help the States. We made an argument to help the airlines, and it was the right thing to do. States do not have the advantage we have here at the Federal level. They cannot go borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. They have to make ends meet. We should help them because we would save jobs and save their economy. Last, I speak to the University of Tennessee graduates tomorrow at 9 a.m. about jobs. I cannot brag about what the other side is doing, and they cannot either. Let us pass a real jobs package; let us reject the Republican package and accept the Democratic package.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes on this side and 5 additional minutes on the Republican side.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 134, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I want to make one appeal to the President and my Republican colleagues, and Democrats as well. We are a few days away, if not a few weeks away, from debating a tax cut bill that all of us wish and desire, for all of those here and those watching, could receive at home. We have one problem, though. We have committed some 300,000 and, if the papers are to be believed this morning, an additional 30,000 troops will be deployed overseas. The President has his hands full, as does the national security team, in defining our goals clearly in Iraq. Yet their domestic team continues to try to advance an enormous tax cut, which all of us again want. The problem we face is we have States that are struggling, we have a budget that is out of balance, we have a war that needs to be paid for, and we have all of our domestic needs. Mr. Speaker, I ask the President in the most humble of ways: defer your tax cut, defer new spending. Let us do two things first: one, help the States; and, two, pay for this war. After that, all of the tax cuts and stimulus and spending programs that all of us may want, let us consider those things in that context. I say to the President: defer your tax cuts, sir, and help our States.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, out of respect to the chairman, I know he wants 2 minutes to close, I will just take a minute. I will be very brief. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons I think that sometimes we find ourselves as a body not taken as seriously as we would like to be taken is because of exercises like this. We have heard over and over again from colleagues on one side of the aisle and colleagues on this side. The Nation is focused on the war we are faced with right now. There is obviously going to be an enormous cost associated with that war. Second, most people across the country are focused on local and State government challenges. Many State governments are facing enormous budget shortfalls, it has been estimated some $70 billion in current year shortfalls across the country. That number has grown by 50 percent, Mr. Chairman, in just the last 3 months. If we are serious about helping States and serious about helping people get back up on their feet, serious about helping this economy move in the right direction, let us be honest. We are not paying for the war, and my friends on the other side of the aisle pretend that they cannot even contemplate a model that can give us scenarios for how much this war will cost. That is disingenuous, it is wrong, and it is unfair to the American people. Two, you do very little for your hospitals, your schools. People mention Medicare and Medicaid. For those watching at home, that means those hospitals in your States will not get the amounts of money that they need to ensure that people are covered and that people are treated. For those teachers and those of you who have kids in public schools, that means that bill we bragged about, the No Child Left Behind Act, we will not have the money to fund it. All of the promises about homeland security, it takes money to pay for these things. The difference between our budget and theirs is simple: We set a different set of priorities than they have set. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle at the end of day can at least be honest and say to those of us on this side and to the American people that your priorities are vastly and radically different than ours. We believe States should be helped, we believe that the war should be paid for, and we believe we should balance the budget. Your priorities are different, and you owe it to the American people to tell them the truth.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman put up the chart that was up earlier showing Clintonomics versus the last chart and agree that perhaps spending grew in those years because revenue for the government grew as well, and perhaps that President and this Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did a darn good job of helping the economy to grow. Can the gentleman concede that point?

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) said that States are having to make cuts, and you do not see why it is not possible that we in this Congress cannot take a 1 percent across- the-board cut. I could accept that, but the only problem is where the gentleman did not cite the difference between the States and us is that they are not parading around talking about tax cuts in Tennessee, Connecticut, Michigan, Florida and New Mexico.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my good friend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) that Governor Richardson in New Mexico, we applaud him for what he has done. There are many on this side who believe that tax cuts should be a viable part of any stimulus plan. The only problem is the tax cut that you propose we do not believe will actually stimulate very much, nor will it help us to achieve the balanced budgets that my friend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) claims he wants, and I believe that he actually wants, even though he was a bit condescending when he told me to shut up a few seconds ago. I will say this to my friend, Bill Richardson and other Governors across this Nation, Bill Richardson was here a few days ago along with Governor Bush and another Governor, talking about Medicaid dollars and complaining to this Congress that the cuts we are imposing on his hospitals in his State as well as Governor Bush's State and other States are far too onerous. All we ask on this side is that we be honest about the moment we face. Many of us on this side have rallied behind this President and our Commander in Chief in this effort against Iraq and this war on terrorism. I resent my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), for whom I have great affection, for some of the words. I understand the passion sometimes, it happens to me, it gets to us and perhaps allows our words to get away from us. I am sure he did not mean some of the personal things he said this evening. Our budget, I believe, we believe, is better for the country than yours. It is about priorities. Next election cycle we will see who is right, but I can tell this to the gentleman from Connecticut, I want to win this war, I want to see this economy grow, and I can assure you that everyone on this side of the aisle wants that as well. We just think our budget is better.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, the crux of a lot of this, no one disagrees with a lot of what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has touted in terms of this abstinence program, there may be some issues that need to be worked through, but all of us are in support of curtailing the transmission of sexually transmitted disease. The challenge, I think, that many of us have with this is that the Republican approach, in addition to some of the procedural challenges raised most recently by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), is that many of the freshman Members have never had an opportunity to hear this committee or hear a debate or to have hearings to talk a little bit about what the bill will accomplish. We did not even have it marked up. Some may say we focus too much on process, but it is important for those who have only been here a little over a month now to have that opportunity. Two, we constantly complain in this Chamber about imposing unfunded mandates on States. Coupled with the fact that so many States as has already been mentioned, including my home State of Tennessee, faced with some $350 to $400 million in shortfall which pales in comparison to California, Florida, Texas and New York, nonetheless these are real dollars for real people. Here we are now imposing another unfunded mandate on the States. As much as I appreciate the vigor, the zeal of many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and many on this side who support the abstinence programs and other aspects of the this bill, we need not kid ourselves. Unemployment is up. Many of the economic factors and indicators of the past 4 to 6 years that have moved in the right direction are not moving in the right direction for a variety of reasons. It is my hope that we can all see fit to support the Cardin substitute, not because it is a Democratic substitute or because it is not the Republican bill; because it actually provides States with the resources to do all of the things that all of us hope we can do, which is move people from welfare to work.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kemmons Wilson, beloved father, friend and businessman, who died February 12 at his home in Memphis, Tennessee at the age of 90. An innovative entrepreneur and benevolent philanthropist, Mr. Wilson is best known as the founder of the Holiday Inns hotel chain. Kemmons Wilson was born in Osceola, Arkansas, but spent most of his life in Memphis, where he was well respected and well known for his business, community and philanthropic involvement. He traveled the world developing the hotel chain that made him an international business legend. Over the years he visited palaces and dined with royalty, yet he always stayed grounded. Kemmons Wilson kept the ``common man'' in mind because he always thought of himself as one. Mr. Wilson came from a background where he and his mother struggled greatly after the death of his father, and during the Great Depression they both worked hard just to survive. The desire to never be hungry again drove Kemmons Wilson to achieve. On one fateful trip from Memphis to Washington, D.C. in the early '50s, Kemmons Wilson, traveling with five children in tow, found it impossible to find nice lodging where they wouldn't be charged extra for children. Frustrated but inspired, Kemmons Wilson founded the first Holiday Inn, vowing to provide average families with comfortable, affordable accommodations. Over the next fifty years, his bold vision, pioneering spirit and hard work made him a business icon, and his brainchild, Holiday Inn, changed the face of the hotel industry forever. Today countless locations and vacations later, the hotel chain Mr. Wilson founded is still helping families create lasting memories together. Kemmons Wilson's generous, life-long philanthropy testifies to his devotion to family and community. Whether it was to his church where he was a member for 46 years, or to the University of Memphis where he built the only Hospitality and Resort Management school of its kind in the southeast, Kemmons Wilson gave joyfully and abundantly. He remembered how often he had been helped along the way, and he was glad to help others in return. Mr. Speaker, Kemmons Wilson worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for families around the world, and he will be remembered not only as a business legend but also as a caring family man and devoted friend who always remembered his roots. I thank the speaker for allowing me to honor him today.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge Congress to pay closer attention to proposed changes to the Federal Home Loan Bank system. The two changes being considered would allow the Federal Home Loan Banks to buy, sell, and potentially securitize mortgages nationally, and would allow banks and thrifts to become members of multiple Home Loan banks. As federal regulators including the Treasury Department have noted, these proposals would seem to expand the Federal Home Loan Banks' charter to a sufficient extent to warrant congressional consideration. A number of issues must be weighed before they are implemented. For example, if the Federal Home Loan Banks enter the business of securitizing mortgages, it would seem appropriate that they be subject to the same requirements as other housing government sponsored enterprises, including limits on conforming loans, affordable housing goals, and mandatory mortgage insurance. The GSEs' federal charter ensures that they serve the interests of their shareholders as well as the public by expanding homeownership opportunities--especially in communities where homeownership rates are lower than the national average of 68 percent. The public is also served through fair competition, which can only be maintained if competitors in a given market are forced to play by the same rules. In addition, unlike Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the banks have not taken the voluntary step of registering their stock with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The wave of corporate accounting scandals last year demonstrated the need for transparency, which is of utmost importance for enterprises serving a public mission. To ensure that the public is served by fair competition and appropriate oversight, any changes to the Federal Home Loan Banks' charter must be given due congressional consideration.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding career of Dr. William F. Slagle of Memphis, TN, as he retires after 31 years of service with the University of Tennessee College of Dentistry. Education has been the cornerstone of Dean Slagle's career, and he has fought tirelessly to improve the educational opportunities available to our future dentists. In so doing, he has also improved the standard of dental education and dental care available to all who become patients of those doctors he has helped to nurture and train. Thanks to Dean Slagle's progressive vision, the University of Tennessee, College of Dentistry is recognized as one of the top ten in the nation, ranking number one in 1998 by the ADA for best scores on the National Board Examination. During his 23 year tenure as Dean, Dr. Slagle led the college through laborious accreditation processes, one in 1996 which resulted in zero recommendations for improvement and a total of 27 commendations, a feat never before accomplished. He built the most advanced interactive dental stimulation clinics in the country and inspired those around him to work toward the highest standards of excellence. Always interested in the development of faculty and students, Dean Slagle worked diligently to grow endowments in the College from zero in 1981 to over $6 million presently. For his career of noteworthy service to the State of Tennessee and the field of dentistry nationally, I would ask that you and my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives join with me in saluting a distinguished Tennessean and American, Dr. William Slagle.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievements of the Mid-South SAFE KIDS Coalition and to pay tribute to this organization for its tireless dedication to preventing childhood injuries. Each year 6,700 children in this country die from preventable injuries while another 120,000 suffer permanent disabilities. In the Mid-South region alone, 20 children die each month due to injury, while at the Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center in Memphis, TN there are more than 12,000 children admitted to the hospital due to preventable injuries every year. The Mid-South SAFE KIDS Coalition, housed at the Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center, has for the past ten years sought to reduce these unnecessary tragedies by sponsoring a variety of outreach programs designed to educate parents and caregivers about safety and injury prevention. Established in 1992 as part of the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, the Mid-South Coalition is part of the first and only nationwide childhood injury prevention effort. The Coalition has combined community action, public awareness, and public policy initiatives to bring about a systematic, ongoing response to child injury in Mid-South Communities. Recently, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign signed a formal agreement with the Mid-South Coalition and the Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center to help build and sustain a broad-based children's injury prevention effort designed to reduce the number of preventable injuries affecting children in the Mid-South. Through this agreement, the Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center has become one of the nation's leading childhood injury treatment centers, providing services from pre-hospital care, to in-hospital treatment, to outpatient follow-up care. In addition to treatment services, the Mid-South Coalition provides equally valuable prevention services including initiatives like the Buckle Up program, Cycle Smart, Project Get Alarmed, and Safety in the Home. The service the Mid-South SAFE KIDS Coalition provides to local children's safety is immeasurable, although a recent study of childhood injuries published in the August 2002 issue of Injury Prevention Journal noted that the implementation of the Mid-South SAFE KIDS Coalition was associated with a 30 percent decrease in the rate of severe motor vehicle occupant injuries treated at Le Bonheur. Before the establishment of the Coalition, severe unintentional injury rates in Shelby County mirrored national rates, yet, the decrease in Shelby County injury rates after the establishment of the Coalition was markedly greater than national averages. The results of this study were so significant that the researchers, including Susan Helms, the coordinator of the Mid-South Coalition have been invited to present their findings before the National SAFE KIDS Leadership Conference this week here in Washington. The Mid-South SAFE KIDS Coalition has proved to be an invaluable asset to my district and the Mid-South region. Its efforts to prevent childhood injury have directly led to a substantial increase in safety education and a vast reduction in preventable injuries to area children. They have truly provided a model for other children's protection agencies to emulate. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to honor the Mid-South SAFE KIDS Coalition today for its unbounded dedication to the prevention of childhood injury and its innumerable services to area children.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I join the gentleman from California and associate myself with his remarks. I would hope my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who I believe is right on this issue, would refrain from politicizing. If there is blame to go around, there is certainly enough blame to go around here in this town today, yesterday, and even a few days ago. After careful consideration, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. This vote is the most important and difficult one I have cast since coming to Congress some 6 years ago. I sincerely hope, as I imagine most of my colleagues do, that we will never have to cast another one like it. I have listened carefully to the concerns and objections of many of my colleagues and constituents; and having never served in the Armed Forces, I have sought the counsel of those who have. I have reviewed the available intelligence about the threat from Iraq and weighed the risk of a potential conflict with Iraq in the context of our ongoing war on terrorism; and I have reached the conclusion, as many have, that the risk of inaction and delay far outweigh the risk of action. Saddam Hussein has stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, as all have mentioned today, and is seeking the means to deliver them, if he does not already have the capacity now. He is developing missile delivery systems that could threaten American citizens, service members, and our own allies in the region. But in today's world, a sworn enemy of America does not need a missile to deliver weapons of mass destruction. All he needs is a suitcase, a small plane, a cargo ship, or a single suicidal terrorist. The most compelling case for action, however, Mr. Speaker, is the nuclear threat. Let us be clear. We do not have the intelligence suggesting that an imminent nuclear threat is upon us. I would urge Secretary Rumsfeld to cease suggesting to Americans that there is some connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda unless he has evidence to present to this Congress and to this public. What we do have evidence of is that Saddam Hussein continues to desire to obtain a nuclear weapon. And we know that should he obtain the raw materials, which may be available to him in any number of ways, he could build a nuclear bomb in less than a year. The Iraqi regime's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons are coupled with the recklessness of the Iraqi dictator. We know that Saddam is capable of murder and untold cruelty. We know that Saddam is capable of aggression and also capable of miscalculating his adversary's response to his aggression. Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a cruel, reckless, and misguided dictator pose a clear and present danger to our security. I could not vote to authorize military action abroad if I did not believe that Saddam Hussein poses a growing threat to our security, one that will not recede just because we hope it goes away. That is why I support giving the President the authority to achieve our fundamental goal: disarming the Iraqi regime of all weapons of mass destruction. As we consider this resolution, every Member should read it carefully so we do not mischaracterize what we are voting on here today. So what is this resolution for? First, it is a resolution stating Congress' support for our diplomatic efforts. This resolution must not be taken as an endorsement of unilateralism. It explicitly affirms Congress' support for the President's efforts to work through the U.N. Security Council to address Iraq's ``delay, evasion and noncompliance.'' It calls for prompt and decisive action by the U.N. Security Council to enforce its own mandates on Iraq. Second, this resolution is not a declaration of war. The resolution forces the President to affirm that all diplomatic and peaceful means have proven inadequate to protect our Nation's security. This gives the President the flexibility to dangle a stick with that carrot. At the same time, it affirms that military action must be used only as a last resort. If it were up to some of us in this Congress, we would have done it another way, perhaps building international support before coming to Congress, but this President chose to do it another way. Third, the resolution more defines our purpose in authorizing the use of force. The use of force has two clearly defined purposes: one, to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and, two, to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Unlike the White House's draft language, the resolution carefully limits its authorization to Iraq and only Iraq. And it is clear that our purpose is to protect against the threat to the United States. This resolution authorizes military action to disarm Iraq but does not mention regime change. The goal is Iraq's disarmament and full compliance with U.N. mandates. I applaud Leader Gephardt and others, including Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, for helping to negotiate such language. Although I strongly support the President in addressing the threat from Iraq, I believe the President must be more candid with us and the American people about the long-term commitment that is going to be needed in Iraq. It has been a year since we began the campaign in Afghanistan; and our efforts there politically, economically, and militarily are nowhere close to concluding. I visited Afghanistan in February and March and witnessed firsthand how fragile the peace is there. It will take years to forge stability in Afghanistan and years in Iraq. War is the last outcome that I want, and the last outcome I believe the President wants; but when America's national security is at stake, the world must know that we are prepared to defend our Nation from tyrants and from terrorists. With that, I ask every Member of Congress to support this resolution supporting our President and supporting our Nation.