Thad McCotter

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, recently, I attended my oldest son's eighth grade graduation, and graduating with him was Jennifer Davis, the daughter of Karen and Major Miles Davis, who could not attend because he was deployed to Iraq. Mr. Speaker, this is why I believe we owe Americans an account of our progress in the world war on terror, an assessment of the situation, the stakes, and the strategy for victory in the battle for Iraq, as well as an affirmation that we will defend our country, defeat the enemy, and win this unsought struggle for survival. Unfortunately, this resolution fails to do so, for it is strategically nebulous, morally obtuse, and woefully inadequate. This resolution sanitizes the hard truth that the enemy is trying not only to intimidate us but to kill us. It provides an abashed defense of our Nation's sovereign right to preemptively eradicate the terrorists and their state sponsors before they kill us. It implies our preemption of this threat must meet a global test for legitimacy. It further fails to affirm the battle for Iraq was waged because Saddam Hussein's regime was a direct threat to the United States of America and was in violation of mandatory treaty obligations of said United States of America. It fails to stress our mission is to ensure a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq at peace with the United States, its coalition partners and all other peaceable nations. It fails to stress that terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for the United States of America, Iraq, our coalition partners and the broader Middle East. It asserts how despite the enemy having declared Iraq a central front in the war on terror, the United States and its coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as only a part of the war on terror. It omits any mention of the battle for Iraq's difficulties and does not offer a comprehensive strategy on how to conquer them. It overlooks the fact our troops' return home hinges upon creating Iraqi security forces and destroying the enemy's insurgency. Finally, this resolution calls the terrorists our adversary, not our enemy. Mr. Speaker, at the graduation I did not try to comfort Karen Davis by declaring her husband, Major Miles Davis, was in Iraq defending global peace and security or enforcing United Nations resolutions. No, I thanked Karen for her family's sacrifice because Miles was in Iraq honoring his solemn pledge to God and to us to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. So in this time of war when we ask the best of our troops and we ask the best of their families, we must ask the best of ourselves. We have not done so with this resolution, and that is why I will be voting ``present,'' because I am committed to victory in the war on terror. Mr. Speaker, recently, I attended my oldest son's eighth grade graduation. Graduating with him was Jennifer Davis, the daughter of my childhood friend, Major Miles Davis, who could not attend. That night, I talked with Miles' wife, Karen, who told me how painful it was for their family to have Miles so abruptly deployed to Iraq. Such heart rending scenes throughout our land are why I believe we owe Americans more in this resolution than a simple declaration of our resolve in Iraq. We owe them an account of our progress in the world War on Terror; an assessment of the situation, the stakes, and the strategy for victory in the battle for Iraq; and an affirmation we will defend our country, defeat the enemy, and win this unsought struggle for survival. Thus, I rise to express my profound disappointment with this resolution before us, because it is strategically nebulous; morally obtuse; and woefully inadequate. To begin, this resolution's purpose is limited to ``Declaring the United States will complete the mission in Iraq and prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.'' This is patently inadequate to the task at hand; and, unfortunately, under continued examination the resolution fares no better. To wit, the first ``Whereas'' clause informs us: ``. . . the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world.'' This clause elicits elementary questions: what ``values'' of ours cause our enemy to hate us; and what, precisely, is the enemy's ideology? Sadly, this clause provides no clues. The second clause recounts how: ``. . . for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States.'' This clause is too sanitized. The hard truth is the enemy has not tried to intimidate us. The enemy has tried to kill us and too often succeeded. The enemy does so because our very existence as sovereign citizens of a free Republic constitutes a beacon of hope for all who are--and all who yearn to be--free; thus, we are our enemy's paramount obstacle to world dominion. Next the third clause right asserts: ``. . . it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance.'' Agreed. But this clause must stress both a philosophic principle and a strategic tenet. Philosophically, any state-sponsor of terror is a threat to the United States, because terrorism is an attack upon the self-evident, inalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Strategically, this clause falters as an oblique and abashed defense of our Nation's sovereign right to preemptively eradicate terrorists and their state-sponsors before they kill us. Instead, the clause must reaffirm our Nation's full right of self-defense. The seventh clause decries how: ``. . . by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions.'' Bluntly, this clause omits the obvious: By early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against the United States of America and was in violation of mandatory treaty obligations to the United States of America. By omitting the fact Hussein's regime deemed the United States not as just a part of the global community, but as a mortal enemy, this clause wrongly implies our preemption of his threat must and does meet a ``global test'' for legitimacy. The eighth clause reiterates: ``. . . the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors.'' Again, the point is missed. Our mission is to transform Iraq from a rogue dictatorship aiding terrorists into a representative democracy eradicating terrorists; and into a sovereign, free, secure, and united nation at peace with the United States, its Coalition partners, and all other peaceable nations. Next, clause eleven's belief: ``. . . the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East,'' also misses the point. As an American, I believe the clause should read: ``the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for the United States of America, Iraq, our Coalition partners, and the broader Middle East.'' Now, at last, we reach the resolution's three lethal failings: To start with, taken together, the ninth and fifteenth clauses raise a stark conundrum. Ignoring that the United States, in word and deed, first targeted Iraq as a ``central front'' in our War on Terror, clause nine notes: ``the terrorists have declared Iraq to be a central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology.'' Later, clause fifteen asserts: ``. . . the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terrorism.'' These clauses' collective conundrum is this: if, after we militarily deposed Hussein, the terrorist enemy now deems Iraq a central front in its ``war against all those who oppose their ideology,'' why do we now view Iraq as but ``part of the Global War on Terror''? Upon this critical question and its ramifications, the resolution is silent. The resolution's second lethal failing is found, interestingly enough, in clause twelve, which offers hopeful news of how we, our Coalition partners, and the Iraqis have: ``. . . scored impressive victories in Iraq, including finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.'' Well said. But nowhere does this resolution explain the battle for Iraq's past, present, and future difficulties, or proffer any concrete or comprehensive strategy as to how U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi forces will confront and conquer these challenges. One irony proves the point. My allotted time to speak on this amendment is under the section dedicated to Iraqi reconstruction. Yet nowhere in this resolution appears the word ``reconstruction.'' The resolution's final, and paramount, failing occurs in clause thirteen, which assures us: ``. . . Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over from the United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight against terror in Iraq.'' This clause's logic implies the enemy will remain operationally active in Iraq when our military leaves the battlefield. This implication stems from the incessant lack of emphasis accorded the concomitant and equal pillar of the administration's military strategy in Iraq. Specifically, the time required to win and bring our troops home hinges upon creating Iraqi security forces and destroying the enemy's insurgency. Continuing to emphasize the creation of security forces while de-emphasizing the destruction of the terrorists' insurgency, will only lengthen the time required to accomplish the mission in Iraq and welcome our troops back. Mr. Speaker, my time grows short, so, in conclusion, I will focus on the one word in the resolved clause which, in fact, inexplicably permeates the resolution; and, inexorably, precludes my support of this resolution. The offending word is ``adversary.'' Starkly and sanely understood, within Iraq and the overarching world War on Terror we do not have an adversary. We have an enemy. Thus, because words have meaning, even if I could ignore the fact this resolution is strategically nebulous, I will not overlook the fact it lacks the moral clarity to call the terrorists our enemy. Mr. Speaker, at St. Edith's eighth grade graduation, I did not try to comfort Karen by declaring her husband Major Miles Davis was in Iraq defending global peace and security; I did not try to comfort Karen by proclaiming Miles was in Iraq to enforce violated U.N. resolutions; no, I thanked Karen for her family's sacrifice, because Miles was in Iraq honoring his solemn pledge to God and to us to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies.'' Mr. Speaker, amidst an anguished era ennobled by our sacrifices in the unsought struggle against a bloodthirsty enemy, we ask our troops to do their best; we ask their families to do their best; and we ask our fellow citizens to do their best But we, in ``the people's house,'' have not done our best; and upon this resolution I will be voting ``present.'' I submit for the Record President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Ninth Annual Message to Congress, January 6, 1942. In fulfilling my duty to report upon the state of the Union, I am proud to say to you that the spirit of the American people was never higher than it is today--the Union was never more closely knit together--this country was never more deeply determined to face the solemn tasks before it. The response of the American people has been instantaneous, and it will be sustained until our security is assured. Exactly one year ago today I said to this Congress: ``When the dictators . . . are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on our part . . . They--not we-- will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack.'' We now know their choice of the time: a peaceful Sunday morning--December 7, 1941. We know their choice of the place: an American outpost in the Pacific. We know their choice of the method: the method of Hitler himself. Japan's scheme of conquest goes back half a century. It was not merely a policy of seeking living room--it was a plan which included the subjugation of all the peoples in the Far East and in the islands of the Pacific, and the domination of that ocean by Japanese military and naval control of the western coasts of North, Central, and South America. The development of this ambitious conspiracy was marked by the war against China in 1894; the subsequent occupation of Korea; the war against Russia in 1904; the illegal fortification of the mandated Pacific islands following 1920; the seizure of Manchuria in 1931; and the invasion of China in 1937. A similar policy of criminal conquest was adopted by Italy. The Fascists first revealed their imperial designs in Libya and Tripoli. In 1935 they seized Abyssinia. Their goal was the domination of all North Africa, Egypt, parts of France, and the entire Mediterranean world. But the dreams of empire of the Japanese and Fascist leaders were modest in comparison with the gargantuan aspirations of Hitler and his Nazis. Even before they came to power in 1933, their plans for that conquest had been drawn. Those plans provided for ultimate domination, not of anyone section of the world, but of the whole earth and all the oceans on it. When Hitler organized his Berlin-Rome-Tokyo alliance, all these plans of conquest became a single plan. Under this, in addition to her own schemes of conquest, Japan's role was obviously to cut off our supply of weapons of war to Britain and Russia and China--weapons which increasingly were speeding the day of Hitler's doom. The act of Japan at Pearl Harbor was intended to stun us--to terrify us to such an extent that we would divert our industrial and military strength to the Pacific area, or even to our own continental defense. The plan has failed in its purpose. We have not been stunned. We have not been terrified or confused. This very reassembling of the Seventy-seventh Congress today is proof of that; for the mood of quiet, grim resolution which here prevails bodes ill for those who conspired and collaborated to murder world peace. That mood is stronger than any mere desire for revenge. It expresses the will of the American people to make very certain that the world will never so suffer again. Admittedly, we have been faced with hard choices. It was bitter, for example, not to be able to relieve the heroic and historic defenders of Wake Island. It was bitter for us not to be able to land a million men in a thousand ships in the Philippine Islands. But this adds only to our determination to see to it that the Stars and Stripes will fly again over Wake and Guam. Yes, see to it that the brave people of the Philippines will be rid of Japanese imperialism, and will live in freedom, security, and independence. Powerful and offensive actions must and will be taken in proper time. The consolidation of the United Nations' total war effort against our common enemies is being achieved. That was and is the purpose of conferences which have been held during the past two weeks in Washington and Moscow and Chungking. That is the primary objective of the declaration of solidarity signed in Washington on January 1, 1942, by twenty-six nations united against the Axis powers. . . . Plans have been laid here and in the other capitals for coordinated and cooperative action by all the United Nations--military action and economic action. Already we have established, as you know, unified command of land, sea, and air forces in the southwestern Pacific theater of war. There will be a continuation of conferences and consultations among military staffs, so that the plans and operations of each will fit into the general strategy designed to crush the enemy. We shall not fight isolated wars--each nation going its own way. These twenty-six nations are united--not in spirit and determination alone, but in the broad conduct of the war in all its phases. For the first time since the Japanese and the Fascists and the Nazis started along their blood-stained course of conquest they now face the fact that superior forces are assembling against them. Gone forever are the days when the aggressors could attack and destroy their victims one by one without unity of resistance. We of the United Nations will so dispose our forces that we can strike at the common enemy wherever the greatest damage can be done him. The militarists of Berlin and Tokyo started this war. But the massed, angered forces of common humanity will finish it. Destruction of the material and spiritual centers of civilization--this has been and still is the purpose of Hitler and his Italian and Japanese chessmen. They would wreck the power of the British Commonwealth and Russia and China and the Netherlands--and then combine all their forces to achieve their ultimate goal, the conquest of the United States. They know that victory for us means victory for freedom. They know that victory for us means victory for the institution of democracy--the ideal of the family, the simple principles of common decency and humanity. They know that victory for us means victory for religion. And they could not tolerate that. The world is too small to provide adequate ``living room'' for both Hitler and God. In proof of that, the Nazis have now announced their plan for enforcing their new German, pagan religion all over the world--a plan by which the Holy Bible and the Cross of Mercy would be displaced by Mein Kampf and the swastika and the naked sword. Our own objectives are clear; the objective of smashing the militarism imposed by warlords upon their enslaved peoples-- the objective of liberating the subjugated nations--the objective of establishing and securing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear everywhere in the world. We shall not stop short of these objectives, nor shall we be satisfied merely to gain them and then call it a day. I know that I speak for the American people--and I have good reason to believe that I speak also for all the other peoples who fight with us--when I say that this time we are determined not only to win the war, but also to maintain the security of the peace that will follow. . . . The superiority of the United Nations in munitions and ships must be overwhelming--so overwhelming that the Axis nations can never hope to catch up with it. And so, in order to attain this overwhelming superiority the United States must build planes and tanks and guns and ships to the utmost limit of our national capacity. We have the ability and capacity to produce arms not only for our own forces, but also for the armies, navies, and air forces fighting on our side. And our overwhelming superiority of armament must be adequate to put weapons of war at the proper time into the hands of those men in the conquered nations who stand ready to seize the first opportunity to revolt against their German and Japanese oppressors, and against the traitors in their own ranks, known by the already infamous name of Quislings. And I think that it is a fair prophecy to say that, as we get guns to the patriots in those lands, they too will fire shots heard 'round the world. This production of ours in the United States must be raised far above present levels, even though it will mean the dislocation of the lives and occupations of millions of our own people. We must raise our sights all along the production line. Let no man say it cannot be done. It must be done--and we have undertaken to do it. . . . Our task is hard--our task is unprecedented--and the time is short. We must strain every existing armament-producing facility to the utmost. We must convert every available plant and tool to war production. That goes all the way from the greatest plants to the smallest--from the huge automobile industry to the village machine shop. Production for war is based on men and women--the human hands and brains which collectively we call Labor. Our workers stand ready to work long hours; to turn out more in a day's work; to keep the wheels turning and the fires burning twenty-four hours a day, and seven days a week. They realize well that on the speed and efficiency of their work depend the lives of their sons and their brothers on the fighting fronts. Production for war is based on metals and raw materials-- steel, copper, rubber, aluminum, zinc, tin. Greater and greater quantities of them will have to be diverted to war purposes: Civilian use of them will have to be cut further and still further--and, in many cases, completely eliminated. War costs money. So far, we have hardly even begun to pay for it. We have devoted only 15 percent of our national income to national defense. As will appear in my Budget Message tomorrow, our war program for the coming fiscal year will cost $56 billion or, in other words, more than half of the estimated annual national income. That means taxes and bonds and bonds and taxes. It means cutting luxuries and other nonessentials. In a word, it means an ``all-out'' war by individual effort and family effort in a united country. Only this all-out scale of production will hasten the ultimate all-out victory. Speed will count. Lost ground can always be regained--lost time never. Speed will save lives; speed will save this nation which is in peril; speed will save our freedom and our civilization--and slowness has never been an American characteristic. . . . We cannot wage this war in a defensive spirit. As our power and our resources are fully mobilized, we shall carry the attack against the enemy--we shall hit him and hit him again wherever and whenever we can reach him. We must keep him far from our shores, for we intend to bring this battle to him on his own home grounds. American armed forces must be used at any place in all the world where it seems advisable to engage the forces of the enemy. In some cases these operations will be defensive, in order to protect key positions. In other cases, these operations will be offensive, in order to strike at the common enemy, with a view to his complete encirclement and eventual total defeat. American armed forces will operate at many points in the Far East. American armed forces will be on all the oceans--helping to guard the essential communications which are vital to the United Nations. American land and air and sea forces will take stations in the British Isles--which constitute an essential fortress in this great world struggle. American armed forces will help to protect this hemisphere--and also help to protect bases outside this hemisphere, which could be used for an attack on the Americas. If any of our enemies, from Europe or from Asia, attempt long-range raids by ``suicide'' squadrons of bombing planes, they will do so only in the hope of terrorizing our people and disrupting our morale. Our people are not afraid of that. We know that we may have to pay a heavy price for freedom. We will pay this price with a will. Whatever the price, it is a thousand times worth it. No matter what our enemies, in their desperation, may attempt to do to us--we will say, as the people of London have said, ``We can take it.'' And what's more we can give it back--and we will give it back--with compound interest. . . . Many people ask, ``When will this war end?'' There is only one answer to that. It will end just as soon as we make it end, by our combined efforts, our combined strength, our combined determination to fight through and work through until the end--the end of militarism in Germany and Italy and Japan. Most certainly we shall not settle for less. That is the spirit in which discussions have been conducted during the visit of the British prime minister to Washington. Mr. Churchill and I understand each other, our motives, and our purposes. Together, during the past two weeks, we have faced squarely the major military and economic problems of this greatest world war. All in our nation have been cheered by Mr. Churchill's visit. We have been deeply stirred by his great message to us. He is welcome in our midst, and we unite in wishing him a safe return to his home. For we are fighting on the same side with the British people, who fought alone for long, terrible months, and withstood the enemy with fortitude and tenacity and skill. We are fighting on the same side with the Russian people who have seen the Nazi hordes swarm up to the very gates of Moscow, and who with almost superhuman will and courage have forced the invaders back into retreat. We are fighting on the same side as the brave people of China--those millions who for four and a half long years have withstood bombs and starvation and have whipped the invaders time and again in spite of the superior Japanese equipment and arms. Yes, we are fighting on the same side as the indomitable Dutch. We are fighting on the same side as all the other governments in exile, whom Hitler and all his armies and all his Gestapo have not been able to conquer. But we of the United Nations are not making all this sacrifice of human effort and human lives to return to the kind of world we had after the last world war. We are fighting today for security, for progress, and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all men, not only for one generation but for all generations. Weare fighting to cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills. Our enemies are guided by brutal cynicism, by unholy contempt for the human race. Weare inspired by a faith that goes back through all the years to the first chapter of the book of Genesis: ``God created man in His own image.'' We on our side are striving to be true to that divine heritage. We are fighting, as our fathers have fought, to uphold the doctrine that all men are equal in the sight of God. Those on the other side are striving to destroy this deep belief and to create a world in their own image--a world of tyranny and cruelty and serfdom. That is the conflict that day and night now pervades our lives. No compromise can end that conflict. There never has been--there never can be--successful compromise between good and evil. Only total victory can reward the champions of tolerance, and decency, and freedom, and faith.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge the 60th Anniversary of the Sgt. Stanley F. Romanowski Post 6896 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Westland, Michigan. On May 12, 1946, the founding members instituted this Post in the Gymnasium of Munger Intermediate School and dedicated its mission to serving the citizens of Wayne County, Michigan. Named after Sgt. Stanley F. Romanowski, a decorated soldier of World War II who gave his life for his country, the Romanowski Post 6896 courageously pays tribute to the deceased by helping the living. Each year, the 6896 members of the Romanowski Post 6896 launch charitable initiatives to assist the needy, aid the ill, support the students, and recognize the educators of our community. Among the many notable programs, these veterans host the Christmas Needy Basket Program, which provides food for underprivileged families; a Muscular Dystrophy Drive; a Diabetes Drive; a Cancer Drive; a $50,000 scholarship fund for students; and a Teacher of the Year program. In memory of Sgt. Romanowski's birthday, members hold an annual December memorial service in remembrance of United States fallen veterans. This summer, the Romanowski Post 6896 will also hold the first monthly memorial service at Westland City Hall dedicated to Prisoners of War, Soldiers Missing in Action, Blue Star Mothers, and Gold Star Mothers. These deeds serve as a constant reminder, to ensure that the bravery of our soldiers, the fragility of our needy, and the heroism of our fallen will not be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, in honor of their exemplary love for the United States and our citizens, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending these veterans for their bravery and in thanking the Romanowski Post 6896 for 60 years of loyal and unrelenting service to our community and our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge the 60th Anniversary of the Sgt. Stanley F. Romanowski Post 6896 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Westland, Michigan. On May 12, 1946, the founding members instituted this Post in the Gymnasium of Munger Intermediate School and dedicated its mission to serving the citizens of Wayne County, Michigan. Named after Sgt. Stanley F. Romanowski, a decorated soldier of World War II who gave his life for his country, the Romanowski Post 6896 courageously pays tribute to the deceased by helping the living. Each year, the 6896 members of the Romanowski Post 6896 launch charitable initiatives to assist the needy, aid the ill, support the students, and recognize the educators of our community. Among the many notable programs, these veterans host the Christmas Needy Basket Program, which provides food for underprivileged families; a Muscular Dystrophy Drive; a Diabetes Drive; a Cancer Drive; a $50,000 scholarship fund for students; and a Teacher of the Year program. In memory of Sgt. Romanowski's birthday, members hold an annual December memorial service in remembrance of United States fallen veterans. This summer, the Romanowski Post 6896 will also hold the first monthly memorial service at Westland City Hall dedicated to Prisoners of War, Soldiers Missing in Action, Blue Stars Mothers, and Gold Star Mothers. These deeds serve as a constant reminder, to ensure the bravery of our soldiers, the fragility of our needy, and the heroism of our fallen will not be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, in honor of his exemplary love for the United States and our citizens, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending these veterans for their bravery and in thanking the Romanowski Post 6896 for 60 years of loyal and unrelenting service to our community and our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, it seems that the debate is supposed to offer choices, and today the Republican Party of which I am a proud member offered a choice. We stood with the President of the United States as we extended the tax relief to prevent the largest tax increase in history on the American people, and yet tonight we cannot seem to draw a clear distinction, and not for lack of trying on our side. The reality is, with this budget that is before us for debate, is there are two fundamental premises which I think are not only flawed, but which will a aggrieve the American taxpayer when they find out what they are. The first is the concept of PAYGO. We have heard a lot of talk about that. PAYGO means that unless Washington stops spending your money, you continue to pay high taxes. I assure you that that will not be a benefit to you because you will get the short end of the stick. If the PAYGO provisions are not sufficient, we also see in the budget before us is the concept of the magic asterisk or the tax gap, whereby we will then be dependent upon the receipts of tax deadbeats to continue to spend money. We addressed the tax gap issue in the House Budget Committee by adopting an amendment I put forward with a couple of votes from the minority party which said that any tax gap or delinquent tax money that was recovered would be used for deficit reduction or debt elimination. What we see in the budget before us is that the money that is recovered from delinquent taxes under this will then instead be spent on new programs by the government. The reality, in my mind, remains quite simply this. If PAYGO does not prove successful, if the Washington politicians somehow continue to spend your money, which is their forte, you will receive no tax relief, and if that is not sufficient for you to feel disgruntled, the reality then becomes that you can have your tax relief held hostage by tax deadbeats, because the reality is, under this budget, you get no tax relief unless a tax deadbeat decides to pay, and that is wrong for the American public. That is simply unfair, and it is unfair not to give a clear choice, with the laudatory talk about tax and spend of the 1990s is insufficient for true debate.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and recognize the 50th anniversary of the Livonia Historical Society in Livonia, Michigan. For five decades, the Livonia Historical Society has worked to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of our community. Initially founded in 1956 by Gladys and Don Ryder in the Bentley High School library, the Livonia Historical Society serves as guardian over Livonia's original buildings, museums, and homes. The Livonia Historical Society's extraordinary accomplishments include preserving the Quaker House; and naming a library after prominent Livonia engineer Alfred Noble; and developing the 160-acre Greenmead historical village, which contains the 1820 estate of Joshua Simmons, an 1841 Greek Revival farmhouse, a one-room school house, and a generall store. Further, the Livonia Historical Society has collected and protected ancestral records and artifacts; educated the public about the history of Livonia; and held fundraisers to support restorative projects on Quaker Acres. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating my hometown's Livonia Historial Society for its first 50 years of noble civic service; and in extending our best wishes as they embark upon their next 50 years of preserving our community's uncommon legacy--and, in the process, selflessly affirming their own.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and recognize Joseph (Joe) F. Dunnabeck, Sr. as he celebrates the arrival of his 90th birthday, May 20, 2006. An adventurous and spirited leader, Joe dedicated his life to helping others. Joe and Lillian, his wife of 30 years, have led by example, spreading their ``no such thing as can't'' philosophy. With tireless effort, Joe served his Michigan community as a mechanic at the American Standard before retirement; and he still donates time to support the local Neighborhood Watch. A devout Catholic, Joe personifies the teachings of his church through fairness, humility, and love. His pure and adventurous spirit has challenged the boundaries of age with his legendary exploits of hang gliding, and riding in hot-air balloons and on air-boats. As he nears his ninth decade of life, Joe's kindheartedness and bravery continues to inspire and ennoble his family and friends. Mr. Speaker, in honor of his lifetime of benevolence and courage, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating Joe's birthday and thanking him for his contributions to our community and our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield so much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the sponsor of the resolution.

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 795) condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt, on April 24 and 26, 2006.

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

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 795. With this resolution, the House reflects on the recent bombings in the Sinai which cut short dozens of lives. We take this opportunity to share with our friends, the people of Egypt, our sorrow, our sympathy, and our determination to help Egypt defend itself against such attacks. The Egyptian people have been subject to terrorist attacks for many years; they have responded strongly and generally effectively. While there were several successful attacks during 2005, there were also antiterrorism successes. According to the State Department's ``Country Report on Terrorism,'' two attempts to target tourists in Cairo were thwarted by Egyptian authorities. Nevertheless, because the Egyptian economy relies so strongly on tourism, each incident has an effect that is magnified for the country and has an impact that goes beyond the personal tragedies of those who are killed and injured. Anyone who has had the opportunity to visit Egypt will have experienced the gracious hospitality for which Egyptians are famous. It is a terrible shame that the Egyptians in the tourism sector, many of whom are economically deprived, must bear the burden of the vicious terrorist strikes. Mr. Speaker, Egypt and the United States have a good level of antiterrorism cooperation. I hope that the combined antiterrorism efforts of Egypt and the United States will continue to bear fruit. We must continue to work together. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by quoting the statement of the Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, on April 4, 2006: ``The United States condemns the vicious terrorist bombings in Dahab, Egypt today. We extend our deepest sympathies to those injured by this attack and to the families and loved ones of those killed. There could be no justification for this barbaric act of terrorism. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Egypt at this time of grief. We have been in contact with the Egyptian Government to extend our condolences and to offer whatever assistance they may need. We will support our Egyptian friends in their commitment to fight terror and to bring justice to those who are responsible for this crime.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I would have recognized the work and dedication of a special constituent from Michigan's 11th District on Sunday. However, she was away from home. I would like to thank Georgia Joan McCotter, a mother, for a lifetime of trying to make sure that her two sons, Thaddeus and Dennis, were raised to be good and decent people. Although she fully succeeded in my brother's case, I would like to assure her that I am still trying, but that the love in my heart for her will never diminish over time. So, to her belatedly, if you are home, if you are listening, Happy Mother's Day.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 499) condemning the murder of American journalist Paul Klebnikov on July 9, 2004, in Moscow and the murders of other members of the media in the Russian Federation, as amended.

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 499, a resolution that condemns the murder of American journalist Paul Klebnikov in Moscow and the murder of other members of the media in the Russian Federation. H. Res. 499 was a product which I introduced, and I commend and thank the chairman of the Europe and Emerging Threats Subcommittee, Mr. Gallegly, and, of course, the chairman of the committee, Chairman Hyde, for all of their help with this legislation, as well as all of my colleagues on the International Relations Committee, and not surprisingly, I strongly urge its passage. On July 9, 2004, Paul Klebnikov, the editor-in-chief of the Russian edition of Forbes Magazine, was shot 10 times outside his office building in Moscow. He left behind a wife and three young children. As part of his work, Mr. Klebnikov had developed into one of the foremost experts on the intersection between organized crime, politics, law enforcement and big business in Russia. Unfortunately, the murder of Paul Klebnikov is not an isolated attack on members of the press. In the past 6 years alone, 12 journalists have been murdered in the Russian Federation. H. Res. 499 condemns this brutal murder, as well as the murder of other members of the Russian media. While applauding the work of the Russian prosecutor general's office for its ongoing investigation, the legislation urges the Government of Russia to continue its inquiry and bring to justice all parties involved in this horrific crime. It also calls upon Russia to accept offers of assistance from the United States and other rightly concerned governments. Finally, H. Res. 499 commends Russian-based journalists for their courageous dedication to transparency and the truth and urges the Russian Government to take appropriate action to protect the independence and freedom of members of the press working and living in Russia. H. Res. 499 was approved both by the Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging Threats and the full International Relations Committee. Mr. Speaker, it is often wondered why in the United States our Constitution refers to freedom of speech rather than freedom of conscience. It is because the founders of this country and the framers of our Constitution understood that there can be no freedom of conscience where there is not freedom of speech to express it. What the Founding Fathers knew has been perverted by many who would enslave and subjugate their fellow human beings, which is why we in the United States who enjoy a freedom of speech and its concomitant freedom of conscience must be ever alert to ensure that the watchdogs of liberty, a free and unfettered press, are forever protected from intimidation or extermination at the hands of dictators. Again, I would like to thank my colleagues on the International Relations Committee, and I would like to urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wish to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), and of course, the ranking member of the International Relations Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who has been a staunch opponent of totalitarianism and a champion of freedom in this institution for decades. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCOTTER

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

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 740) calling on the Government of the United Kingdom to immediately establish a full, independent, public judicial inquiry into the murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Pat Finucane, as recommended by international Judge Peter Cory as part of the Weston Park agreement and a way forward for the Northern Ireland Peace Process, as amended.

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

Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 740. I thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his leadership on human rights matters worldwide and for offering this important legislation regarding human rights in Northern Ireland. Last month, on April 4, 2006, we voted nearly unanimously, 399-1, for H. Res. 744, that important resolution sponsored by the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde, expressed our support for the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 as the blueprint for lasting peace in Northern Ireland, and support for continued police reforms in Northern Ireland as a critical element in the peace process. U.S. support was crucial to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement signed 8 years ago, and our support continues to be vital. H. Res. 744 rightly commended the progress which has been made in Northern Ireland. As a result of the Good Friday Agreement, there is a new Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI. Under the leadership of Chief Constable Hugh S. Orde, the PSNI has made giant strides toward fair and nonsectarian policing. There is a vigorous and fiercely independent Police Ombudsman's Office, whose chief, Nuala O'Loane, has been a catalyst for reform. There is now a policing board in Northern Ireland composed of independent and party representatives designed to provide civilian control and fair nonsectarian policing. There is a new historical inquiries team established by Chief Constable Orde which will provide a thorough and independent examination of unresolved deaths that occurred in connection with the Troubles from 1968 to 1989. But H. Res. 740, which we shall vote on today, is the indispensable companion of Mr. Hyde's H. Res. 744. Even with all the improvements I have noted in policing, Madam Speaker, significant further work remains to be done in order to ensure acceptance by all communities of the Police Service in Northern Ireland. A key stumbling block to that greater acceptance has been the lack of resolution of charges of official collusion in the murder of human rights lawyer Patrick Finucane, who was gunned down in front of his home in front of his wife and three small children in 1989. Pat Finucane was not only a courageous human rights activist and loving father and husband, he is also a symbol of the horrible culture of official collusion and terrorism and crime in Northern Ireland. Resolving the question surrounding his murder will help to put an end to that culture once and for all and allow Northern Ireland's still fragile peace to flourish in a new atmosphere of trust. We have twice gone on record supporting establishment of a public independent judicial inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane. In 1999, we adopted House Resolution 128 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) which condemned the murder of attorney Rosemary Nelson and requested a public inquiry into the Finucane murder. In 2003, Congress passed and the President signed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which included a provision offered by the gentleman from New Jersey supporting public judicial inquiries into the murders of both Rosemary Nelson and Patrick Finucane. We have moved the issue towards resolution, but we are not there yet. In 2001, the British and Irish governments jointly appointed Judge Peter Cory, a preeminent retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, to determine whether independent commissions should investigate possible state-sponsored collusion in six notorious and horrific murders. They also pledged to abide by his recommendations. In 2004, Judge Cory issued his report, yet the British Government still has not appointed an inquiry commission into the murder of Patrick Finucane. Our colleague, Chris Smith, who could not be here today as he attends the funeral of Congressman Sonny Montgomery, has chaired numerous hearings on human rights and police reform in Northern Ireland since 1997, and in every one the issue of state-sponsored collusion in the Finucane murder has been central, yet still nothing has been done. On March 8, the Irish Parliament passed an all-part motion fully supported by the Irish Government calling on the U.K. to immediately establish ``a full independent public judicial inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane as recommended by Judge Cory, which would enjoy the full cooperation of the family and the wider community throughout Ireland and abroad.'' The U.K. Government must find a way to institute a credible inquiry which would be accepted by all: by Judge Cory, the Irish public, by the world community, and, most of all, by the Finucane family. I commend my colleagues Chris Smith, Elton Gallegly, Peter King, Jim Walsh, Richard Neal, Don Payne, and Tom Lantos for their work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Robert A. DeMattia upon his nomination to the Plymouth Community Hall of Fame. DeMattia's tireless efforts on behalf of the people of Plymouth have brought him this well deserved recognition. Demonstrating his entrepreneurial acumen, DeMattia founded the DeMattia Group in 1978. The DeMattia Group has been involved in pioneering commercial and industrial business park development. By his design, development, and construction, DeMattia has been involved in creating hundreds of facilities in Plymouth Township. Mr. DeMattia's vision and leadership have helped lead Plymouth into a prosperous future. Of equal import and impact are Mr. DeMattia's philanthropic efforts. Whether assisting with our local parks or working on the behalf of children through the Plymouth Kiwanis Club, DeMattia has donated his time and efforts to enrich the lives of others. Let us, then, commend Mr. DeMattia for his contributions to our community and his induction into the Plymouth Community Hall of Fame.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements and mourn the passing of Eileen Toy, born August 28, 1928. For more than four decades, Eileen worked to improve the Michigan communities in which she lived. With her husband, Glen Toy of the Livonia Police Department, Eileen moved to Livonia, Michigan, during the 1950's. After graduating with honors from the University of Michigan with a Bachelors degree in Education, Eileen earned a Masters in Education Management degree from Eastern Michigan University. She went on to serve in the Wayne-Westland Community schools as a teacher and an administrator. Eileen is remembered as a confidant to her friends, an inspiration to her students, and caregiver to her children, Laura, Glen, Carol, and Bruce. Her biting sense of humor, brilliance, and quick-wit will sorely be missed, Mr. Speaker, during her 77 years, Eileen Toy has enriched the lives of people around her. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning her passing and remembering her contributions to our community and our country.

Mr. McCOTTER

Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate James Vermeulen, Sr. upon his nomination to the Plymouth Community Hall of Fame. Having served as President of the Plymouth Kiwanis Club, and currently serving as a Kiwanis Foundation board member, Vermeulen has striven to help children. But he has done much more. Vermeulen has held the post of Director for the Salvation Army, in which capacity he has endeavored to assist all who are less fortunate than he. Indeed, every December, Vermeulen is instrumental in raising money through the Salvation Army's bell-ringing project. Whether serving with the Kiwanis Club, Salvation Army, or simply helping a neighbor in need, Vermeulen has demonstrated exemplary compassion and leadership. Let us commend James Vermeulen, Sr. for his dedication to bettering our community and our country, and for his induction into the Plymouth Community Hall of Fame.