Jim Ryun

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, $164 billion of new Federal spending took place between 2001 and 2003, unrelated to defense and the events of 9/11. We are borrowing to spend, and we need to bring spending under control or we put future generations, our children and grandchildren, at risk with no hope of paying off this debt. We demonstrated that in 1998 with the balanced budget showing fiscal responsibility, but years of surpluses has sparked a spending spree that does not stop when the money runs out. Alan Greenspan warned Congress that we must restrain spending. He said this last summer: ``I would like to see the restoration of PAYGO and discretionary caps which essentially will restrain the expanse of the deficit and indeed ultimately contain it.'' I urge my colleagues to heed Greenspan's remarks and to have the opportunity to reign in spending and update the budget process.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, the oath of allegiance has served as the gateway to American citizenship for over 200 years. When immigrants speak its forceful words, they pledge their unfettered allegiance to America, to the Constitution, and to our laws. This important symbol of American citizenship is not specified by law, however; and it can be changed on the whim of a government agency. In fact, such a change has recently been attempted and would transform the absolute commitment to our Constitution into a conditional statement, thereby weakening our citizenship. The proposed changes would eliminate certain forceful words and phrases, substantially weakening the charge to uphold and be faithful to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Specifically, it eliminates the call to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. In addition, the oath of allegiance currently calls on Americans to renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty while the proposed oath renounces allegiance only to foreign states. We should continue to welcome legal immigrants into our country. Yet as we continue to fight the war on terror, we must maintain a forceful and uncompromising oath of allegiance. Many of our terror threats are not from organized geopolitical states, but rather from groups like al Qaeda led by the likes of Osama bin Laden. On March 11 in Madrid, we were reminded of the very real presence of organized, nonstate- sponsored terrorism aimed at the United States and our allies who are committed to eliminating global terrorism. The threat of terror and the attempts to infiltrate American society have not passed, nor has the need for a strong renunciation against any foreign sovereignty. Now is not the time to water down the words of commitment necessary to becoming a citizen of the United States. That is why I am offering this amendment, which would restrict the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from using funds to change the oath of allegiance. Throughout our history, our Nation has been strengthened by immigrants who came here to pursue the American dream. Keeping the strong, meaningful text of the oath would remind all Americans that pursuing that dream also requires a full-time commitment to citizenship, a commitment not unlike what Thomas Paine once called the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot, that shrank from the service of his country in times of crisis. The oath should continue to support freedom, democracy, and our constitutional rights. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Kentucky if he has any reservation about my amendment.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, establishing a sound energy policy for America's future includes reducing our dependency on foreign oil and preserving the environment. While many argue that these two goals conflict with each other, I do not believe this to be true. That is why I am calling for the increased production and availability of ethanol. The increased use of ethanol would clearly reduce America's dependency on foreign oil, and it would also provide consumers with a fuel that burns much cleaner than traditional gasoline. Another benefit of ethanol is the economic potential it holds for corn-producing States like Kansas. Increased ethanol use would provide additional market capacity for farmers. However, the economic impact is not limited to Midwestern States. Supplementing the gasoline supply with ethanol has the potential to provide much-needed relief for prices at the pump across this Nation. In short, increased use of ethanol would bolster our national security, bolster our economy, and benefit our environment.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, there are few leaders who we can look to who truly embody the characteristics of what a leader should be. Ronald Reagan embodied them all. He was a man of principle; he was a man of action. Unlike many who just talk about their convictions, he was a man who acted upon them. As a man of deep faith, he brought conviction to the presidency, knowing what he believed and why he believed it. Yes, he was ``Mr. President;'' and indeed a role model, a man of conviction and courage. He once said, ``A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough.'' It was this conviction and courage that enabled him to lead the world out of the Cold War into an age when communism no longer thrived. As he put it, ``We did not seek the role of leadership that has been thrust upon us. But whether we like it or not, the events of our time demand America's participation.'' My wife Anne and I had the privilege of meeting President Reagan at the White House for a St. Patrick's Day event in 1982. As we chatted for a few minutes, I remember being in the presence of someone great. I told him that we were praying for him. He shook my hand, and in a genuine, soft-spoken voice, he thanked us. His convictions guided him on social issues as well. In 1983, on the tenth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he wrote a 9 page article to the American people laying out his opposition to the abominable practice of abortion. In it he wrote: ``We cannot thrive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion and infanticide. My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.'' Our founders believed in the idea of America. It was an idea of freedom and justice for all. Reagan believed in America, and, more significantly, he believed in the American people. Rather than simply imposing his principles upon others, he redefined the mainstream by giving them something to believe in. It was this quality of principled, caring leadership that inspired many, including me, to act upon our convictions, believing that the American way was just and right. As we mourn the passing of our 40th President, we must not allow his legacy to die with him. His legacy is a continued belief in the idea of America. To carry it on, we must not only look to what has been, but we must look forward to what will be. Because of the work of Ronald Reagan, the idea has prevailed. It is up to us to ensure that we continue his optimism for the future. President Reagan left us a legacy to uphold.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 28) recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Allied landing at Normandy during World War II.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S.J. Res. 28.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago this month, on June 6, 1944, Allied airborne and seaborne forces invaded Normandy, France, at the start of Operation Overlord. On that first day, more than 150,000 Allied military personnel came ashore and over 6,500 American troops became casualties. Leading the overall Allied effort in what he would describe as a ``Crusade in Europe'' was a Kansas native, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Among the first wave of soldiers on June 6 to storm ashore into the devastating fires of the German defenses were soldiers of the 1st Infantry Division, a proud Army unit with long-standing ties to Fort Riley, Kansas, which I am privileged to represent. By the end of the ``Crusade in Europe,'' the 1st Division, also known as the Big Red One, had suffered more than 21,000 casualties among the nearly 44,000 men who had served in its ranks. Sixteen of its soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor. The division's motto exemplified its service: ``No mission too difficult, no sacrifice too great. Duty first.'' Mr. Speaker, this resolution properly honors the valor and sacrifices of our fellow countrymen who 60 years ago answered the call to duty and fought to restore freedom and human dignity to millions of people. This resolution should also remind us, Mr. Speaker, that today many tens of thousands of American military men and women are fighting a global war on terrorism. In the process, they are again answering the same call to duty as the men of D-Day. While the places and enemies have changed, the objective has not. They fight today to protect America and to restore freedom and human dignity to millions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It truly is a recognition and celebration of the brave deeds by bold men who earned a rightful place in American history over 60 years ago in the landing zones, beaches and battlefields of Normandy. But as we celebrate their achievements, let us not forget that bold brave men and women continue to serve this Nation admirably around the world. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``yes'' vote as a fitting honor for today's heroes.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers; however, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. In closing, I think this is a fitting tribute to the brave men who 60 years ago stormed the sandy beaches of Normandy, risking all, so that we might enjoy the freedoms that we have become accustomed to. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, a fitting honor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank my colleague the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) for her help in cosponsoring this amendment and her continuing efforts to seek a peaceful and stable Pacific Rim. I also want to thank the DOD for their support of this amendment. Taiwan is facing a very difficult situation. With a clear and rapidly modernizing threat across the straits, I am concerned that Taiwan is increasingly unable to provide a credible deterrent. Unfortunately, this is due, in part, to current U.S. policy. Although Taiwan has access to U.S. military hardware, it faces two substantial hurdles in being defensively self-sufficient. Taiwan has difficulties integrating these new systems into its current forces, and Taiwan has difficulties prioritizing its own defense needs. Senior officer/official educational exchanges would help fix both problems. This amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to initiate these senior officer/official educational exchanges with Taiwan. To be held both in the United States and Taiwan, these programs would focus on antisubmarine warfare, ballistic missile defense and C4ISR improvements, the three fields the U.S. Department of Defense says Taiwan needs the most assistance. At the same time, this amendment would provide the Secretary discretion on whom to send to Taiwan and under what circumstances. Currently, the Department of Defense is prohibited from sending to Taiwan general officers and DOD officials at the deputy assistant level or above. I understand that this is a unique restriction placed only on Taiwan. This restriction is even more surprising, given that Taiwan is one of our democratic allies. Our commitment to ensuring a peaceful resolution between China and Taiwan must not be just talk. By allowing senior military officers/ officials exchanges, we will be encouraging greater Taiwanese self- sufficiency and provide for greater political stability across the Straits. I ask support for Taiwan through the support of the Ryun-Bordallo amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would say DOD strongly supports this. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and in conclusion, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Our military installations should be there to save lives. Doctors have signed up to save lives, not take lives, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the Davis amendment.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to the Davis amendment. This amendment would simply turn our military hospitals overseas into abortion clinics by allowing self-funded abortions. Currently, self- funded abortions are already available in these institutions when the life of the mother is in danger and when the pregnancy is as a result of rape or incest. There is no demonstrated need for expanding abortion access. This amendment does not seek to address an operational requirement or ensure access to an entitlement. It is simply aimed at introducing this very contentious and divisive issue into the defense authorization process. Proponents of this amendment often claim that female service members and dependents overseas are denied equal access to health care, effectively putting their life and health in harm's way. Simply wrong. If a woman chooses to have an abortion at an abortion clinic, they are accessible overseas. If a woman prefers to have an abortion in the United States, that is available to her under current law. Although this amendment is presented by the other side as providing for solely self-funded abortions, the fact is the American taxpayer will be forced to pay for the use of the military facility, the procurement of additional equipment needed to perform abortions, and the use of military personnel to perform abortions. Military doctors did not sign up to end a baby's life. They joined up to save the lives of servicemen and women. It would be wrong for Congress to force these doctors to perform a procedure that many may feel morally objectionable. I ask my colleagues to vote against the turning of our military hospitals into abortion clinics and to vote against the Davis amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), my colleague on the Committee on Armed Services. (Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides and who has the right to close?

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the month of May as Better Hearing and Speech Month. I am one of 2 million Americans who have experienced a hearing loss personally, but my hearing loss was the result of a birth defect as an illness that took place early in my life, and there are many who need help as a result of this. Today, we are exposed to harmful levels of toxic noise in our environment and must be aware of these harmful sounds and do our best to protect ourselves from them so that we can avoid problems in the future. One-third of our seniors have hearing loss. Eighty percent of these seniors have not sought treatment, and 75 percent of those needing hearing aids do not have them. Left untreated, hearing loss leads to isolation, depression, and dangerous situations. I introduced the Hearing Health Accessibility Act, H.R. 2821, to give seniors direct access to audiologists under Medicare. This would provide effective care for our seniors with hearing loss because hearing aids are expensive, and most insurance companies do not cover them. I have also introduced the Hearing Aid Assistance Tax Credit, H.R. 3103. This $500 tax credit would be available once every 5 years to children and those over 55. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor these initiatives.