Ed Schrock

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. I think the morale is very, very good; and I think I have something to compare it with. I was privileged to serve my country in Vietnam for a couple of years, so I know what good morale is and what it is not. I think the morale of these young men is far better than it ever was when I was in Vietnam. Because, frankly, this President made it very clear what the mission was and what the end game was. When we send people in there knowing that is what they need to do and they need to get it done fairly quickly, people will serve and serve very well; and they will be enthusiastic about it. We did not do that in Vietnam. We played a limited war game in Vietnam, and we were never in there to win. This President is in there to win the war on terror. Because if we do not, it will be spread not only to the countries of the Middle East but everywhere and right here on our soil. And, frankly, I would rather fight it on their soil than have to fight it here at some point.

Mr. SCHROCK. And, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of our House Committee on Armed Services is absolutely right. And if, in fact, he witnessed those sorts of events and did not try to do anything about that, then shame on him. He should have. Where I was in Vietnam, I never experienced people who acted like that, and I do not think we have men and women in Iraq doing that now. They are there to do their duty. They are not engaged in all those other activities he accused others of doing in Vietnam, and I think that is a sad commentary.

Mr. SCHROCK. That is right. And I was part of Operation New Life when I was stationed on Guam. We had 130,000 refugees come on packed boats so they could get out of there and come to a better life. So, believe me, they wanted to get out of there just as the Iraqis want the freedom we are giving them. One thing many Iraqis told me when I was there was, please do not cut and run, because we had had such a habit of doing that. They were afraid they would start supporting our efforts to free them and we would back away and they would have to pay the penalty. But this President is determined to get this thing done and get it done right, and he is not going to cut and run. We have to stay the course as long as it takes.

Mr. SCHROCK. Stay steady.

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I really thank the gentleman from California for his leadership. I hope the people in California's 52nd District realize how fortunate they are to have a man of his caliber representing them back here at this particular time in our history. The gentleman understands it better than most because he is the parent of one of these men that is involved in this battle. And there is nothing like that to make one realize exactly what is important. So to the gentleman and his wife, Lynn, we thank them; and we are sure Duncan will come home very safely and very soon.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in open opposition to this Democratic substitute, and I promise you I will not scream as I get my message across. Not only does this budget raise taxes for small businesses and working families, but it also increases overall spending and cuts important funding for homeland security. Raising taxes and increasing the deficit is no way to ensure economic recovery. This substitute budget will raise taxes on small businesses and kill job growth. This substitute increases taxes overall, and does away with tax relief for middle-income working families. As a result, this substitute can lead to tax increases on families claiming the child tax credit, increases in the marriage tax penalty and also increased taxes for those in the 10 percent, I repeat, 10 percent tax bracket. I oppose any budget today that will raise the taxes on our working families and small businesses, period. In Hampton Roads, where I live, we are leading Virginia in job growth because of tax relief and because of other policies that help our working families and small businesses. These tax increases are job killers, and that is all it is. As if increasing taxes is not bad enough, this Democratic budget also raises spending. We heard the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) say it best: How can you speak out against the Federal deficit one minute, and then vote for irresponsible spending increases the next? This is just plain wrong. This substitute increases spending by $21.6 billion next year in 2005 and by $135 billion over the next 5 years. In this time of fighting a war on terrorism and stimulating economic recovery, the Democrats not only want to raise taxes on all Americans and increase wasteful spending, but they also want to cut money for national security. This hurts homeland security by cutting money to law enforcement by $2.9 billion over the next 5 years. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford this budget. America cannot afford to return to the days of high taxes, irresponsible government spending, and poor funding of national security. We are finally recovering from the consequences of their economic plan, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible, politically motivated substitute.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, let me set the record straight. I heard the gentleman from Virginia a few minutes ago who said he represented the port of Hampton Roads. Until that time, I thought I did, and my constituents think I do, and the fact is, I do. So let me set the record straight on port security. I served in the Navy for 24 years; I think I know a little bit about this. As part of our commitment to homeland defense and security, this Republican budget reflects our serious commitment to port security. It provides $1.9 billion for the Department of Homeland Security-wide port security efforts, an increase of 13 percent, or $224 million over 2004, and 628 percent or $1.6 billion over 2001; and they call that a cut. These funds include $102 million for the Coast Guard to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, which sets security standards for certain vessels, port facilities, and critical offshore platforms. This budget also funds $6.6 billion to maintain and enhance border security activities, a 7 percent or $447 million increase over 2004, and a 70 percent or $2.7 billion increase over 2001, and they call that a cut. This budget funds a number of programs specifically tailored to improve port security. We provide $102 million for implementation of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. This initiative will enable the Coast Guard to develop, review, and approve vessel and facility security plans, ensure foreign vessels are meeting security standards, enhance its intelligence capability, and provide underwater detection capability to maritime safety and security teams. This budget provides for the upgrading of Coast Guard ships and technology, including support for the Coast Guard's integrated deepwater system acquisition program, which is systematically replacing the Coast Guard's aging fleet of vessels, aircraft, and command and control systems, and they call that a cut. We fund Deepwater at $678 million, an increase of $10 million over 2004 levels, and they call that a cut. This budget also provides funds to improve information and intelligence. We fund the Coast Guard's maritime domain awareness programs, which will help us better understand what transits through or near our Nation's waters, and they call that a cut. Regulations require certain commercial vessels to install automatic identification systems by the end of 2004. These devices will broadcast certain vessel information that helps identify and locate vessels in the maritime domain. The Coast Guard established COASTWATCH, a process through which the intelligence community analyzes all-source information and intelligence on ships, crew, and cargo to identify threats. We also fund the container security initiative that allows the Department of Homeland Security to prescreen cargo before it reaches U.S. shores, and they call that a cut. This budget allows an increase of $25 million over 2004 funding levels. These funds will support CSI expansion into additional high- volume ports. This they call a cut. Finally, the Republican budget provides $50 million for the next generation of radiation screening devices used to screen passengers and cargo coming into the U.S. Mr. Chairman, we need to continue to secure our ports. We can only do this by approving this budget.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, l am pleased to share the following article written by a constituent, Rabbi Israel Zoberman. The recent bus #19 suicide bombing in the heart of Jerusalem with its heavy toll found me in Israel's capital during a solidarity mission of my Reform Jewish movement. I passed by that doomed site, near another past one, only hours before the latest of incredible serial terrorist attacks in the three and a half years of the bloody Second Intifada. Once again violating Jerusalem where Biblical Abraham proclaimed the sanctity of human life in the midst of a paganism now being resurrected by its contemporary messengers of death who should not be allowed by the civilized world to reverse Abraham's victory. Let what just ghastly happened, newly available on Israel's Foreign Ministry website for a reality check not become an added statistic! Upon arriving in my parents' home in Haifa on that hellish day, I found them anxious, even panicky, already having called hospitals in Jerusalem looking for me . . . I thus experienced a bit the anguish encountered by Israelis, without parallel, with Holocaust survivors like my parents whose constant exposure to trauma may reawaken repressed carnage images. The timing of the deadly Palestinian violence with both Arafat's forces and Hamas competing to claim responsibility, purposefully coincided with exchanging only four Israelis, three of them in coffins, and promised information on the fate of Israeli navigator Ron Arad, captured 17 years ago, in return for hundreds of Hizballah terrorists. Of the three killed Israeli soldiers, Benny Avraham, Adi Avitan and Omar Suad, whose fate was cynically manipulated by the Hizballah to inflict pain upon their families, the first one was connected to Tidewater Jewry through a joint communal program. Israel has proved again, with Prime Minister Sharon's guiding input, that for humanitarian values' sake, sorely lacking by its enemy, it is willing to pay a high price though it might be interpreted as a weakness. Is it any wonder that without a credible peace partner and unwilling to respond in kind, Israel is forced to erect a costly security separation fence to save innocent lives? The fence, which our group observed for miles, is not necessarily permanent and can be adjusted. Some resulted Palestinian hardship has to be weighed against penetrating terror. It is the least Israel can do in face of relentless terrorism, experienced by the United States' heroic troops in Iraq as well, while questionably restraining itself to the very limits from using its superior military power. A state's obligation for self- defense is no less incumbent upon Israel whose national morale and very way of life are threatened. In spite of Sharon's uncharacteristic dovishness, at the moving state welcoming ceremony for the fallen soldiers he referred to unspecified options in Israel's arsenal. His announced intent, tantamount to an earthquake, to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip reflects Sharon's commitment to peace even in the face of painful sacrifices, opposition within his own political camp, expected resistance, and increased threats on his life. Will the Palestinian Authority finally respond by halting terror in compliance of President Bush's Roadmap? General Shlomo Gazit, former director of Military Intelligence and fellow at the Jaffe Strategic Center at Tel Aviv University, who addressed us, justified the fence as a security need, refusing to call it a wall. He urges economic and demographic separation from the West Bank to safeguard Israel as a Jewish and democratic entity. Both the reserve General and former Minister Michael Melchior who serves in Israel's parliament as chair of Diaspora Affairs, view the American war in Iraq to have a transforming impact on the unstable Middle East, sending a clear moderating message to the Arabs. Gazit was optimistic that the ultimate resolution of Israeli-Palestinian conflict has begun. He and Melchior stressed building bridges to Israel's own Arab minority, attending to its special needs with the hope to draw the two essential partners closer. Otherwise Israel's security is at risk. I watched Jewish kids purchase with their moms costumes for the joyous Purim holiday and Arab families celebrating the Eid. For the sake of their inevitable shared future and that of their own children, may these parents find a way to each other's hearts. Perhaps, Israeli Arabs will yet be a bridge of shalom to the larger Arab world. Rabbi Israel Zoberman, spiritual leader of Congregation Beth Chaverim in Virginia Beach, was born in Kazakhstan and grew up in Haifa, Israel.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1895) to temporarily extend the programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 through March 15, 2004, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I recently joined 10 other Members of Congress to visit our troops and those working to restore peace to Iraq. What I saw there was absolutely amazing. There are many good and positive changes occurring in Iraq almost daily. The most remarkable and appreciated fact is the fact that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. He clearly made the Iraqi people live in horrible fear. Five miles from the historic city of Babylon we visited one of the 59 mass graves which has been discovered, which contained the remains of 3,000 Iraqis. To date, 2,100 have been identified and returned to their families for burial. There are still 900 unclaimed bodies in clear view of where we stood which await identification and a proper burial by their families. There are a total of 300,000 missing Iraqis. With each new discovery of another mass grave, that number shrinks, bringing closure to many families. The bright spot in this bleak description are the men and women in our military who not only liberated Iraq, but work every single day to bring peace and prosperity to this deserving country. Our men and women have repaired the power system so now light and air conditioning abound throughout Iraq. The sanitation and water systems that were in total disarray just 3 months ago are becoming more and more operational each and every day. Our men and women in uniform are reopening schools so all Iraqi children can attend school. Our troops have rebuilt and reopened the police academy in Baghdad so the Iraqis can be trained to provide for their own safety and their own security. Everyone in America should be proud of what our troops are doing there. They are the best, and there are none better anywhere in the world. They do their jobs in intense heat under the most difficult circumstances, and they do it because it is the right thing to do; and they will tell you that as well. Every Iraqi we talked to thanked us and told us to thank President Bush when we saw him next. To a person, they all begged us not to leave their country too early. That is their greatest fear, the fear that we will cut and run. This $87 billion supplemental is a tremendous investment in our future security. It will sustain our military forces in the war on terrorism and invest in the future of Iraq and, consequently, the future stability of the entire Middle East. The stakes are too high for us to fail. Remember, only $20.3 billion of the supplemental spending request is for Iraq. It seems that the 10 Democratic Presidential nominees have either failed to look at the details of the President's proposal, or they are purposely misleading the American people into thinking all $87 billion is for the reconstruction in Iraq. Only $20.3 billion is for Iraq. The rest is to support our military in the war on terrorism. The Vice President has said that in no way, shape or form will funds provided by the United States be used to pay foreign debts from the Saddam Hussein era in Iraq. The Iraqi Governing Council has asked the World Bank to assist in developing a proper accounting of their foreign debt. It is estimated to be about $120 billion. The Governing Council feels strongly that governments that knowingly lend money to a sadistic dictator such as Saddam Hussein to buy weapons and oppress his people do not deserve to have that money paid back. There are key members of the Iraqi Governing Council who propose to repudiate all foreign debt from that era since that money was used to buy weapons and oppress the Iraqi people, and we should strongly support that policy. We must continue to encourage the development of functioning local institutions in Iraq, not dependency on foreign administrators. This will take time and persistence. To transfer power before governmental institutions have properly developed would be reckless and dangerous. What matters most in developing states such as Iraq is leaders and law, not aid. The Iraqi Governing Council is committed to developing a constitution that creates a secular, democratic, strong federal government which embodies principles of equality for all Iraqis. They have already passed some of the most progressive laws in the Middle East in terms of encouraging foreign investment, allowing for dual citizenship, and establishing income and corporate tax structures, but it is too early to turn over control completely to the Iraqis. In the short term, we must continue to increase the level of involvement of the Iraqi people in three key areas: security, control of money raised by oil revenues, and empowering them to represent themselves in world forums, such as OPEC and the United Nations. We will retain control of the funding that is provided in the supplemental. We have made unprecedented progress, and we must continue to be patient and stay the course. There are many examples of our success to date. Approximately 5,000 small businesses have opened in Iraq since May 1, and an Iraqi central bank has been established. This took 3 years in postwar Germany. Almost all major hospitals and universities have been reopened, and hundreds of secondary schools will start school this fall. An Iraqi Governing Council has been formed and appointed a cabinet of ministers. This took 14 months in postwar Germany. A 56,000 person security force has been armed and trained, and is contributing to Iraqi security. This took 14 months in postwar Germany. There is still a tremendous security challenge, but more troops are not the answer. The Iraqis are eager to be responsible for their own security. Once the coalition trains Iraqis to be responsible for the governance and security of their own country, then we will be able to leave. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) on a fantastic op-ed piece that he wrote, which ran in today's Washington Post. The gentleman emphasized that the version of events that we see each day on the news is distorted and heavily skewed towards destruction and death and not the birth of a new nation that is taking place. I want to quote from Jim's op-ed. ``We not only need Iraqi tips and intelligence, we need Iraqis fighting by our side and eventually assuming full responsibility for their internal security.'' He says, ``Many in Washington view the contest for the Presidency and control of Congress as a sum-zero game without external costs and benefits. Politicians and activists from both parties reflexively embellish news that is bad for the opposition, but to do that with regard to Iraq harms our troops and our efforts. Concerning Iraq, this normal political tripe can impose a heavy external cost.'' I agree with the gentleman from Georgia and commend him for his vision and candor. American journalists in Iraq have freely admitted that their editors are not interested in printing good news from Iraq, but only reporting on death and destruction. Those editors are doing a tremendous disservice not only to their readers, but to every American serving in Iraq, to the Iraqi people and to our country. We must tell the story of the successes as well as the setbacks. There is still a long way to go in Iraq, but there are thousands of dedicated, intelligent and educated Iraqis eager to assume leadership roles and be responsible for the future of their country. They desperately need our help. Our credibility, our security and the security of the Middle East are tightly linked to their success. We must stay the course and provide the support needed. The return on our investment is stability, democracy and partnership. The failure of our efforts is too frightening to contemplate. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the President's requests for additional funding for Iraq. It is absolutely essential.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform chaired by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), I was privileged to hear the debate in its entirety on the subject we address here today, and that is help for the children in the failing District of Columbia public school system. I do not think anyone in this Chamber, in any capital city, can honestly say that the district schools are good. They cannot because they are not. It is not a question of whether or not the D.C. school system is failing. It already has and everybody knows it. If we are going to ensure the education of the children in this city, we need to provide funding to give at least 2,000 children a way out and an option and a chance to attend a school where they can achieve. That is the very least this body can do for them. I was in that committee room that day and watched the anguish on the faces of the mothers and grandmothers who were present, and I watched them crying during and after the hearing. They made me more determined than ever to help provide them and their children a way out of this failing school system. One of the young fellows who was there, a 6- year-old named Alonzo Stallans, drew a picture during the hearing that he gave to me a couple of days later. It says, ``A good education, a good future,'' in only the way that a 6-year-old can do it. He gets it, but not everybody in this Chamber does. I have had visits from those mothers and grandmothers of these young folks, the most recent yesterday, and they have high hopes that we will do the right thing and pass the legislation for these great young kids. If we do, and we must, we will be giving them a chance at life that most of us were given when we were their age. What we do here today will change the lives of these young people forever in a very positive way. I hear my colleagues talk about money and fully funding the education system. Let us talk about that for a minute. If money were any indication of the success of a school system, the boys and girls in Washington, D.C. would be receiving the finest education in America with test scores higher than any students in America. But that is not happening. In fact, the opposite is true. More money is being spent in D.C. per student than anywhere in America and the test results are the worst. That is an absolute travesty. These kids need and deserve a way out of this school system. The legislation we pass here today will do just that. Frankly, I think parents and grandparents know what is best for their children, not the bureaucrats who roam the halls on Capitol Hill. My wife and I knew what was best for our son and, frankly, he has done great in life. Parents and grandparents know what is best for their kids. They want out of a school system that has failed them and their kids. Today we are going to fix that. And, frankly, the sooner the better. We have heard special praise for three people today. I want to do that again. They are D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, D.C. Council Education Committee Chairman Kevin P. Chavous, and D.C. Board of Education President Peggy Cooper Cafritz for stepping up to the plate and leading the charge for this legislation. That is true leadership. And true leadership on this floor today means that we pass this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give the D.C. kids a good chance at a successful life by voting for this very worthwhile piece of legislation.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, America is indebted to the men and women of the armed forces. Their success in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world give witness to their bravery and commitment. In order to maintain this dedicated, all-volunteer force and to ensure its readiness, we must be proactive in providing them adequate quality of life and training facilities. The reality is that we are still correcting the spending deficiencies of the past. Even after years of funding plus-ups to the Department's military construction budget, service men and women continue to live and work in aging and inferior facilities. In fact, more than two- thirds of the services' current facilities are classified at ``C-3'' or ``C-4'' readiness levels. This signifies that their ability to carry out missions has been appreciably degraded. I am glad that we are able to work across party lines to ensure that military construction is funded at the highest levels possible. H.R. 2559 addresses many of the pressing construction and family housing needs facing the services. The bill would provide $1.2 billion for barracks, $16 million for child development centers, and $1.2 billion for new family housing units and improvements to existing ones. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2559, because these new and improved facilities will enhance the quality of life for our service members while they are doing their jobs and training to defend America. We must never let our military deteriorate as we have seen in the past, because, as recent events have demonstrated, we will never know when our nation's security will be challenged.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1772, the Small Business Advisory Improvement Act. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) and I cosponsored this legislation to strengthen an important office that supports our Nation's small businesses. I want to start by reading a few statistics: $843 billion, that is a B, that is the annual cost of regulations to Americans; $6,975, that is the average cost per employee of regulations to small businesses; 8.2 billion hours, billion with a B, this is the annual time taken away from family and productive work to comply with Federal paperwork requirements. I hope that everyone recognizes what a great drain on the creative resources of our entrepreneurs this burden has become. All that money and all those hours are spent on doing things that have nothing to do with creating jobs or making a better life for that citizen and his or her family. What a great waste of our natural resources. I want to share with my colleagues another statistic: $21 billion, that is with a B, $21 billion, that is the amount of money the SBA's Office of Advocacy helped save the small businesses of this Nation last year. We should do all we can to support an office that acts as independent advocate for small business within the Federal Government, especially when this office also saves taxpayers time and money. This savings is created by the good men and women of SBA's Office of Advocacy who work tirelessly to monitor the regulators in the other agencies of the Federal Government. They inject sensitivity to the needs and concerns of small business in every rule-making that will impact them, and they train their regulators in how to better comply with laws that Congress has put on the books, like the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. I know that without the Office of Advocacy and their good work, small businesses would be filling out more forms that have nothing to do with their business, paying more to comply with Federal regulations and requirements, and spending less times with their families. I have only been the chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight for a short time, but in that short time I have heard from a great many small business industries. They all believe that the Office of Advocacy is doing a tremendous job in helping to save small businesses money and save them from unnecessary regulatory burdens. From the home builders to the florists, from microbusinesses to small manufacturers, they all seem to agree that the Office of Advocacy is a necessary safeguard for small businesses; and they strongly support making the office more independent. Unfortunately, there have been times in the Office of Advocacy's history when its independence was threatened. Since its views are completely independent of the administration which it serves, it is often at odds with that administration. One example would be the previous administration's ergonomic rules, rules that would have caused small businesses endless amounts of money. That rule-making put the Office of Advocacy squarely in opposition to a rule that was being proposed by another agency and one that the residents of the last White House supported. It is for circumstances like that that the office must have some degree of budgetary independence from the Small Business Administration to be able to remain independent. Additional concepts in the bill like continued cooperation with the Office of National Ombudsman and greater oversight of agency compliance with regulatory flexibility statutes are more reasons to support H.R. 1772. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect the private sector of our economy from unnecessary governmental burdens by passing this bill.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the capital markets do not much care for indecision. When a company or industry is in regulatory flux, the industry is basically forced to be at a standstill. That is what is happening today with the telecommunications industry. The Federal Communications Commission voted on February 20, 2003 to make changes to the way it regulates telecommunications carriers. Many of the changes were very significant, but the FCC is dragging its feet. These decisions will drive the short and long term future of the telecom industry. The industry, however, is stymied because the FCC, while having voted on the issue, has yet to issue the rules. This is quite unusual as texts of orders are issued usually within weeks or even days of the date that the item is voted on. Here we are, almost 4 months later, and we still have no rules issued. It takes less time for a pig from time of conception to time of birth than it has taken the FCC to give birth to the written words embodying the agreements voted on in February. The FCC needs to stop this nonsensical delay and issue its orders so the industry can get back to the business of building infrastructure and serving the telecommunications users of this Nation.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, in the first peaceful and successful transition of power in Taiwan's history, voters elected Mr. Chen Shui-bian President of the Republic of China on Taiwan. Leading his country's transition from an authoritarian state to a democracy, President Chen has shown to the international community that democracy is indeed alive and able to thrive in a Chinese society like Taiwan. Now in 2003, President Chen has continued to make strides toward full democracy by guaranteeing Taiwan's citizens full constitutional and human rights, which include free elections and a totally free press. Since his election, President Chen Shui-bian has ardently sought a meaningful dialogue with his counterparts in the People's Republic of China (PRC). He has repeatedly urged them to discuss issues of mutual interest and has talked of sending a delegation to Beijing, further emphasizing his struggle for peace. Unfortunately, China has ignored President Chen's many gestures of friendship and cross-straight dialogue. Positioning hundreds of short-range missiles aimed at Taiwan, China has made it obvious that it does not believe that peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait is a priority. We hope Beijing will soon realize that peace and stability in the Strait is indeed in everyone's best interest and will pursue a peaceful resolution of tensions with Taiwan. We in the United States Congress greatly appreciate Taiwan's overwhelming support for our initiatives both home and abroad throughout the years. Since the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Taiwan has graciously offered assistance to the United States in helping the country fight global terrorism. Assuring Washington of its support in the anti-terrorism effort in Iraq, the Taiwan government issued a statement during Operation Iraqi Freedom supporting the Coalition of the Willing's cause and pledging to offer humanitarian assistance to postwar-Iraq. Taiwan is currently enduring an outbreak of the alarming disease Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). We wish Taiwan's government every success in their endeavor to fight against this disease and acknowledge the need for Taiwan's representation in the World Health Organization. As Secretary of State Colin Powell stated recently, SARS recognizes no international borders, and Taiwan should be able to utilize every opportunity to contribute to the battle to conquer this disease. On the third anniversary of President Chen's election, I wish President Chen well and wish Taiwan continued success in gaining a greater international role. The world has much to gain from what Taiwan has to offer, and the United States affirms its support for President Chen and his country.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share the following article written by a constituent, Rabbi Israel Zoberman. Today is the 55th Anniversary of the State of Israel. Israel at 55 The 55th anniversary of the State of Israel is not an ordinary occasion even under normal circumstances. So much more so as the small Jewish state is challenged in a way no other nation is by forces of terrorism begrudging its very survival even prior to its 1948 rebirth and ever since. Israel is a remnant of and collective address of a historical people suffering untold persecution as a powerless minority, which culminated in the consuming Holocaust's vast tragedy. It sought security through the normalcy of returning to its geographic and religious roots reflected in the unique Biblical heritage, only to be rejected by a hostile neighborhood alien to both its Jewish message and Western mindset. Miraculously returning to the soil from which it was driven by the power of the Roman sword, Israel proved the superior quality of the soul. Taking into long exile and dispersion the cherished memory of Zion and Jerusalem, it faithfully incorporated it into its spiritual life enabling an unparalleled homecoming. The national revival and cultural renewal in a vibrant democratic context was accompanied by giant strides, turning a country poor in natural resources and devastated by past trouble into an oasis of a highly developed technological society in a sea of Arab feudalism and neglect. All that while defending against a relentless enemy and absorbing millions of displaced Jewish refugees, unlike the refusal of its neighbors to welcome as equals the Palestinians in their midst. Its tenacious will to live at last convinced Egypt, the leading Arab country, and Jordan, of the futility of fighting Israel as well as the wisdom of making peace with it, providing instead for their internal front begging transformation. Of course, the rewards of the Israeli willing evacuation of the Sinai and its oil fields along with American support packages were added incentives. While Syria, a terrorist state, is still holding out, Chairman Arafat of the Palestinian Authority tragically proved that he lacks the conviction and courage of martyred President Sadat and Prime Minister Rabin, and the late Prime Minister Begin and King Hussein. In a moment of truth on July 2000 at Camp David Arafat dashed the dreams of so many, turning his back to most forthcoming Prime Minister Barak with President Clinton's risked prestige, converting vision into violence with suicide-homicide bombings lowering inhumanity's bar. First Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen will hopefully demonstrate to rightfully and responsibly expecting Prime Minister Sharon an abandonment of terrorism's path, with commitment to peaceful co-existence at Israel's side benefiting both long-suffering peoples. However, Israel should never compromise on its security and survival. The unimaginable evil events of September 11, 2001 have highlighted the direct dangers also to America and world stability by the forces of militant Islam. The war in Iraq under President George W. Bush's decisive leadership of a man carrying the burden of a wounded nation, toppled Saddam Hussein's terror-filled regime with freedom's hammer hand- delivered by Lady Liberty's daring children. Consequently, the new vistas have the great potential to infuse the Middle East with essential democratic spirit, providing renewed promise to that critical region that is the cradle of the three great monotheistic religions, to once again bless humanity rather than dooming it. The unshakable bond between the United States and Israel, both victims of terrorism, born of common vision, values and valor for shalom's yet enduring victory, remains a reassuring beacon of light in history's darkness. Rabbi Israel Zoberman, spiritual leader of Congregation Beth Chaverim in Virginia Beach, is son of Polish Holocaust survivors.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for the magnificent job he has done in putting this budget resolution together. Mr. Chairman, the House Republican budget recognizes that the single most important defense investment we can make is in our military personnel, the men and women of our Armed Forces. That is why our budget includes initiatives to allow the Department of Defense to continue to recruit, train and retain the highest-quality personnel in the world. Our budget assumes $98.6 billion for paying benefits. The increase funds a range of military pay increases from 2 percent to 6.5 percent targeted by rank and years of service. This initiative is intended to retain DOD's most experienced personnel. For our Green Berets and other elite units who play a critical role in the war against terrorism, our budget provides $4.5 billion, which is a 47 percent increase. Our budget also provides for full funding of health care benefits for Active Duty members, retirees and their dependents. Our budget provides for an array of quality-of-life initiatives for our military personnel, including improving military housing. For many years military housing has been one of the trouble spots in the defense budget with inadequate housing and substantial out-of-pocket costs to our service personnel, but our budget continues the efforts that the administration has made over the past 2 years to improve conditions by providing for $1.2 billion to build and renovate 44 barracks with 13,000 living spaces. There is $167 million to construct and modernize seven medical treatment centers and $87 million for two new elementary schools for dependents, as well as for school renovations. Our budget also reduces out-of-pocket housing costs from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent for personnel living in private housing, and last, these costs are scheduled to drop to zero in fiscal year 2005.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, as the representative of the Navy's Atlantic fleet and nearly 100,000 active duty servicemen and women, I am pleased to rise to honor our brave men and women in uniform. The piers in Norfolk stand empty tonight and thousands of families are risking their loved ones, but we pray along with them that their loved ones have a successful and safe mission and that they can return home as soon as their mission is complete. Fortunately, our enemies do not often witness the strength of the U.S. military firsthand, but Saddam Hussein's regime is learning of that strength tonight. It is the men and women of our armed services that give us that strength. Their resolute training, their unwaivering bravery, and their steeled resolve will bring a quick and decisive end to this conflict. These men and women have volunteered to fight and put their lives at risk to ensure our freedom and to liberate those held back by the chains of tyranny. These men and women represent the best that America has to offer, and we must stand united behind them and our Nation's leadership. I thank the gentleman from California, whose son is an active duty Marine Corps officer and the gentleman from Missouri whose son is an active duty naval officer for bringing this resolution to us, and I urge its swift passage.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share the following article written by a constituent, Rabbi Israel Zoberman. His article is timely and informative with respect to the current political situation in Israel. With a heavy heart I bade shalom's farewell to elderly parents who are Holocaust survivors, and to Israel where I grew up, on the eve of the unknown. I left a country calmly readying itself for a probable American attack on Iraq in freedom's name, and possible ramifications for the Jewish state that already experienced a limited taste of Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War. As then, which I witnessed as well, the Israeli public receives updated gas masks, and urged to prepare a sealed shelter with essential food items. There is less concern now though it can quickly change. I visited Israel with fellow rabbis immediately following the general elections there which serve as a barometer for the citizens' mindset, particularly after enduring over two years of the bloody Second Initifada presenting Israel with its greatest crisis since its 1948 inception. The resulting shrinking economy and the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots have added pressure, but also fortified the Israeli resolve to withstand the Palestinian assault of unprecedented suicide-homicide bombings, reflected in the elections' outcome. Free elections are not to be taken for granted in that part of the world, and Israel's vibrant example is the only such sign of democratic life! Israel is worried that only 69 percent of eligible voters participated this time, that should only happen in our own great democracy. Prime Minister Sharon and the political Right were assured a major victory though the message was primarily aimed at Chairman Arafat along with punishing Israel's Left for providing him through the Oslo Accords with the means to terrorize though short of submission to his agenda. Thus Arafat's plan boomeranged to gain through violence beyond what former Prime Minister Barak so trustfully offered him. He lost his gamble, with the Palestinians miscalculating once more and continuing to hurt their own welfare. This time Arafat succeeded to convince Israel and the U.S., both victims of terrorism and allies in combating it, that he is a critical obstacle to peace. I was fortunate to participate in a helicopter ride along the seam line separating the Israelis and Palestinians, watching from above the complexity of erecting the separation fence and Israel's disconcerting narrow waistline. The sharpening conflict has also adversely impacted European Jewry as we studied the precipitous rise in anti-Semitism in France during our initial stop there, mindful of the contributing presence of millions of Arab Muslims though the French authorities are not indifferent to the Jewish plight. We were warmly greeted and candidly briefed by Howard Leach, the American Ambassador to France in his official residence. Israel's ambassador, Nissin Zvllli, was gracious as well. Both ambassadors pointed at the linkage between the events in the Middle East and the French scene. Our moving meeting with the legendary Nazi-hunter Beatte Klarsfeld reminded us that the Holocaust's ghosts are not altogether expunged. This sense was reinforced at the Drancy Memorial on the outskirts of Paris, where French Jews were herded into the surrounding building complex before deportation to death. I painfully watched in disbelief on Israeli TV the shattering dream, so close to realization though so far, of Israel's first astronaut on his maiden voyage. Ilan Ramon's call from outer space to remember that we are all one human family on a precious but fragile planet Earth will long echo. His radiating and captivating optimism is so sorely missing and needed at this trying time. He, whose mother survived Auschwitz, along with his inspiring American colleagues aboard the Columbia, taught us how vulnerable are our most noble human aspirations and that the road to accomplishing them is strewn with broken pieces of a reality we are yet pledged to redeem through shalom's persistent promise of peace. Rabbi Israel Zoberman, spiritual leader of Congregation Beth Chaverim in Virginia Beach, is a member of the Rabbinic Cabinet of United Jewish Communities.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for H.R. 2357, The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, which was defeated in the House last week. It is my belief that political speech is a form of speech that is protected by the first amendment. Churches must be given the same rights and protections as individuals. I was in my home district participating in the Change of Command for the U.S. Joint Forces Command when the House voted on this legislation. The Joint Forces Command is responsible for joint service training of all U.S. military forces as well as helping transform the services for challenges they face in the 21st century. Navy Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr. relieved retiring Army General William F. Kernan yesterday and takes over the command. Kernan retires after a 35 year Army career and two years as commander of Joint Forces Command and as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic, responsible for NATO operations in the North Atlantic. Giambastiani spent the past 18 months as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's military adviser. I wish General Kernan the best in retirement and I look forward to working with Admiral Giambastiani. Had I been able to vote for H.R. 2357, I would have cast my vote in favor of this legislation. I was also away from Washington on Thursday, October 3, 2002, accompanying the Secretary of the Navy to the Naval Institute Warfare Exposition in Norfolk. On this day the House voted on H.J. Res. 112, Making Continuing Appropriations for FY 2003. I had hoped to be here to vote for this important resolution to keep the government funded and operational, and had I been here I would have voted in favor of this resolution.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to support the resolution before us today. Yet in my heart of hearts I hope it will never be needed. As a representative of more military personnel than any other Member of this body, I do not take our discussion on the use of military force or vote on this resolution to authorize the use of force lightly. The families of Virginia's 2nd Congressional District know firsthand the effects of the war on terrorism. To date, two Navy Seals from the district I represent have been killed while fighting to eliminate al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. Others lost their lives in training accidents while en route to the Persian Gulf. These families and many others throughout southeastern Virginia understand why this war resolution is necessary, particularly at this time in our Nation's history. On Saturday, we will commemorate the second anniversary of the attack on the USS Cole where 17 Norfolk-based sailors lost their lives during a terrorist attack in Yemen. We will never forget the aggression that was waged against our military and Nation by these terrorists. Today, we debate a resolution authorizing the President of the United States to use force against an enemy who constantly strengthens his grip on a terror-stricken people, has defied a peace-loving world, and aids terrorists who sow seeds of fear around the globe. There is much we know about Saddam Hussein's regime of terror. He has ignored 16 resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council calling on him to dismantle and to destroy all weapons of mass destruction within his arsenals. He has defied the cease-fire agreement from the Persian Gulf War that ordered him to eliminate all missiles with a range greater than 90 miles. Yet he continues to build weapons of mass destruction, and he possesses SCUD missiles that can reach distances of 400 miles. These weapons give Saddam Hussein the ability to attack American bases and allies such as Turkey, Israel, and other neighboring nations with chemical, biological and, in time, nuclear warheads. We know from experience that Saddam Hussein is not afraid to use his weapons. Saddam Hussein does not respect human rights or human life. Iraqi citizens speaking words of dissent often find themselves or a member of their family, including their children, being tortured to death. Saddam Hussein is an aggressor who threatens every nation and every person on Earth. No one knows when, where, or how he may use his weapons of terror. What we do know is his bad history shows that he will use these weapons against his enemies, including the United States. Waiting for a smoking gun is a risk that America cannot afford to take. If unfettered weapons inspections are not allowed in Iraq, a preemptive strike against Iraq is the only way to build a lasting peace in the Middle East and around the world. The brave men and women of the Armed Forces they represent are prepared to protect America against this threat. I hope military action will not be necessary in Iraq, but I do not foresee Saddam Hussein conceding to unfettered weapons inspections throughout Iraq. If military action is necessary, the President and our troops should have the support of this Congress. Let us send a message to the United Nations and indeed the world that the United States is united behind our President in his efforts to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution, and I urge continued support for our President and our troops.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the members of the Select Committee for all of their hard work to craft this legislation. I also want to thank the President for moving forward to establish a Department of Homeland Security. The Government Reform Committee and many other House Committees gave the Select Committee many amendments to work with, and they skillfully sifted through these amendments to come up with what I think is a bill that sets up the best framework to protect our nation. The creation of this department is of particular interest to the people I represent as they live every day with the threat of terrorism. The greatest security threat that we in the Second Congressional District of Virginia face is an attack on our seaport. The characteristics that make Hampton Roads an ideal seaport--a great location and an efficient intermodal transportation system--also makes it a prime target. A ship sailing through Hampton Roads steams within a few hundred yards of the Norfolk Naval Base, home to the Atlantic Fleet, and Fort Monroe, home of the US Army Training and Doctrine Command. The detonation of a ship-based weapon of mass destruction would have disastrous effects on our military and our economy. Under the current framework, the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service all have some jurisdiction over ships coming into the Port of Hampton Roads. These agencies have different, often limited, powers to search and inspect ships and cargo and lack a formal process for sharing information with each other. In some cases, federal laws even prevent the sharing of information between these federal agencies. These problems became clear at a workshop I recently held on port security. Putting these agencies under one umbrella will enable them to communicate more effectively and work together, filling the security gaps that exist today. Also, this homeland security plan will help goods get to market more efficiently. Under the current system, a ship and its containers are stopped and searched several times by different agencies. This system unnecessarily impedes the flow of commerce. I am confident the President's proposal will ensure security remains our top priority during the inspection of ships, while also providing for a more efficient flow of goods to their ultimate destination through the reduction of duplication. Many government agencies want to work together to ensure homeland security, but in the past, either the framework did not exist or legal barriers prohibited their cooperation. This legislation will create the necessary framework for the collaboration needed to keep our ports, our airports and our entire homeland safe from terror. This legislation will establish the structure necessary to address today's new problems. But as we develop this legislation it is imperative that we not amend the legislation such that this new department is a static one, difficult to change and unable to address the unforeseen problems of tomorrow. We must not unnecessarily tie the hands of this and future Presidents, robbing them of their ability to best address the threats of the future. I am proud to support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 416) congratulating the Navy League of United States on the occasion of the centennial of the organization's founding.

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 416.

Mr. SCHROCK

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 95) designating an official flag of the Medal of Honor and providing for presentation of that flag to each recipient of that Medal of Honor, as amended.