Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, Congress has granted the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to grant temporary refuge to aliens, usually illegal immigrants, from particular countries under temporary protected status. Congress intended this provision to live up to its name and be temporary. Unfortunately, a pattern of abuse has emerged in the temporary protected status, or TPS, program. DHS can grant TPS status to the nationals of a country for as long as 18 months and can later extend the TPS period indefinitely by adding extensions up to 18 months each.

The administration has begun to utilize TPS as a de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants from certain Central American countries. TPS status was granted to Honduran and Nicaraguan nationals at the end of 1998 following Hurricane Mitch. The administration has extended TPS for these individuals multiple times, the latest extension lasting until January 2009, more than 10 years after the hurricane. TPS status for Salvadoran nationals was granted early in 2001 as a result of earthquakes hitting the region. The latest TPS extension for Salvadoran nationals lasts until September 2007, again, long after temporary dislocations caused by the earthquakes.

There are currently some 248,000 Salvadorans, 81,000 Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans, mostly aliens who came illegally to the United States, benefiting from TPS status. Our Nation currently has a growing gang problem, and we have had testimony in the Judiciary Committee that 60 to 85 percent of some of the most violent gang members in the United States are here illegally. Of 5,000 gang members in a database that ICE compiled for Operation Community Shield, 291 El Salvadoran nationals, 43 Hondurans, and 1 Nicaraguan had been granted temporary protected status, 6.7 percent of the total.

At least one of the suspected MS-13 members accused in the 2002 rape of two deaf girls in Massachusetts had been in our country protected by TPS. In fact, currently, a criminal gang member could literally stand on a street corner and announce that they were a member of a violent criminal gang and that they came here illegally, and if protected under TPS, no law enforcement officer could touch them until they had actually committed a crime.

TPS is being used to grant long-time residence, a perpetual amnesty, to illegal immigrants of certain favored nationalities. This amendment will return TPS to its original intent of providing temporary refuge during temporary periods of crisis. It would bar any funds made available in this Act from being used to extend TPS for nationals of a country beyond the original period of not more than 18 months.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, could you tell me how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman stated that this would perhaps be the meanest and most misguided amendment of the night, but I would suggest that the gentleman look in the eyes of the father who had his deaf daughter raped and assaulted by individuals who were here illegally, protected only because we shielded them with temporary protected status, where they could have literally been standing on the street and have said, I'm a member of a violent criminal gang, I was here illegally, and there would have been nothing law enforcement could have done to have gotten rid of those individuals until they'd actually raped that little girl. One of those individuals was here protected by temporary protected status. The other one had applied for it and was in the process of getting it.

The second thing, Mr. Chairman, we heard it mentioned that these individuals are here and we're protecting them on a temporary basis. It's mighty hard to look into the eyes of the American people, and say that when we have extended something for 10 years, that that is a temporary situation.

And Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest to you when we talk about they're here legally, it is true they're here legally because we've put this shield of protection around them. If we're going to truly deal with the law and be honest with the American people and what this law says, we need to either take the word ``temporary'' out and just tell them it's protected status, or we need to let the law do what it's intended to do, which is to truly be temporary by being an 18-month period of time, not a 10-year period of time.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I hope that it will be the pleasure of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Congressional Prayer Caucus to formally acknowledge the importance of prayer in American life and history.

Today, I remind my colleagues, constituents and country of our need for prayer by reading a portion of the words offered on the floor of the United States Senate on June 13, 1947, by Peter Marshall. Mr. Marshall prayed:

``God of our fathers, in whose name this Republic was born, we pray that by Thy help we may be worthy to receive Thy blessings upon our labors.

``In this world where men have made deceit a habit, lying an art, and cruelty a science, help us to show the moral superiority of the way of life we cherish. Here may men see truth upheld, honesty loved and kindness practiced.

``We do not pray that other Nations may love us, but that they may know that we stand for what is right, unafraid, with the courage of our convictions.

``May our private lives and our public actions be consistent with our prayers.

``Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.''

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 692 authorizes State Governors to fly the American flag at half- staff upon the death of a member of the Armed Forces who dies while serving on active duty.

We all honor the service of the brave men and women who defend our Nation. When they make the ultimate sacrifice, Governors of the State should be allowed to recognize and pay tribute to them by lowering the flag.

I am also pleased the majority included a Republican proposal to add a simple congressional finding to this legislation that states the following: ``Congress finds that members of the Armed Forces of the United States defend the freedom and security of our Nation.'' It is fitting to include this finding to recognize not just the loss of a member of our Armed Forces, but also to honor the reasons they serve.

Madam Speaker, members of our Armed Forces deserve our deepest respect. They put their lives between us and hostile enemies around the world; they sacrifice stability with their own families so ours may sleep easier. They persevere in the most extreme conditions so we can lead ordinary lives.

The flag code is designed to honor public service. When we lower the flag to half-staff, we remind ourselves that the United States is not merely preserved by lofty ideals, but by the service and sacrifice of a great many men and women.

I support this legislation and encourage all of my colleagues to do so as well.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, once again I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 916, the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007, establishes a loan forgiveness program within the Department of Justice for State and local prosecutors and for Federal, State and local public defenders. However, the bill, as introduced, raised several concerns regarding the breadth and cost of the loan forgiveness program.

I am pleased that the majority listened to our concerns, and at the Judiciary Committee markup we were able to reach a bipartisan compromise that ensures fiscal responsibility while encouraging young attorneys to join the criminal justice system and preventing attrition.

Many law school graduates carry a large amount of student loan debt, on average between $50,000 and $80,000. More than 80 percent of law students borrow to pay for their law degree, and the amount borrowed by many students exceeds $100,000.

At the same time, the median entry level salary for State prosecuting attorneys is $46,000, and the median entry level salary for public defenders is $43,000.

Several States and prosecuting agencies currently offer loan repayment programs. Yet, H.R. 916, as introduced, made no provisions for whether participation in existing State and local loan repayment programs would offset repayment from this program.

This substitute amends the bill to direct the Department of Justice to consider applicants' participation in other loan repayment programs when determining their ability to pay their loans.

The bill, as introduced, would have resulted in a very costly program. Although the bill caps repayment at $60,000 per applicant, as few as 25,000 applicants would have cost $1.5 billion over the life of the program, even with the cap in place.

The bill also authorized the program at $25 million for the first year and such sums as are necessary for each additional year. The bipartisan compromise authorizes $25 million a year for 6 years. This fiscally responsible limit on the authorization provides Congress the opportunity to review the cost effectiveness of the program.

The bipartisan compromise directs the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to review the costs of the program and determine whether the program positively impacts the hiring and retention of prosecutors and public defenders.

The compromise also directs the Department of Justice to administer this program subject only to the availability of appropriations, ensuring that the Department's criminal justice responsibilities remain a priority.

H.R. 916, as amended, directs the Attorney General to give priority to those applicants with the least ability to repay their loans. This provision guarantees that funds will be made available under this program to those prosecutors or public defenders suffering the greatest burden.

I thank Chairman Conyers and Crime Subcommittee Chairman Scott for their cooperation on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), an individual who knows firsthand the importance of good prosecutors and public defenders having served as a district court trial judge.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Madam Speaker, we just request and urge the passage of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, America's State and local law enforcement agencies are on the front lines combating and preventing crime every day. In the last decade, their dedication and service and innovative policing programs have led to a 34 percent decrease in violent crime.

It is unclear, however, whether the $11 billion in COPS grants awarded since 1994 can receive the same credit. Studies have reached inconsistent findings as to the effectiveness of the COPS program in reducing the Nation's rising crime rates.

The COPS program awards grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to hire or rehire police officers or procure new crime-fighting technology. It is intended to provide short-term Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies. It is not intended to assume the funding of State and local police, a duty that lies first and foremost with the States.

The COPS program specifically directs that grant money not be used to supplant State or local funds but, rather, increase the amount of funds for

community policing. In reality, this has proven not to always be the case. Studies show that spending on the COPS program has not led to an increase in the overall spending by local law enforcement but often supplants State and local funds.

The actual number of officers put on the street under this program is also in dispute. Estimates vary from 118,000 to as few as 82,000 additional police officers. The answer to addressing crime in the 21st century is not simply more cops on the street. It is innovative programs, such as multi-jurisdictional task forces designed to target specific types of crimes and neighborhoods plagued by gangs and drugs.

We should look to cities like New York and Los Angeles, who continue to enjoy reduced violent crime rates thanks to smart, effective policing.

To put to rest once and for all conflicting findings about the effectiveness of the COPS program, the committee adopted an amendment directing the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to conduct an audit of the COPS program to review three areas: first, the effect of the program on the rate of violent crime; second, the degree to which COPS funding recipients contribute State or local funding to law enforcement programs and activities; and, third, any waste, fraud, or abuse within the COPS program.

As introduced, H.R. 1700 reduced the likelihood that community policing would, in fact, some day be funded by America's communities. The bill stripped several provisions from current law that encourage State and local governments to assume a larger share of COPS grants. This is directly contrary to the purpose of the COPS program and would only exacerbate the use of Federal funds to supplant State and local funds.

H.R. 1700 also stripped from current law limits on the duration of COPS grants and instead allowed unlimited grant renewal. This too is directly contrary to the original intent of the COPS program to provide short-term assistance to State, local, and tribal governments to hire additional police officers.

I am pleased that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle listened to our concerns and supported our changes to preserve the partnership between the Federal Government, State, local, and tribal governments. I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Scott, and Congressman Weiner for their cooperation.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Over and over again we hear on the floor, we hear outside this body the importance of coming together in a bipartisan manner and what we can do to resolve issues for the American people. The unfortunate thing is when we try to do that, as we have done in this bill and we bring this bill in a bipartisan manner, sometimes my friends on the other side of the aisle simply can't take yes for an answer. And when we hear presentations like we just have, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is incumbent

upon me to stand up and just correct some of those facts.

The first thing is that the COPS program has been authorized in the 2005 Department of Justice authorization bill through 2009 for $1.047 billion. All this authorization will do is increase that to $1.15 billion through 2013.

In addition, when you see these lines that drop off with the number of cops that are being hired, one of the things that we have heard from the testimony that we've had is twofold. One of the reasons that we had declines in the crime rate was not just because of the numbers of police officers, but more importantly, not just because we sent money, but because throughout the 1990s we had a lot of policies from Republican legislators across the States that did things like abolish parole, that did things like mandatory sentences, that did things like truth-in-sentencing that took criminals off the streets and out of our communities. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if we do that, we reduce violent crime.

The other thing that we heard testimony on is that in New Orleans, when we went to do hearings there, the number of police officers increased and the crime increased. And in New York, the number of police officers decreased and the crime decreased. By the rationale we just heard, one would argue we should have less police officers.

But the testimony was, Mr. Speaker, we do need police officers on the streets. That's why we brought this bill in a bipartisan manner. But it is important that we have smart policing, that we have comprehensive programs. Because if we just dump money at the problem and we don't do that, we're not going to solve the problems that are before us.

Mr. Speaker, fortunately there were members from the Judiciary Committee that worked in a bipartisan manner to bring this bill to the floor. I hope we will pass it.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, we certainly thank you for your cooperativeness and support in reaching what we think is a much better bill by the time that it reached the floor than when it started.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

(Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to emphasize my support of this legislation and my support of additional police officers, but it is important that we continue to make sure we are separating the facts from some statements that are being made.

Testimony that we have received before the committee strikes a great contrast between different areas in our

country. Sending money alone, even putting cops on the streets alone, will not solve our crime problem. As we mentioned earlier, in New Orleans we had testimony that only 7 percent of the individuals arrested, and this is pre-Katrina, only 7 percent of the individuals arrested ever end up in jail, and the police officers themselves, the police chief, testified how demoralizing that was to crime fighting and police officers there.

That is why a comprehensive approach, looking at more police officers, but also such things as abolishing parole, mandatory sentencing and three-strikes legislation work to help cut down on the crime that we have.

We have also heard testimony from both sides of the aisle about the importance of technology. Many police departments are recognizing across the country that it is not just the quantity of police officers, but it is how they use them. New York came in and testified that what they have done is actually decreased the number of police officers they have, but they have used technology to do it in a smarter way, which has reduced overall crime.

Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation, but let's make sure we are not using the hyperbole, that we are using the facts. It is important to have police. It is important to have them used in a smart, effective and comprehensive manner if we are going to deal with the crime that our communities are so concerned about.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I rise to close, I just want to say that I don't think the American people much care whether it is Republicans in charge or Democrats in charge. I think what they really care about is whether or not we are reaching across and trying to forge solutions to the problems they face. That is why I want to compliment the chairman for his bipartisan manner in which he has not only handled working on this bill, but has handled this debate on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was never put on the sidelines. As I have mentioned before, the facts show in 2005 we reauthorized it through 2009 for $1.047 billion.

The key was the DOJ Office of the Inspector General and GAO reports note that thousands of hires funded by COPS never materialized as law enforcement agencies used COPS funding to cover their own budget shortfalls. In fact, they showed that $277 million were misspent funds.

Mr. Speaker, by working together in a bipartisan manner, I think we have crafted a bill that will help in a comprehensive manner continue to put police officers on the streets and continue to allow our local and State enforcement agencies to be able to use technology and smart policing to do what they want us to do, and that is to reach out to form practical solutions of how they deal with crime and the crime that is plaguing their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of Nicole Regina White, who was tragically killed in the recent attack at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University on April 16, 2007.

Nicole was known to many as a person who possessed the heart of a servant. She found ways to invest in those around her, whether it was through conversation, friendship, lending a helping hand, or through volunteer work. As a trained emergency medical technician, she is believed to have even been helping people in the final moments of her life. Those who were close to her know how passionately Nicole gave back to her community, classmates, teachers, and family. She was a committed member of her church's outreach program, a Sunday school teacher, an EMT for the Smithfield Volunteer Fire and Rescue Squad, and a lifeguard at her local YMCA.

Many say that one of Nicole's greatest loves in life was taking care of animals. During high school, Nicole volunteered at local stables and barns to take care of horses. In this hobby, it is clear to see that Nicole's heart and mission in life was to serve and care for others. Nicole was a double-major in International Relations and German at Virginia Tech.

Nicole was a person who loved life, loved serving people, loved her family, and, most importantly, loved the Lord. Although her life was tragically cut short, many are blessed to have known and loved her.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of Matthew Gregory Gwaltney, who was tragically killed in the recent attack at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, on April 16, 2007.

Matthew was known for his deep love for his family and friends and for his cheerful disposition. Having graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech in 2005, Matt was just weeks away from graduation day where he was receiving his Master's degree in civil and environmental engineering. Matt was an honors student devoted to learning and eager to improve human awareness of the environment and the overall quality of life. His high school teachers and college professors alike regularly praised his outstanding character and loyalty to those he loved.

Matt's family and friends also knew him as an avid sports fan. As a high school basketball player, Matt was not only acknowledged by his teammates as a dedicated player, but as a close friend. Matt maintained those close relationships even as he went away to college and later began his graduate program. At Virginia Tech, Matt regularly built and maintained friendships around sports through games of pick up basketball, and impressed many with his abundant knowledge of sports facts. It is said that his favorite place at Virginia Tech was Cassell Coliseum and that Matt never missed a Hokie football game.

Although Matt's time with us has ended all too soon, I know that his love for his family and friends and commitment to learning will inspire many in years to come. Matt has left a legacy within his generation that will not soon be forgotten.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend, a dedicated coach, and a committed educator, Mr. Cecil Jennings, for his loyal service and devotion to the youth of America.

As a public school teacher and coach, Cecil possessed an unwavering dedication to the community, the children of the public school system, and to any young person needing his help or his guidance.

Cecil was bom in 1934 and lived in the Great Bridge area of Chesapeake, Virginia. A graduate of Great Bridge High School and East Tennessee State University, he began his teaching career in 1957 at Deep Creek High School and taught there for two years. He then went on to teach at his alma mater, Great Bridge Junior High School, and worked as a physical education teacher and also coached football, track, wrestling and softball. Cecil also participated as a baseball and basketball coach in recreational leagues and umpired Little League baseball games. He retired from Great Bridge High after 36 years of service to the community. However, even after his retirement he continued to be the personification of school pride and school spirit for the ``Wildcats'' of Great Bridge.

In life, Cecil always carried himself with a positive attitude towards life and was well-known as an honorable individual with a big heart. He was well-respected by parents and people in the community. As a coach, Cecil had a philosophy that no one was cut from the team; he couldn't stand to cut his players because he saw in every child who had the willingness to try, an opportunity for success down the road. When he coached junior high football, usually 65 young men dressed for each game. ``Coach Jennings'' gave each child he coached the opportunity to be a winner, and carried that legacy throughout his career. Cecil mentored many students who, through his encouragement and devotion, found success in their education and in their lives. The stories of lives he touched and helped mold seem endless.

Towards the end of his life, Cecil battled cancer, diabetes and severe arthritis. Even as he aged and his health deteriorated, he continued to nurture, encourage and support his family, friends, and the local sports teams. In one of his last visits with a close friend, he reflected upon the happiness and joy he felt for his family and his community. Even through his pain, his selfless compassion continued to shine.

Cecil Jennings was a mentor, an honorable public servant and a dear friend to all who crossed in his path. I offer my sincerest condolences to his wife, Beth, their three children, Greg, Cecil, and Cissy, and five grandchildren, Brittany, Hailee, Alex, Christopher, and Emma. Cecil may no longer be with us, but the impact he made upon the community he loved is imprinted with the continuing legacy of thousands who made ``Cecil's Teams'' and whose lives were better for having done so.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for their work in getting this resolution to the floor. I also want to thank my friend and colleague, Congressman Scott, for his hard work and the work of his staff in getting the bill here and also Congresswoman Foxx for her efforts and her staff in helping to get H. Res. 182 on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as do my colleagues, to commend Virginia State University on the celebration of their 125th anniversary. This resolution honors Virginia State University's continued resolve to provide an excellence in education since March 6, 1882.

Mr. Speaker, today we just pause and we say to all of the current students of Virginia State University, to the alumni, to the faculty and to the administration, thank you for a job well done in the pursuit of excellence that you have done for these last 125 years.

As you may know and you have heard mentioned today, Mr. Speaker, Virginia State University is located in my district in Chesterfield County, and it is warmly embraced by the neighboring city of Petersburg. It was the first university to be fully funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia as an institution of higher learning for African Americans.

Currently, Virginia State University offers 45 baccalaureate and master's degree programs and introduced their first doctoral program in 2003. This campus includes 236 acres and an additional 416-acre agriculture research facility. They host nearly 5,000 students and continue to grow.

It fills me with pride to stand on the House floor today to present this resolution. We have had a long-standing relationship with Virginia State University and look forward to continuing this through the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution comes before the House floor cosponsored by the entire Virginia congressional delegation. Though I cannot speak for my colleagues, I believe I can say we are proud of the progress Virginia State University has provided through its 125 years of service to the students in Virginia and beyond. This anniversary represents a significant milestone in the Commonwealth of Virginia's history.

The university is more than worthy of this distinguished recognition for the impressive advancements and accomplishments in their 125-year history, and we are honored to acknowledge their achievements today

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon among a sea of voices that I quickly confess I do not understand. Now, some of them are my friends and some of them are very good people and I don't want to make any mistake about it. I understand the pressures they are under. I understand what it is like when you have major news media outlets who will not even take individuals who attack innocent civilians in the United States and destroy our property and they won't even call them terrorists. I understand the pressure when they control much of the media that we get across the country.

I also understand what it is like, Mr. Speaker, when we have Web sites that are filled with hate, that spew poison out throughout all of our congressional districts, and I understand the pressure that we get when we have people who don't want to listen but simply want to scream, who stand outside and protest at our offices. I understand those pressures. What I don't understand is the response that I am seeing here today on this floor.

Just a few years ago, I had the privilege of traveling with then Speaker Denny Hastert to the 60th anniversary of one of the greatest military achievements the United States has ever seen, and that was the invasion of Normandy. Almost every historian agrees it was the battle that literally saved the world. It was of particular importance to me because my dad had died just a few months before and he was there during World War II. Mr. Speaker, I sat that day in the sun among a sea of heroes who didn't come up to the microphone and pound the desk and they didn't speak in shrill voices. They sat with quiet silence because they had done the hard work and they had literally saved the world. And after that ceremony, I had the honor of just walking with them, in the same presence with them, as we walked down on the beach at Omaha Beach and stood there literally speechless as the military historians first told us that that was a victory that didn't necessarily have to be a victory, that we could have easily lost that battle. And if we had lost Omaha Beach, we would have lost that invasion. If we had lost that invasion, Germany would have signed a treaty and Europe would have looked much different than it looks today.

And they told us about the guns that were pointed up and down Omaha Beach, huge cannons and the machine guns locked on the front that created virtually killing fields for our young men that would have to come on that beachhead.

And then, Mr. Speaker, they told us about the very first Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Frederick Morgan, who had warned against doing exactly what we are doing today when he said this: ``Do not have efforts that end in the production of nothing but paper, but we must contrive to produce action, not paper, if our goal is victory, not defeat.''

Mr. Speaker, they described how when General Eisenhower, one of the most beloved generals of our time, when he was strategizing that great vision, his own generals disagreed with him on many issues. In fact, some of them threatened to quit because there were different strategies. Some said don't go today, some said go today, some said do it a different way.

But then as they watched that invasion, greatest victory of all times, let me tell you what happened early that morning. Our airborne men, some of them were dropped into the flooded lowlands, and they drowned without a bullet ever being fired on them because we dropped them in the wrong places. Some of them were dropped in the midst of German positions, and they were captured or they were killed.

Less than a half of the 82nd Airborne's gliders ever reached their assigned landing fields. By early morning, 4,000 men of the 82nd and 60 percent of their equipment was unaccounted for.

The high seas that day swamped many of our boats, and we lost our radios in the bottom of the sea, and only three out of 16 of our bulldozers survived. But what was worse, in the first 4 minutes we had 97 percent casualties on that beach. The Germans were elated.

Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to this debate, I could only think what would happen if the leadership controlling this floor had been on the command ships sitting off of Omaha Beach, because you and I know what would have happened. One by one, they would could came up to the podium, they would have grabbed a microphone, they would have pounded, and they would have looked at all the things that happened. At the end of all that, do you know what it would have resulted in?

It would have had a note that they would have passed to the 29th Division, and those young boys on that beach, some of them 17, 18, 19 years old, who were hunkered down on that beach in the sand, some of them paralyzed with fear not knowing what to do. That note would have said, we love you, we support you, we just want to let you know we disagree with the action that you are taking. We don't know what to tell you, we just disagree with the action that got you here.

But fortunately, that was not the leadership that governed that day. The leadership that governed that day was people like Brigadier General Cota who went up and down that beach and he looked at those young boys and he said, essentially, don't look at the beach. Don't look at the bullets that are flying here at you, because if you do you are going to die on this beach and you are going to lose everything you believed in.

What he told them to do, he said, Look at that hill. We have got to take that hill. He said, Rangers, lead the way. Americans, lead the way. You know what? They took that hill, and they won the greatest military victory in the history of this country. As a result, they saved the world.

Mr. Speaker, I hope and I pray that we will continue to birth voices that say don't look down, don't look at the mistakes, look at that hill. We have got to take this hill, and we have got to save the world from this threat of terrorism that so threatens us.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ms. Sandra J. Ellis for her loyal service to the United States of America.

Sandy's commitment to the armed services of our country and the Fort Lee community is to be highly commended.

Sandra J. Ellis was born in Petersburg, Virginia on June 16, 1948, which is Flag Day. The daughter of an Air Force officer, Sandy grew up in a military family that lived in Illinois, South Dakota, and years later returned to Virginia.

While Sandy's first roles at Fort Lee were as a stage performer with Special Services and as an entertainer at the hospital ward there, it was after high school that Sandy entered Petersburg General Hospital School of Nursing/Richard Bland College. In 1967 she decided to take a semester off and took a part-time position at Fort Lee. In a short while, she was offered a permanent position which she accepted. At a time when many young men and women were joining the Army during the buildup in Vietnam, Sandy chose to serve her country at Fort Lee; and so she did for 40 years.

Sandy began her dedicated service to the Army as a Military Personnel Clerk. During her career, she consistently earned more responsibility and took on positions as a Port Call Clerk, Secretary, Congressional Inquiry Specialist, Administrative Specialist, and Protocol Officer. Most recently, she has served as the Public Affairs Officer, where she has been the officer responsible for media and community relations at Fort Lee, an Army community of more than 12,000 and home of the Quartermaster Center and School. As the chief liaison to the surrounding community, Sandy played a central role in steering the installation and the community through the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure process.

Sandy Ellis has shown a demonstrated commitment to the Army, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the nation that is rarely equaled. She has served during eight different Presidential administrations, and her loyalty to the servicemen and women at Fort Lee deserves particular attention and admiration. Today, we salute her for her unwavering dedication to her profession and the American people. Furthermore, we salute her husband John Ellis, and her son, Jay, without whom Sandy's work would not have been possible nor as meaningful as it has been.

Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring Sandy Ellis on her retirement from Federal service in the United States Army.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Mayor J. Chris Kollman. After serving 28 distinguished years in public service, Mayor Kollman has decided not to pursue another term in order to devote more time to his family.

Mayor Kollman began his tenure with the City of Colonial Heights nearly three decades ago when he was elected to City Council. During his time on the Council he has served two terms as Mayor and two terms as Vice-Mayor. He has been a part of many accomplishments of the city, including the building of the vocational school, the development of Southpark Mall, the building of the Colonial Heights Public Library, the building of the Government Center, the revitalization of the old City Hall Building into a Public Safety Building, the development of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Schools, and his many efforts to help beautify the city.

In addition to his public service, Mr. Kollman served in the United States Army where he received an Honorable Discharge. He is also retired, after 30 years of service, from Bell Atlantic and currently owns and operates C & C Lawn Service, Inc. He is a lifelong resident of Colonial Heights and is a graduate of the Colonial Heights school system.

Mr. Kollman is a former volunteer fireman, a member of the Colonial Heights Optimist Club, served as co-chairman of the Colonial Heights After Prom Committee, and is a member of Highland United Methodist Church where he serves in various leadership positions.

Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring Mr. J. Chris Kollman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce COL Stanley T. Hoskin's Defense Superior Service Medal order and citation into the Record. Colonel Hoskin recently retired on August 31, 2006, after 33 years of honorable service in the U.S. Army Reserve. I commend Colonel Hoskin's loyalty and dedication to his country and the American people. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Colonel Hoskin.

Department of Defense, Commander, U.S. Joint Forces

Command,

Norfolk, VA, July 18, 2006.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Sensenbrenner for taking up this fight and for not giving up on this fight and continuing to work hard to get some of these provisions through.

I guess the longer I am here, I should not be surprised by anything that I hear on the floor, but I still am shocked. I am shocked this afternoon as I hear statements like, ``There has been a lot of talk, but not much walk,'' and then that bringing part of these provisions certainly will not give any confidence to our citizens.

Madam Speaker, I say that because I want to talk about just one part of these provisions today, and that is violent criminal gangs. When we began talking about violent criminal gangs and trying to do something about it, our friends on the other side of the aisle first suggested to us in the committees that we didn't even have a problem with violent criminal gangs in the United States.

But today they have backed off of that because they know that as we are sitting here talking today, there are over 850,000 criminal gang members in this country.

A lot of talk, but not much walk. They have fought us on every single aspect of trying to do something to stop those violent criminal gangs. And, Madam Speaker, I would just tell you that of those 850,000 violent criminal gang members, if you look at the most violent gangs, all of our testimony in the Judiciary Committee suggested that between 60 and 85 percent of them were here illegally.

When they come into our country, we don't even ask them today if they are a member of a violent criminal gang; and what is worse is once they get here, we actually cloak them in protections, either by giving temporary protected status or by giving them political asylum, which basically means this: they can stand outside our schools, stand outside our neighborhoods with a placard that says: I am a member of the most violent criminal gang in the world. I am here illegally, and our law enforcement people cannot do anything at all to touch them.

And the common sense of this provision is simply this: it says, first of all, when they come into the country, we are going to treat them like we do terrorists, and we are going to say if you are a member of a violent criminal gang, we are not letting you in. If you get into the country and you are here as our guest and we let you in and you join a violent criminal gang, we don't believe there is any socially redeeming value at all in being a member of a violent criminal gang.

So if you join that gang, we are going to send you out of this country, and we are not going to just set up some hearing date that is 30, 60, 90 days away that you won't show up at, but we are going to stop you. We are going to detain you, and we are going to send you out before we have a victim of a violent crime.

Madam Speaker, I would just close by saying we had testimony of one situation in Massachusetts where we had a young girl who was deaf and she had a mental illness. She was in a wheelchair, and she and another handicapped child were taken out and raped by six gang members, and two of them were here, one protected by temporary protected status and the other one who had applied for it.

Madam Speaker, I think it is time for us to use some common sense when dealing with violent criminal gangs and to say that we are going to do something about them. We are not going to just talk about them, but we are going to get some action done.

I thank the chairman for continuing this fight, and I hope we will pass this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present at the vote for H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on final passage.