Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, after Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian was elected to a second term last March, he has attempted to reach out to China on many occasions in hopes that cross-Strait relations could be improved. Unfortunately, China has not responded positively to Chen's many goodwill gestures. The massive Chinese military buildup along the coast continues, China's bellicose rhetoric continues, and China is now planning to enact an ``anti-secession (or anti-separation) law'' aimed specifically at Taiwan. Understandably, the Taiwanese people have been reacting to this proposed law with alarm. If Chinese leaders persist in passing this law, Taiwan might be forced to enact an anti-annexation law of its own as a proper response to China.

This battle of laws is most unfortunate in view of the fact that cross-strait relations have been improving in recent days. On January 15 this year China and Taiwan agreed to have direct charter flights during the Chinese New Year holidays, and both sides agreed to continue to work toward restoring direct trade, transport and postal ties--the ``three links.'' Moreover, the economies of China and Taiwan have grown increasingly interdependent as Taiwanese businesses have invested as much as $100 billion in China and as many as one million Taiwanese now live and work on the mainland.

The latest controversy about China's proposed anti-secession law has once again highlighted the political division between China and Taiwan. China is seeking to unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait and force its own style of government on the 23 million people of Taiwan. China has totally ignored Taiwan's contributions to China's strong economy and President Chen's repeated gestures of good will.

We must alert everyone that China's latest move to enact the anti- secession law will not only destroy the goodwill between the people of Taiwan and China, it is also unnecessarily provocative and will lead to escalating tension in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwanese people should not sit idly by and allow authoritarian Chinese government to mandate the annexation of democratic Taiwan; neither should any freedom-loving people in the world.

By unilaterally changing the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, China is also challenging America's will to stand behind the Taiwan Relations Act which says unequivocally that it is the policy of the United States ``to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.'' The Taiwan Relations Act also affirms one of the objectives of the United States as ``the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan.''

Mr. Speaker, it is my view that China's proposed anti-secession law is provocative and dangerous and poses a grave threat to peace and stability in the region. I urge the Chinese government to step back from confrontation and stay on the path to reconciliation and friendship with the free people of Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, on May 2, 2004, Steven J. Finkelman received the Southwest Achievement Award from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and I am proud to memorialize here in the Congressional Record the accolades Steven received as he accepted this prestigious award. Steven is a devoted father and husband, and he is equally devoted to his community and his country. He has devoted countless hours of his life to preserve, protect and defend the United States of America, and he understands, as I do, that America's strongest ally in our war against terrorism is the State of Israel.

Here again tonight I want to record my immense pride in Steven's achievements and my gratitude to him for all that he has done to improve the lives of our neighbors in Houston, and for his tireless work to promote the principles of individual freedom grounded in faith and self reliance that have America the greatest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

Congratulations Steven, on receiving AIPAC's Southwest Region Distinguished Leadership Award for 2004. No one deserves this high honor more than you do. I am pleased to memorialize here in the Congressional Record my own congratulations, your speech as you received the award, and the eloquent words of our good friend Melvin Dow as he introduced you.

AIPAC Presentation to Steve Finkelman

The video mentioned that Steve is the child of a Holocaust

survivor. That fact sends two messages about this

presentation to Steve.

First, it is a tribute to Steve's family that one

generation arrives in this country with nothing, and a

generation later the family operates a respected successful

business, has educated its children and grandchildren, and

Steve, as the video pictures reflect, is a personal friend of

Senators, Congressmen and other government leaders--the

American dream coming true.

Second, the story illustrates the unique glory of this

wonderful country which takes, in the words on the Statue of

Liberty, ``the tired, the poor, the wretched refuse of a

teeming shore'' and offers them the golden opportunity to

enjoy freedom and to use their talents and energy to be

whatever they can be.

Hillel said: ``Do not separate yourself from the community.

Be involved and be a part of the community.'' Steve is the

paradigm of Hillel's concept.

Steve is in numerous Jewish organizations, not just as a

member, but as an active, involved leader. I will tick off a

few:

First, naturally, I will mention AIPAC--Steve is on the

National Executive committee and the Houston Advisory

Council.

He also has served or currently serves on the board of

directors of these organizations:

The Republican Jewish Coalition;

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA);

The Institute of Hebraic Christian Studies;

State of Israel Bonds (Steve has been President of the

Prime Ministers Club);

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev;

Congregation Beth Yeshurun;

Holocaust Museum of Houston (Steve has served on the Board

of Directors or Advisory Board since the inception of that

organization);

Anti-Defamation League;

Jewish Federation of Greater Houston;

Camp Young Judaea;

University of Texas at Austin Hillel.

I could go on, but that gives you the idea.

Steve has won awards from the Jewish Federation of Houston,

Hillel, State of Israel Bonds, and Yad Vashem, the Holocaust

Museum in Israel.

He spent a year studying and working in Israel. He's been

to Israel 16 times.

A tribute to Steve would not be complete without also

paying tribute to Sandra--his wonderful partner of almost 17

years. Steve and Sandra share not only community property but

also a heart-felt appreciation of the American dream, a

profound dedication to the security of Israel, and a deep

commitment to Jewish values. In the latter connection, their

three children all attended Jewish day schools and all

attended Young Judaea summer camp.

For all these reasons, AIPAC is proud and honored to

present its Southwest Achievement Award for 2004 to Steve

Finkelman.

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

With immense respect to my good friend, the Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the Congress has already passed the PATRIOT Act. The Secretary of the Treasury was required under the PATRIOT Act to prescribe regulations that set forth minimum standards for financial institutions to open a bank account. The authorizers have already spoken on this, and the law requires the minimum requirements for banks to verify the identity of a person opening the account, to maintain records of that person's identity, and consult lists of known or suspected terrorists.

I would not have offered this amendment in subcommittee and full committee, and the Committee on Appropriations would not have felt it necessary to put this in the bill, had the Treasury Department honored the PATRIOT Act. In the opinion of the Committee on Appropriations, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) has objected to the Treasury Department's rule.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) stated that he believes the reference to regulations adopted by Treasury are insufficient to address the intention of the PATRIOT Act to accurately identify and track individuals opening bank accounts. The law could not be any clearer. Yet the Treasury Department yielded to pressure from the banks, although the banks were required to verify identity, keep documents of records used to open the account. The Treasury adopted a rule which specifically allows the banks to shred photocopies of the person's identifying documents. So there is no record being kept.

I am quoting directly from the rule, in violation of the PATRIOT Act, the Treasury rule says that any foreign government-issued document that evidences nationality, as long as it bears a photograph, is valid to open a bank account. That is in complete violation of the PATRIOT Act. So the regulation the Treasury Department adopted does not even meet the express letter of the law in the PATRIOT Act. So we had no other choice but to cut off the funding to this regulation.

The parents of the families of the victims of September 11 have written a letter in opposition to this amendment because the parents, and I am quoting from the 9/11 Families For a Secure America, all of our members are aware of the fact that the 9/11 murderers relied upon government-issued identification to open bank accounts and charge accounts, rent cars and apartments and maintain an aura of legitimacy during the months that they planned, rehearsed, financed and carried out their conspiracy. Finally, on the morning of 9/11, government- issued IDs permitted them to board the planes they used to murder our loved ones.

For that reason, the parents of the families of 9/11 are scoring this vote. The parents of 9/11 are asking that Members vote against the Oxley-Frank amendment.

This is a straight-up national security vote because the FBI has testified, the Department of Justice also has objected strongly to this Treasury Department regulation. The Department of Homeland Security, all Federal law enforcement, uniformly objected to this Treasury Department regulation because, number one, these consular ID cards that foreign nationals would use to open bank accounts are widely known to be easily forged.

The FBI and the Department of Justice have concluded that the matricula consular is not reliable. It is not a reliable form of identification due to the nonexistence of any means of verifying the true identity of the cardholder.

So we have a situation today, Mr. Chairman, where we know the terrorists are coming back to hit us again between now and the election. The FBI agent in charge of the southern border in Texas has seen a large number of countries with al Qaeda connections that are exploiting the southern border, utilizing long-established and well- disciplined alien smuggling organizations in Mexico to transit individuals, foreign nationals through Mexico, into the United States. It was brought to my attention by Federal law enforcement authorities in Texas that they have now identified a number of individuals from Islamic countries changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic surnames, coming across the border with all the illegals crossing the border.

So we have a situation where we are about to be hit. We have individuals using false identities, and we have a rule adopted by Treasury that essentially, according to the Committee on the Judiciary chairman and the FBI, is making it easier for individuals to create false identities and open bank accounts.

The Treasury regulation is so wide open that an Iraqi listed on the 50 Most Wanted List but who is not yet apprehended could open a bank account using an ID card printed in Arabic, issued in 2001, and the bank would still be in compliance. So the Treasury Department's already had their chance to comply with existing law, and they did not. So the appropriators had no choice.

If I could, if my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), is available, I will be sure to yield to him.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to briefly say that the Department of Justice is on record in opposition to these regulations before they were issued, and then when they were issued the Department of Justice issued strong objections.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

(Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

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

Had the Department of Treasury actually implemented the PATRIOT Act, the Committee on Appropriations would not have shut off funding to this regulation.

The Treasury-Transportation bill, and this is within our jurisdiction and the full Committee on Appropriations, cut off funding to implement or enforce the Treasury regulation which is on the books, and let me quote from it again, ``The Treasury regulation authorizes banks to open a bank account for any non-U.S. citizen who can produce any foreign government issued document with a photograph.''

Now that rule that Treasury adopted is in complete violation of the PATRIOT Act. That is the opinion of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. Statute 326 has not been complied with by the Treasury Department. It requires Treasury to adopt a rule that requires banks to verify identity, maintain records of the person's identity and consult lists of known terrorists.

This rule is so bad and so broad, the banks can shred photocopies of the person's identifying documents as soon as you make the deposit. So the Appropriations Committee had no choice but

to shut off funding to this regulation. And before the regulation was adopted, the Justice Department and the FBI and Homeland Security were all opposed to it. The Department of Justice was on record.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I certainly agree under current law, but the rule adopted by Treasury, and again I am quoting from the Department of Justice, the Department of Justice objected very strongly to these last-minute changes in the Treasury rule because Treasury did change the rule at the last minute to allow these records to be destroyed and that is in the rule which is why we cut off the funding. This is the only way that we could stop the implementation of this rule which violates the spirit of the PATRIOT Act by cutting off the funding, because the Treasury ignored the PATRIOT Act's very clear requirements.

From the Justice Department today. Yes, the Justice Department is being a good team player. The Justice Department testified formally in objection to this rule July 31 when it was adopted. Quoting from the Justice Department:

``The Department of Justice believes that consular identification cards issued by foreign governments should not be among the documents that could be accepted by financial institutions.''

Once the Department of Justice made that argument, they lost that argument. Treasury adopted this very broad rule that allows anybody from a foreign country to walk in the door with any kind of photo ID and open a bank account. The Justice Department lost that argument, and obviously they have gotten on board.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human Rights.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

(Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a national security issue. The Congress has already spoken through the PATRIOT Act. Section 326 requires the Treasury Department to adopt rules requiring banks to verify the identity of persons opening an account, to keep records of that person's identity, and to consult lists of known terrorists.

The Treasury Department did not do that. The rule adopted by Treasury, against the advice of the FBI, against the advice of the Department of Justice, the rule that the Committee on Appropriations has cut off funding for, the rule the Treasury Department adopted, says that a bank can open an account of a non-U.S. citizen as long as that person shows any government-issued document with a photograph.

This is why the families of 9/11 have come out strongly in opposition to the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Oxley) amendment. This is why the Committee on Appropriations voted to cut off funding for this rule. To quote the families of 9/11, I think they say it so well: All the Members are aware that the 9/11 murderers relied upon government-issued IDs.'' The Committee on Appropriations cut off funding to this rule because the rule does not require banks to keep records. The rule does not allow banks to accept any kind of foreign government-issued identification. So it is important that Members understand that they need to vote ``no'' against this amendment in the interest of national security to ensure that Congress' intent in the PATRIOT Act is enforced. It is the only way to stop this Treasury rule from being implemented.

Mr. Chairman, I want to focus in this 2 minutes on the merits of the gentleman from Florida's (Chairman Young) proposal which he is withdrawing tonight so that he can work with the members of the Committee on the Budget, Members of this House, and listen to all of the best advice that he can gather to come up with some substantive and meaningful reform of our appropriations process and the budget process.

We all recognize the Committee on Appropriations only controls about 20 percent of Federal spending. The gentleman from Florida's (Chairman Young) proposal, which really merits our support, has laid out a system to shut down or sequester mandatory spending in the event the Office of Management and Budget baseline estimates are exceeded because Congress has passed more mandatory spending programs. And that is where the bulk of the problem lies, because Congress continues to pass programs that require us to spend more money.

The gentleman from Florida's (Chairman Young) bill would also establish baseline estimates that do not include emergency spending. Obviously, in time of war emergency, we need to move bills through. We are going to spend money that we did not contemplate. The chairman's bill would also set out a change of start date of the fiscal year to November 1.

But the part that I am particularly pleased about and excited to see, the chairman has proposed sunsetting of all Federal programs, except earned entitlements, effective October 1 of 2006 unless reauthorized. And I know the chairman, coming out of the State legislature in Florida, is interested in listening to and hearing advice from our State legislators. The American Legislative Exchange Council is meeting in Seattle this summer, a very good organization made up of State legislators whom we need to listen to and talk to about how we can help them balance their State budgets and how they can help us with their best ideas on balancing the Federal budget.

I believe the gentleman from Florida's (Chairman Young) amendment, which he will turn into a bill, merits our support. I look forward to working with him, as I know he will work with the Committee on the Budget and all Members of this Congress to bring together the best ideas so we can truly bring spending under control.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order today.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to appear here on the House floor today to join with the majority leader and Members of Congress who will be with me here today to express our strong support for maintaining America's leadership role in the exploration of outer space, and our leadership role in advancing the frontiers of science, to demonstrate through the examples we will give today and the presentations that we have of the many, many tangible ways in which the mission of NASA, our leadership in the exploration of space, and America's leadership in the advancement of the frontiers of science have touched and changed the lives of Americans individually, and advanced the freedom and prosperity of the Nation and the world as a whole.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert). It is important that he mentioned that the nation of China has an aggressive space program. They have set a goal of going to the Moon. It reminds me that centuries ago, the Chinese had one of the greatest fleets in the world. The emperor who built that great fleet, composed of ships, I understand, that any one of which could have sailed up the Thames River prior to Columbus' discovery of America and conquered all of England because of their superiority in fire power and the maneuverability of the ships. That emperor who built that fleet died, and the succeeding emperor decided to keep China focused on itself and burned the fleet at the docks in order to keep the Chinese focused inward. As a result, the Chinese lost that great advantage they had in the exploration of the seas, and ceded not only control, they basically lagged far behind the rest of the world in technology, exploration, and freedom.

Madam Speaker, the Chinese recognize the importance of reaching outward to the nations in not only exploration, but of the tremendous technological benefits to the nation as a whole, and of commerce with other nations. The American people understand that the advancement of exploration of space, the advancement of the frontiers of science bring benefits to us individually and promote the cause of freedom.

It is truly only the Federal Government with the resources we have available to pour into scientific research, much of the work that scientists do, much of the work that NASA does, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the magnificent discoveries that have been made at JPL in California, a part of NASA, have been as a result of the dedicated support of this Congress and of the United States to put the resources, the commitment necessary to run down a lot of the rabbit trails that are necessary. There may be some dead ends there. There are going to be failures and setbacks. Exploration is dangerous; it is hard. Pushing the frontiers of knowledge is hard and requires a commitment that each and every American shares in their heart and they are counting on us to be there, to give the people at NASA, at JPL, and our scientists the support that they need.

I know the gentleman has seen partnerships in California, as we have in Texas, between NASA and our universities. The research that is done between NASA and our universities has yielded tangible benefits in medical technology and in so many different ways.

We are going to be on this floor talking about those benefits which have touched the lives of individual Americans, particularly in the area of medicine, which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) who has just joined us, is so familiar with.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) to join us in this colloquy to lay out the benefits individually and collectively as a Nation that have come to us from the exploration of space and the work that NASA is doing.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, if we could have a little colloquy, it is important to point out to the American people and to the fellow Members of Congress that the President's vision which he laid out so eloquently and so clearly for the future of space exploration in this Nation is simply moving money largely within NASA's budget, preprogramming $11 billion within NASA's existing, projected budget to achieve this vision. The vision itself only calls for an additional $1 billion over the next 5 years in spending above the fiscal year 2004 budget.

It is important to keep in perspective, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) so correctly pointed out, that at the time of Apollo, the Nation committed 4 percent of our budget, 4 percent of the Federal budget, was committed to the Apollo program. Yet today what the President is asking for is simply less than 1 percent of the Federal budget to be invested in the exploration of space and pushing the frontiers of science.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader, who has so eloquently and forcefully set forth the benefits in so many ways to this Nation of the President's vision for outer space, of space exploration. Because the best evidence I could give in support of what the leader has just told us of the value of what the President has set forth is to quote Thomas Jefferson in his charge to the Lewis and Clark expedition. Two hundred years ago, President Jefferson set forth very simply to Meriwether Lewis: ``The object of your mission is to explore the Missouri River.'' And that simple charge, that simple direction from the President of the United States to explore the Missouri River has led to the expansion of the United States to the Pacific Ocean and the innumerable benefits that flowed from that.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Madam Speaker, as the majority leader said, the exploration of space is hard; it is a difficult task. Pushing the frontiers of science forward is also. The support of NASA is a cause that knows no political boundaries.

I am pleased to be joined by my colleague and neighbor, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); and I

am pleased to yield to her at this time so that she may express in her own words her view of the importance of the mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's mission to maintain America's leadership role in outer space.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas, because support of NASA, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, America's exploration of space, and keeping our leadership in space is indeed something that we can work on in a bipartisan way, because this is truly an American and Texan endeavor, to be at the frontiers of exploration.

My colleague is right about the popularity and importance of NASA's exploration to the average American. The NASA Web site, in fact, has had more hits on it than any Web site in history in a shorter period of time. NASA is now at over 10 billion hits on their Web site, in large part due to the spectacular success of the Mars exploration Rover program and the scientists at NASA. JPL, Steve Squires, all deserve our thanks and our sincere congratulations for their magnificent achievement in pulling together this extraordinary complicated mission of landing two rovers in completely separate parts of Mars to bring that program together in such a short period of time, to have it achieve such spectacular success so flawlessly. They deserve our congratulations and our admiration for what they have achieved. They are indeed a great inspiration to the Nation, to young people here in America and all over the world who recognize the value of not only exploring space, but pushing the frontiers of science.

As the majority leader so eloquently said and as my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has pointed out, there are so many different technologies that have spun off from NASA that are important.

It occurred to me as I was listening to the majority leader's very eloquent remarks, and my colleague, my neighbor just to the east, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) pointing out NASA's many successes, I am reminded of a book we were just reading, my wife and I, to our daughter, Caroline Virginia, who is fascinated with Harry Houdini, the magician. We were reading a book to Caroline about Houdini, and it pointed out Houdini had a hard time succeeding when he began as a magician until someone pointed out to him that he was making it look too easy. He was so good at what he did that he made it look easy. The audience could not really appreciate how difficult it was, what he was doing. Houdini took that to heart and began to make his act look more difficult.

I do not want NASA to make it look more difficult, but I think NASA's great success at making it look easy at overcoming the spectacular hurdles that confront them has been in part perhaps one of the reasons that people take NASA's work for granted.

I would be happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, certainly no better, if I may, no better expression of the importance of the mission of NASA and maintaining America's leadership role in space, what better expression of that than to have my colleague and me here, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) in complete agreement on that.

I would challenge any Member of the House to show someone with a stronger fiscally conservative record than I, looking carefully at the dollars we always together, my colleague and I, have been there to support NASA, as has the majority leader, who is also our neighbor from Houston. There are no political parties, there are no political divisions, I think, between us in helping NASA and the jet propulsion laboratory and the pride that we feel in their magnificent achievements and acknowledging and congratulating them for their spectacular success with the Mars Rover and recognizing in less than 1 month that NASA's Casini mission will go into orbit around Saturn and shortly thereafter, the first of the year, NASA will be landing a European-built lander on the surface of Titan, the only other planet in the solar system, a moon of Saturn, that has an atmosphere as dense as that of the earth.

We, both of us, in representing Houston recognize the importance of the Texas Medical Center and the work that they do with NASA in so many ways has saved lives.

If I could point out something that I am sure my colleague is familiar with, the work that Dr. Michael DeBakey has done using space shuttle technology. The shuttle has these huge turbo pumps that are required to empty the spacecraft's external tanks of more than 525,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen in less than 8.5 minutes. Dr. DeBakey got together with NASA, with a private team as well, and developed the MicroMed-DeBakey ventricular assist device using NASA's shuttle technology to pump hydrogen and oxygen out of those fuel tanks, to miniaturize that into a device that has kept people alive so they could have heart transplants, that have helped people's hearts heal so they could avoid a transplant.

As Dr. Rosenbaum pointed out, the heart pump, the MicroMed-DeBakey ventricular assist device, is a perfect blend of NASA engineering and medicine. The same laws of physics that

apply to building and flying a spacecraft apply to building and operating a heart pump.

As Dr. DeBakey said, when you have got intense research going on like this, new knowledge is bound to flow from it. I know my colleague has seen that benefit as well.

Mr. Speaker, if I might, ignite that spark in their heart to know that the United States, the country they are so privileged to live in, is a leader in the exploration of space, in pushing the frontiers of science, to light that spark in the heart of a young person is one of the greatest things that we can do. NASA has certainly done that.

I am probably the most fiscally conservative Member of this House. My good friend from Houston knows how carefully I examine every single request to spend money that is presented to me as an appropriator. I am working diligently to balance the Federal budget. I am a co-author of the Balanced Budget Amendment. I want to thank the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the lead author of the amendment, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), for bringing the balanced budget amendment to the floor of this House.

We need to pay off the national debt, balance the Federal budget. When it comes to investing in scientific research and maintaining America's leadership role in outer space, both of us, I think between the two of us we pretty much cover the political spectrum, recognize that NASA, JPL, and scientific research is our national insurance policy for the future, prosperity of the country, and it will ignite that spark in the hearts of young people. I know my colleague has seen that in her district.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas and look forward to working with her to ensure that NASA gets the support it needs, that the President's vision that he has laid out so clearly and so eloquently for the future of NASA and for the future of scientific research in this country, that we give the President's vision the support that it deserves.

As the majority leader so eloquently pointed out earlier, the exploration of space is indeed a difficult task; and it will require the efforts of every Member of this Congress working together from every part of the political spectrum.

I am so pleased to have the majority leader's leadership on this effort, to have the full support of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) there, here in the House of Representatives. He understands the importance of scientific research, the importance of NASA, the Johnson Space Center now being located, of course, in Houston.

The unity that has been shown here on this floor, between my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and myself and the majority leader in supporting NASA I think speaks volumes of the kind of support that I think we will see from this Congress when the time comes to get behind NASA.

Every American out there needs to, I think, express themselves to their

elected officials, to their Members of Congress, just as they have done in all the hits they have made on the NASA Web site.

I would conclude by pointing out that we will continue to be here on a regular basis pointing out the benefits of NASA's work over the years, the importance of the President's vision, supporting what he has laid out for NASA, for the jet propulsion laboratory.

I would also like to conclude by quoting my hero, Thomas Jefferson, who pointed out perhaps the greatest benefit of our investment in science. Mr. Jefferson was fond of saying, and it is so very true, that the first-born child of science is always freedom.

With that, I close, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourn tomorrow, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, for morning hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, we face a record national budget deficit in this country. We face a record national debt of over $7 trillion, which we cannot leave to our children. We face in Harris County, Texas, spending over $100 million a year providing health care to illegal aliens.

This bill that the gentleman from California has filed, which I strongly support, only requires hospitals that are seeking reimbursement from that billion dollars to identify whether the individual in question is a citizen or not. A hospital is not eligible to be reimbursed unless they are already treating somebody who is an alien.

The gentleman from California's bill, and I have read it very carefully, requires that this question be asked of everybody who is presented to a hospital for medical treatment if they are an alien. The gentleman from California's legislation is based on common sense. We must make sure that we balance the budget in this country. The budget deficit is now over $500 billion. Uncontrolled immigration is a national security issue. We must control our borders. It is a financial security issue for the sake of our kids and our grandchildren.

I think the gentleman from California has come forward with a commonsense proposal that we can move forward on to the Senate and that we could deal with in conference committee. If opponents of this bill have better ideas, let them offer them as amendments. I strongly support the legislation and encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill in the interest of national security and the financial security of the future of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House H.R. 911; that the bill be considered as read for amendment; that the amendment that I have placed at the desk be considered as read and adopted; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion: except (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House H.R. 1538; that the bill be considered as read for amendment; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion, except: one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; and one motion to recommit.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of the language in the bill and against the amendment. I point out to the Members that the Inspector General for the Department of Transportation, Kenneth Mead, testified to our Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies appropriations that the highway trust fund has shown a decline in revenues of about $18 billion less this year than projections that were made originally in April of 2001, and as a result of the declining revenue coming into the highway trust fund that highway and transit programs will see continuing constraints on their ability to improve mobility, safety, and economic growth unless taxes are raised, a greater portion of the financing burden is shared by State and local governments, or greater reliance is placed upon the general fund to supplement highway trust fund receipts.

I strongly support the gentleman from Oklahoma's (Chairman Istook) language in this bill because this simply allows Texans to run Texas. Governor George W. Bush, when he ran for Governor originally, I had the privilege of serving longer under Governor Bush than any other Governor I served under in the 14 years I served in the Texas legislature, and Governor Bush was elected Governor of Texas to let Texans run Texas. The language in the bill simply allows each State to choose on their own how to spend that revenue. The Nation today faces an ever-growing national debt that has now exceeded $7 trillion, which is absolutely inexcusable. We must pay it off. We face a growing national Federal deficit that we must balance. We simply must balance our Federal budget. I strongly support the gentleman from Oklahoma's (Chairman Istook) constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.

In light of our deficits at the State and local level, in light of deficits at the Federal level, in light of a declining highway trust fund, I think it is only prudent to give the States the option to choose how they will spend this 10 percent of these highway trust funds on hike and bike trails, as they may choose to do in the State of Oregon; or some other State may choose to decide to take some of that 10 percent and invest more of it into any other type of transportation project that they believe will help move people and reduce travel time and reduce congestion.

The bottom line is, I think, Mr. Chairman, this language that is in the bill will allow every State to make those decisions on their own through their State legislatures, through their State highway commissions. I think that the genius of our system of government is that it is built around the concept of letting each State make local decisions on their own, and this language in the bill does that. I strongly urge Members to vote against the amendment and support the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) in voting ``no'' on the amendment and allowing Texans to run Texas and each State to make these decisions on their own.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the chairman and our majority leader in opposition to this amendment because the language in the Appropriations bill, which this amendment would strike, simply guarantees the people of Houston the opportunity not only to vote and approve any rail system in Houston, but this language also assures the people of Houston that they will be told on the ballot where specifically the rail lines would be built.

I worked this language, developed and wrote this language in careful cooperation with the Metro authorities. Metro's representative here in Washington signed off and approved of this language. They were comfortable with it. I did it in careful consultation with them. Indeed, State law in Texas does require an election for bonding authority, but State law in Texas has no requirements, there are no guidelines in Texas law on what the ballot should look like. So this Federal language is an essential part of the equation in Houston for voters in Houston to have a good, clear understanding of not only how much this rail line is going to cost us as taxpayers, but, more importantly, where it is going to be built.

The language in the bill is very reasonable, and as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has said, it is an essential, we think, first step for, frankly, any transit system anywhere in the country to be able to move forward with a plan that would cost billions of dollars. In fact, this rail system in Houston will ultimately cost, if the voters approve it this November, $5.8 billion. That would make this rail system in Houston the Nation's second most expensive transportation project, second only to the Big Dig, the tunnel project in Boston.

The amendment would seek to strike language which would give the taxpayers of Houston the right to approve by majority vote this rail project. The amendment would strike the right of the people of Houston to see where, specifically, the rail lines are going to be built. I would urge, as the majority leader and the chairman have done, the Members to vote against the amendment. This is not the place to debate the merits of this rail line.

I note that the author of the amendment, the gentlewoman from Texas, has expressed her support for this rail line. I would welcome an opportunity and, in fact, invite her to debate me in Houston on the merits of this rail plan.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

If I could, reclaiming my time, this is not the place to debate the merits of this plan. Would the gentlewoman debate me in Houston on the merits of this plan?

I look forward to that opportunity.

Reclaiming my time, this language was worked out with the assistance and cooperation of Metro. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against the amendment to guarantee Houston voters the right to approve this plan.

Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute today to an outstanding representative from the State of Texas, Rodney C. Lester, PhD, CRNA. Dr. Lester will soon complete his year as national president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). I am very pleased that one of Texas's own was tapped as the 2002-2003 president of this prestigious national organization.

Founded in 1931, the AANA is the professional organization that represents more than 30,000 practicing Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs). CRNAs administer more than 65 percent of the anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States. They provide anesthesia for all types of surgical cases and are the sole anesthesia provider in two-thirds of all rural hospitals, providing these medical facilities with obstetrical, surgical, and trauma stabilization capabilities. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered including hospital surgical suites, obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and plastic surgeons.

Dr. Lester received his PhD in health education from Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas; his master's of science in nursing from the University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee; and his master's in business administration from Drury College Breech School of Business, Springfield, Missouri. He is currently the Nurse Anesthesia Division director and associate professor of clinical nursing at the University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, School of Nursing. He also serves as a member on the Admissions, Progression and Graduation Committee at the school. Previously, he was the director for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care in Houston, Texas.

Dr. Lester has served terms as president and vice president for the Texas Association of Nurse Anesthetists. Adding to his professional accomplishments, Dr. Lester has become nationally recognized in both publishing and speaking on anesthesia-related topics over the years.

In addition to his service to the AANA, Dr. Lester served his country in the United States Army as an officer and certified registered nurse anesthetist. He recently retired from the Army after 5 years active duty and 24 years as a reservist.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Dr. Rodney Lester, PhD, CRNA, for his notable career and outstanding achievements.

Mr. Speaker, with some personal experience, having served 14 years in the Texas Legislature, and having many friends who serve in the Texas House, and having just been elected in the 2000 election, I felt compelled to come to the floor and offer some personal perspective on the, I think, highly improper and blatant partisan attacks that the Democrats are making that have absolutely nothing to do with homeland security.

The Inspector General has already made a report on whatever allegations the Democrats are making. The Inspector General has already determined that everything that was done was properly done. The majority leader's office has said repeatedly, and this is confirmed by the Inspector General's report, that there was no contact between the majority leader's office and the Department of Homeland Security. This is an irrelevant distraction from the core important work that this Congress and the Nation must do in protecting our borders, in preventing people from coming across the border who might pose a threat to the security of this Nation.

The Democrats in Texas who walked off the job in the regular session of the legislature did so in a way that the public in Texas, the people of Texas recognized was improper; that it was wrong for them to walk off. And in fact it is incredible to me that the Democrats who walked off the job did so in a way that completely defied the majority will of the people of Texas.

Since Reconstruction, since 1876, the Democrats have controlled the State of Texas. We just elected a new Republican majority to the Texas House. The Texas Senate is now Republican. Our Governor is Republican. The Federal courts have controlled our prisons for up to 25 years. I led the effort to regain control over our Texas prison system from Federal Judge William Wayne Justice. Our State courts control our school finance system. Federal courts control our mental health hospitals in Texas. And it is entirely proper, in fact it is essential under our constitutional republican form of government that the people control their institutions, that the people control the way their congressional districts are drawn, and a majority of the people of Texas elected a Republican Legislature to pass Republican legislation.

Now, I can attest, as the Republican whip in the Texas House, that I still have tread marks on my back from being run over every day by Ann Richards and Speaker Pete Laney. I always

got right back up and dove into the fighting, fighting the tax increases the Democrats passed repeatedly in Texas, fighting Ann Richards and the Democrats' creation of the first income tax on businesses in Texas. I got right back up after they passed those new tax increases, and I did not give up and walk out. It is a part of the process that you make your best argument in the legislative body, and if you lose, that is majority rule.

I think it is also very instructive that the Democrats chose to walk out to protect their own political hides. They did not walk out to protect some minority group or some special interest group they are so fond of. They walked out to protect their own political hide. It is very revealing for the people of the United States to see that the Democrats choose to pick up this kind of dust, to make this sort of distraction, to walk out and shut down the entire legislative process to protect their own political power, to protect their own political hides rather than to go and walk out or make this big statement in defense of some group or some budget cut that they might have disagreed with.

I think it is entirely appropriate that the Inspector General's report has shown that everything that was done was done so properly. And also, the Speaker of the House has authority in Texas, as the Speaker does here, to place a call in the House and use the law enforcement authority at his disposal to find members, to locate them and bring them back on the job. This House Chamber has been locked down before to keep Members in the Chamber so they would do their job, and it has been done several times in Texas.

In fact, while I was there, the Democrats did walk out once in protest over failure of the legislature to create a pre-kindergarten program, I think in 1991. But again, here they walked out to protect their own political skins. I urge the House to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have joined the Congress after serving 14 years in the Texas House of Representatives, and in every one of those years the State of Texas operated under a Federal court order controlling our prison system. We have operated under Federal court orders controlling our mental health hospitals. We have operated under State court orders controlling our school finance system; and as a committed Jeffersonian, I fought strenuously to be sure that the people of Texas through their elected representatives would control our prisons, our mental health hospitals, and, above all, our school finance system which our legislature will deal with in a special session later this area.

One week from today, the Texas legislature will meet again in a special session to exercise the will of the people of Texas to control the way our congressional districts are drawn. That special session that will begin in 1 week has been the subject of much attention nationally in the preceding weeks; and of all the different analyses that I have seen done, the most eloquent, the most insightful analysis of what is taking place in the State of Texas in congressional redistricting was written by a young woman, Laura Childers, who expressed her opinion on the pages of the Houston Chronicle on May 15 of 2003. I would like to share her words with the Nation and with the Congress.

Laura Childers wrote: ``I am not a Republican, and I am not a Democrat. I am a naive 17-year-old girl who has yet to cast her first vote. Maybe looking to the actions of my elders shall help to coach me in the manner that a ballot should be cast. This should be particularly useful in the presidential elections in November, upon which I, along with millions of my fellow young comrades, will have reached the powerful age of 18. So far I've learned a lot.

``It appears that the distinction of party and not of morality is what is supposed to define a politician in American legislatures today; am I correct? Take the recent Democrat walkout from the Texas House of Representatives. What I gather from this incident is that it does not necessarily matter to the defending exiles that Texas citizens voted the Republican majority into office for the explicit reason of passing Republican legislation. In fact, I've heard statements from Democrats and their supporters that going against the American public's will is a very patriotic thing to do. This leads me to believe that the old, apparently outdated, reasons for government institutions no longer stand. The hopes and dreams of Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln for a voice in the government for every American, regardless of position or belief, have been shattered.

``The creation of the democratic experiment of the United States of America was designed to see if it was possible for men to rule themselves. For the first time in modern history, there existed a haven where there were no dictators, no kaisers, no kings and no queens. There were the people, the voters, the common man. The people were to rule themselves by imposing a type of controlled majority rule in the place of a tiny group of monarchial individuals. Representatives were to be elected by popular vote with the mission to represent and act upon the beliefs and wishes of their electors. Political parties naturally formed between groups of representatives who symbolized common wishes of their voters. In order to further promote these wishes, political parties unified with one another. The legislation proposed by the parties was made in the interest of the voter and was overturned or affirmed depending on the will of the majority. Thus bills were passed by population representatives in an effort to advocate for the bulk of all those represented.

``When people impede this delicate process, they encumber the right of every American voter to fair representation. By not allowing a majority rule but forcing a type of minority monarchy, the great voice of the American public has been silenced to a sickly whisper. In the place of a free democracy with freedom for all and dishonesty toward none, a type of legal party regime has been set up, and the rights of American individuals have vanished. If one party is allowed to manipulate government institutions on any level, State or national, as the group of Democrat representatives in leisure at an Oklahoma resort have, our rights as Americans have been breached. We have been denied the Government power granted to us upon the signing of our Constitution.

``If this is the way that the tumultuous ship of today's Government, the institutions of 2003, is intended to be steered, then this is not the America that I had thought it was, been taught it was and hoped it was.

``If the America I'd dreamed of and prayed for does not, in fact, exist and Thomas Jefferson's `boisterous sea of liberty' has long since dried to a shadowy pit of political regimes and power-hungry abusers of our Mother Freedom, then I will fight for the hopes of Washington and I will battle for the lessons of Lincoln. If America is to be true to herself, if man still be just, then let our Lady Liberty's voice be heard to mend this crack entrenching on our precious, sacred, irreplaceable bell of liberty, our vote.''

I am proud to say that Laura Childers is a constituent. She is a junior at Memorial High School in congressional district seven that I am so proud to represent, and I believe Laura Childers understands precisely what the American Constitution is about, what majority rule means, and what it means that the people of Texas have for the first time since 1876 voted in a new Republican majority in the Texas legislature, and Laura understands that it is the people of Texas and not the courts who should draw congressional districts.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving 14 years in the Texas House; and the Texas prisons were under the control of the Federal courts, the public school system there is under the control of the State courts, the mental health system is under the control of the courts. We have advocated in Texas control over too many functions of government to the courts. As a Member of the legislature, I fought tenaciously to regain control over those institutions.

This redistricting discussion is one that the legislature is constitutionally obligated to do. The legislature has held hearings, as they are supposed to do. Anyone with an idea on how to change boundaries can submit those suggestions to the legislature. For the Texas State legislators to have shut down the entire legislative process really shows utter desperation. Frankly, they have resorted to the political equivalent of suicide bombing and blowing up the entire legislative process rather than debating, as they should, on the floor.

I got out and voted in the 14 years I was there regularly, fighting an income tax the Democrats created. I was beat and defeated on that vote. Republicans were defeated on many, many votes throughout the years. We never walked out. We never left. They have a duty to do their job. They ought to be back in Austin taking care of the people's business.