Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard reference to the Senate bill; and my friend, for whom I have great respect, our chairman of Judiciary, Chairman Conyers, mentioned that we are coequal branches. I would submit to you, we are an even more important branch because we are more accountable to the people than the Senate is.

The difference, though, in the Senate bill and this bill is, the Senate Democrats got input and allowed input into the bill from their Republican colleagues, and we are not allowed to make amendments on this bill. All we can do is come up and point out problems with it.

My friend, Mr. Nadler, whom I have come to believe has a brilliant legal intellect, has come on the floor this morning and said that there is false information from our side, that we are falsely misleading. He said that we have been less than honest. That bothers me to no end, because he knows some of the talking points that are being talked on this floor are just not right.

Now, I have read the bill. It's a better bill than the manager's amendment we dealt with last time; it is. But we are still not there, and we still haven't been allowed enough input to make it better.

But we also heard from one of our colleagues across the aisle that said he fought in Afghanistan, and he was a soldier. Thank God we have him and others that would do that. But the telecoms in the week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks right after 9/11, when we did not know if we were going to have thousands of Americans lost any day, they were put in a terrible situation.

You know the law. The law is very restricted on who in the telecom company can see the request or the demand from the administration, from the NSA or whoever makes it. You know that. I pushed to make sure in the law that they are at least allowed to talk to a lawyer, but they are restricted there.

Put yourself in their place. They get a request in any hypothetical case after Americans are killed in an act of war on our soil.

Mr. Speaker, FISA is a major issue. Great nations in history have failed and been defeated by becoming soft from within. I see dangers of doing that here.

I know that my colleagues across the aisle, the 170 or so who did not support FISA being passed into law last August, are very compassionate people. I've seen the hurt in your eyes. I've seen how it troubles your soul when you see people hurting and killed and maimed. What we're asking here is to do the intelligence and allow the intelligence community to protect us so we don't have to experience the horror of seeing Americans killed and maimed.

We're losing valuable intelligence every day that we do not pass this important, valuable bill. The proposal was made, let's just keep extending it a week at a time. You cannot do extensive intelligence on a week-to-week basis. We cannot put our country at risk. This House has other things planned today other than this critical issue that could be a nation-saving measure.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to follow my friend, a former judge also, from Texas, Mr. Poe; and he nailed it on the head. And I tell you, following up on that is another travesty going on this week, and that's why I just filed a bill in the last 15 minutes called the Military Freedom Act.

We are endowed by our creator with liberty. But like any inheritance, we only get to keep it if we are willing to fight for it. That is precisely why so many of our uniformed military members have laid down their lives. And the plain fact is that there is no more important purpose for the Federal Government than to provide for the common defense.

In order to do that, there's got to be a military. But we have all of the rights of freedom of speech. Even those rights have limits, such as when you can't yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. There is, however, no right to trespass, there is no right to obstruct lawful ingress and egress into a military recruiter's office. The City of Berkeley, California, chose not to protect the Marines' lawful right to ingress and egress. They instead chose to aid and abet lawbreakers by encouraging them and passing an ordinance to make it easier to violate the Marines' rights.

The restricting of funding that is proposed and put forward in the bill I have just filed has been done previously in matters such as the speed limits of States or to encourage States to limit drinking and driving. So it's nothing new.

It has been deemed appropriate to encourage political entities in areas in which the Federal Government has a vested interest, and it has no more vested interest than what we have in providing for the common defense.

But Berkeley and any other city has the right to rule over its own city as they wish, and they're welcome to do that. But the Federal Government should not reward a city that chooses to obstruct and prevent the obtaining of military members who provide the very freedoms and the umbrella of freedom under which that city acts. They have a right to use freedom of speech, but they have no right to take United States taxpayers' dollars to aid and abet hurting our military readiness.

We took an oath in this body, in this room, to defend this Nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and those who prevent the United States from attaining military members are not the Nation's friends. Though such a city may deserve punishment, all we are trying to do with this bill is just not reward them for hurting our national defense.

Other city leaders, such as those in San Francisco, Toledo, Ohio, like the mayor there, have snubbed or restricted our military. They need to be aware that when they begin to prevent the military from having enough troops to protect us and being militarily ready, they should not expect Federal subsidies to assist them.

It is true that the actions addressed in the Military Freedom Act are mainly actions or omissions by community leaders and not all of their citizens. We understand that. There are good citizens in each of those towns. But the choice of the citizens is either to replace the hurtful leaders or bear the consequences or move. The old adage is democracy ensures the people are governed no better than they deserve. Therefore, those cities either deserve to have better leaders who don't hurt our national defense, or they deserve not to have funds to award their harmful conduct.

Cities like Berkeley should take stock of how many of their very own first responders in the business in their cities of saving lives were trained in the military.

I would remind you also, and I remember vividly because I was about to go on active duty about the time Vietnam was ended, our heroes came back from Vietnam and were spit on. Some of the hippies that did the spitting cut their hair, got into positions in cities and have found, figuratively, new, effective ways of spitting on our military.

But everyone should understand, Mr. Speaker, this is not taking away money for expressing free speech. It's simply not rewarding the obstruction of providing for the common defense. Since it will cost additional money to overcome the obstruction to our military readiness, the Military Freedom Act takes money from the appropriate place to do that.

This is the ultimate PAYGO bill for military readiness and national security.

In any event, I hope and I encourage the leaders, the majority leaders, the Democratic majority leaders of this body to bring this bill to a vote and let the cities know that we don't reward those who prevent our providing for the common defense.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a number of things, what this is or isn't about. We're told it's not about the protections for the country, but it is about that. And I have great respect and admiration for our chairman, Mr. Conyers.

But we were told, also, well, gee, the reason we need more time is the White House has delayed giving us documents. But if you really want to get to the bottom of this, you go back to August 4 when we took a vote on FISA being extended for a number of months. There was no immunity in there. There was no issue about is the President going to turn over documents. Forty-one Democrats voted for it, nine didn't vote, and all the rest voted against it. They were against the protections for this country and FISA.

Now, we need to try to eliminate risk to the country, not political risk to a party. And I understand sometimes you have Members that see the dangers to America, gee, that exposes the country to great risk and if we don't do something and something terrible happens, then we've exposed our party to terrible political risk. This shouldn't be about political risk. We need to do what's right for the country.

The chairman had said there are other key differences and there are. But those are important to note as well.

Our friends across the aisle somehow think it shreds the Constitution if we tap a terrorist in a foreign country and he calls an American. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The solution to that is not that we not tap into that known terrorist in a foreign country; it's that the friends of those concerned about this in America, tell your friends to have their terrorist buddies not call them at home. That's real easy. Then they don't have to worry about this bill.

But if terrorists that are known terrorists in foreign countries call them in this country, then they ought to be at risk for having them tapped. Once we know that there's somebody here, then they go get the warrant and that addresses it. But you cannot restrict it otherwise without doing great harm to our protection in America.

Madam Speaker, it seems what we're experiencing here and have been for the last 6 months is just the eternal optimism. I love that in the Democratic majority. But it's like the fellow that fell off the tall building and at each floor was heard to say, ``I'm doing okay so far.'' The trouble is, you're going to have the day of reckoning. And here we had the 6-month extension back August 4. Now, we've heard the majority leader come in and say, Well, it was basically, in so many words, it was the White House's fault because they could have given us this information about the immunity of the companies, and that's what's held this up. But if you go back to August 4 and the vote that did not have the immunity in it, there were 41 Democrats that voted for it and 181 Democrats that voted against it and 9 didn't vote. It was the Republicans that passed this. It didn't have anything to do with immunity. It had to do with one group wanted to make sure our intelligence protected us and had the tools they need, and the other was more concerned about the rights of terrorists.

Now, I would submit to you that this isn't about 6 months. It's not about 15 days. We could put it off 30 days, another 6 months, but the day of reckoning is coming. And our enemies that want to destroy our way of life, they don't think in terms of 15 days, 30 days. They think in terms of generations, and they've got to be defeated.

So I understand and I appreciate my dear friend, Mr. Kucinich, and the concerns about civil liberties. I'm concerned about them, too. But when it involves, as this act does, a foreign terrorist on foreign soil, and I know the concern is, Well, what if they call an American citizen? And I'll leave you with this: I would submit to you, if your friends are getting calls from foreign terrorists on foreign soil, again, tell them to tell the terrorists not to call them at home and they'll be okay.

We need to pass this. We need to give our intelligence the tools they need.

Mr. Speaker, it may seem a little unusual for a Member from Texas to stand in tribute to Louisiana State University, but I do. I take off my hat and hair in tribute to the Louisiana State University Tigers and also to the relationship that Texas and Louisiana have shared. Through the years, Louisiana has helped Texas. After Katrina, Texans were proud to assist Louisiana. When we heard that Louisiana State University needed a quarterback, then my hometown, Tyler, Texas, was proud to yield one of its best, Matt Flynn, to LSU to help them in their time of need.

I watched Matt Flynn play high school football 4 years there at Robert E. Lee High School in Tyler, and we are so proud of Matt. He comes from good lineage. His dad, Alvin Flynn, played quarterback for Baylor University. His mother was the director for many years of the Tyler Junior College Apache Belles and took them to national fame. And Alvin did take a lot of Flak because his son didn't follow his footsteps and play quarterback at Baylor University, but such is the nature of Texans and East Texans. When they see someone in need, as they saw LSU, it was their heart-rending desire to help them and to send them our best, Matt Flynn.

So congratulations to LSU. We're proud of Matt Flynn, and we're proud of what the Tigers did in making actually the whole Nation proud.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 62 to correct the enrollment of H.R. 660, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. I would also like to commend the Speaker, and through the Speaker, our chairman. I assume you are the people responsible for the added heat in the room today. I presume that is to help light a fire under the majority to help get the business done today, and I applaud that.

Madam Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 660, a bill to improve court security and ensure the safety of those who dedicate their lives to America's judicial system, as well as to the safety of millions of Americans who visit our courthouses every day.

This concurrent resolution substitutes section 502 of H.R. 660 to make a technical correction to the bill and allow the House to move forward in order to consider the important bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 660, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, and I would like to commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Conyers. We do disagree on issues often enough, but he is the consummate gentleman, he is the consummate chairman, and I have always found him to be fair, and appreciate his effort and his work in pushing this bill to make it become law.

This legislation then is truly bipartisan. It is bicameral. And it is to improve the security of those who administer our justice system, as well as those it serves, such as witnesses, victims and their families.

Just this week the Senate approved this legislation, making several improvements to the bill. In recent years we've seen an increase in violence and threats against judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, law enforcement officers, and courthouse employees. It is critical that we address this violence in order to preserve the integrity of and public confidence in our justice system.

As I explain to litigants in my courtroom as a judge, it may be that the courtroom ends up being the last bastion of civility in America, but we will have civility in our courtroom. There will be no violence. Everyone will come in regardless of what happened outside the courtroom. We will sit. We will stand when it's your turn, you will speak when it's your turn, and we will abide by the rules as we try to do here in the House.

But the murders of family members of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow and the brutal slayings of Judge Roland Barton and his court personnel in Atlanta are just a few of the many examples that underscore the need to better protect those who serve our judiciary and their families.

According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, almost 700 threats a year are made against Federal judges. In numerous cases it has been necessary to assign Federal judges security details for fear of attack by terrorists, violent gangs, drug organizations, and disgruntled litigants. As a former State district judge, I'm familiar with such threats personally. Threats against me personally didn't actually worry me until they were made against my family.

On looking at Federal law and the penalties, there was a disparity in the penalties for a crime against some family members of court personnel and Federal law enforcement which needed to be addressed. That's what caused me to go to work on this area last Congress, and I'm so pleased that this may actually become law in this Congress.

The problem with witnesses being intimidated as well as threats toward witnesses has also continued to grow, particularly at the State and local level where few resources are available to protect witnesses, victims and their families.

H.R. 660 improves coordination between the U.S. marshals and the Federal judiciary and bolsters security measures for Federal prosecutors handling dangerous trials against terrorists, drug organizations and organized crime figures.

The bill also prohibits public disclosure on the Internet or other public sources of personal information about judges, law enforcement officers, victims and witnesses, and protects Federal judges and prosecutors from organized efforts to harass and intimidate them through false filing of liens or other encumbrances against personal property.

Additionally, H.R. 660 provides grants to States and local courts to improve their security services.

I want to thank the majority for working with us to include other important provisions that were not in the

original legislation earlier in this Congress. Although there are still some provisions I would like to have seen, this bill includes so many excellent provisions. I do applaud the chairman and the others on the committee for the work. It is imperative that we continue to work together in a bipartisan effort to protect the judges, witnesses, courthouse personnel and law enforcement officers, as well as the witnesses and their families who are working to protect the rest of the country from criminal acts. Threats and violence require our action today to help them while they help us.

At the State and local level, there is a dire need to provide basic security services in the courtroom and for witnesses. H.R. 660 represents a significant first step in this area.

Madam Speaker, I commend again Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith as well as Subcommittee Chairman Scott and former Ranking Member Forbes for their continued leadership on this issue.

As a former judge, I hope that we will be successful in getting this legislation across the finish line under your leadership.

I urge my colleagues to support this critical bipartisan and bicameral measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the CAFE standards. Most of us think they are a good idea and that that will help us conserve more energy.

But the truth is we shouldn't be paying the highest natural gas prices in the world when we have perhaps the first but at least the second most generous deposits of natural gas in the world. We have perhaps the most coal in the world, and we could be using it. We could be driving down the cost of energy if it were not for the policies that were put in place this year.

Now, this bill doesn't help that. In fact, it drives prices the other way. I understand, I have some colleagues in here who believe that if we can drive the price of gasoline high enough, drive the price of carbon energy high enough, then the alternatives become the way to go and everybody goes to them more quickly. I understand that.

Some of us, though, like me, believe that a free market will drive the prices and drive the market in the right direction. So as the price of energy becomes higher, as we use more of our own God-given deposits in this country and use them wisely, have zero emissions, that the alternatives will come in naturally without this artificial demand to drive it there.

The point is a lot of this legislation will end up, in conjunction with what we have already done this year, driving the price of gasoline to $5 a gallon. That is what happens when you interfere to the extent we are interfering with this legislation and others this year.

The thing I would ask is that as the price of gasoline is driven to $5 a gallon with legislative interests that is being pushed this year and next that, please, the people that have pushed it come down here to the well, to the floor and say, ``That's right, gas is $5 a gallon. We think in the long run you'll be better off and we are so proud that we made your gasoline $5 a gallon.'' That's where we're headed. Let's be honest about it, and then those who did it take credit for it when it gets there.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Youth With a Mission, or YWAM, and the rest of the Nation grieved over the tragic Colorado shootings that resulted in the death and injuries of YWAM's staff and former students. Our deepest sympathy goes out

to the family and friends affected by this terrible tragedy. I rise to honor and encourage YWAM as an international ministry whose largest North American training facility is located in my district at Garden Valley, Texas, where I visited numerous times.

YWAM trains Christians of many denominations and ages with their express purpose being to know God and to make Him known in obedience to the Great Commission which says they are to go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. YWAM currently operates in more than 1,000 locations in over 149 countries with a staff of nearly 16,000. I have also had the opportunity on multiple occasions to meet different YWAM staff and students when they have visited this beautiful city here in Washington, D.C., before embarking on short-term mission trips.

When I speak with these individuals, I am overwhelmed by their passion for their ministry and sincere love for people they have yet to meet. They truly strive to follow the example of Christ by offering themselves as selfless, humble, and loving servants.

The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed by a Creator with certain inalienable rights. Our Creator endowed this Nation with these individuals who have now been killed. Each of these dear people were a gift to this Earth and to this country. And although we are very disappointed that we did not get to keep those gifts as long as we wished at their Earthly location, we can still thank God for each day that we had them.

We are not promised life without hardships. To the contrary, those who take up their individual crosses, especially for the sake of Christ, can expect to face greater trials and persecution. For this Nation's entire history, until now, Christians have had a place, a country, where they were not persecuted. But that unique time is changing. In this day of political correctness, often Christians are the only groups it is acceptable to verbally assault. The Apostle Paul reminds us that we should consider everything a loss, including our own lives, compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage the staff and students at YWAM during this difficult time.

C.S. Lewis had kept a journal of sorts after his precious wife, Joy, had died. In one entry, he said, in effect, that he missed her so much he wanted her back. But he realized how very selfish that was. His wife was in heaven. She was in paradise. It was not in her interest to return to a land of tears from a land where there is no sorrow. Lewis went on to say that we are told Stephen was the first martyr. But he said, as I think about it, didn't Lazarus get the far rawer deal? If you review the Bible looking for quotes from Lazarus after he was brought back from the dead, you will not find them. I will bet he was not a happy camper.

In any event, we can look forward to the day when we can be reunited with these friends from YWAM. But may those at YWAM find strength and encouragement from friends, from each other, and from these words: may God bless those at YWAM and may He continue to shine His face upon them.

Mr. Speaker, back on January 22, I got up here at this very spot because we had passed a bill that week that was going to force the price of gasoline to skyrocket upward. A year later it's up a dollar. Today we passed another anti-energy bill.

You know, there are a number of States in this country who just say we want to use all the energy but we don't want to produce any. So there are States like Texas, Louisiana, a number of States, we're cranking out all the energy we can to help the Nation. This bill we passed today not only says we have got lots of energy we're not going to let anybody produce, but we are going to penalize the States that have been more than team players and we are going to force the price of gasoline higher and higher.

So I hope my colleagues across the aisle, as gas goes up towards $5, will also come to the floor and say, ``That's right, it's $5 a gallon, and we are proud of it. We did that for you; so you can thank us.''

First I've got to comment on some things we heard previously. We heard the right honorable

chairman indicate that the last motion to recommit was designed to delay. If it was merely designed to delay, then why in the world was the bill pulled from the floor and sat on for 4 weeks? The answer: it was not for delay. We had some serious considerations and questions and points to be made about the risk that this was raising.

When I hear my friend from Texas talk about those who love liberty, listen, some of us love liberty enough that we believe the Constitution should not be extended on the battlefield to those who are trying to destroy what our forefathers and foremothers have fought and died to give us.

Now, unless the Democrats believe that they have improved this bill, then there was no reason for a month delay. So either you improved it, Mr. Speaker, either the Democrats improved it or there was no reason to sit on it for a month. And if they did improve it, then the motion to recommit was not political, but apparently helpful.

The problem is this doesn't fix the problems. And unless one party in this body has 100 percent on God's truth all the time, they ought to allow some input from the other side. We were told that was going to happen. It hasn't happened here. We went to the Rules Committee the last time and were shut out. Before the hearing started we were told, put on your evidence but no amendments will be allowed. This time, once again, no amendments are allowed. There is some expertise in this body outside the Democratic Party. I would think it would be helpful to hear some of that.

Anyway, let's look at the bill itself. We are told, well, we can't get into it, we have limited time. Who did that? The Rules Committee did that. The Rules Committee did that.

I would say to everyone, Mr. Speaker, that we have some smart people on both sides of the aisle on the Rules Committee, but their talents are being wasted when they keep having Rules Committee meetings that come back over and over, no amendments. They are wasting their time. They ought to ask for different committees because there is too much intelligence and talent on that committee to waste it like that.

Now, in this new bill that we've got, we had to make amendments without even seeing the new bill. How outrageous is that? But still, we have the requirement that the Director of National Intelligence, and I realize some people think he is suspect on the Democratic side because he worked for the Clinton administration for 6 years. I think he is a brilliant, sharp fellow.

But anyway, he testified before our Judiciary Committee that he cannot swear, nobody can honestly swear that they reasonably believe that a terrorist on foreign soil will never call the United States. Therefore, since he can't testify to that, they can't use this provision.

We are told this is protective because in the emergency provision that is allowed, all you have to do is get that emergency relief, and you can get that in 7 days instead of 15. Even under the emergency relief, you have to reasonably believe there will never be a call into the United States, and we had testimony that can never be done.

This guts our foreign intelligence capability. I think the easier thing to do is just have everybody tell their U.S. friends that if you are getting calls from foreign terrorists, tell them not to call, use some other means of communication. That's the point.

Mr. Speaker, to be accused of partisan maneuvering is pretty insulting. Some of us are not concerned about partisan maneuvering; we are concerned about the security of the United States. That is why I am here right now, not because of partisan maneuvering.

Do you want to talk partisan maneuvering? How about when I go out to get a copy of the most current bill and we have got a bait and switch. This isn't even the most current bill out there that we can get ahold of to come in and talk about. But I know the provision, and I appreciate my fine chairman talking about we have taken care of emergency situations, and then we had two Members just talk about emergency situations.

If you take these provisions, and hopefully the part I am talking about is the latest, that is the way I understand from what you are talking about, it says specifically in here, yeah, there is an emergency provision, but in order to get it, the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, who was the National Security Advisor for President Clinton, he and the Attorney General have to jointly be able to swear that the targets of their acquisition are not reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States and they are not reasonably believed to be United States persons.

You take that with their testimony, the testimony was I cannot ever swear that. The way you do this intelligence is you go after a foreign target, and I can never testify, he said, as to who the person will be that they call. I can never testify that I reasonably believe they will be outside the United States when they call or that they will not be a United States person.

So, if he comes in and does this after he has testified ``I cannot say I reasonably believe that they will not call somebody in the U.S., when I don't know who they will call,'' then we got problems. This does not protect the problem. We need to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, it seems like not that long ago, but it was a year or so ago, we heard repeatedly: We're losing in Iraq. We're losing in Iraq. We've got to have a policy change. We're losing in Iraq. We've got to have a policy change. And we got a policy change.

It's kind of refreshing to hear so many say we're winning, and a little bit surprising to hear we're winning, so we need a policy change. We're winning, so we need a policy change? We know if we pull out too quickly, we don't leave a stable area.

Hearing comments earlier about somebody won't listen to anyone else; they get no input. I thought they were talking about the Democratic majority. Just today on FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, I'm told at 1:30 that we've got to have amendments in by 4 o'clock on a bill that we weren't even allowed to see. You want input? Let's start it right here on the floor.

I heard comments about Vietnam mistakes. The biggest mistake that history teaches us about Vietnam was that it was micromanaged from Washington. If you want documentation, go to Sam Johnson's book. After the carpet bombing finally took place and we went after and took it to them, the bombing stopped, we gave away the farm at Paris, and as the prisoners left the Hanoi Hilton, one of the leaders said, ``You know, you Americans are so foolish. If you'd have kept it up another week, we would have had to unconditionally surrender.'' But we were micromanaged from Washington.

We show the greatest reverence for those who have given their last full measure of devotion not by pulling out before we leave a stable area, but by seeing that we finish the job and leave a stable area so they will not have died in vain.

I leave with a comment of Travis Buford's mother as we stood there by his casket in Nacogdoches, Texas at the funeral home earlier this year. I said to his mother as we stood near his coffin, ``Is there anything I can do?'' She gritted her teeth and she said, ``Go back and tell the Congress to shut up and let the military finish their job.''