Floor Statements

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

I rise in support of H.R. 813.

H.R. 813 does enjoy bipartisan support from the Orange County, California delegation. This legislation seeks to reduce Southern California's dependence on imported water by helping localities build needed desalinization infrastructure in the region.

Congressman Gary Miller's bill could not be considered at a better time since millions of water consumers in Southern California may soon feel the brunt of water rationing due to a lawsuit and subsequent judicial decision reducing water deliveries to the region.

A number of our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, sent a letter over a month ago requesting that the Democratic majority hold a hearing on the impacts of this decision. This Congress needs to recognize that people are a part of the water equation as well in this endangered species debate. We hope the majority will work with us on this important hearing and ways to avoid future water shut-offs.

This legislation may be too late to mitigate harmful lawsuits and judicial decisions, but it will help in the long term; and that is why we support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1803 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

This important legislation was introduced by our colleagues from California, President--not President yet--Duncan Hunter and Susan Davis, both colleagues here in Congress. It represents the first step in expanding increasingly scarce water supplies for the citizens of the San Diego area.

This bill authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to assess the feasibility of constructing an intertie system between four reservoirs. Several of these reservoirs are significantly below capacity in most years. Once interconnected, water could then be transported to the unused space.

Growing populations and reduced water storage opportunities require us to make efficient use of the supplies that we have, and this bill does just that.

I urge my colleagues to support this noncontroversial bill, which also passed the House in the last Congress. It also follows the adage that an east Texan once told me, ``Use what you got.'' This will allow us to do that. I urge support of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1855 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, sponsored by our California colleague and former Water and Power Subcommittee Chair George Radanovich, authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the design and construction of the Madera Water Supply and Enhancement Project.

Due to a rapidly growing population and lawsuits filed, once again we hear about those lawsuits filed by San Francisco-based environmental organizations, the San Joaquin Valley of California faces increasing demands on its limited water supply. If excess water in the San Joaquin River exists, this project would store those flows in a nearby aquifer underneath the 13,000-acre Madera Ranch. This stored water bank could prove critical to meeting demands in dry years.

This legislation also unilaterally declares the project feasible, which is something the bureaucracy would normally take years and much paperwork to decide. We commend the majority for agreeing to this rarely-used congressional declaration for a water storage project.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague across the aisle again, a Member of Congress with true grace and class. I appreciate her work on these bills, and I urge my colleagues to support this particular legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again we have heard from across the aisle, this is not true that we are saying you will have to get warrants for foreign-to-foreign, because the bill says in section 2(a), gee, you don't have to get a court order if it is between persons not U.S. citizens not located within the United States.

The problem is, when you look at 2(b) and 3 and section 4, it says: If you can't be sure and you are risking a felony if you are not, if you can't be sure that they may not call somewhere in the United States, you have got to get a court order. That is the bottom line. That is what Admiral McConnell testified.

I realize some people on the other side may think he is suspect because he was the National Security Adviser under the Clinton administration for several years, but I think he is a very credible source.

As a former judge and chief justice, I realize we have got lawyers in here, but I am telling you, when the language says if there may be a call to the United States or to an American, you have got to get a court order, then you are going to have to get them in virtually every time.

But we keep hearing no, no, all that is covered. Once again, we are told something is covered when again it is nothing but a hospital gown coverage. You are exposed in areas you don't want exposed. And that is what the country is looking at.

Now, it also requires the DNI and the AG to jointly petition. Oh, and there is great comfort in this bill. It says the judge, once they finally get the papers filed, will have to rule in 15 days. If we get a soldier kidnapped, we have some sensitive situation, and maybe it is an emergency, maybe it is not, but you can't take a chance of being guilty of a felony, you are going to have to follow through and get a court order. That is what the DNI says and that is what needs to be done.

Now, the main protection here is not for American citizens in general, it is for foreign terrorists. The bottom line is, tell your American friends who are getting calls from foreign terrorists in foreign countries not to call them. Use some other way to communicate, and then your friends are covered.

I thank the ranking member.

I appreciate Chairman Reyes' service to this country. I believe people on the other side of the aisle mean well when they say they want to protect the Constitution. The problem is this extends the Constitution beyond America to our enemies on foreign soil who cut off heads of Americans. That's just the way it is. It does that.

Now, we keep hearing across the aisle: This has nothing to do with foreign-to-foreign calls; it has nothing to do with foreign terrorists on foreign soil calling foreign terrorists, and it says that in the bill. You don't have to worry about that. You don't need a warrant for that.

The trouble is there is no conceivable time that an honest intelligence gatherer overseas can swear that a foreign terrorist that he wants to surveil will never under any circumstances call the United States. Since he can't swear to that and since there is a chance, especially since this law is public and the terrorists will know all they need to do is call America, order flowers, call time and temperature, they have made a call on American soil and they come within the requirement of getting a court order. It is very clear.

This doesn't extend the Constitution in a way that it should be on American soil. It protects enemies. I know people on the other side, you just want to protect civil liberties, but what scares me is what will happen when a terrorist attack in the nature of 9/11 comes again. People will rush to take away civil liberties, and people will voluntarily give up civil liberties for protection, liberties that were so hard fought.

So for those who are really going to be protected, I don't understand the concern. This is going to protect also Americans who get calls from foreign terrorists on foreign soil. That is what this is really going to do.

I don't think it is too much in the interest of America, tell your American friends to tell their terrorist friends on foreign soil, don't call me, use some other means of communication.

Well, I thank my friend very much.

And as you've been pointing out, we deal with these issues within our own families. My wife and I have been married 29 years this summer, and we have three fantastic daughters. But over the years, including this weekend, I've had to tell my girls, you know, gee, I'd like to help, but money doesn't grow on trees. We're not going to be able to do it right now; perhaps in the next month

or two we can go to that and we will have the money to go forward and do that. But they've also learned that, and we don't get the arguments we did when they were younger because now they have begun to understand the value of money and the value of a dollar and how, if you don't have it, you can't spend it. That's never seemed to have stopped the Federal Government. And it appears that some Members of Congress are having a harder time these days grasping that concept than I might have imagined.

And maybe I'm a little naive. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, since this is only my second term in Congress, I have been a little naive. But in the last Congress, when our friends, Democrats across the aisle, stand up and say, you know, we've got to get this spending under control, we've got to stop this wasteful spending, we've got to quit spending more than we've got coming in, I commented to some of my Republican colleagues, you know, they're really right, we have got to do that. And some of us, including my friend, Mr. Garrett, had come together and demanded reform in certain areas, demanded that we get some of this spending under control. And, you know, when the Republicans lost the majority in November, I thought, well, you know, one of the silver linings may be that these folks, the Democratic majority that's about to take over in January, they wouldn't have gone out on a limb over and over and over the way they did unless they really intended to control spending. Maybe that was naive. But anyway, as we've seen with every spending bill that's come before the House, it's draining American pockets with excessive tax hikes, with more spending than is necessary.

You know, I was shocked, also, that the usually bipartisan farm bill ended up being shoved over into a partisan issue, that was so extremely unusual, with a $4 billion partisan gimmick at the expense of many taxpayers. I didn't realize until we actually took this farm bill up since I've been in Congress, apparently it comes up every 5 years and it had not come up since I'd been here, but brought the bill up, and I didn't realize 66, 67 percent of the farm bill had nothing to do with agriculture, that it had to do with entitlements, and that those were running away. Some of us began to raise the issue, wait a minute, this is going to be providing food stamps to illegal aliens, and yet we were told, well, it doesn't actually do that. It doesn't provide food stamps to illegal aliens. And that sounded good, except when you don't require documentation to prove legal status, then there is no way to determine whether someone is legally getting food stamps or not getting legal food stamps. So that seemed to fall on deaf ears as well.

When the majority was going to promise and did promise energy reform, we got an energy package that will raise taxes by potentially $16 billion over the next 10 years. Now, also, as the House bill on SCHIP, and we've heard a good deal of discussion before we got in here to start with this hour, but the SCHIP bill, you know, helping kids have health care, we're all for that. That's a good thing. But then when you started looking at this House version, the Democrat's version on this, to brutalize seniors on Medicare and saying we're going to take from the seniors and give to the young people, and then it turns out the bill expanded the age so it wasn't just young people, it was also adults were included. I think in the final bill, maybe that will be taken out, but even there we're not sure what is going to end up being in there; we haven't gotten to see that. But then, again, adding subsidies, and basically food stamps is what they amount to, to people in foreign countries instead of taking care of folks here? The way it takes care of folks here is folks here get to pay a whole lot more in taxes than they would otherwise if we weren't trying to take on people that illegally were getting food stamps or weren't sending such money to other countries.

I will certainly yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes, that is my understanding. And I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I remember very well. The amendment to prevent illegal aliens from getting such incredible amounts of Federal taxpayer dollars passed by 215-213. We've seen the video of the replay, so it's not just my recollection; it's there in the video. We passed the amendment with the Republican leadership, and as Mr. Garrett will recall, he was a big part of that, and it was 215-213. It sat on the board for a good while, the vote was closed, the gavel came down. And then as we saw on the video, there were two people that came forward. They weren't in the well. They came forward later and changed their vote after the vote was all declared, after everything was done. The vote was final. And somehow, when the smoke cleared, it was 212-216, I believe. So a vote that would have eliminated illegal aliens from receiving benefits under this provision, it passed, and then the rules were violated and it was taken away all so that people illegally here could get the hard-earned tax dollars from legal folks that are here.

And if I could remind my gentleman friend from New Jersey, you know, we talked a great deal. And some of us put our conservative rears on the line last year by demanding earmark reform within our own Republican Party. And, in fact, there were probably 30 or so of us that told our leadership we're not voting for another major bill unless we get some type of earmark reform. So we were thrilled, I know Mr. Garrett recalls, we were thrilled, Mr. Speaker, when we got an agreement from the Speaker and we passed the amended rule here in the House that there could not be any air-dropped earmarks, which were the biggest problem, no air-dropped earmarks into conference reports without us having the ability to make a point of order objection and get a vote on those bills. That was a big deal.

And I just saw the current Speaker out in the Capitol in Statuary Hall. She was incredibly gracious. She met some young people that are here in the District of Columbia, was very gracious to them. She didn't have to stop, she was very kind. But I recall in September of last year the current Speaker said, quote, ``if you're going to have earmarks and you're going to have transparency, you have to do it in the appropriations bill and in the tax bill and in the authorization bill.''

She said, ``I would put it in writing.'' Democratic Chairman David Obey admitted that ``the public wants us to pass significant House reform.'' He also said, ``To deal with the problem of earmarks by only going after appropriations earmarks constituted basically

consumer fraud masquerading as lobbying reform.'' He said, ``To not do something about authorizing committee earmarks in the process is a joke.'' That was his quote. So that sounds good. But that is not what is being done this year. Americans are kind of fed up with having empty pockets while the government has spending sprees behind closed doors.

Now, I am not for eliminating all earmarks. I think some of them are good. Where we, as the most accountable elected officials in the country, in some cases, can tell bureaucrats that are locked up in a cubicle somewhere that this is how this money should be spent, but the important thing is sunshine. It brings about great disinfecting. That is where we are having the problem. That is why so many of our colleagues have signed a discharge petition that is designed to force the House majority leadership to allow a vote on House Resolution 479 that would ensure all taxpayer-funded earmarks are publicly disclosed and subject to challenge and open debate on the House floor.

I appreciate my friend from New Jersey yielding, as he has, and I would just offer a couple more observations. Then I will yield back the time. In January, frankly, when the Democratic majority said, ``We are going to have even better earmark reform than what the Republican conservatives got done last year,'' I was pretty happy about that. I thought, that is a good thing. How could we object to that? That is great. But under the new rules, we were told that they did not allow any earmarks. Like I say, there are some earmarks where you have full disclosure. Let them see light of day so people know at whose request and what it is for. That can work out and still be a good thing. But no earmarks is better than having too many secret earmarks. So many of us were pleased.

Then, when the bill came out that was chockfull of earmarks, we objected, which is allowed for in the new rules, only to be told that there was a provision in the rules that said you could either have no earmarks whatsoever, or in the bill in question you could have a statement that there were no earmarks in the bill. And the bill in question before the floor, even though it had lots of earmarks, there was the statement in there that there were no earmarks; therefore, it didn't violate the rule. Now, that was quite a shock. You know, Mr. Speaker, the country wanted spending reform, not regression, not reneging, not redoubling or retripling. They want true spending reform. So we need to clean up the wasteful pork in legislation so that American households can continue to bring home their own bacon and not send it somewhere else.

I appreciate the time that has been yielded to me by my friend from New Jersey. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, our friend from New Jersey's battling and agreeing to take this time and concentrate on these issues.

I thank my friend from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the term ``bipartisan'' with regard to this legislation, and as has been pointed out, there has been bipartisan support; but there has certainly been bipartisan opposition.

Bipartisan, to many out there in the United States, means, oh, it must be fair. But the truth is, bipartisan doesn't mean fair, and it doesn't mean good; and this is one of those pieces of legislation that has severe problems that are neither fair nor good.

Now in committee, the process involved a manager's amendment being made in the Committee of the Whole of the Judiciary Committee, followed immediately by an amendment to venue before anybody else was recognized so that an effort by me to have an amendment to fix venue problems that were really pronounced was shut out because that automatically made those third-degree amendments.

That seemed to me a strange effort to avoid fairness on this important bill. We come in here today with this restrictive rule which will not allow full debate and wonder why is there such haste to avoid fairness in this rule. The rule here even abrogates the House rule that requires half the time be provided to the opposition, by saying it will be controlled by two people who both support the bill.

Again, why is there such a push to avoid fairness in consideration and debate on this bill? ``We need a comprehensive bill'' is language we have heard over and over. What struck me was, gee, that's what we heard about the immigration debate: we need a comprehensive bill. Why was that said about immigration? I submit it was said because there were things that people wanted to hide in a comprehensive bill that could never pass on its own.

So I begin to look at this bill, and it appears to have the same problem. There are things in here that don't go to fix patent controls. There is such an overreaching effort here to change rules and help the big dogs just devour and destroy the little guys.

Now the patent control issue, that's a problem. Boy, how easy to fix that. All you would have to do is say if you are not the original patent holder and inventor, then your rights are restricted. But that keeps being thrown out as a basis to destroy and change and use a wrecking ball to the entire patent law.

The damages issues need a further look. My goodness, for so many years now the patent issues have been guided by factors that allow the courts to consider various types of damages. Now we have had one industry zero in on one time of damage that will help them and hurt all others. That's not fair.

We were told that in the Judiciary Committee that many of us, by name, were called who would help the language. Since then, I have not heard of any meetings to work on language. My staff has not heard of any.

Yet, we are told in here today, trust us, we are going to work together. This isn't the last time. I have heard over and over on that bill, and to come to this point, where there is so much substantial unfairness and abrogation of the fairness doctrine on taking up legislation concerns me all the more.

This isn't fair. It's not good. It's not right. It's not timely to take this up without proper discourse.

With that, I would ask that trust has not been earned. Therefore, people should vote against this rule on a bipartisan basis.

I thank the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, there are some things that need repair in the U.S. patent system, but something about this bill kept troubling me. When I read the provision regarding the transfer of venue, I began to realize something was very wrong. The provision said the court may transfer an action only to a district where ``the defendant had substantial evidence or witnesses.''

I could not believe it. That provision did not even allow a judge to consider fairness or justice or caseloads or time delays or whether the plaintiff was a small entrepreneur with only a few patents who could be led to bankruptcy by being forced to file in a court where it had a 5- year delay. I would have been absolutely staggered during my years as a judge to see a venue provision like this. Many agreed and realized that was grossly overreaching and proponents of the bill immediately recognized that and were willing to work.

But patent cases increased in the Eastern District of Texas when companies like Texas Instruments realized they could get a trial within 18 months in front of some of the best judges in the country and get fairness. Initially, there were more plaintiff victories, but, as I understand, the last year or so it has been 50-50, which there is nowhere in the country comparable to that.

I began to realize something was very wrong and one-sided when something like that could get into a bill, and especially the manager's amendment, without being noticed. And who would want something like that? Then you realize, it is big companies who do not want others to have the opportunities that they did.

So that made me look again at the damage provision that was being completely changed. I realized to whom that was helping and whom that would destroy, and I realized that the language for that must have come from the same type source who did not want anything but a small cookie cutter or mold to consider damages when, for years now, there have been many more factors that needed to be considered. You have drug cases. You have objects that are patented. You have concepts.

The Comprehensive Patent Reform bill being pushed at this time has some good features.

There are some things that need repair in the U.S. patent system. But, something about this bill kept troubling me.

When I read the provision regarding the transfer of venue, I began to realize something was very wrong. The provision said that the court may transfer an action only to a district where ``the defendant has substantial evidence or witnesses.'' That provision did not even allow the judge to consider fairness, or justice, or case loads and time delays of other courts or whether the plaintiff was a small entrepreneur with only a few patents who will be destroyed if the case is transferred to a court with a 5-year wait to trial. In my days as a trial judge, I would have been absolutely staggered to see a venue rule so incredibly one-sided. It was grossly overreaching and proponents of the bill immediately recognized that when it was pointed out, but they just had not noticed that. They then agreed to changes that prevent the language from being quite so egregious.

As our colleague from the high tech area of California pointed out moments ago, there have been patent cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas in my district. That began happening when Texas Instruments, not some small patent troll, along with others who had patents being infringed, could not get a prompt trial elsewhere, realized the Eastern District of Texas had some of the best judicial minds who were rarely ever reversed, and they could receive a trial within 2 years instead of 5. So lawsuits were filed there. As far as the rates of victories by plaintiffs to defendants, she cited old data and the new data shows that the district being excoriated in the past year probably has had more equality of verdicts than anywhere else in the country, which means the issue is a red herring for something else to get passed that is potentially deadly to invention.

I agreed we needed to do something about patent trolls who buy patents so they can sue to try to hold up a company for cash. I agreed that's not right. I was willing to help fix it. But after proposing solutions to that which were met by a desire to use that issue only as an excuse to make comprehensive, devastating changes to two centuries of patent law, I realized something inappropriate was at work here.

I began to realize something was very wrong for a terribly one-sided provision to make its way into the official bill being considered as a Manager's Amendment at the full Judiciary Committee. I began to think about who must have written or at least pushed to get that type of totally one-sided provision in there. It was not anyone interested in fairness. It was someone interested in really tilting the playing field completely one way. That had to be from huge defendants who wanted to drag small entrepreneurs into dilatory situations so that their invention or component could be usurped without proper compensation, even though it might mean the bankruptcy of the inventor and the destruction of the opportunity for the little guys with the inventive vision and spirit, which actually spurred some of the greatest developments and wealth we know and have in this country.

So when I looked again at the damage provision that was being completely changed, I realized whom that was helping and whom that would destroy and I realized that language came from the same type source. It is extremely one-sided and completely abrogates the ability of a court to use factors or standards that are applicable in the vast variety of patent cases which arise. Patents are obtained for so many different types of objects, drugs, and even concepts. To try to force such a huge spectrum of patents into one small specific type of cookie cutter or mold is of great concern to so many.

Then, I remembered also something about this ``comprehensive'' type approach--that's what was being said about immigration reform!! In the case of Immigration, ``Comprehensive Reform'' was being used to make some changes most of us could probably agree on in order to mask within those acceptable provisions other problematic provisions unacceptable to most Americans which could probably not pass by themselves. After finding examples of inappropriately oppressive language that was being stuffed or hidden in a large comprehensive bill, I am left wondering why not just fix the limited areas that are agreeable and not shove a brand new comprehensive, revolutionary change--that some say will absolutely set over 200 years of patent law on its head--that may give some of the largest corporations in the country the ability to prevent others from having the same opportunities they had to become large.

It is real easy to continue to excoriate these horrid ``patent trolls'', which could easily be addressed by very small changes to a very limited provision. If you want to limit patent trolls, then restrict the abilities of those who purchase the patents or rights to sue as secondary holders of patents. If that is not enough, there are other limited ways to handle it, though one must be careful not to destroy principal patent assets after a company is bought out by another. But I would humbly submit that when an easy fix is rejected to such a problem because some desire the issue to mask an effort that may well denigrate or destroy the adequate ability to preserve such assets--something is amiss in Washington, DC.

As objections from many areas have grown, the private interests pushing this bill have realized they may have pushed too far too fast, so have sought to appear less draconian, but we must review what this bill does. The bill before us today completely changes: The damages or compensation that may be obtained from a wrongdoer for stealing or usurping someone else's patent; the law on where such suits for infringement may be filed; the effect of a patent; the law on administrative review of patents and privacy issues of the patent before it is final. Is it any wonder that the worst thieves nationally and internationally of U.S. intellectual property are hoping we pass this bill.

It is also important to point out that we have heard here today promises about things that will be fixed between now and when the law were to become law. We've been told that our input is welcome toward such fixes. The trouble is, we were told the same thing at the full committee. I was one who was called by name to help the group work on fixes to major problems. Though I am not questioning motivation at this juncture, I have made myself available to meet and have offered suggestions, but the group that was going to meet and work on the changes before today never met that I was advised. My staff says they were never advised. So much for getting in that valuable input.

The question remains: do we need this much of a complete change to a system that has spurred, nurtured and protected the greatest advancements in the history of mankind. I would submit that it is imperative that we back up, vote this down, and come back with non- comprehensive provisions that do not include provisions that will tilt the playing field and so dramatically change our laws to protect intellectual property rights. We should borrow from the old Code in Medicine to first do no harm!

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate so much my friend from California. And, in fact, I like Mr. Issa so much, I want more people like Darrell Issa. I want more people to have the opportunity to create patents, to use ingenuity, to do well based on their thought processes. And I'm afraid now this bill will prevent us from having the opportunity to have more Darrell Issas.

The amendment works on one of the problems, well, gee, we'll look at the regulations. But, my goodness, this is a comprehensive bill. We keep hearing, you know, we need comprehensive bills. And red flags went up in my mind. And where have I heard that? Oh, yes, on immigration reform. We had to have a comprehensive bill because there were some things that needed to be passed, some people thought, that they knew could not pass if they had the bright enough light of day shown on them, and so we have a comprehensive bill to put some things in there that do more damage than good.

We need more time to look at these provisions so that we can ensure that there are more Darrell Issas that get to have the same opportunities to do as well and make us as proud as our good friend from California.

Mr. Chairman, our chairman of the Judiciary Committee commented that it looks like the people opposed to anything are opposed to everything.

I'm really not. I think this is a good idea, a good amendment; and I applaud my colleague from Texas for pushing this forward.

I would like to have had these results before we went forward with this so-called comprehensive bill.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, as I said, I think it's a good idea and I'm going to vote for it. But I would rather have this as a stand-alone before we do all of these what some have referred to as draconian comprehensive measures.

And I do not question whatsoever the sincerity or the effort on behalf of the chairman for working people and others. And I do not question the sincerity when we were told, and I was among those who were told, you could be in a group that will revise this. I just never was given that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania.

We are told this is a new direction. This isn't a new direction. This isn't new thinking. We saw it 30 years which brought gas shrines. We saw it 30 years ago, and it brought us gas lines. We had a chance in this bill to fix a lot of problems.

We lost in my district, down in Lufkin, Texas, home of Charlie Wilson, we lost nearly 1,000 hardworking union jobs because natural gas was too expensive. We have lost a whole bunch more, and are in danger of losing more in Longview because natural gas is too high. We could have addressed that and fixed that.

But I guess the good thing that came out 30 years ago was that the gas lines and the problems that arose and the high gas prices brought us Ronald Reagan, and people's memories have waned some.

But this is Saturday, and there are not many people watching, but please note that when the policies in this bill end up helping gas run up to $5 a gallon--yes, it will help alternative fuels, but we would have gotten there eventually anyway. But please note that when it gets to $5 a gallon and more people, including union people, are losing their jobs, they will ultimately note and voters will long remember.

So long live gas lines and Jimmy Carter's legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate this bill coming to the floor. I do not think it is a travesty against our civil rights.

Some people have some confusion, I think, over civil rights versus rights in a time of war. Believe it or not, and I think most of you should understand, we are in a war. We didn't know it in

1979 when war was declared against us, but we are at war. There are those in the world who believe that freedom and liberty necessarily leads to debauchery and degradation. Therefore, we must have a dictatorial, brutal leader, religious leader that tells us what we can and can't do. If you don't, then they have the right to cut off your head and destroy our way of life.

Now we happen to believe when you declare war against us and you want to cut off our heads and destroy our way of life, then we have a right to protect ourselves. In criminal law, it is called self-defense, and that is an exception to some of the rights others may have. What some have confused, I think, is civil rights versus rights of those declare war against your way of life.

This is not a bill that will allow surveilling American citizens on American soils. But the message is this: If you declare war on this country and you are a foreigner, we may just listen in on your conversations and you can be prepared for that. I have every confidence because of the oversight that will be coming with Chairman Conyers and the reports that are required in this bill, if they are not forthcoming, I expect to see to people held accountable, and I know Chairman Conyers will make sure that happens. And hopefully some day, Chairman Smith will be doing the same thing.

But the message, Mr. Speaker, is clear. You declare war on this Nation and you are in a foreign country, we may come after you and listen to what you have to say.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Democratic majority leadership was in the process of attempting to violate the House of Representatives' rules by holding a vote open with the sole intent of changing the outcome of the vote.

As the vote changed from 214 ``yeas'' to 214 ``nays'' to 215 ``yeas'' to 213 ``nays,'' the Speaker pro tempore brought down the gavel. Because he then realized the vote was in favor of the Republican motion, he didn't know what to do. The lighted scoreboard at either end of the Chamber showed 215 ``yeas'' to 213 ``nays.''

Then the Speaker and Parliamentarian allowed two more Democrats to change their vote. So the vote finally announced was 212 ``yeas'' and 216 ``nays.'' The Parliamentarian said the vote was actually 214-214 when the vote closed. However, of course, he had no explanation for why the vote was officially called. He allowed the vote switching to continue until the vote became what it was announced. That is clearly because there is no proper explanation other than that, on the way to violating one rule, it became necessary to violate another.

It is also noteworthy that the vote was to further enable people who are breaking the law in America by being here illegally to not only break the law but receive money from those forced to pay taxes.

Then came the astounding news that the record was wiped clean of the computer evidence of what went wrong. When rules and laws don't matter, we change the destiny of history.

Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from a mother of a Marine who was killed on July 5 of this year. She asked that I make this letter known to the Members of the House, and that is what I will do at this time. I will read directly from her letter.

``Let me first tell you about myself. My name is Jenifer Allbaugh, my husband is Jon Allbaugh and we have three children together. My son, 2nd Lt. Army Jason Allbaugh (24), my daughter Alicia Allbaugh, college sophomore (19) and Cpl. Jeremy Allbaugh, USMC (21). Jeremy was killed in Iraq on July 5, 2007 while on a mission in a Humvee that was hit by an IED.

``Jeremy enlisted in the Marine Corps before he graduated from high school in 2004. We were at war but he very much wanted to serve his country. He believed very much in what he was doing and what his country was trying to accomplish in Iraq and Afghanistan.

``While we as a family are struggling greatly with the loss of our hero, I feel a great need to express my concerns in regards to our military.

``I do not understand why our government has to be pushed to equip our

military with the best equipment technology has to offer. We are one of the greatest Nations on this earth, but yet it took parents and other individuals to get our military up-armored Humvees and better body armor. Now we need Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles and the debate is on again.

``First of all, these vehicles were available for years before this war began, but yet we are just now realizing the need for them. This is shameful, and there is no excuse for it. I would like one person to look me and other mothers in the eye and explain why our sons were not in the these vehicles. According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, approximately 700 American heroes would be alive today if they had been in an MRAP, my son included.

``I'm not smartest or most educated woman in the world, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there should be no debate over supplying our military with these vehicles.

``IEDs seem to be one of the most effective weapons terrorists have against our troops. Money should not be an issue. This country has been selfish long enough. It shouldn't matter how much it costs. If you are going to ask our military to put their lives on the line for our freedoms, then again, money should not matter. We as a country can go without perfectly paved roads and other such luxuries we seem to think we need for awhile. We gripe about the cost of gas, milk and cup of coffee. If Americans would quit being selfish, maybe funding this war wouldn't be so hard.

``Our Congress and Senate need to stop the finger pointing, back biting, back stabbing and name calling and do their jobs. Work together. As hard as that sounds, the rest of us in the `real world' have to do it every day.

``It is also time for what I believe is a silent majority to stand up and be heard. Since the death of our son, we have heard from people all over the country who appreciate what he did for his country. They also appreciate what our military is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we as a country only hear from the ones who complain the most. The rich and famous, who don't know what they're talking about, get to tell their opinions, but not those of us who support our sons and daughters who have volunteered to serve this country.

``I had long conversations with my son while he was in Iraq. I was one of the lucky Moms who got to talk to her son quite frequently. He told me of the good things they were doing, for example opening schools, hospitals, clinics and helping recruit men into the Iraqi Army. The vast majority of the Iraqi people in the area Jeremy was in, loved and appreciated the Marines. They understood why we are there. He told me how the locals were voluntarily giving info on the terrorists and their activities and that neighborhood watch programs had been started.

``Do we hear of this? No. Because it isn't sensational enough and it doesn't get votes.

``This war has had a lot of mistakes made, but to me it's neither here or there. We are there and there are good things being done. I want no more excuses and explanations. Write the check with no attachments and give our men what they need. MRAP's should have been there from the beginning and should be there now. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is asking for more money for MRAP's. This is a no brainer and there should no excuse for thousands to be built. I as a Mother do not care what the obstacles are. We built ships faster than this during World War II. It can be done if we want to. Don't attach pork and other stupid stuff to it either. Just do it. Until we finish our job in Iraq and Afghanistan these vehicles shouldn't be under debate and should be top priority in the manufacturing industry. If you had done this in the first place, my son and many others would be alive today. He was in a Humvee every day he was in Iraq as are thousands of others.

``Jeremy was a bigger man at 21 than any of the men and women that are running this country. He went to war without hesitation or reservation. He did his job well and was sorely overworked and underpaid. I ask that you all start earning your paycheck and do what is right. As my son said, `We are doing good things here and we need to finish.''

Please honor our military and give them the equipment and time in Iraq and Afghanistan that they need. Please save another Soldier or Marine in a Humvee by putting them in MRAP's.

``The Iraqi people where my son was appreciated him and his fellow Marines. Too bad our own politicians don't. Quit using words of support and do it with deeds.''

I realize my time is expired, and I thank the Speaker.

Madam Speaker, on Thursday evening, July 26, Gregg County, my home district, First District of Texas, will gather for a day of remembrance in honor of our great servicemembers who were held as prisoners of war or were missing in action.

July 26 is a special day because it will be the 63rd birthday of U.S. Air Force Captain Clyde Campbell, around whom this occasion is centered.

I, unfortunately, will be unable to attend since I will be here in Washington DC, but I send these remarks. Unfortunately, Captain Campbell will also be unable to make it on his own birthday celebration because he or his remains have not been brought home from Laos.

Clyde Campbell was born in Eagle Lake, Texas, in 1944, and graduated from Longview High School in 1962. After graduating from Texas A&M University, he answered the call to service and joined the United States Air Force. An ambitious and talented young pilot, Captain Campbell was stationed at Nakhon Phanom Royal Thai Airport Base in Thailand, ready to sacrifice his all for the Nation that he loved so dearly.

In March 1969, he took off in his Douglas A1 Skyraider on a bombing

pass, but Captain Campbell's plane was shot down and crashed in Laos.

I will speak more about Captain Campbell during Special Orders.

Madam Speaker, on Thursday evening, July 26, Gregg County, my home district, First District of Texas, will gather for a day of remembrance in honor of our great servicemembers who were held as prisoners of war or were missing in action.

July 26 is a special day because it would be the 63rd birthday of U.S. Air Force captain Clyde Campbell, that is the man around whom this occasion is centered.

I, unfortunately, will be unable to attend since I will be here in Washington. Unfortunately, Captain Campbell will also be unable to make it on his own birthday celebration because he or his remains have not been brought home from Laos.

Clyde Campbell was born in Eagle Lake, Texas, in 1944, and graduated from Longview High School in 1962. After graduating from Texas A&M University, he answered the call to service and joined the United States Air Force. An ambitious and talented young pilot, Captain Campbell was stationed at Nakhon Phanom Royal Thai Airport Base in Thailand, ready to sacrifice his all for the Nation that he loved so dearly.

In March 1969, he took off in his Douglas A1 Skyraider on a bombing pass, but Captain Campbell's plane was shot down and crashed in Laos.

It is now 2007, almost 40 years later. Although his crash site has been identified, Captain Campbell's remains are in a land that is not his home.

The Campbell family has spent nearly four decades requesting help to have this patriot returned. But so far, that help has not come. I am ashamed that the Federal Government has not used anywhere near the devotion to giving his family closure as the devotion Captain Campbell provided this Nation in her time of need.

This family deserves better. Captain Campbell deserves better, and I, as are many others around here, am determined to see that his remains are removed from Laos and given a proper burial here in the United States.

He and those who gave their last full measure of devotion for this country, as well as their beloved family members who have waited so long, deserve action, and they deserve results.

Captain Campbell and the Campbell family deserve our deepest gratitude for their sacrifice. May God bless them and comfort them, and may God and the Campbell family forgive this Federal Government for its 30 years of inadequate service to them.

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to pay tribute to David Ray Ritcheson, having met him, talked with him, and heard his testimony at the Judiciary Committee.

David Ray Ritcheson was truly a brave young man who had a horrible act committed against him. His early departure from this life made his story all the more tragic. The crime committed against him earlier in his life is one that should not be tolerated under any circumstances. The applicable State law dealt with that crime in such a way that I understand the main perpetrators received life and 90 years as sentences.

On hearing the sad testimony by David at our hearing, everyone was moved with a sense of outrage. Yet, on closer examination of what the majority was trying to do, it caused me to ask if there was anything in this hate crimes bill that would have changed anything about David's terrible situation. After all, the hate crimes bill has no sentence higher than life. It's not a capital situation.

The answer was, and is, that there is nothing in the bill that would have really made any substantive difference in David's situation.

It is also tragic that any acquaintances of David who did not know the details of the brutality against him before apparently came to know about it through his courage and the national attention focused on him and the display of courage at our hearing. That is further testimony itself to his courage. But the ridicule at home that followed his testimony is also tragic. It is sad that he chose to end that life of such incredible potential.

David's earlier display of courage and the unfairness and outrage he faced deserve attention. He deserves a heartfelt salute. His family has our thoughts and prayers with them, especially in this loss of such a beautiful soul with so much potential.

But the bill being touted in this resolution does not bring us together. It divides us by saying that some people in this country are more important to protect than others. It divides by saying, for example, that those tragically killed at Virginia Tech are not as important to protect as a transvestite with gender identity issues. The bill further seeks to squelch religious teaching about immorality.

I stand here on the floor today to salute David Ray Ritcheson, an incredible young man. I want with all my heart to vote for a resolution to pay him proper tribute as well. But, unfortunately, I cannot vote for a resolution that, since it includes a pursuit and an adulation of the hate crimes bill, I cannot see the use of this tragedy to vote to give accolades to a bill that I think harms America and divides us.

If there is a recorded vote, I will vote ``present'' out of my incredible respect for David Ritcheson. But my ``present'' vote will also avoid the hypocrisy of my saying I support the hate crimes bill when I believe it harms the country, it harms religious teaching, and it would not undo what was done to David.

I look forward to any opportunity to do anything to pay tribute to David Ritcheson standing on its own.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my friend across the aisle, the idea of assisting with counseling for anyone who has been through something so traumatic as what David Ritcheson experienced is a good idea. I would support a measure of that order.

Matthew Shepard was mentioned, as was James Byrd. Of course, most of us are familiar with those situations. Mr. Byrd was attacked because he was an African American. He was brutally drug behind a vehicle. And if I had my way and could put into law the law I would like to address that, it would be to allow the family of the victim to choose the terrain over which to drag the defendants, if they were convicted, and the rope by which to drag them. But, again, capital punishment was not an issue in this hate crimes bill.

Mr. Byrd's perpetrators, two received the death penalty, as I recall, and one received a life sentence, and that was State resources without the assistance of the Federal Government. With Matthew Shepard, I believe there were two life sentences in those cases, which would further not have been enhanced.

But I look forward to the day, as Martin Luther King said, when we are judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin, and I would submit not by any other factors over which we have no control.

When it comes to a hate crime bill, we ought not to be dividing. A transvestite deserves protection. David Ritcheson, my goodness, deserved protection. We should work together to bring this Nation together, not divide it by saying some people deserve more protection than others.

Again, I think the idea of counseling, it might have served David well because, goodness knows, he had been through a great deal of trauma. Perhaps that would have assisted him in not bringing a permanent end to a temporary problem, which made it all the more tragic.

So I would welcome the opportunity, if something in the form of legislation along those lines were to arise, in working with my colleagues on the other side.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Thank you for yielding, and I just want to wholeheartedly applaud and pay tribute to your gesture here. A salute to the life of David Ritcheson is a wonderful thing. I thank you for doing that.