Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, there is something awry in this House. You know, we have heard for the last 2 years I have been here in Congress about how if the Democrats were allowed to be in the majority, there was going to be openness, Mr. Speaker, there was going to be transparency, there was going to be bipartisanship; and yet right here the first rattle out of the box we have 3 weeks where the Republicans are not allowed any input whatsoever. Oh, we can come to the floor and fuss about it, but that is not input, there are no amendments, there are no changes that were allowed to be made. But now this week, we are beyond the 100 hours. And of course that was pretty ironic because promises, pledges, I assure you we are going to have openness, we are going to be bipartisan, well, when they saw around election time it was, gee, they had a chance of taking the majority, what did they do? Well, we don't want to keep that bipartisan promise, so let's change that. How can we do that? Oh, we will make a new promise. We will promise we are not going to keep our prior promise and we are just going to ramrod some things through in the opening days of Congress. Then they found out they enjoyed that, they liked that. Don't let them have any input. That is not right to Americans that nearly half of Americans are not allowed input into what goes on.

But this week takes the cake. Unbelievable. We have a bill that has only, as far as we can find out, had input from Congressman Obey and Senator Byrd, it is the Obey-Byrd $463 billion earmark. Now I have got some folks up here from my district from Lufkin, Texas; the mayor is here, the city manager. In fact, nine of my 12 full counties had never voted for a Republican for Congress before, they are conservative Democratic counties. They don't run their counties and cities this way. They don't say the mayor is going back in the back rooms and is going to put together the budget for the next year. We are not going to have any kind of hearings, we are not going to allow any input. And here in Congress, in the past we have had review by subcommittees, and then the subcommittee hearings and taking testimony, and then we had a voting it out of subcommittee called a markup. Then we had review by the full committee. Then we had input from both Democrats and Republicans. Then we had a voting it out of committee. And then it went to the Rules Committee, and then the Rules Committee considered it. And then it came to the floor. And then there were opportunities for amendment, not on $463 billion of American taxpayer money, no, not here. There is no subcommittee, no committee, no Rules Committee. Well, they may take it to Rules, but I am not sure about that because it won't matter. It is coming to the floor tomorrow for a vote on the $463 billion Obey-Byrd earmark. That is not openness and transparency. I don't care how many new promises you make to break your old promises, that isn't right to the American people of my county, my county seats, Gilmer, Jefferson, Tyler, Longview, Marshall, Carthage, Henderson, Nacogdoches, Center, Hemphill, San Augustine, Lufkin; they would never run their city governments like this, they would never run their county governments like this. People would run them out of office if they tried to do what is going to be done tomorrow with $463.5 billion of America's taxpayer dollars. That is just not right. That is not right.

You know, Democrats had kind of run the budget process in the ground, and people had enough. They saw the way Senator Byrd cost us hundreds of millions or billions of dollars building an FBI facility in West Virginia. They saw the way the earmarks got out of hand under Democrats, so they voted in Republicans in 1994. Republicans did a great job, welfare reform, bringing the budget to where it balanced. And then they got a little complacent, some of my colleagues got long in the tooth and forgot why they were there, and so we got voted out. And the Democrats said, trust us, we have learned our lessons, we are not going to let this happen again. And all I can think about over and over again is that line in Animal House where after the senior fraternity members had wrecked the young freshman pledge's car, the guy put his arm around the young freshman and said, in effect, well, you messed up, you trusted me. Well, voters trusted Democrats with the majority. And now, as we consider $463 billion Obey-Byrd earmark that didn't have input from our friends across the aisle or Republicans, you messed up, you trusted them.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Sam Johnson's resolution. I visited this fall with a Specialist William Barth at Walter Reed. I got this e-mail from his father, and I talked to his wife Rachel this morning. They encouraged me to proceed with this.

This is Specialist William Barth. His father said:

I wanted to thank you for visiting my son, Specialist

William Barth, at Walter Reed. William was injured by an IED

in Iraq around September 8, 2006. He since has recovered from

these injuries and he has been redeployed to Iraq. He is

heading there now.

William is committed to his job and his fellow soldiers. He

could have chosen to stay stateside; however, he felt the

job, his job, was not finished. I have another son, Sergeant

Aaron Barth, who is equally committed to the cause of

freedom. Aaron has already served over a year in Iraq and is

preparing to return as well.

Mr. Gohmert, my family is behind the President 100 percent.

We are committed to the cause of freedom. Keep up the good

work and do not allow anyone to defund the military. The next

time you see the President, let him know that fellow Texans

are praying for him, for you and for our Nation.

Now, this is support for the troops. That is what we need to be about, not defunding these guys fighting for us.

Mr. Speaker, friends from this side of the aisle have been talking tonight about the tax increase we had last week.

One of the things that I have observed in my 2 years that I have been here is sometimes people take credit for things that maybe they had an effect on, and maybe they didn't. But over the last couple of years, one of the things we have been doing is we have tried to provide for drilling for gas.

There are trillions of cubic feet of natural gas in the Gulf Coast. It is a fact, we have trillions of cubic feet of gas. You can go along the Outer Continental Shelf along both coasts, and many States do not want any drilling out there. They want all the energy, they want it cheap. They don't want any of it drilled where they may have to look at it, but they want the energy. People fight that. They don't want any drilling out there.

Then we have this area that is tundra, as we were taught growing up in public school, tundra, where there is just not much of anything. Yet people don't want to allow drilling in that area, even though it could provide 1\1/2\ million barrels of oil a day.

The OCS and ANWR, those are not be-all-end-all solutions to our energy needs, but they are a small part of the solution. Alternative fuels, bioethanol. We have biomass in East Texas, where I am from, and we have oil and gas as well. We have coal. We have all these things. There are projects to produce energy with zero emissions from coal. All of these great things are going on that we are trying to push, and so much of it met with opposition.

Then we came along last week, and we end up having the incentives to do domestic drilling in the United States or off our coasts to provide additional energy and to do it with domestic people, domestic companies, domestic jobs to help the economy, as well as provide fuel that we don't have go overseas to get, and yet those incentives, it was voted by the majority as pushed by our Democrat friends across the aisle to remove those incentives.

The thing that struck me over the last couple of years as we fought against Democrats who didn't want to drill the Outer Continental Shelf, didn't want to drill ANWR, they fought like crazy against having incentives for new refineries. We are realistic enough. We know that the big oil companies are not going to build more refineries here. They do it in other places where it is cheaper. But it was to encourage independent oil companies to drill here in America, and also to refine here in America, because we need the gasoline to keep things going until we get sufficient alternative fuels.

But after fighting against us to allow those things to bring down the prices of gasoline, as gasoline skyrocketed, I was amazed. People on the other side of the aisle blamed Republicans for the skyrocketing gas prices.

The thing that struck me, and I just wanted to leave my friends in the House with this thought, if you are going to fight against the things that make for cheaper fuel, then when the price of gasoline skyrockets, at least have the decency to take credit for it. ``Yes, we got the high gas prices. America, you ought to love us. We drove up the price of gasoline, and now it is way up and you ought to love us for it.'' Instead, we got blamed because gasoline got high.

So I hope as a result of what we saw what happen last week, as it ends up in the next year or so causing a spike in the price of gasoline, that our friends across the aisle that caused this spike that they have put in the pipeline now to generate a skyrocketing gasoline price, that when that occurs, they will go ahead and stand up and say, ``You bet gasoline is high; and we Democrats, we proudly caused it.''

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 37 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, January 23, 2007, at 10:30 a.m., for morning hour debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard complaints from across the aisle today alleging that oil and gas leases being addressed right now were negotiated in a culture of corruption.

Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats have evidence that the Clinton administration that negotiated these leases did so

corruptly, it needs to be brought forward. If that evidence is there, the Attorney General can go forward and rescind these leases and get damages. Maybe that is some of the evidence that Sandy Berger was stuffing in his socks to steal away. But if we don't have the evidence, then it is not right to go forward and break contractual words of this country and this Congress.

Once upon a time there was a king who broke his word regularly, like the Democrats are trying to do here, and our forefathers came forth with a document that said when in the course of human events it becomes necessary to dissolve the political bands which have connected one with another, that is what started this country when the king started being so arbitrary and capricious as this.

Now our forefathers tried to protect against that, so they inserted in the Bill of Rights a fifth amendment provision called the takings clause that says you shall not take private property for public use without just compensation.

Now this bill basically says if you don't renegotiate your lease, you can't get any more leases on your existing lease. You can't have economic benefit. That is one of the things. The Penn Central case from 1978 made clear what the test was, and this rises to the level of a regulatory taking.

In this bill, the Democrats are also going to try to change the Tax Code and deprive the oil and gas industry of a deduction that every other industry has. And what it will do is, in effect, prevent domestic drilling, drive us to more foreign oil and send money to our enemies. We should rename the bill the ``Chavez Shelter Bill'' or the ``Terrorist Assistance Bill'' or maybe the ``National Insecurity Bill.''

Gas prices will skyrocket, and if that is what somebody here wants, they will be happy. Look, I am not happy with the deal that the Clinton administration cut. It was not a good deal, but a country cannot go about breaking its word. That is not the right thing to do.

What the majority wants to do is what was done in ``Animal House'' after a freshman pledge's car was wrecked. He got an arm around his shoulders and the words, ``Son, you messed up. You trusted me.'' That's not the way to run a government.

Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege.

Madam Speaker, the question of personal privilege to which I rise is one regarding the tarnish that is on my reputation and the reputation of others here in this body.

We had heard for the last couple of years the term ``culture of corruption''; and, frankly, one of the things that I looked forward to is an end to all this discussion about corruption that tarnishes each one of us. And I know for all of the people whom I am close to it is a big deal as far as our reputation when it is tarnished.

And so what I would submit is that in the last 2 weeks that we have not cleared a culture of corruption; that a cloud of corruption has hovered over this body, it hovers over me now, tarnishing all that we are and that I am. And to have an American territory excluded from a minimum wage bill that directly benefits one of the Members, in fact the Speaker and a company----

Point of order.

Under rule IX, it is provided in the precedents that any time someone's reputation has been tarnished or sullied, it may be addressed.

I would in fact direct you to the second page of section 708 regarding the prior usage for the question of personal privilege. And you will find on the second page of the reference in section 708 of the Rules and Practice Manual that Former Speaker Jim Wright rose to a question of personal privilege and he addressed a matter that was sullying the reputation of the House, and him in particular, and addressed it in order to clear the air.

If you look underneath that in that same page, it references Speaker Gingrich, who rose to a question of personal privilege in order to clear the air and the cloud and allegation of corruption that had arisen. And then, beneath that you will see a reference of a precedent from Speaker Hastert in 2000 who rose to a question of personal privilege to clear the air and clear the question of malfeasance over the issue of the selection of the Chaplain.

Well, then perhaps it would be better for the Speaker to come so we can clear the air and get this matter behind us so we can move forward in a bipartisan manner. If it was a staff member or someone else that allowed American Samoa to be exempted, we can get it cleared. The question of personal privilege would disappear. I would rise to make that----

I have a constitutional point of order.

Madam Speaker, under Article I, section 6, a matter that was discussed at some length in the past year, it says that for any speech or debate in either House, they, the Senators and Representatives, shall not be questioned in any other place.

This is the only place in which a question of personal privilege, in which a matter that is tarnishing anyone's reputation or everyone's reputation in here may be addressed. If I will not be allowed to go further with the question of personal privilege, I would ask the Speaker to rise to a question of personal privilege as the last three Speakers have under Article I, section 6, clear the air, clear the cloud of corruption that is hovering over us so we can move forward in a clean and wholesome, bipartisan environment. And I will do as the Parliamentarian has requested.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Is the Speaker asking or directing that I bring in articles

and things into this House to present to the Speaker here in this floor of the House?

The law on its face and what we just passed exempted a territory. It should be very clear.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate so much my friend from American Samoa coming in here. I am not casting any aspersions on him or his wonderful territory. I didn't throw allegations or aspersions on anyone. But there is a cloud of corruption hovering over this body that effects every one of us, and it would be so easy to get the air cleared. But there is really one person that could clear the air.

For so long people in this country cynically say: It is not what you know, it is who you know. Many of us say: That is not the case.

I believe if the Speaker would come forward, rise to a question of personal privilege, Madam Speaker, we could get this thing resolved and get it behind us so it is no longer an issue, and figure out how in the world a group, a territory got exempted that actually benefits a company in the Speaker's own district. And then we will be beyond it and move on in a bipartisan way, which I hope we will eventually have the opportunity to do.

Mr. Speaker, my mother taught for most of her adult life, and she used to say, One of the things I like about you, Louie, is that you are teachable. And I am learning, Mr. Speaker.

I have learned that you can make a promise for years and years: We are going to have the most open government; we know that legislation is better if there is opportunity to amend it and debate it, because 100 percent right doesn't lie in one person, so we are going to do that.

Whoops, we have a shot in being in the majority. What can we do? Oh, I know, we can make a different promise. Well, we are people of our word, so we promise we are not going to do any of that stuff for the first 100 hours.

Well, that is 4 days and 4 hours. Whoops, we want to keep violating our first promise, so, well, we are promising that 100 hours means the clock only runs when we have the ball.

Mr. Speaker, I am learning.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of pages here on great stem cell research that has been going on: adult stem cells, amniotic fluid stem cells. But my time is so limited. Let us just clarify. This is not about no research on embryonic stem cells. That is ongoing. That is not illegal.

We have funded tremendous amounts of stem cell research. Frankly, some of us don't need lectures on what it is to watch someone you love suffer and die and diminish and want to help them. Most all of us know that.

This is about prying money from taxpayers' hands who believe it is illegal and immoral and unethical to kill living embryos, and some of us have seen our little embryo mature into a beautiful person. This is about taking taxpayer dollars away from them and funding this research.

We are in a free market society. Pharmaceuticals have been demonized. Gee, they are making a profit. They are out to make a profit. If the money were there, they would be doing this.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more with one of the statements from a colleague on the other side of the aisle when he said a lot of contradictions are going on here.

Here we are talking about a bill to bring to the floor now for national security purposes, that is what it is about, but we are hearing all of these other things. We ought to do this and we ought to do that.

I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is this body that passed the minimum wage raise and it was the body down the hall that did not. I would encourage them if they could go make these same speeches down at the other end in the offices of the Democrats, then we might could get four out of all of those Democrats who would go along with the Republicans and get that minimum wage bill passed, and we would be in good shape then, if that is what they feel.

The contradiction, though, when we talk about a lot of contradiction going on here, as my friend, Mr. Ryan, spoke of, all I could think of was the contradiction in complaining about gas prices, what they are doing to people. Yes, they are hurtful. They hurt our country badly. But the contradiction was why they acted so bothered when prices of gasoline went up. That is what they fought vehemently for all of these last 2 years that I have been here. No, this is exactly what they fought for when they opposed drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. It is exactly what they fought for when they opposed drilling in ANWR. It is exactly what they fought for when they opposed an energy policy bill finally getting through that went basically much on party-line vote.

And then after Katrina and Rita when we were so fearful about all of the refineries being in trouble, we knew we needed more refineries. We knew we needed alternative energy incentives. And what happened, we passed the energy bill in October, again basically on a party-line vote, that would create incentives for independent oil companies to build refineries, including away from the coast, would increase incentives for biofuels, alternative energy sources, and they were fighting over that.

So the contradiction is how you could fight against all of the things that would give us energy independence and then seem upset that the gas prices went higher.

Thank goodness the policies we set in place a year ago are starting to work because that is national security. The rest of national security are some of the things we are taking up for the good of our troops and this country, and I would urge the passing of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to our chairman.

This is critical. We are in a war with people who want to destroy our way of life. Now, we are rightfully concerned about the civil rights of Americans, but the thing is this doesn't have to do with the civil rights of Americans. If the President, or any President, I don't care who it is, would authorize wiretapping surveillance of American to American, then I will be right here with anybody else calling them to task. That is not what we are about here.

And, in fact, in this act, it actually updates the definition of who is covered under FISA to ensure that electronic surveillance is narrowly focused on America's enemies. That is part of what is so important here.

Another aspect that makes this even more crucial today: some have said, why now? Why today? Is this all for politics? Well, I don't know. The question is, when a Federal judge in Detroit strikes this down, who was hand picked, let's face it. As I understand, there were 30 lawsuits filed around the country, so that as soon as the ACLU and most liberal folks got the judge they wanted from the draw in each of those jurisdictions, they dismissed all the others and got the most liberal judge they could get. That is inappropriate. That is not justice. This is putting our Nation at risk. This is something we have to do now.

Some have said, well, gee doesn't it really affect the rights of Americans? And the answer is no, not unless you are dealing directly with a foreign terrorist. This is not about domestic to domestic, American to American.

We have heard some on the other side bring up scripture, that we need to do unto others, even if they are not Americans. We need to do unto others, I would submit to you, and I love it when people call on scripture like my brothers and sisters from the other side of the aisle, because it brought to mind to me Romans 13-4 that says, ``for it,'' the government, ``is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid. For the government does not bear the sword without purpose. It is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.'' So if we want to invoke ``do unto others,'' let's look at the rest of the verses and get it in context.

Individually, should we go after people who are after our country? Absolutely not. That is inappropriate. But the government, which is us, has not only an obligation, but we have the critical duty to make this happen.

So I would humbly submit that because we have rogue Federal judges out there who will do their will to destroy this administration, or any administration's effort to protect us, we have to do our job.

We have got to make sure that this government does deal with evil, does deal with those who seek to destroy us, and, yes, put them under surveillance; not Americans but foreigners, because that is our job. That is what we are required to do. That is what I swore to do when I joined the Army, when I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is what we still have got to do.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our colleague from North Carolina briefing us on Hanes. I must say those briefs were uplifting. Cross my heart.

But what I would like to address in the remaining couple of minutes we have here is something that keeps coming up. We keep hearing from people about we want to blame America first. That is not what we should be about. We even heard a former Marine common this floor and accuse current active duty Marines of being cold-blooded killers, without them being charged, without a trial, based on nothing but hearsay.

So it is my deep pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to come and pay tribute to those who have won some of our Nation's highest honors.

On occasion, events occur that become synonymous with the dates on which they occur; December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001, for example. For Marine Captain Brian Chontosh, March 25, 2003, that is such a day.

That day, while leading his weapons platoon for 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, north of Highway 1 outside of Baghdad, then 29-year-old Lieutenant Chontosh's platoon moved into a coordinated ambush of mortars, rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapons fire. With coalition tanks blocking the road ahead, he realized his platoon was caught in a kill zone.

He had his driver move the vehicle through a breach along his flank where he was immediately taken under fire from entrenched machine gun. Without hesitation, Captain Chontosh ordered the driver to advance directly at the enemy position, enabling his .50 caliber machine gunner to silence the enemy. He then directed his driver into the enemy trench, where he jumped out of his vehicle and began to clear the trench with his rifle and 9 millimeter pistol.

The citation for Chontosh's Navy Cross picks up the narrative: ``With complete disregard for his safety, he twice picked up discarded enemy rifles and continued his ferocious attack. When his audacious attack ended, he had cleared over 200 meters of the enemy trench, killing more than 20 enemy soldiers and wounding several others. By his longstanding display of decisive leadership, unlimited courage in the face of enemy fire and utmost devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Chontosh reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest tradition of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.''

In effect since April 1917 and established by an act of Congress on February 4, 1919, the Navy Cross may be

awarded to any person who, while serving with the Navy or Marine Corps, distinguishes himself or herself in action by extraordinary heroism not justifying an award of the Medal of Honor. The action must take place in one of these circumstances, such as while engaged in an action against the enemy of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, that is one day where we cherish our freedom and remember the men and women who have risked so much to defend it, on July 4th, that is. Let us remember the heroes today and every day.

Mr. Speaker, God bless America

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at midnight), the House adjourned until today, Friday, September 29, 2006, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, there are some things that need to be addressed. For one thing, putting the judge advocate generals of the service, as great as some of them are, on a pedestal is inappropriate. When I served 4 years in the Judge Advocate General Corps on active duty, we had one TJAG that did not even know what post he was at from time to time. So it must be taken in context.

But when I hear Members here on the floor say, gee, by passing this bill we are putting troops at risk, let me tell you what will put troops at risk, when we start applying criminal law standards that I observed during my years as a judge and chief justice, you start applying those, the forensics in the battleground area, you are putting troops at risk.

When a man and a woman has to fire in self-defense and also be thinking about, gee, can I go get that that has fingerprints, DNA, I better go collect evidence for the trial that will be upcoming, then that puts them at risk. Please do not put our troops at further risk by making them comply with civil standards back here in this country.

You know, people have declared war on us, and to say that those people will deserve constitutional standards, let me tell you, there are judges that have ruled the Constitution means inmates require electric typewriters, televisions, things like that. It is totally inappropriate.

The Constitution itself says, in article I, that: ``We shall constitute tribunals.'' We will do these things. That is what we are doing. It is constitutional. To respond to perhaps the rhetorical question by the minority leader, how dare we? How dare we? How dare I? Because the Constitution says: We will provide for the common defense, not provide for the criminal defense of those at war with us. That is how dare I, that is how dare we.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend, Mr. Shuster, yielding. I do rise today to speak in support of H.R. 5606, to designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 221 and 211 West Ferguson Street in Tyler as the William M. Steger Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse.

Immediately after Judge Steger's death, my good and long-time friend, Congressman Ralph Hall, had spoken to me about what I also had in my heart, and that is paying a tribute to Judge Steger by naming this Federal building for Judge Steger. I appreciate my friend, Mr. Hall, and his commitment to his old friend and also the respect we both had for Judge Steger.

Judge Steger was a heroic patriot, he was a caring father, he was a loving husband, an evenhanded, clear-thinking, constitutionally understanding judge, and he was a personal mentor. He was a cherished friend.

After I finished the 4 years I owed the United States Army from a scholarship at A&M and my wife and I considered coming back to Tyler, Judge Steger was one of the first people I talked to about it. Judge Steger was the father of Reed Steger and husband of Ann Steger, and their son Reed was one of my little brother's very best friends.

I learned a great deal from Judge Steger. Most people never did really come to know all that he had done and what he was, but he was a Dallas native originally. He always wanted the opportunity to become a pilot; and when the Nation entered World War II, he took the chance. On November 9, 1942, he got his wings; and, after training, he was sent to Casablanca and flew 56 combat missions, for which he received an Air Medal and four oak leaf clusters. While later training other pilots, Captain Steger also tested the first U.S. jet airplanes. If judged only by his service here, he would be counted as a hero, but he was much more than that.

Once his Nation was secure, Bill Steger went back to school, received his law degree from Southern Methodist University Law School, and then he engaged in private practice in Longview and Tyler and headed up numerous east Texas campaign clubs for a gentleman named Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was running for president. After the election, President Eisenhower appointed Judge Steger in 1953 to the position of U.S. Attorney for east Texas at the very young age of 32.

Judge Steger was up to the task. He became a Federal District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas in December, 1970, after President Richard Nixon nominated him.

He did truly love being a jurist. He was a hardworking, dedicated, cerebral, no-nonsense constitutional constructionist judge, whose discerning intellect could always cut straight to the heart of any issue. I know. I tried cases in front of this great judge.

In 1987, Judge Steger assumed senior active status duty, but since there still needed cases to be handled, Judge Steger stepped in and stood in the gap. December 1, 2005, marked 35 years on the Federal bench for Judge Steger. Since his appointment in 1970, he had handled more than 15,000 cases.

Judge Steger not only made his home in Tyler, Texas, a better place, but he changed Texas politics. In 1960, he and a good friend debated as to which one should run for Governor and which one should run for Senator. Their goal was to bring the Republican Party into popularity in the State of Texas. Because Texas was conservative, it seemed to Judge Steger that it would be a good fit, but he was blazing a trail.

He ended up being the one to run for Governor against a very popular John Connolly. Judge Steger's good friend,

named John Tower, ran for Senator. The Republican Party had never received enough votes to hold a primary, and even though Judge Steger knew he couldn't win the race, he hoped he would get the requisite 200,000 votes so the Republican Party could hold a primary in the next election. Judge Steger actually received more than 600,000 votes that year. Texas then became eligible to begin having Republican primaries because of Judge Steger.

Always having the courage of his convictions, despite the odds against him, Judge Steger was a profile in courage whose memory will continue to inspire me for the rest of my life. At the 2004 Tyler Law Day, Judge Steger received the Justinian award for his community service, his legal ethics, and professionalism.

He was a Baptist, a Baptist's Baptist. He was a charter member and deacon at Green Acres Baptist Church, helping to nurse it through its early days of growing from nonexistence to its current 12,000 members. He was a confidant to me, he was a friend, and he was a wise sounding board.

He and Ann endured the worst heartache a couple can face in the loss of their only child, Reed, in a tragic scuba diving accident. But the manner in which Judge Steger dealt with such devastation and allowed his faith, God's help and Ann's companionship to help overcome this horrendous blow has always and will always be an inspiration to me.

It is an honor to be a part of this bill that will create a lasting tribute to such a deserving man. I thank my friend, Mr. Hall, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5606 in order to commemorate the life of an ideal American.