Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, there are some that come before this body, come to this floor and like to play the blame America first. Let us play the blame game, blame America first. We have had people come here, and even a former marine came to this floor and called Active Duty marines cold-blooded killers who had not been tried, who had not been even charged, and, as I understand it, not even charged today, accused people of coverups.

There is so much good in the United States military services. It deserves to be addressed. The members of our military deserve accolades. Having spent 4 years in the United States Army, I can tell you that these members serving now are some of the best that have ever served in the United States armed services.

So rather than blame America first, as so many want to do, I thought it would be more appropriate to come to the floor and talk about heroes of our American military, people of whom we are proud.

Now, you are going to end up hearing me do this quite a bit from here on. We have asked for information from the Department of Defense about people who have won honors for their heroic acts, and so I want to present to you tonight about Sergeant First Class Paul Smith. He served with Bravo Company, 11th Engineer Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division out of Fort Stewart, Georgia, during the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003.

On April 4, 2003, Sergeant Smith was setting up a temporary enemy prisoner of war holding area during the seizure of Saddam International Airport when his unit came under attack. Smith kept his soldiers focused during the fight while engaging the Iraqi force of around 100 men with his M16, one hand grenade, and an AT4 antiarmor weapon.

At one point in the battle, Sergeant Smith manned a .50-caliber machine gun in the exposed turret of a damaged M113 armored personnel carrier and began firing at the main force of the enemy. He fired about 400 rounds of ammunition, which gave his soldiers time to regroup, time to mount an attack of their own. And when the shooting stopped, the Iraqi force had been defeated. Unfortunately, that was not before Sergeant Smith suffered an enemy bullet to the head.

Two years to the day later, Sergeant First Class Paul Smith's 11- year-old son David was presented this Nation's highest honor, his father's Medal of Honor, by President Bush. The President did not fall short on recognizing the significance of Sergeant Smith's heroic actions. He said, ``Sergeant Smith gave his all for his men. Five days later Baghdad fell, and the Iraqi people were liberated. We count ourselves blessed that we have soldiers like Sergeant Smith.''

Jesus said, ``Greater love hath no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.'' Sergeant First Class Paul Smith laid down his life for all of his men, for his country, and we are the better for it.

May God bless Sergeant Smith, his soul, his family, his soldiers. And may God continue to bless America.

There are many now who want to blame our current President and the Secretary of Defense or the prior President and his hapless administration for the brutal 9/11 attacks. There were certainly things that could have been done better over the last 30 years, but playing the blame game now can cause us to lose sight of the following truth:

No U.S. President destroyed our buildings on 9/11. No Secretary of Defense killed innocent people on 9/11. Those acts of hatred were committed by terrorists, by jihadists who want to destroy, pure and simple, our way of life.

An example on September 11, a brilliant mathematician from Tyler, Texas, Brian Jack, was a Ph.D., worked for the Department of Defense. He, ironically that day, left and did not go to the Pentagon. He went and got on an airplane. Yet evil, terrible men hijacked that airplane and flew it and crashed it into the very spot where he would have been working, killing him. That, my friends, was an act of war. We should not be blaming any American for it.

Brian, and all of those who died that horrible day, deserved better. We need to unite now. We need to recognize that terrorist Islamic extremists killed Americans and are at war with us. We must weigh into that and blame them, go after them and not each other.

Bashing our leaders, instead of showing our brutal enemies our steadfast resolve, is truly the hobgoblin of little minds. That is putting the desire for a new Speaker or other leaders above pursuit of our mutual and destructive enemy.

Our protectors deserve to be honored, not slandered. They deserve to have people come to this very floor of the House of Representatives and rave about every medal won, about every good deed, about every life saved by our servicemembers and not verbally abuse themselves.

Remember September 11, the feelings you had that day. Most of us did not see the first plane crash, but we were horrified to see a second plane crash and then to see the results of a plane flying into the Pentagon, and then to hear about a missing plane over Pennsylvania. We began to see what looked like clothing falling off the top of the tower, the Twin Towers, and then we realized to our horror, O Father God, there are people in those clothes.

Then we wept to realize the true depth and the destruction occurring. At the end of that day, no one believed we would go 5 years without having another act of terror. Do you remember the day after September 11?

Do you remember when so many of us came together and held hands and prayed and sang praises. That is the America that will defeat our foes. But you remember that day, September 12, there were Euro Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, these were all, we were just Americans. There were no hyphenated Americans.

That is the America I want for my children and their children. That is the America that will defeat all foes, foreign and domestic, and that is what will allow God to continue to bless America

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we hear people across the aisle talk about, gee, a rubber-stamp Congress. Well, I can point to you, that is the reason there is no immigration or border bill right now is because this is not a rubber-stamp Congress. The President wants some things that we simply cannot provide.

But when we talk about the allegations about Republicans or the President shredding the Constitution, let me tell you, he does not shred the Constitution. He has sworn to protect it, and I am proud that people who want to destroy the way of life that we have in this country, people that believe that freedom and democracy and self- government is a terrible thing, they think that that leads to debauchery and degradation, and therefore, you need some holy ayatollah that tells you everything you can or cannot do, that sends women back to being chattels as they never should have been but still are in some areas of the world, that is what they want to do to this country. They want to destroy people. They want to kill us, and we have a President that understands that.

Now, across the aisle we have some folks who want to be part of the blame America first crowd. They want you to know, gee, we are so bad, we are so terrible, look at Abu Ghraib. I asked my good friend Sam Johnson that serves here in the Congress what he thought about if he had been given a choice between the absolute horror that he went through in the North Vietnam prison compared to what happened at Abu Ghraib. It was a no-brainer.

What happened there was abuse. The people have gone to prison. They have been punished. What happened to American prisoners in North Vietnam, North Korea, what happened to American prisoners among those killers, those just blood-sucking, killing democracy, wanting to destroy people, terrorists, jihadists, cutting our people's heads off with dull instruments on camera, and that is who you want to embrace? There are even some people here in Washington that before Saddam went down, he flew over there. Never mind that Saddam was a murdering, blood-sucking thief who killed thousands and thousands. We go over and embrace Saddam and then come back and call our President the one in the wrong? My goodness, the blame America first crowd.

Those who want to blame Bush and Rumsfeld for the terrorist acts have missed the whole point. Since 1979 there has been a war going on. We just did not know it. We had a President then who allowed an act of war under international law, the attack of our embassy in Iran, to go unpunished, and for over a year, all we did was beg them to please release our hostages. It sent a bad message.

We were hit again in 1983 with the barracks. We were hit all through the 1990s with acts of war, including the first attack on our own continent at the World Trade Center in 1993. What did the Democratic administration and Democratic Congress do? Well, they wanted to prosecute them in civil court here in America instead of treating it as an act of war.

This President understands we are in war. Now we have a Supreme Court that has expressed concerns about Guantanamo. I went to Guantanamo, and having been a judge and chief justice, I have toured a lot of prisons. That was the nicest prison I have ever visited where the prisoners are being kept. But you know what we noticed? We were told do not let the prisoners hear you because they will think you are with the Red Cross or somebody. One of the people with us, and they heard somebody there and they started all of sudden going from laughing and being giddy and funny between themselves to, oh, please help me, I am being tortured and all this baloney. Well, they are playing to the crowds. That was obvious.

I would submit if the Supreme Court is all that concerned, we need to put that hurricane fence back around the Supreme Court building that was there during construction recently and move those people from Abu Ghraib so they can watch them directly and they can look out their windows, maybe let them use their restroom facilities so they can supervise more closely what this administration is trying to protect us from.

You cannot blame President Bush and Rumsfeld for the current terrorist attacks unless you are squarely willing to put the blame for 9/11 on the Clinton administration because that is when it was planned, that was when it was prepared and almost completed, and then it carried over and was finished during this administration. This President saw it for what it was, an act of war that had to be addressed.

The price for liberty, as our forefathers said, is eternal vigilance. We cannot keep blaming America first, as our friends across the aisle want to do. We have to recognize, as this President and this Secretary of Defense has, we are in a war against us, and we finally have an administration that recognizes that and is out to protect us and protect the Constitution. Thank God for this democracy and those protecting it.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard recently from our friends across the aisle that supposedly George Bush and Don Rumsfeld are responsible for the terrorist attacks that have been going on. If you believe George Bush and Don Rumsfeld are responsible for the terrorist attacks that are occurring, then you have to absolutely believe that Bill Clinton caused 9/11. There is no other choice, because we know unequivocally that the planning for 9/11 occurred during the 1990s when Bill Clinton was President. Though Bill Clinton may have been guilty of many things, he was not guilty of bringing about this kind of horror. Yet, they plotted and planned while he was President.

If you look at the areas and causes for which Bill Clinton committed troops, it was generally to help Muslims. He was the most friendly President to Palestinians in history. He did nothing to deserve 9/11 being plotted during his presidency. Yet it was.

So, the current President understands that we are in a war for our survival and we cannot walk away from it. The terrorists want to take us back to the Dark Ages. This is a fight we cannot walk away from unless we are prepared to go to the Dark Ages.

Thank God for George Bush and Don Rumsfeld. They understand that since our first attack in 1979, we are in a war for survival.

Mr. Chairman, the concern about the Constitution is certainly worthwhile, but when it says very clearly Article III, section 2, that in all other cases except those specified or mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make, it also allows us to set the jurisdictions of the local courts.

So, clearly, this is something that is constitutional to take up. As an old judge and a former chief justice of an appellate court, those things are important to us.

Our friend from New York indicated that it seems like some of us do not have much faith in the Supreme Court, and he is right, some of us do not. I would submit to you that while they are lingering under this infirmity or disability of being prepositionally challenged, that this is a good issue to take up and to remove jurisdiction on.

For example, in the 10th amendment it says all the things not specified are reserved to the States and to the people. The Supreme Court seems to think that means reserved from the States and from the people. They are prepositionally challenged. They think freedom of religion means freedom from religion.

There is so much rewriting of history, the separation of church and state. It is not in the Constitution. That is in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists about not specifying a specific denomination, and at the same time Madison wrote the first amendment, Jefferson wrote those words in a letter, they came to church, a nondenominational Christian church, right down the hall in Statuary Hall. For about 60 years there was a church down there.

So the question before us is, is this an issue we want to remove from the Supreme Court's consideration until they remove or are able to overcome the disability of being prepositionally challenged? I certainly think it is.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that we were trying to propose some time back when this was about to first come up because I felt like, as we all know, there is racial discrimination and it still goes on. We need to fix it. And I thought my amendment should apply across the board.

But the reason I have not continued to push that, and after a number of sleepless nights of reading cases, I believe Mr. Norwood's language is better. It is a misnomer to say his applies across every jurisdiction. It will only apply to jurisdictions where there is racial disparity and discrimination. Why shouldn't we want to eliminate those?

The big elephant in the room that people seem to be unwilling to notice is, there is an emerging equal protection argument here that could destroy the whole Voting Rights Act, and that is, you are having States here and jurisdictions that have discrimination who are going to ram this down on areas who have improved so dramatically they are better off than some of those doing the cramming down on them. That is going to raise an equal protection issue that puts the whole act in jeopardy.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I would like to thank the leadership for making this amendment in order. It is a simple amendment. It just changes the reauthorization period so that it comes up again for review in 2016 rather than in 2032.

The Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965, and at that point the original framers and drafters of this important act had it authorized for 5 years. In 1970 Congress extended it for another 5 years. They realized the importance of constant review of this important act. And then they adjusted the coverage at that point since the evidence showed that there was ongoing and new discrimination. Then in 1975 Congress extended the act for 7 more years.

It appears that Congress was getting a little more lazy in their obligation to continually monitor this act. So in 1982 Congress amended the act by providing that Congress ``reconsider'' the administrative provisions of the act in 1997 and the provisions expire in 2007. So even as lazy as they got, they still said we had better review this, reconsider it in 15 years. So we went from 5 years to another 5 years to 7 years and then to 15 with reauthorization at 25. And now this bill proposes another 25.

My amendment would simply shorten that period to 10 years from now because I believe there is empirical evidence that shows that this act needs to be reviewed much more often. The Supreme Court has unequivocally established that they will regularly change the playing field and regularly change the rules.

Two recent independent studies have found the following to be true: that in Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina, States covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, African Americans now are registered to vote at higher rates than Caucasians. In Texas and Arizona, States that come under the Voting Rights Act in 1975, and although there are still gaps in Caucasian and Latino voter participation, the gaps are smaller than in the noncovered States such as California and New Mexico, which have a comparable Latino population. And then, finally, in States covered by section 5, the percentage of African American elected officials is actually much higher than in nonsection 5 States even where there is a higher African American population. That shows that this does need to be relooked at.

I would actually prefer to do like the original framers proposed, and actually did, and have it reviewed in 5 years and then the next in 5 years. But I am also realistic. I realize that a 5-year would not pass and actually it does not get us past considering the next census data; so we are proposing 10 years from now.

Mr. Chairman, we need to review this act again sooner than 2032 to be sure that the Voting Rights Act of all individuals are being protected and if the formula needs to be readjusted in 2016 so that areas experiencing racial disparities in voting can fix those problems, and even then you would have a 10-year history that would satisfy all this concern I keep hearing about constitutionality of changing things.

If there are additional areas where there are increased racial disparities, they need to be addressed. Some should even be addressed now, but indications are that some jurisdictions that are in need of section 5 protection will refuse to fall under the act while cramming it down again in areas that are actually in better racial condition regarding racial disparity. This, of course, again, risks constitutional issues of equal protection, all of which point to a need for review in far less than 25 years.

I would also like to finish by saying that this is far too important a piece of civil rights legislation not to force reconsideration before 2032. The right to vote is a lynch pin of our Republican form of government. Its protections should not be rejected or neglected for 25 years. I still look forward to the day when we can actually live Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream where individuals are actually judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

The Voting Rights Act has done a great deal of good. It has. Why would we neglect our responsibility to continue to monitor and to get it right, make it better, rather than making it punitive and neglected for too many years? I do have grave concerns.

And I understand your position is you think this is a poison pill. You think we are trying to do something that may create problems for the Voting Rights Act vote. I can assure you that is not the intent here. It has done some good. I would like to continue to see it do good. But I am telling you, you are raising issues by not addressing it more often.

So until we have the dream Martin Luther King had, then we should not neglect our obligation to monitor and reconsider what the initial drafters saw as a temporary measure for 5 years.

And I thank you for the ability to come before the floor. I appreciate the Rules Committee. I appreciate the chairman's pushing such an important piece of legislation.

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

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

I appreciate the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's bringing up the period of extension that my amendment provides. It is exactly 10 years from now, 2016. That is what the amendment has said all along, 2016; and it does raise a very interesting point.

What I think most people do not realize is that the bill on the floor today does not actually reauthorize the Voting Rights Act for 25 years from now. It actually reauthorizes the bill for 26 years from now. So that should be understood by others. And I would only submit that since evidence now exists that there is even a jurisdiction in Wisconsin, California, New Mexico, a number of places that are not currently covered, you bring this back up 10 years from right now and a 10-year additional history may very well be plenty of history to assuage the concerns about historical discrimination.

If areas continue to have the discrimination that are not currently covered and it continues for 10 years, then that should be enough to effectively convince people on both sides of the aisle that the Voting Rights Act needs to be extended and it needs to be expanded so it truly is remedial and not just punitive.

Mr. Chairman, there are others who wish to speak, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Chairman, as I understand, the chairman for the Judiciary Committee will be closing. Is that correct?

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

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion on this amendment, it is an amendment for 10 years from now. I did not realize originally, as did many others, that this was extending actually 20, the bill before us extending 26 years from this summer.

But let me reinforce my point earlier, and Mr. Lungren's point earlier about the dangers of having this go too long. This was testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee from Professor Richard Hasen. He is with Loyola Law School. I don't know the gentleman personally. But they are in Los Angeles, California. I understand he is probably not a conservative Republican.

But his position before the Senate Judiciary Committee was: ``Congress should impose a shorter term limit, perhaps 7-10 years,'' he said, ``for extension. The bill includes a 25-year extension and the Court may believe,'' talking about the Supreme Court, ``it is beyond congruent and proportional to require, for example, the State of South Carolina to preclear every voting change no matter how minor through 2031.''

He was thinking it was 25 instead of 26. But in any event, it brings the point home, if you really want this to all survive constitutional muster, if you really want it to stay and continue to help, then why does it not make sense to continue to monitor it?

I know there are so many games that get played around this floor, but I am telling you and I am giving you my word as I stand before this body, I will work with anyone, Mr. Chairman, in this body, when there is proof of racial discrimination to help work to make this act stronger and better to stamp that out.

You run the risk of creating an unconstitutional act and undoing so much of what has already been done. We have heard the argument, gee, it takes too long to reauthorize. I applaud my friend, Mr. Chabot, who has done such great work, heard from all of the witnesses. As he has indicated, he has taken months of testimony.

But I would humbly point out that it has actually taken a year less to get this thing to the floor to reauthorize than apparently was anticipated, because here we are a year before the bill was actually going to expire renewing it for 26 more years from now.

So I am not trying to play games. We are better continuing to monitor this. This is too important to put it off and not relook at it constantly. But folks, you know, Mr. Chairman, you know if it is not coming up for reauthorization, it is hard to get anything done to fix something that is broken.

Besides that, the Supreme Court may fix it for us as ruling it more punitive than remedial. With that I would encourage the Members of the House, through you, Mr. Chairman, to please let's vote to extend this for 10 years from now and not for 26 years from now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this morning to take issue with some of the comments by Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, the Deputy Secretary General of the U.N. Mr. Brown recently stated in a speech that there was ``too much unchecked U.N. bashing and stereotyping.''

Well, at first I was a little offended by that, and then I got to realizing we haven't been doing enough bashing of the U.N. You look at what is going on.

We have had some problems with criminality in this body. Those are being addressed. As bad as they are, that criminality shows rank amateurism compared to what is going on in the U.N.

We have got families in the U.N. profiting from their other family member's positions. We have got some of the worst violators of human rights in charge of overseeing human rights violations. We even had Libya as chairman of that group back in 2003. Six of the worst, of the worst as designated last year, are on the human rights committee now.

We have got problems with their diplomatic immunity, we have got people where they turn around and try to take credit for things like polio eradication that Rotary International did, when they cannot find anything else to take credit for.

Mr. Speaker, I would just close by saying this, it is time we did some more bashing of the U.N.

Mr. Speaker, the question came up previously from a colleague about did Iraq intend to give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers, and I want to clarify that. The National Security Adviser said just earlier regarding alleged comments from the Prime Minister that supposedly amnesty would be given to some who have killed Americans. He said, ``This is not the case. I am sorry to say the Prime Minister of Iraq has been misquoted and misunderstood. He did not mean to give amnesty to those who killed Americans.'' So that should clarify that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are those who have said it is a quagmire in Iraq. It is a mistake for us to be there. Some made these statements from personal heartache. Some, on the other hand, were made from partisan political motivation, and some from disdain for our President and a desire to see his efforts fail, even though it risks world stability and national security.

But our soldiers are there. They know they have done great things and will continue to accomplish more. They have seen the admiring faces of Iraqi children that were never present in Vietnam. They have heard gratitude from many there in Iraq that was never heard in Vietnam.

Our valiant soldiers not only fight, protect and defend, they also see the frantic efforts of terrorists who are terrified that democracy and the people will begin to rule over them and their oppressive dictatorial ways. They keep many terrorists occupied there rather than here in America.

Mr. Speaker, as legislators, we get to ask a question that I didn't get to ask as a judge. It was inappropriate because of the separation of powers. And that is, who will be hurt or helped by the actions and, in my case as a judge, by the ruling?

Well, here in this debate as legislators we get to ask that question. Who will be hurt by pulling out? Those yearning for freedom who have it within their grasp will be hurt. And ultimately America will be hurt because of terrorist activities that would resume and multiply unabated in Iraq, and bin Laden would have been proven right, that we didn't have the stomach to go all the way to victory.

Who would be helped by our pulling out? Well, there are some families that would not endure the heartache from losing or having a wounded soldier in

their family. But the price in lost lives might be far more expensive in the future. Who would really be helped would be ruthless, heartless, finger detaching, hand removing, throat slashing, decapitating, women raping and abusing, child misusing, corpse abusing, merciless, calloused, deranged, religious zealot, murderers who think they are going to get virgins in the next life, but may find they are the virgins with what happens to them.

Let me just close by saying, some have not had nice things to say about our colleague, Mr. Murtha, and others wanting to pull out of Iraq quickly. But I understand the faithful visitation that he does routinely. So I say thank God for his big heart. I say thank God for his compassion. Thank God for his visits to the wounded. Thank God for his ministering to grieving families. But thank God he was not here and prevailed after the bloodbaths at Normandy and in the Pacific, or we would be here speaking Japanese or German.

Will the gentleman yield?

You want to know which locations?

Normandy was a horrible bloodbath.

Oh, no, I wasn't.

No, sir, I wasn't.

I have been over there. I haven't been fighting.

And I do admire the gentleman's compassion, and I do appreciate all that he has done for our wounded. He has done a great service, and that would be you, Mr. Murtha. Thank you for your work.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the time here tonight. There has been so much discussion today about the resolution on which we will vote tomorrow that we wanted to address that. And I have a friend with whom I went to Iraq in April, Congressman Shays from Connecticut, who will also be assisting in this hour.

I would just like to clarify for those who are interested what this resolution involves. Because the time is short remaining, I won't read all of the whereases, but I will go straight to what is normally referred to as wherefores.

Resolved that the House of Representatives honors all of those Americans who have taken an active part in the global war on terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles.

Honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and our partners in the coalition and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and others who risk their lives to help defend freedom.

Number 3, declares that it is not in the national security interests of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq.

Number 4, declares that the United States is committed to the completion the mission to create a sovereign, free secure and United Iraq.

Five, congratulates Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new Constitution.

Number 6, calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom.

And 7, declares that the United States will prevail in the global war on terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

And I think that last point, Mr. Speaker, is the one on which there is so much dissension from the other side and there are a few Members on our side that are concerned, but it declares, we actually believe, and a positive vote tomorrow will indicate, we believe we are going to prevail in the global war on terror. And the truth of the matter is we don't have a choice. It is either prevail on the global war on terror, or be prepared to give up so many freedoms that I do not want to see this Nation give up. Far too many people have given their lives to get us what we have.

Now, one note I would like to address that has been brought up time and time again, well, the President lied to us about WMDs. There are no weapons of mass destruction. Well, we know there were at one time. But to hear it said over and over, and hear again today, during the day today, over and over, well, the President lied to us about weapons of mass destruction. The President lied to us about weapons of mass destruction. His administration lied to us about weapons of mass destruction. And I think the jury is still out. We are finding documents that apparently refer to things that were taken to Syria. There may be things that turn up that we haven't yet found.

But let's say, for argument purposes, that there are no weapons of mass destruction. You know, being a Christian

is part of who I am. We have been taught to forgive. I think it is high time, if the President lied to us about weapons of mass destruction, then let's forgive President Clinton for all those lies. Let's forgive his administration, people like Madeleine Albright that lied, and let's move on. Let's put that behind us and just get on down the road.

And I would like to say, I do appreciate the visitation that Congressman Murtha makes to those who have been injured and harmed and to the grieving families. He is very devoted in his visitation. And it obviously, as I have talked to him, it obviously affects him, as it would any of us that see people suffer.

There in East Texas, in my district, we had a Private First Class Steven Wright who is 19 years old. Was killed, he was from Kilgore, Texas. And, you know, some us, this was before I got elected to Congress. But having spent 4 years in the Army, I have been to funerals enough, back in the days when people didn't come to service members' funerals. And they present the flag to the deceased family and say, on behalf of a grateful Nation and they would look around, go where is the grateful Nation. There is nobody here. Just a few friends. Where is the grateful Nation?

And so out of concern that there might not be many show up to that young man's funeral, this hero, Steven Wright from Kilgore, many of us showed up from around east Texas that have been in the service before. And I am telling you, that little rural church was a few miles from the cemetery there on Highway 31. And I ended up at the back, and I checked the mileage. There were cars creeping along three solid miles to have their opportunity at the cemetery to pay tribute to that young man and his family. And I saw them again Memorial Day, his family. They know what the price is. They are not ready for us to cut and run. They know that to do that would diminish the value of what Private Wyatt fought and died for.

We had a Marine that I visited 2 or 3 weeks ago from Marshall, Tony Flynn. He took a mortar round in the chest. And I think through the prayers and the grace of God, he is doing well. And his mom was there with him. He is doing well. I tell you, there have been so many sacrifices. How tragic if we were to cut and run and leave all that has been done. So close. I mean, democracy is right there within their grasp. And when I was with Congressman Shays and Congressman Marshall over there, we had a meeting, the leader of the Kurdish party, Shiia party, Sunni party, and in talking with them, one of the things I mentioned to them was that it is within their grasp. Just get the Prime Minister appointed. Get the cabinet appointed; that they can let this opportunity pass them by and they will be forgotten, or they can grasp it and they would be the George Washingtons and the John Adams and the Patrick Henrys of this next, well, of the next generations to come, as well as in the Middle East itself.

I couldn't help but note, my good friend Mr. Scott said there is no good result that can occur from what we are doing there. Well, I have got good news. There have already been good results. You took a country that had never experienced democracy, never knew democracy, and yet in 2005, that first election, there were fliers all over the country, little fliers, had two sentences in their language that simply said, you vote, you die. Despite those all over the countryside, people turned out in millions to vote. They did it again for a constitution, and they came out in even greater numbers, and the Sunnis participated in the election in December. I am so proud of the courage of those people.

And I would like, at this time, to yield to my friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). As far I know, I don't believe there is any other Member of Congress that has been more times to Iraq to ensure that we are doing the right thing, that our money is being spent appropriately, that we are giving our troops the things they deserve because of his heartfelt desire, and he is a big hearted man. But his heartfelt desire to make sure that our people are protected, our guys in harm's way are getting what they need and we are doing the right thing.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in hearing from my good friend, Mr. Shays from Connecticut, on this subject at this time. I yield to Mr. Shays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to use the remainder of the time being there is no one here.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Reclaiming my time, you brought up the point about an arbitrary date earlier tonight and then again just now, and for illustration purposes I can't help but think about World War II. And here you had Hitler basically hunkered down trying to withstand the onslaught as Patton and the 3rd Army and Montgomery moved forward. What if Congress had demanded a date at that time or before then and said if we do not win by, say, December 1 of 1945, it is hard to imagine but you know good and well Hitler would never have killed himself. He would have been in a bunker saying if we can just hold out, if I can stay on the run and stay alive until December 1, I win and I will be alive and can carry on some other day and continue with basically guerrilla tactics.

As the gentleman from Connecticut has said, no war has ever been won by setting an arbitrary date beyond which we were not willing to fight. Once the enemy knows that there is a date and that is all they have to get by, then it is just a matter of their surviving until that date and then they win.

Of course, being a history major at Texas A&M, I also am a great fan of history and do believe the adage those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it. And then, of course, the follow-up to that is those who do learn from history will find new ways to mess up.

But going back to the Revolutionary War, the gentleman from Connecticut gives a great example. As history indicates, and McCullough did a great job of documenting this in his book 1776, before the victory December 24, 1776, where Washington crossed the Delaware, there was not much to really crow about. And as the gentleman well knows, that retreat from over to Manhattan with the superior British forces there could have been a disaster and would have been if the wind had been blowing the other way. But I think it was providential that fog came in and covered their retreat. But I believe it was on December 27, not only did the Congress not set an arbitrary date by which he had to win, they were so committed to victory, they passed a resolution that basically gave Washington whatever power he needed, whatever authority to spend money he needed to get the job done, to get the troops reassigned so that they could fight until they won the war. That is how committed they were. And in the cover letter, as I recall, and this is a testimonial to Washington's being the man for the time, it went along the lines of basically we submit a copy of the resolution and knowing that neither man nor his liberty will be in jeopardy with your having all this power, and then when it is no longer necessary, you will return it back, as well he did. But what a contrast to the discussion today to say, you know what, let us set an arbitrary date over here and then just pull out after that. We would not have had a successful conclusion to the American Revolution.

I would like to address something here. This is taken off-line from USA Today. And it says ``Text of a Document Discovered in Zarqawi's Safe House,'' and then it has updated June 15, 2006, 2:31 am, the Associated Press. And it says ``Text of a document discovered in terror leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi's hideout. The document was provided in English by Iraqi National security adviser Mouwafak al Rubaie. And this is supposedly from these guys, that it was discovered in a safe house. And it documents exactly the things that so many on the other side and a few on our side have been saying is not the case. Our own enemies have documented what Mr. Scott will be glad to know are good results that have been occurring.

And it goes on to say, and these are the terrorists writing this: ``As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries due to the losses they sustain economically and

human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance.'' The terrorists call themselves resisters.

``For the following reasons:

Number one, ``By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.'' The resistance being the terrorists, which is just what the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) was saying earlier. We have been there. They are training them. Some opponents are saying we have not been able to train people, that they cannot protect themselves. Well, the terrorists are saying in this document that our forces have been able to form them and train them and reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations.

I certainly will yield.

Reclaiming the time, it is such a great point. He was killed.

I will tell you, I do not know if the gentleman has been hearing some of the ridiculous reports. One thing we have seen from this administration is they cannot keep secrets too well. The President went to Iraq without but a handful of people knowing. But if they try to keep a secret very long, somebody leaks from all over the place. And so there were some reports, and I couldn't help but shake my head, that said, We think they had Zarqawi on ice in a freezer somewhere and they just brought him out. And some have said he was beaten to death, that a bomb did not do that. Do you want to know how absurd that is? Can you imagine this administration having Zarqawi in a freezer somewhere for weeks and somebody not leaking that? I am sorry. That could not happen. That would have been leaked by somebody that they have got Zarqawi on ice.

Those are important words from our former President Clinton, who had said himself numerous times that they did have weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that Saddam did, and I am glad to hear that he is recognizing that an arbitrary withdrawal would be devastating.

There are numerous other things here in this document. If I could just touch on a couple very briefly as our time comes to a conclusion. He goes through about how the picture is bleak, and he goes on to say: ``Based on the above points,'' and there were seven of them, ``it became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one.'' And he has a strategy. The strategy is to use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance, or otherwise the terrorists. Another point was to create division and strife between America and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it. And then after seven more points, he says: ``In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis,'' he calls it a crisis, ``is to entangle the American forces into another war . . . ''

This would be al Qaeda that is saying this. They realize that they are in a crisis, they are big trouble, and that we are prevailing and that the situation looks bleak.

We believe the United States will prevail in the global war on terror and the noble struggle to protect freedom from terrorist adversaries will be all worthwhile.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at midnight), the House adjourned until today, Friday, June 16, 2006, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today with a heavy heart. A constituent of mine, Smith County Constable Dale Geddie, was shot to death in Smith County and Deputy Daniel Leon was injured Wednesday morning as they responded to a domestic disturbance dispute call just outside Tyler, Texas.

Tyler deputies called for backup that morning, and Dale responded the same way he had his whole life, by getting to the scene as quickly as possible, without regard for his personal safety or what might be waiting for him at the scene.

Having known Constable Geddie well and understanding what a crucial role he played in his community, it is understandable, Mr. Speaker, that the

community, the county, the State and so many around the country, including law enforcement, have extended condolences to his family during this tragic time. It is, indeed, a sad day for East Texas and the United States.

Born in 1960, the son of a Smith County sheriff's deputy, Dale Geddie attended Rice Elementary School and Whitehouse Elementary School before his parents bought a ranch in Winona. Constable Geddie graduated from Winona High School in 1979 and began his law enforcement career as a jailer with the Smith County sheriff's office on August 23, 1985.

To further expand his expertise and intellect in the law enforcement arena, our fine constable attended the East Texas Police Academy at Kilgore College in 1986 and graduated at the top of his class.

Following graduation from the academy, Dale transferred to the criminal investigation division as a deputy investigator, and during his time as a detective, Dale also served for a time as an undercover narcotics officer.

Our friend Dale left the sheriff's department in 1996, and he spent some time as a freight driver and even as a farrier before opening Lovelady-Geddie Private Investigators and Polygraph Service.

Dale signed up to be a reserve deputy for the Smith County Sheriff's Department in July of 2004 as he was gearing up for his first political race. Many in the community encouraged Dale to run for constable, which he won, garnering around 58 percent of the vote.

Constable Dale Geddie's personal life, as well as his professional life, was shaped by his integrity. Many friends who knew him best cited his deep faith and his commitment to his family. Whether for family, friends, community or Nation, Dale truly did strive to serve and to protect.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me read a short quote that Mr. Geddie's neighbor, Justice Sam Griffith, gave when hearing of the constable's death: ``When I heard he had been killed, I immediately thought of the scripture, `Well done, good and faithful servant,' '' Justice Griffith said.

Mr. Speaker, God be with the Geddie family, his loved ones, as well as the Daniel Leon family and Daniel Leon as well.

Mr. Speaker, this week, America, Texas and East Texas mourn the loss of Federal District Court Judge William Merritt Steger.

As former law clerk and good friend Andy Tindel said, ``Judge Steger was one of the finest, fairest, most honest man I have ever had the privilege of practicing law before.''

While Bill Steger was studying prelaw, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. And within 24 hours the 21-year-old had withdrawn from Baylor University and volunteered for service. The Dallas native has always wanted the opportunity to become a pilot, and with the Nation entering World War II, he took a chance.

On November 9, 1942, he got his wings. Then 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.

Once his Nation was secure, Bill Steger went back to school and received his law degree from Southern Methodist University, that is, their law school.

He married his wife, Ann Hollandsworth Steger, on Valentine's Day in 1948. They had one child, the late Merritt Reed Steger, who was one of my younger brother David's closest friends.

Judge Steger entered and engaged in private practice in Longview and Tyler and headed up numerous east Texas campaign clubs for Dwight D. Eisenhower for President. After the election, President Eisenhower appointed Judge Steger in 1953 to the position of U.S. attorney for East Texas at the young age of 32.

In 1960, he and a good friend debated 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 Connally, and Judge Steger's good friend John Tower ran for senator. The Republican party had never before then received enough votes to hold a primary, and though Judge Steger knew he would not 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.

In 1962, Judge Steger was persuaded to run for Congress and received 49 percent of the vote, lacking only 1,300 votes to beat his Democratic opponent who was the incumbent.

Bill Steger became a Federal district judge for the Eastern District of Texas in December of 1970 after President Richard Nixon nominated him. He truly loved being a jurist, and he was a hardworking, dedicated, cerebral, no-nonsense, constitutional constructionist judge whose discerning intellect could always cut straight to the heart of any issue.

In 1987, Judge Steger assumed senior active status duty, but since then still continued to handle a full docket. December 1, 2005, marked 35 years on the Federal bench for Judge Steger, and since his appointment in 1970, he had handled more than 15,000 cases.

Judge Steger received the Justinian Award May 7, 2004, at the annual Tyler Law Day luncheon for his community service, legal ethics and professionalism.

He was a Baptist, a charter member and a deacon of Green Acres Baptist Church, helping to nurse it through its early days of going from nonexistent to its current 12,000 members. He was a confidant for me, a friend and 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 the horrendous blow will help inspire me the rest of my life.

Judge Steger was a heroic patriot; a caring father; a loving husband; an even-handed, clear-thinking, constitutionally reverent judge; a personal mentor; and a cherished friend whom I came to know through my brother 25 to 30 years ago.

Always having had the courage of his convictions despite the odds against him, Judge Steger was and is a profile in courage whose memory will continue to inspire me the rest of my life.

God bless the Stegers and God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Republican leadership on passing a budget resolution for fiscal year 2007. However, I must point out that the resolution we passed last week provides for a $27 billion increase in nonemergency discretionary spending over fiscal year 2006, when we spent more than we did in fiscal year 2005, when we spent more than we did in fiscal year 2004, and so on.

The Federal Government has a long track record of spending more money than it takes in. Our fiscal irresponsibility has to stop somewhere. That is why I am introducing today a bill titled the Zero Baseline Budget Act of 2006. This bill will amend the misnamed so-called Balanced Budget Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, which instructs Congress to continue spending more money than it takes in every year by creating a budget baseline that automatically increases over the previous year's spending.

The Zero Baseline Budget Act will instruct the CBO to provide a baseline that has no automatic increases and does not contain emergency and supplemental spending over the previous year. The baseline for the next year will merely be the sum of the year-long spending bills in effect for the current year.

This way, an increase is an increase, a cut is a cut, and the status quo is neither. What a novel idea, for the government to say what it actually means.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong support of H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Research and Recovery Act. I tell you, is it not good to see common sense coming out on both sides and good things prevail?

Well, excessive red tape prevents the Forest Service from being the best possible stewards of our public lands. While we have heard from many that there is no need to move quickly after a catastrophic event, here is an outline of the situation we face in the Gulf States. I think you will see we do need to move quickly, and inaction is not acceptable.

The Gulf States are booming with newcomers, and many are moving in and living near the national forests. Hurricanes have hit and will hit, and when they do, they knock down trees, just as they did last fall. Shortly after the hurricane season ends, fire season begins.

Forest managers need to remove the dead trees after a hurricane to reduce the chances for catastrophic fires, and because the wood rots quickly in this region, management actions need to occur within months, not years, as is often the case. H.R. 4200 will allow for expedited cleanup of excess wood debris that are actually fuels.

If a fire does occur, it is also important to move quickly to remove dead trees to reduce the potential for insect epidemics, which have happened and do happen. H.R. 4200 will allow for the expedited removal of burned, dead trees.

In addition, because of the rapid growth of brush and competing vegetation after a catastrophic event, the planting of seedlings needs to happen quickly for it to be successful.

Right here in my district in east Texas, we have one of the best forestry schools in the entire world, and that is at Stephen F. Austin University. James Hull, the State forester to the State of Texas said on Monday in an editorial in the Houston Chronicle, ``Red tape forces Federal agencies to wait as long as 2 years before properly managing damaged forests afflicted by wildfires and hurricanes. With every passing day, there are increased risks. We must adjust current regulations in ways to promote healthy habitat, increased water and air quality and growth of new trees.''

Not to mention that we have a couple of industries that are willing to use the debris in order to generate energy to make that go so that we can free up electricity and natural gas and oil.

I agree with the Texas State forester. I do urge my colleagues, this is the right thing to do. It is good for all of us. It is good for America, and it is good for the forests.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment that expresses simply a sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Army should consider conveying the U.S. Army Reserve Center in Marshall, Texas, to the Marshall-Harrison County Veterans Association for the purpose of erecting a veterans memorial, creating a park, and converting the present building to a veterans museum to recognize and honor the accomplishments of our Armed Forces.

I have received letters, phone calls and personal visits about such a project. Harrison County, back in the 1990s, had closed a huge Army facility. There were thousands of people that lost jobs, and now BRAC has recommended closing a reserve center there.

This is not trying to undo the BRAC process whatsoever. BRAC is already closing the reserve center. What this will do is allow them to transfer this.

We have a letter from the Army indicating this should be surplus, less than 3 acres. This will allow them to have a veterans museum, a veterans center, a place veterans can go, many of whom will never have the opportunity to come here to Washington, D.C., to see the museums and see the memorials. And it will give them a chance there in East Texas where there have already been so many jobs lost because of BRAC.

This is a bipartisan issue in the county. There are Democrats and Republicans both that are urging and pushing for this, and I was proud to go ahead and bring this amendment as a sense of Congress to urge that this is something that could be done. It will help the community in an area there in east Texas.

Recruiting is up, recruiting is going well, but it further emphasizes and will give an opportunity to emphasize the importance of valor, duty, honor, country.

I would like to thank Chairman Hunter and his committee for their hard work on this bill that will undoubtedly benefit our Armed Forces. I would ask that this amendment also be added to the bill to assist those folks there in Harrison County.

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