Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I have this amendment to this bill. This is a bill that requires administrative reporting requirements. There are a myriad of things this bill requires, and we have chosen, apparently, to try to criminalize administrative conduct.

Innocent mistakes will allow people to be taken off in handcuffs and have to prove later down the road what effectively will be an affirmative defense that they did not willfully and knowingly make these kind of omissions. That is just a dangerous business to get into, to keep criminalizing things.

The way you fight things like this is, when you say it is the dollars or the problems, then you hit people with dollars, and so that is what this amendment does. It says, we are not going to talk about handcuffs; we are going to talk about immense fines.

The first violation would be up to $100,000; second up to $250,000; third up to $500,000; and the fourth up to $1 million. That gives all the incentive anybody needs to make sure they file properly. Those are extremely high fines, the highest I have ever heard of, but I put them there to give people a degree of comfort that there would be sufficient penalty for failing to comply with the requirements.

Now, what has come into play here is pure politics. On one side, people want to feel like, gee, we want to show that we are being tough, even though innocent people down the road will be hurt, and when that happens, ``I told you so'' will not be adequate to me because my heart will go out to people that are hurt unnecessarily.

I understand the Democrats are going to stand up and oppose this. And when their Members are taken out in handcuffs because of this bill, if it passes with criminal sanctions, when their people are carried out in handcuffs, they will look to them and say, You know what, we probably should not have criminalized that because that gave a prosecutor what they wanted.

I am just asking for a bipartisan way to handle this. The way to handle administrative errors is to punish with fines and not with dragging people out from their homes in handcuffs to try to make a political statement.

If people will be honest, they know that happens on both sides. And I would rather not see that happen as an old judge and chief justice. It can happen, and I would rather not see it happen to either side.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague across the aisle points to a

$100,000 fine as not being adequate to deter Mr. Abramoff, and I would remind my colleague, he is going to prison. Mr. Cunningham has gone to prison. People who violate the law will go to prison.

Mr. Chairman, there are already bribery statutes. There are already corruption statutes. This reminds me a lot of the 1990s, when anytime someone did a violent act with a gun, the Clinton administration ran in and said, we need more gun control laws, never mind the fact that they already violated many gun control laws as it is. What is needed is just enforcement of the current laws.

Now, the lobbying reform bill will create some requirements of filing that will enable people to do their job, but apparently there is not a real knowledge of how the system works. Let me tell you how this will play out. Someday, heaven forbid but it will happen, there will be a politically motivated prosecutor, and he will go to a lobbyist, and he will say, You know, we have scoured through every report you have ever filed, and we finally found one entry you failed to make. Your accountant did not put this in, and you signed it, and by golly, you are going to go to prison for maybe 3 years. Now, we do notice you made a contribution to this Congressman over there. You know, and I am sure you can go to trial, and maybe, on your part of the case, you may be able to convince them it was not corrupt or willfully, knowingly. But you know what? If you just happened to remember that this Congress Member, Democrat or Republican, whoever they happen to be after, had asked for something in return or said they would do something in return for contribution, then we might just go away because that would show what good faith you are acting in, and maybe you really did not know and maybe this was not willful. That will happen someday because there are some prosecutors who are politically motivated.

Now, I do not think it will happen under this administration, but it will happen someday. And when it does, if this amendment goes down, you can be reminded that there was a Congressman who stood up to try to do the right thing, because we have plenty of corruption laws; it is a matter of reporting requirements that will be enhanced here. We do not need to criminalize administrative functions.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I would ask for Members to do the bipartisan thing and vote for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a great East Texas man who has realized the American dream the old-fashioned way, through a lifetime

of hard work and dedication to his family, to his community, and to his craft.

James Cavender began his business career by opening a Dairy Mart in Pittsburgh, Texas, 4 years after I was born there. He opened his business in 1957.

Eight years later, Mr. Cavender took another chance and opened a retail western wear business for men and boys. Thirty-five years, 40- plus stores, and some 800 employees later, Cavender's Boot City, Cavender's Western Outfitters has become synonymous with the Texas cowboy.

Mr. Cavender's success is built on the following motto, ``take care of the customer and everything else takes care of itself''.

James Cavender is a family man. His company's operation reflects that. His wife, Pat, sons, Joe, Mike, Clay, are all involved in the day-to-day business of Cavenders. The family remains in tune with their customers by continuing to live a ranch lifestyle.

On May 9, Junior Achievement will honor the business success and community service of James Cavender. Junior Achievement is a volunteer organization that teaches children how they can impact the world around them as businesspeople.

Our young people who are interested in impacting the lives of others by entering the business world will find no better role model than James Cavender, a man who through honesty, determination, has attained great success as a businessman, but, more important, as a citizen of East Texas, of Texas and of these United States.

We honor James Cavender. God bless you, and God bless America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 75th anniversary of the town of Gladewater, Texas. Gladewater was incorporated on April 18, 1931. That was 11 days after oil was discovered 1 mile outside of town. With the discovery of oil, the town quickly experienced tremendous prosperity. During the 1930s people began to flock to the small East Texas town with the population swelling from 500 to 8,000 strong.

With the depletion of petroleum reserves in the 1980s, the town was forced to attract and develop alternative forms of commerce. Gladewater, once known for its oil production, is now regarded as the antique capitol, with over 250 antique dealers and 16 antique malls. As a result of the Main Street Project and the downtown revitalization, the charming downtown area is now bustling once again with economic activity. Tourists from all over the southeast have now made this small Texas town a travel destination because of its shopping and its many attractions.

Gladewater is a town of leaders with vision and workers with determination. From the nationally famous Gladewater Rodeo to the Fourth of July boat parade on its city lake, to its local merchants and citizens, Gladewater represents the best America has to offer. I congratulate the town of Gladewater on the remarkable first 75 years, with many more to come. It is a pleasure and an honor to be able to serve the citizens of Gladewater in the United States House of Representatives and to have so many of its citizens that I can call my friend.

Well, I appreciate very much my friend from Iowa for sharing this Special Order. And I appreciate the things that you have been pointing out.

Of course, as you talk about Texas history, you are talking about my State. It is where I was born, reared, grew up. Except for my 4 years in the service and the summer I spent in the Soviet Union on an exchange program, it has been home. And when you talk about Nacogdoches and San Augustine, right in that area where the first settlement in Texas occurred, that is my district. That is my home. That is my district. So it is interesting. And I love history. I was a history major in college.

And one of the things we were taught in elementary school, one of the things we were taught in junior high; high school; and college; Texas A&M, where I attended, we got the same thing all the way through schooling: What two words in common language are the basis for America's strength? ``Melting pot.'' We are a melting pot. People came from all over the world to America. They assimilated. They came together through heat and difficulties and problems of the day. And the heat that tests people and makes them pure and stronger, that heat brought us together and melted us together into one Nation under God, indivisible, and, yes, there was liberty and eventually justice for all.

But I thought about it as you mentioned earlier, Mr. King, the discussion about immigration. Immigration has been a lifeblood to this country, and that does not need to stop. But as we have gotten wise in our own eyes, as you can find reference in the old Testament, ``wise in our own eyes,'' we quit using the melting pot metaphor and gone to using something that some people today like to say is even better: We are now a tossed salad, where each ingredient retains its individuality and just mixes together.

A tossed salad. That was never the strength of America. The America that became strong, the America that we studied, the America that made it through world wars, the America that is responsible for France not speaking anything but French now and Germany speaking German, the great America that has allowed England to speak the language that it was accustomed to, the America that has not been imperialist, as some French people would say. Some French people say, You are imperialist. I say, Then why are you not speaking English instead of French? That is because it was never our intention. Why do Iraqis not speak English? Because that is not our intention. We are a great country and have always been.

And if you would allow me and indulge me, the thing that I would like to share further is the oath of allegiance that is taken when someone becomes a citizen, and if the gentleman would continue to yield, I would like to go through that.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for people to be reminded. This is the oath. You want to assimilate in this country? You want to be a citizen of this country? Take this oath. And you have got to mean it. It is under oath.

``I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure,'' and, of course, in Texas we do not abjure a lot, but we know what ``renounce'' means, ``renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.'' That is pretty strong language.

And if you have any comments on that first part of this oath.

The gentleman from Iowa understands what it means then through his heritage to absolutely, entirely renounce fidelity to any foreign state or sovereignty. That is critical. And my great grandfather came over, was a European immigrant, in around 1870, came to South Texas and settled there. He didn't speak English and he had about $20.

Within 25 years, he built one of the nicest homes that is still there, it has a historical marker, State of Texas and national historical marker, because he learned English and he worked his tail off and he assimilated and he made the community better, the State better and the country better. And that has been the legacy of immigrants.

But it goes on. That is not enough. That means I am going to wave my American flag. That American flag is what is going to be the most important flag to me in my heart and soul. That is what in that oath means, American flag.

I thank the gentleman, my good friend. I would continue on with the oath. That I will support and defend the Constitution, not just the Constitution, it goes on, I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. All laws. The Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.

Gee, that would seem to include immigration laws, wouldn't it?

It goes on, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law.

It is not enough simply to pledge allegiance. You have to be willing to risk your life for the American flag and all that it stands for. You have to be willing to pledge allegiance to the United States, the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

It goes on, and I know your time is running short and I don't want to intrude on the gentleman's time. I guess

we have got about 7 minutes, but I did want to point this out, at least this point of the oath of citizenship.

If this Nation is going to continue to be stronger, I would only submit to you the Hispanics that have settled in my district from Central America, from Mexico and assimilated, have made East Texas a better place in which to live.

I have some dear friends. As a judge I presided over the wedding of some dear Hispanic friends that had come in and assimilated. I am telling you, they have made Tyler, Texas, and East Texas a better place. They have assimilated. They are wonderful people. They bring family values, and they are strong in their faith and love and joy and mirth. It has just been wonderful. But they assimilated.

That would be the one thing I just wanted to add. Melting pot is the strength, and that is what we need to get back to.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the time.

I had concerns about this bill as well. As Republicans, we are not in favor of increasing government but decreasing the amount of restrictions that additional bureaucracy creates, and I saw part of this that created additional bureaucracy by allowing States to start accrediting.

But before I say anything else, there has been a great deal of misinformation about what the Deficit Reduction Act did. Having two children in college right now myself and another about to start next year, I have been particularly sensitive about this issue. I have had bankers and other educators saying, we understood you cut $12 billion in the Deficit Reduction Act for money that was available for students, and that is not right.

What occurred was there was a reduction by about $12 billion of subsidies that were going to banks for making the student loans, but the fact is there was around $9.5 billion increased in the amount available for student loans and grants and funding. So we increased, not decreased, by about $9.5 billion the amount available for students.

So it was a good thing, and we recognize the importance of education, and we are trying to help them. So that addresses that comment from my colleague.

But with regard to the bill, I have grave concerns about it, especially to allow the States to start accrediting. Governments have done enough damage to education in K-12 over the last 30 years. I was very concerned about that, but I appreciate Chairman McKeon working with me, and I appreciate his staff working with us.

They have agreed to support an amendment which strikes out the provision that allows States to apply to the Federal Government which creates more Federal Government, to allow them to start accrediting, and that provision, under my amendment, will be struck. There will be no additional State agencies accrediting universities and colleges, and I am hopeful that that will be passed with the chairman's support of that.

Also, we share a very strong concern about the increases in college tuition and fees. They have dramatically gone up over the last 30 years. In fact, I was asking, when I went to law school, if it was still $500 a semester for tuition, and they said, yeah, that much an hour

now, but anyway, over a 30-year time, things have just gone up dramatically.

In balancing the difficulty of not increasing government, which naturally requires an increasing cost to universities but at the same time requiring some accountability, I think the chairman's bill, if my two provisions are passed, that this is a good bill because it balances those things.

The task force that is created in the top five most abusive colleges in raising tuition over a 3-year period and costs of the college, they will have to set up their own task force to figure out why their institution has gotten so abusive in its costs. So it will be its own people looking at its own institution. It will not set up more bureaucracy. It will not set up more government, and this will push and provide pressure on institutions and have some accountability, even though it is by people in their own community, as the bill sets out, as amended, if my amendment is allowed to pass.

So I applaud the bill if my amendment, those two provisions, pass. I think it will be helpful in controlling costs without increasing bureaucracies in government, and I appreciate very much Mr. Bishop and the chairman and his staff in working with us on this.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment seeks to cut down on Federal meddling with our colleges and universities. As Republicans, we have made a promise to the American people that we stand for less government, not more. Our preeminent system of higher education is the last thing that needs extensive Federal oversight. We have seen what happened to K-12 as the Federal Government started meddling too much 30 years ago in it, and we are only now starting to recover from Federal meddling 30 years ago.

I do support the overall bill, and I would like to thank Chairman McKeon for working with me on the amendment. He and his staff have been wonderful to work with, and I thank them for being so gracious.

But this amendment would strike certain reporting requirements for colleges and universities within section 131(f). Cutting down on some red tape will allow these schools to focus on educating their students first.

This amendment also strikes section 495(a)(1) that would allow States to apply to the Secretary of Education to become recognized accreditors. It just looked like that created more Federal bureaucracy, more State bureaucracy, and we have the best university system in the world. It is too expensive. It has gotten expensive so fast, and with two kids in college, I certainly am very sensitive to that.

So I applaud the chairman's efforts in his bill to assist in bringing those down, but I have concerns about some of these other provisions.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), my friend.

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

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for those kind comments. At this time, I would like to thank the chairman for reaching out to me, and I also want to thank all of the institutions of higher learning in the districts. We have heard from so many of them. They have been so helpful, and I just appreciate that that is what makes for better government.

I do applaud the chairman's efforts to stem the tide of vast increases over the last 30 years in the cost of education, and this amendment and the provisions that it deals with, I think it does create a bill that will be a significant help to America in higher education.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) my chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the career of Major General Michael Taylor. All citizens of the United States owe General Taylor a debt of gratitude for devoting his life to freedom and all the ideals that make this country so great. Not only did he serve his country valiantly for 37 years, but he also attended Texas A&M University, an institution of higher learning famed for its rich tradition, its honor; and it also happens to be my alma matter as well.

General Taylor began his military career in 1970, upon graduation from Texas A&M. Commissioned as an armor officer, he served as a platoon leader in Vietnam with the 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment. Serving in various roles throughout his career, including deputy commander of the 71st Troop Command, General Taylor assumed command of the 36th Infantry Division, Texas Army National Guard, Camp Mabry, Austin, Texas in May of 2004.

Of the many major awards and decorations he has received over the course of his accomplished career, time limits me to name just a few. Some of the most notable are a Legion of Merit with two Oak Leaf Clusters, Bronze Star Medal of Valor with one Oak Leaf Cluster, Purple Heart, not for some scratch on him either. He has a Meritorious Service Medal with four Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Commendation Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster and the Army Achievement Medal.

General Michael Taylor is a man of honor. He is a man with a sense of duty. He is a man with a love for God and his country. He served this country and he served his fellow man with wisdom, with discretion, with courage, with valor, and with clarity. His career of service to our Nation should be admired by every citizen who enjoys living free, and I am proud to honor him on the House floor today as a great American. He is a powerful patriot, and he is a personal friend of mine. He is an example for young people today who desire to be an intellectual servant and a defender of freedom.

May God bless General Mike Taylor because he has certainly blessed America with his service.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at midnight), the House adjourned until today, Wednesday, March 15, 2006, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2383) to redesignate the facility of the Bureau of Reclamation located at 19550 Kelso Road in Byron, California, as the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones Pumping Plant''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 2383, introduced by our colleague Mr. Nunes of California, honors the contributions made by Mr. C.W. ``Bill'' Jones to California water policy.

This bill renames the Bureau of Reclamation's pumping plant in Tracy, California, as the C.W. ``Bill'' Jones Pumping Plant. Mr. Jones was a legendary water leader in California for decades. He was appointed to the State water commission in 1968 by Governor Ronald Reagan, and served as director of the Firebaugh Canal Company for over 40 years, and as president of the Delta-Mendota Water Authority for over 20 years.

Throughout these years, Bill Jones was directly involved with the Central Valley Project, and I believe it is fitting that a major unit in this project be named in his honor.

After his passing in 2003, the California water community pursued this legislation with the blessing of the Jones family, to pay tribute to his longstanding work on California water issues.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time as well.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1190) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study to design and construct a four reservoir intertie system for the purposes of improving the water storage opportunities, water supply reliability, and water yield of San Vicente, El Capitan, Murray, and Loveland Reservoirs in San Diego County, California

in consultation and cooperation with the City of San Diego and the Sweetwater Authority, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1190, introduced by our colleague, Chairman Duncan Hunter from California, is the first step in expanding increasingly scarce water supplies for thousands of citizens in the San Diego area.

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

Growing populations and reduced water storage opportunities require us to make efficient use of the supplies that we have, and this bill does just that. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this noncontroversial and important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1578) to reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin endangered fish recovery implementation programs.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, S. 1578, sponsored by Senator Wayne Allard from Colorado, reauthorizes the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin endangered fish recovery programs.

Congresswoman Cubin of Wyoming, a wonderful resource on the Resources Committee, is the sponsor of the House companion measures, and she should be commended for her hard work on this bill.

The dual goals of those programs are to recover four endangered fish species and to ensure that local citizens can continue to use the rivers for their economic, social and cultural needs. Unlike much of the Endangered Species Act's activities, these programs have performance measures and benchmarks to determine recovery progress. As a result, the programs enjoy broad support among various users.

This reauthorization will allow for the last installment of the needed construction projects to enhance fish recovery. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill. I applaud Mrs. Cubin as the sponsor of the House companion measure.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4192) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to designate the President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home in Hope, Arkansas, as a National Historic Site and unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), my friend.

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

I appreciate my colleagues across the aisle. You are right, this is not a partisan issue when we are talking about the birthplace of a President. Frankly, here I am making the motion, and I never voted for President Clinton. I was not a big fan of President Clinton, but you are right, also: he came from extraordinary circumstances and rose to the highest position in this country.

I mean, he and I apparently had very different lifestyles growing up. I never consumed a drop of alcohol, and when I was underage, I never not only did not inhale, I never smoked.

There are so many things different in our backgrounds, and he ought to be an inspiration to every child out there, whether leaning toward being Republican or Democrat. That President Bill Clinton, with the things that he had in his background, could reach the Nation's highest office. I mean, any of you should know that it is not out of your reach either. It is extraordinary what he accomplished.

But there is an old political adage that says, democracy ensures that a people govern no better than they deserve. In 1992 and 1996, whether any of us like it or not, America deserved Bill Clinton, and that is who we elected. It is now a fact he has been a President. It is now a fact that his birthplace should be a historical site, and I understand the concerns of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), my friend. Maybe there will be a room dedicated to all the money made from the UAE, but that is someone else's determination.

The fact is it is a historical place. It deserves that designation, and, hopefully, people will be inspired for years to come that this is America. It does not matter what your background is; you can rise to the highest office in the land, and you should be inspired by that.

For that reason, I would urge the passage of this bill.

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

Well, it is refreshing to hear about good things going on in Iraq. Of course, we know that some have been concerned a civil war may be breaking out over there, but the truth is what this boils down to is they have been finding with the IEDs, these explosive devices that have been killing now both Iraqis and Americans, that that hasn't worked. They have seen we have a President with firm resolve; that we are going to stay the course and make sure the country is ready to stand on its own and then let her stand.

So they realized they were not being successful in that regard, so a last-ditch effort you have terrorists from other areas coming in and blowing up their own precious mosques to try to turn Shi'a against Sunni. It is obvious that this is a last-ditch effort to try to divide the country, because it scares a lot of folks over there greatly to think about a democracy succeeding right in the heart of the Middle East. I mean, that could spread to Iran. Boy, that scares Iran. It could spread to Syria. There are a number of countries over there that it scares them because democracy, as the President has said, could change things, and those folks are right on each other's borders.

If I could take you back to 1973, between my sophomore and junior year in college, I was an exchange student in the former Soviet Union. Back then we didn't call it the former Soviet Union, it was the Soviet Union, and I spent a summer there and associated with and dealt with college students there in Ukraine, where I was. And I developed a number of friends, one of whom was an engineering student, a smart guy. He spoke a little better English than I did Russian. Well, a lot better English than I did Russian.

We had some wonderful conversations. Very frank, very honest discussions. And at one point he was saying, you Americans seem to not understand why we would cling to communism, but it is the best thing we have ever had. We have had two major wars on our own soil and we have had to divert most everything to defense just to protect ourselves. As he pointed out, you, on the other hand, you have got two major oceans protecting the east and the west.

Think about that. That is profound. And that is something that will be written about the United States hundreds of years from now when someone writes about the rise and fall of the greatest Nation in the history of the world, that we had two major oceans. Now, I would say that is a blessing from God. That is what has allowed this Nation to be nourished and to grow without much threat of intervention from other countries because they had to cross two major oceans to get here.

The thing that concerns me is finding out we are potentially allowing footholds on our own soil. We are giving up an advantage. I didn't realize we had other foreign countries managing, leasing, utilizing avenues of entry in our ports. But now we have one transaction that is up right now with the UAE, the United Arab Emirates. As some have pointed out, the UAE has been our friend since 9/11, and that is interesting in and of itself; but there is a transaction in question that has stirred up much of America, for them to purchase or lease terminals at six of our ports. So I think it bears looking into.

If this goes through, of course they would be handling shipping arrivals, departures, unloading at the dock, and other security sensitive functions. Yes, we would still have our Coast Guard. Yes, we would still have American Customs at work. Some of us are aware that they do not always catch everything. We are a little sarcastic sometimes in Texas. But they may have containers sitting on their docks for a number of days. They will necessarily be aware of the manner in which our government inspects containers, how it selects the maybe 5 to 6 percent that it actually x-rays, how it goes about selecting which container will be one of the maybe 1 percent that they actually examine.

The current administration has looked at the issue and seems surprised that Americans are really upset about the issue.

And I want to say about this President, he is the first President in at least 30 years to take seriously the threat of a foreign government. I know I was in the United States Army at Fort Benning, Georgia, back when the United States soil was attacked and Americans were taken hostage. That is an act of war. Under international law, you attack somebody's embassy, as ours was attacked in Iran, it is an act of war and it justifies defending yourself. And we did nothing. We begged them to let them go.

And then later, because of a lack of leadership here in Washington, there was a failed rescue attempt that embarrassed us even further. But it sent a message that perhaps we do not have the stomach, we cannot handle these things. Perhaps if we had had an administration in Washington 30 years ago that took care of business when we were attacked, we would not be worrying about these issues now. But it did not and so we do.

Some say, well, since the UAE is one of three nations to have recognized the Taliban as an official government, that that gives them concern, as it should. There are indications that the UAE also saw an opportunity for making money, and so apparently there were al Qaeda moneys that flowed through UAE systems.

But this administration has done more to fight terrorism abroad than any perhaps in history. This terrorism is a relatively new phenomenon for our young country. But we have not done so well at home. And so it bears looking at even more closely.

We need legal immigration. We need people legally coming across the border, willing to work. Most all of us were a result of immigrants, even being here. It is a good thing, if you are willing to work. But we need to secure our borders so terrorists do not come in.

Now, since there is a war going on near our U.S. border, at our U.S. border, and some of us believe there have been insufficient efforts by the Federal Government to intervene and help our sheriffs and those that are trying to fight that war, it gets even more critical.

I personally do not believe that this great Nation should be contracting out any rights to manage, operate, use,

own any avenue of entry into the U.S., whether it is an airport, whether it is a bridge across our border, whether it is a road across our border, or whether it is a terminal in our seaports. That is just problematic.

Now, the UAE has been our friend. They have been helpful to us in the war on terror, and we do want them as an ally. And I hope and pray we have a longstanding relationship with them that just brings us closer.

I yield to the gentleman.

Will the gentleman yield back?

This is also part of an important process. Some people say, why would you come down and talk for an hour on the floor of the House? It is part of educating our colleagues with information we have gleaned in preparing to come here. It is part of educating the people that would bother to watch this on television. And we have picked up some facts. And it is important people understand there are changing relationships, one of the things that concerns us when we have a contract that deals with an avenue of entry into this country with a foreign country.

After World War II, we had no better friend than France. They knew that they had their freedom, they got their country back over the graves of the brave men and women of the United States and other countries, they got it back for them. Our Americans died.

Now, it hasn't been too many years later they have forgotten all about that. Now they call us imperialists. And I get a chuckle when I hear somebody from France saying we are imperialists, because if we really were, they would not be speaking French over there in their country right now, and they would not be running their own country and they would not be calling us names now.

But anyway, they are. But it just shows an example of how things change with other countries, even some that have been dear friends.

And I wanted to point out something else that we learned that helps people assess how close the UAE actually looks at issues like we do. So I went back, I think not only do words have meaning, but votes have meaning; and I have a bill pending that we have filed, the U.N. Voting Accountability Act, and we have got a lot of Republicans, I know, supporting us. I do not know that I have Democrats supporting us. But it basically says any country that voted against us more than half the time in the U.N. the preceding year gets no financial assistance this year. And then it gives the exception for national security, but to the President.

But that caused me to say, well, I wonder how the UAE has voted in the U.N.? Well, I went back and looked. My staff has done a great job helping out. In 2002, the year after 9/11, there were 90 votes in the U.N. Of those, the UAE voted against our position 61 times, with our position, 13 times, abstained 13 times and was absent 3 times. Now, not exactly a real good, helpful voting record for the U.S.

But in 2003, there were 85 votes in the U.N. UAE voted against our position 66 times, with our position they agreed 8 times, abstained 9 times and were absent 2 times. Then I went ahead and put these up.

We do not have 2005 records; those will come out from the U.N. on March 31, according to their own rules. But in 2004, the UAE, well, there were 79 votes in the U.N. in 2004. They voted with the United States 5 times. Oh, good friend, yeah. And then against the United States 62 times, abstained 10 times and were absent 2 times.

So I think those are telling. And I think it is part of the democratic process that as Republicans we feel an obligation, I know I do, to come down and educate people on what it is we are looking back at.

We know no government lasts forever. I know I left the bench because having three daughters, I just could not leave this world without trying to leave this country better than it was when we found it.

I do not want to leave a country that is not secure.

I do not want to leave a country that is overly in debt. And those are reasons, I know we have talked before with my good friend from Georgia, these are things we hold dear that are important to us. And I want to make sure that in the 100, 200, 300, whoever knows how many years from now when somebody writes The Rise and Fall of the Greatest Nation on Earth, it does not fall to us that we let things slip by giving people who may have liked us at one time a foothold on our soil that elevated into something that hurt us down the road.

One other parenthetical. Of course, as an old judge, I am concerned about due process. And I heard the gentleman from Georgia talking about eavesdropping on foreigners calling in here. We know terrorists. By golly, if a terrorist is calling the United States, we need to know what they are saying.

But on the other hand, when you look at due process within the United States, it has been so critical, it is so important to us. If you do not secure the borders and keep out people that want to come in and hurt you, then you are necessarily going to have give up due process rights within the United States to protect yourself and stay secure.

I do not want to do that. I want to secure all our avenues of entry and make sure we do not give up due process rights.

Of course, if you are a terrorist trying to phone home or phone into our home from your home where you hate us, then look out. We are going to be watching.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Florida yielding.

We get into Washington, we get up here around the Capitol, we all have our committees and subcommittees, all these things we are trying to oversee and do. I was not aware that it was as easy as apparently it is for a foreign company to manage, own, lease terminals in our ports. Were you aware of that?

I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and I hope we can work together, not only to shore up an avenue of entry through our ports, as you pointed out. We would not let somebody, a foreign government, a foreign-owned company, even our close friends, I would not think, operate an airport or bring their own planes in. Yes, you can check them, we will let Customs do their thing. We wouldn't do that.

We wouldn't lease a bridge to someone else to operate or manage, I wouldn't think. Gosh, I would hope not.

Anyway, I hope that we can work together towards securing the avenues of entry into this country, because I don't know if you heard me saying it earlier, the gentlelady from Florida, but we all want to be secure. But if we don't secure our outer perimeter, then people that want to hurt us will come in, and then you lose due process rights at that point in order to be secure. I don't want to do that.

So I appreciate your comments and your heartfelt notions on this issue, and hope we can work together.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from Georgia, the eminent physician, healing not only bodies in the past, but coming in and healing with the good elixir of truth. We appreciate that tonight, Mr. Speaker, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here.

You are talking about truth, and you have the poster that says the Official Truth Squad. Something that has been neglected for far too long is the truth about our history. You look back, there was a school I read not too long ago that was going to change their name away from George Washington, and I thought how tragic. They do not know history.

You go back, and above the Speaker's head up here, we see ``In God We Trust.'' George Washington, there was a time when he was in desperate need, and he prayed to that God in whom we trust.

Going back to 1755, a young man in his early twenties, Washington was headed up toward Fort Duquesne with about 100 American soldiers and about 1,300 British soldiers. As they proceeded up through Pennsylvania, they had to go through a wooded area, a large wooded area, and there was a ravine that they marched through. There were 85 soldiers on horseback, those were the officers, and that included George Washington.

As they made their way through, the Indians and French were lying in wait, this was the French and Indian War, and here this young man with boldness, gallantry, was on horseback, he led his soldiers. When the ambush started, it was horrible. Bodies were flying everywhere, bullets taking them out.

After about 2 hours, there were over 700 who had died. There were 84 of the 85 officers that had been shot off their horses. Only one remained. That was George Washington. Finally, after a couple of hours, the remaining British and Americans retreated from the woods, and when they got a good distance away, they reformed and retreated, I believe it was back to Maryland.

There was a letter that Washington wrote back to his mother and brother accounting what happened. There are other accounts that seem to all tell the same story. But Washington wrote that when he took off his hat and shook his head, bullet fragments fell out of his hair, but there wasn't a scratch on him. He said when he took off his vest, there were bullet holes in his investigate, but not a scratch on him. As he wrote to his mother and brother, he said, ``Truly God was with me,'' that God in whom we trust.

Fast forward 15 years later. Washington and a friend of his named Dr. Craig were going up through Pennsylvania. Washington was going to go by and show him this place where this horrible thing happened, where so many people died.

As they approached the woods, they were met by a group of Indians, and it turned out an old Indian chief was with them. They had a council fire, and during that time the chief disclosed that 15 years earlier, he too had been in that wood, and that he had heard Washington was coming to that area so he journeyed to meet him.

He said, ``I gave the order to my braves to shoot at you, because we could see you coming from a distance and I knew if we shot you, that your men would flee in fear. We could just tell the way you rode.'' He said, ``I personally shot at you around 17 times. I traveled this distance to meet the man that God would not let die.''

This was a man who was prepared for that. Through it all, through that horror of that event, you look back and see how that was worked together for good. He saw how the British reacted when they were under fire. He saw effective tactics. But, even more so, all those people saw him. They saw his gallantry, his bravery, his courage, his leadership. They knew this was a guy that they could trust, even in his early twenties.

So as we move toward the 1776 time, in the days when he would lead this country, a lot of people don't realize, but he was just the man for just such a time.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking to a group of youth from Grace Community School there in Tyler. Those kids know so much about our history. They know. But not every school teaches the history. I am proud to have a school like that in my city in Tyler where they know those kinds of things.

But after 1776, after the Declaration of Independence was signed, things looked so grim that the signers of the Declaration of Independence knew that if their troops failed, they were all dead people. Their families were dead, everything they owned would be taken, their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, everything would be gone. Yet they put their trust in George Washington, along with the God that we trust.

On December 27, 1776, when things looked so bleak and they knew that shortly, just a matter of a week or so, the enlistment of these men would be up, they knew if they headed home as they were intending to do, all was lost. So they passed a resolution as a Continental Congress that basically gave Washington all the power that they had, power to pay money, to make orders, to tell people to do whatever. Then, interestingly, the letter that accompanied that resolution that they sent to Washington included this line. It said, ``Happy it is for this country that the general of their forces could be safely entrusted with the most unlimited power, and neither personal security, liberty nor property be in the least degree endangered thereby.''

Mr. Speaker, I know my good friend from Georgia feels the same way. I trust so many people, but I don't know of a single person in this country right now I would trust with that kind of power. But that is what George Washington had.

One of my favorite paintings, as I was telling the group from Tyler earlier today, from Grace Community Church, is the painting of Washington coming back in to the Continental Congress saying here is all the power back. Nobody had ever done that before.

This was a guy that had won the war. He had won the day. He was entitled to be called czar, emperor, dictator, pharaoh, whatever he wanted to be called.

Yet he came back in and, just as the resolution and the cover letter said, they knew he could be trusted. He came back in and said here is all the power back. It is yours. I am going back to Mount Vernon, and he did.

Some people don't realize just how brave he was. At the battle of Princeton, January 3, 1777, a young soldier wrote, and it is a recorded part of our history, ``The sight of Washington set an example of courage such as I have never seen. I shall never forget what I felt when I saw him brave all the dangers of the field and his important life hanging as if it were by a single hair with a thousand deaths flying around him. Believe me, I thought not of myself.'' That is not a picture we see much these days.

Nathaniel Green wrote, ``He will be the deliverer of his own country.''

The Pennsylvania Journal wrote of Washington in 1777 as the revolution went on, ``If Washington had been born in the days of idolatry, he would be worshipped as a god. If there are spots on his character, they are like the spots on the sun, only discernible by the magnifying powers of a telescope.''

As David McCollough wrote, ``Without Washington's leadership and unrelenting persistence, the Revolution almost certainly would have failed.''

That is the kind of heritage we have. That is the kind of truthful, honest, courageous man that helped start this country and to whom we owe so much.

In conclusion, as our good friend and fellow Republican, we didn't know him personally, but God rest his soul, what a legacy, Abraham Lincoln, said in his second inaugural, ``With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.''

God has blessed America. Mr. Speaker, it is my prayer that will continue.

I thank my good friend from Georgia for yielding to allow me to address those comments.